Journal of Social Sciences

ISSN: 0971-8923 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjss20

Gender, Subaltern Studies and the Invisibility of

Women

Kate Currie

To cite this article: Kate Currie (1998) Gender, Subaltern Studies and the Invisibility of Women,
Journal of Social Sciences, 2:1, 1-8, DOI: 10.1080/09718923.1998.11892189

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.1998.11892189

Published online: 09 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjss20
 0 Kcmla·Rifj /9f8
Gender, Subaltcm Studies a nd the lnvislbility of Women
Kate Currie
ta:YWOROS ~ ~ lln'n..W•r Orielnl-
.._ """"' ""'-'<.
AaSTRACT U.s ~Nr:le lddtuta the "-"• viaclldtt llllld
W'OIIIee's ill'·isitKhty The firM JCCiao. cOMidom tr.w:t..~
antbropolos~eal apprw..""hei 10 ,cndcr. Tbc: S«lled stctioft
iJio•strate:s how fetniei>1 hiflonllu hl'<c IIMcmpced 10 reveal
proce~>ses of Qdusioon. ~ 1hmJ M:Ciion 'oolu Mlhe lints
bct111u:n fe1nin ut hixunography 1111d lh41 otl)«li Ye o(theSab·
.-Irem S~~ttlit.t schollll\ na1ntