Table Of ContentSee discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254352813
Can the Sa(va)ge Speak?
Article in Rethinking Marxism · June 1996
DOI: 10.1080/08935699608685490
CITATION READS
1 26
2 authors, including:
Anjan Chakrabarti
University of Calcutta
84 PUBLICATIONS 193 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Mathematical Economics of Dynamic General Equilibrium with spacextime classification and integration, Quantitative Finance and Mathematical Finance modelling,
testing and applications, Game Theory and also Mathematical Econophysics View project
Market Microstructure with implicit "jump quantum conductance" of information and energy assumption added View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Anjan Chakrabarti on 01 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
This article was downloaded by: [Oregon State University]
On: 07 January 2015, At: 01:55
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Rethinking Marxism: A Journal
of Economics, Culture &
Society
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrmx20
Can the Sa(va)ge Speak?
Anjan Chakrabarti & Ajit Chaudhury
Published online: 05 Jan 2009.
To cite this article: Anjan Chakrabarti & Ajit Chaudhury (1996) Can the Sa(va)ge
Speak?, Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 9:2, 113-130,
DOI: 10.1080/08935699608685490
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08935699608685490
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
5
1
0
2
y
r
a
u
n
a
J
7
0
5
5
1:
0
at
]
y
sit
r
e
v
ni
U
e
at
St
n
o
g
e
r
O
[
y
b
d
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
Remarx 113
Strauss, G. 1986. Law, Resistance, and the State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Werner, W. 1981. “Corporation Law in Search of its Future.” Columbia Law Review 81:
161 1-66.
White, J. B. 1986. “Economics and Law: Two Cultures in Tension.” Tennessee Law Review
54: 161-202.
5
1 Can the Sa(va)ge Speak?
0
2
y
r
a
u
n Anjan Chakrabarti and Ajit Chaudhury
a
J
7
0
5
5 The subaltern studies group dominated the Indian academic scene during the eight-
1:
0 ies, interrogating the elite, the orthodox Marxists, and the West. The elite definitely
at (definitionally) commands and oppresses the subaltern whose discursive role is to
]
sity obey. Let us see whether the category of “subaltern” itself can in turn be oppressive,
r for subaltern studies not only contest the elite, but also subordinate (denigrate) the
e
v
ni working-class. This essay accords a discursive (and not ontological) privilege to
U ‘‘working-class’’ to overthrow the subaltern from its dominating theoretical position
e
at in India.
n St We call Resnick and Wolff‘s concepts of overdetermination and working-class
o into service to interrogate the subaltern. The analysis focuses on a particular concept
g
e
r of the subaltern-its postmodernist reformulation (deconstruction) as offered by
O
y [ Spivak (1988)-to articulate the central points of the essay. Specifically, this essay
b underscores the parallel that can be drawn between Spivak’s conceptualization of
d
e the subaltern (as a blank space in an elite’s texts) and Resnick and Wolff s recon-
d
a
o ceptualization of working-class as an overdetermined and contradictory site in a
nl
w nondeterministic discursive space in which essentialism in all of its forms has been
Do laid to rest. The objective is to examine in what ways Spivak’s rendition of the sub-
altern space needs to be re(de)fined in the light of Resnick and Wolff‘s rearticulation
of working-class as a discursive stance. We might recall that Spivak disengages the
subaltern from its initial inscriptions within an essentialist (power) discourse and
reinscribes it into a postmodern discursive field opened up by Denida.’ While we
appreciate Spivak’s gesture (patriotism) to save an academic movement in her home-
land (India) from slipping into what many people think skeptically is disgrace (es-
sentialism) by injecting into it fresh postmodernist blood, we are skeptical about the
1. Subaltern studies, in its initial formulation by Guha (1983) and espoused by his disciples (Guha
1982-90; Chatterjee and Pandey 1992). mark, in effect, a move away from economic essentialism to
power essentialism which, of late, has been subject to sharp criticism from different postmodernist
quarters (Spivak 1988; Chaudhury 1987, 1994, 1995).
114 Chakrabarti and Chaudhury
efficacy of the subaltern as the discursive category in the postmodern space speak-
ing for the subjugated (in the) Third World. In particular, we believe that Spivak’s
move to reinstate the subaltern in a postmodern space might to some extent block a
parallel move to detach some of the Marxian categories (such as working-class) from
their current inscriptions within an essentialist discourse. In view of the fact that
Spivak as well as Resnick and Wolff oppose essentialism in all of its variants and
share a common perspective in articulating their categories as a discursive stance, it
might be interesting and productive to see whether we can carve out a space for
Resnick and Wolff‘s concept of working-class within the broader discursive space
5
1 that Spivak articulates as subaltern and how (far) this inclusion (intrusion) of working-
0
2 class destabilizes Spivak’s subaltern space: how it disturbs, displaces, and perhaps
y
ar denounces the very discursive space of the subaltern.
u
n To be specific, we follow through the consequences of Spivak’s argument that
a
7 J subaltern is not a thing (in Resnick and Wolff s terms, not a noun) but a name (Resnick
5 0 and Wolff will say an adjective) one gives to a discursive stance. We would like to
1:5 interpret Spivak’s omission of working-class as a discursive position, not as an oc-
0 clusion but as a preliminary move to make space for the postmodern working class.
at
] Nonetheless, we will not hesitate to point to some of the consequences entailed by
y
sit this omission, which might greatly distance us from Spivak.
er The title of this essay is suggestive, refemng immediately to Spivak’s “Can the Sub-
v
ni altern Speak?” And that captures the key idea of the essay: the subaltern, even if it is but
U
e a name and not a thing, would signify a very broad array of sites (class, caste, gender,
at race) that can hardly speak. In order to speak, it must inscribe itself into (or within) a
St
n discourse, that is, a specific discourse (because discourse exists only as discwrses),
o
g thereby writing off (transgressing on) its subaltern status and impressing on it a new
e
Or name (such as working-class). This calls into question Spivak’s contentious thesis that
y [ the subaltern cannot speak because of the absence of ears tuned to its foreign accents.
b
d It is important to stress that Spivak in her essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” works
e
d at different levels of analysis. In view of the length and complexity of the argument
a
o involved in her essay, we believe it might be useful to narrow down the terrain of
nl
w our discussion to the field that has direct bearing on Resnick and Wolff s discourse
o
D on working-class as distinct from (and perhaps to some extent opposed to) Spivak’s
notion of subaltern. The rest of Spivak’s positions in the essay will be important for
our context only insofar as there is a link between our position and Spivak’s position
on the subaltern.
Subaltern Studies
Subaltern studies (Guha 1982-1990; Chatterjee and Pandey 1992) was in many
ways an intellectual response to the Indian mode of production debate dominated by
economic essentialism.2T he principal difference between the two schools can be lo-
2. Let us refer to participants in the modes of production debate as the traditional school. The name is
justified since they followed the Second International in formulating their theory of Marxism.
Remarx 115
cated in the question of residuals. The traditional school believes that as we move
from feudalism to capitalism, the residuals play a negative role. Feudal landlords,
artisans, moneylenders, tribal and caste relations, and so forth need to be eliminated
for they can act as an impediment to the development of the forces of production.
This is in perfect harmony with the argument of orthodox historical materialism. The
subaltern school, on the other hand, believes in the positive role of residuals. It be-
lieves that the residuals may play a progressive and important role and it is mostly
concerned with studying the consciousness of the agents involved in the residuals.
By abandoning historical materialism, it strives to provide an alternative Marxist way
5
1 of looking at Indian historiography.
0
2 Who is a subaltern, and who is an elite? Ranajit Guha, the leader of the school,
y
ar defines subaltern as the social group or elements of that group which “represented
u
n the demographic difference between the total Indian population and all those whom
a
7 J we have described as elite” (1982, 8). By elite he means “dominant groups foreign
5 0 as well as indigenous. The dominant foreign groups included all the non-Indians,
1:5 that is, mainly British officials of the colonial state and foreign industrialists, mer-
0 chants, planters, landlords and missionaries” (8). The dominant indigenous groups
at
] include classes and interests operating at the all-India level (big feudal magnates,
y
sit industrial and mercantile bourgeoisie, and native recruits to bureaucracy) and at the
er regional and local levels (belonging to either classes and interests of the dominant
v
ni all-India groups or belonging to lower social strata but acting in the interest of the
U
e dominant all-India groups). The rest of the population is the subaltern. Guha and
at the subaltern school alternately call the subaltern the “people.” Given the definition,
St
n the peasantry, tribal groups, working class, lower class, ethnic groups, and so on are
o
g all components of the subaltern. The ovemding principle becomes power relations
e
Or (forms of domination-s~bordination).~
y [ Subaltern studies primarily represents exercises in historical scholarship. It is an
b
d attempt to rethink the relation between histoIy and anthropology from a perspective
e
d that displaces the central position of the Western anthropologist or historian as the
a
o subject of discourse and Indian society as its object. In short, it puts into doubt colo-
nl
w nial historiography. In this context, the subaltern studies school argues that Indian
o
D history, particularly during British rule, has been written from the standpoint of the
Indian elite as an extension of the nationalist movement in India (led by the elite).
Guha and the subaltern school questions this elitist historiography and the absence
of an active, autonomous subaltern space. They replace this elitist historiography by
a subaltern historiography. Their objective is to show how one can attribute an au-
tonomous domain to the subaltern, independently of the elite. Through various case
3. One can see that this is a nonclass framework. Actually, the subaltern school does consider class, but
it is subsumed under the relations of power (Chakraborty 1985). The principal mechanism of interven-
tion is power and, since class is defined as a form of power relation, it becomes redundant as an object of
study. Class is overthrown in favor of the subaltern, and exploitation is replaced by a power relation. To
be in a class is necessarily to be a subaltern, and an exploitative relation is a form of a power relation.
Thus, terms like “tribal class” and “subaltern class” are used randomly in subaltern studies.
116 Chakrabarti and Chaudhury
studies they show how the subaltern acted on its own, created its own organizations
and affected historical events. The focus of the subaltern school is on the analysis of
the consciousness of the subaltern, particularly that of the peasant.
This is in contrast as well to the orthodox Marxist historiography in India which
represents subalterns as mere (unconscious) objects to be integrated by either the
nationalist or communist movement of India. The project of the subaltern studies
school is to rehabilitate the subaltern as the subject of history. It is in this connection
that it confronts head-on the Leninist view of socialist consciousness as something
to be brought from outside to the working class. It also criticizes the traditional school
5
1 for demoting the importance of peasantry vis-i-vis the working class and portraying
0
2 it as an “unconscious object.” Simultaneously, it criticizes the traditional school for
y
ar its undue emphasis on the economic (economic determinism) and failure to appreci-
u
n ate the role of the political and cultural space.
a
7 J This search for roots and subjectivehood (subjectivity) brings a train of essential-
5 0 ist baggage into the center of the subaltern analysis which has come under sharp at-
1:5 tack from postmodernist quarters. These criticisms are now part of postmodernist
0 commonplaces: subaltern consciousness is not some thing to be disclosed; the sub-
at
] ject is decentered; there is no universal, no source, no origin. Spivak’s effort is to
y
sit persuade the subaltern school of these points that the latter unfortunately ignored.
er However, Spivak’s project is larger than dismantling the framework of the subaltern
v
ni school. She rehabilitates the subaltern in a postmodern world, producing in it a dis-
U
e cursive space for himher (subaltern). Snubbing Guha’s original (archaic) subaltern
at in a postmodern family holds little attraction as an intellectual project these days.
St
n So, we turn to Spivak, especially to her notion of postmodern subaltern and ask what
o
g promises it holds for us.
e
Or Spivak criticizes the subaltern school as an essentialist and reductionist way of
y [ constructing a historiography. She attempts to turn the essentialist and reductionist
b
d arguments of the subaltern school into examples of affirmative deconstruction. Her
e
d basic goal is to “get the group off the dangerous hook of claiming to establish the
a
o truth knowledge of the subaltern and his consciousness” (1985,356). Let us first state
nl
w the basic position of the subaltern school that Spivak finds unacceptable and the pre-
o
D cise nature of her departure from that position.
Spivak Disinterred
In view of the length and complexity of argument involved in Spivak’s essay, it
might be helpful to provide a brief sketch of the argument and fix the terrain of our
exploration into it. Spivak works through three distinct levels which intersect, rein-
force and compensate for each other.
1. The subaltern, understood in the essentialist sense of the term (as a thing/a
flesh and blood human being), cannot speak because hisher speech will be
either appropriated or not heard by the elite. Spivak cites one instance in which
Remarx 117
the subaltern did speak and her words fell into the void (as Lyotard’s differends
do) because people did not give ear to her voice. We take for granted this part
of Spivak’s argument as we share her nonessentialist approach. As far as this
essay goes, we keep open the question whether the “differend” can be repre-
sented through alternative writing strategies.
2. Spivak then invokes Derrida to define the subaltern subject’s position as the
blank space in the elite’s text (its inner inaudible voice made louder). In this
context she pits Derrida against Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari and up-
braids the latter two with the charge of complicity with imperialist designs to
5
1 appropriate (colonize) the mind of people living on the margin.
0
2 3. Lastly, she deploys Derridean deconstructive moves to reformulate the (pro)posi-
y
ar tions in subaltern studies in a nonessentialist frame. As will be seen, we will be
u
n dealing with only the second and third parts of her argument. In particular, we
a
7 J ask whether the reconstruction (deconstruction) of the subaltern subject position,
5 0 distinct from an essentialist notion of the subaltern as the subject of history, serves
1:5 any useful purpose or instead stumbles into the traps laid by the holistic elitist
0 project which suppresses the differences within the subaltern. In this context, we
at
] bring out the linkage between Spivak’s theoretical position (subaltern as a sub-
y
sit ject position) and her moral stance (complicity of the Western mind vis-h-visthe
er Third World). Now, about the details of Spivak’s argument.
v
ni The subaltern school describes subaltern and its subject positions as an essential-
U
e ist concept operating in an autonomous (vis-2-vis elite) domain. It is essentialist in
at the sense that its consciousness continues to operate as an independent phenomenon
St
n in pure form. The school understands the category of subaltern as a thing-in-itself
o
g (in Resnick and Wolff‘s terms as a noun) and its subject position as emanating from
e
Or the subaltern autonomous domain (reflecting the pure subaltern consciousness re-
y [ siding in that domain) where its relationships are constituted by pure forms of lan-
b
d guage (vis-&vis the elite) prevailing in that domain.
e
d Spivak redefines subaltern as identity in differential, as a name for a discursive
a
o space which she intends to describe. To build her basic theoretical position Spivak
nl
w pits Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari against Derrida to show why she prefers
o
D Derrida’s “mechanics of the constitution of the other” to Deleuze and Guattari’s and
Foucault’s “invocations of the authenticity of the other.”
Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari reify power and desire respectively, hence their
argument remains, in Spivak’s opinion, essentialist. They let the oppressed (sub-
alterns) speak for themselves. Their theory strives to be nonrepresentational.T he role
of the intellectuals is to report the encounters of the oppressed.
Spivak contends that Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari let the oppressed speak
for themselves by posing their nonrepresentational theory as constructed from a sub-
ject position of the West, as part and parcel of the imperialist project of the West.
Here the West recognises the other but as part of the Western knowledge production
that is in compliance with the Western imperialist project. The object of this ethno-
118 Chakrabarti and Chaudhury
centrism is to produce an other such that the inside (and its subject position) is con-
solidated. In other words, Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari posit an other only to
assimilate it in the guise of nonrepresentation.
Spivak’s basic position is to resist such an assimilation of the subaltern. Invoking
Derrida’s idea of the “mechanics of the constitution of the other,” she calls for a
“benevolent Western intellectual” who can “keep the ethnocentric subject from es-
tablishing itself by selectively defining an other.” This is done by presupposing a
text-inscribed blankness where the thought as the blank part of the text is that of the
other (subaltern). The other is a quiet other that cannot speak for itself since it con-
5
1 stitutes the blank part of the text, the delirious interior voice of the elite. This solu-
0
2 tion of Demda’s (of demoting the subject) to the ethnocentric problem is recom-
y
r mended and adopted by Spivak. She uses this theoretical technique of constituting
a
u
n the other to transform the essentialist arguments of subaltern studies into examples
a
7 J of affirmative deconstruction. “To render thought or thinking subject transparent or
5 0 invisible seems, by contrast, to hide the relentless recognition of the other by assimi-
1:5 lation” (1988, 294).
0 Spivak’s critique of Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari is that, since subaltern
at
] thought forms the blank part of the text, subalterns cannot speak as a thing; they
y
sit have to be represented discursively. Spivak poses such a representational politics
er against the nonrepresentational politics of Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari.
v
ni However, the basic difference between Spivak and her detraccors is a moral one.
U
e As she notes:
at
St
n The question is how to keep the ethnocentric subject from establishing itself by selec-
o tively defining an other. This is not a program for the subject as such; rather it is a
g
e program for the benevolent Western intellectual. For those of us who feel that “sub-
r
O
ject” has a history and that the task of the first-world subject of knowledge in our his-
[
y torical moment is to resist and critique “recognition” of the Third World through “as-
b
d similation,” this specificity is crucial (1988, 294).
e
d
a
o Spivak charges Western intellectuals like Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari with
nl
w complicity. In the Third World, the word used as the other of complicity in the West
o
D is collaboration. The subaltern debate is replete with stories of how the Indian elite,
projecting themselves as liberators, turned out to be collaborators with the West. The
term “comprador bourgeoisie”-bourgeoisie collaborating with the West-is com-
monplace in Indian Marxist jargon. Collaboration is used as a political weapon whose
strength stems from the moral connotation it carries with its deployment. The sub-
altern school, traditional school, and Spivak are united in assigning collaboration (and
complicity) a moral weight or value. The collaboration of the Third World (intellec-
tuals) along with the complicity of first world intellectuals is seen as a morally bad
position to take. The morally good position is one where this complicity and col-
laboration are abandoned. Both groups are charged with directly and indirectly par-
ticipating in the imperialist project of the West. The morally bad position stems from
the fact that the imperialist project constitutes and reproduces itself through force
Remarx 119
and domination. Participation in such a project is a position supporting such a force
and domination. The burden of the fear of this complicity and collaboration is evi-
dent in writing like those of Lazarus (1990) and Rooney (1990).
We should admit in advance that we are no advocates of Spivak’s moral position.
Spivak quotes Anderson to support her viewpoint. Anderson criticizes Foucault by
pointing out that “Foucault struck the characteristically prophetic note where he
declared in 1966: ‘Man is in the process of perishing as the being of language con-
tinues to shine ever more brightly upon the horizon.’ But who is the ‘we’ to perceive
or possess such a horizon?” (Spivak 1988,291-92). But we can turn Spivak’s criti-
5
1 cism (through the above quotation from Anderson) against her own moral position.
0
2 That is, who are the we (or she) to perceive or possess such a strong moral position
y
r on complicity or collaboration?
a
u
n Before we move on, some words should be spent on describing Spivak’s charac-
a
7 J terization of “subaltern” as a discursive name. Spivak recommends that subaltern stud-
5 0 ies deploy the subject “subaltern” strategically rather than as part of some “authori-
1:5 tative” truth of the text, “caught in the game of knowledge as power.” Why is subaltern
0 historiography considered as a strategy rather than as “the establishment of an
at
] inalienable and final truth of things”? The subaltern school basically charts out the
y
sit failure of subaltern consciousness and therefore of the subaltern to “become” (in the
er positive sense). Subaltern and subaltern consciousness are located positively
v
ni (that is, ideally) only to be rejected as an impossibility. This can only be operated
U
e through empirical examples, as the subaltern school does. This is close to affirma-
at tive deconstruction since it charts out the failure of the ideal to become. If a “con-
St
n tinuous sign system” is their object of study, then action lies in the disruption of the
o
g object. In this field of action-a state of crisis or change-the functional change in
e
Or the sign system is always constituted by a lack of the signified subaltern conscious-
y [ ness, so subaltern and subaltern consciousness cannot be the object of study. Sub-
b
d altern is the plane of historiography. It has to be a theoretical fiction. Spivak pro-
e
d vides two reasons as to why she does not consider subaltern consciousness as
a
o consciousness in general and therefore the ground that makes all disclosures pos-
nl
w sible. The first reason is that Spivak does not see subaltern consciousness as a ground
o
D of theory or a univocal “reflection or signification theory.” Rather she understands
negative consciousness of subaltern as the group’s methodological presupposition,
a consciousness that is transformative, historical, and arises out of the image of the
elite (henceforth the negative connotation). In other words, subaltern consciousness
appears as the mirror image of the elite consciousness, derived from the thought
process of the elite, read out of the elite domain. The true subaltern consciousness is
never recovered, never found, because the subaltern cannot speak. It is recovered
insofar as it is read out of elite thought but then it disappears. The trace of the origin
is the important element and not the origin itself. True subaltern is a theoretical fic-
tion, a neutral name or, as Spivak quotes from Denida, “thought (subaltern conscious-
ness) is the blank part of the text.” Subaltern consciousness forms the blank part, the
part that remains silent. Since subaltern and subaltern consciousness are not fully
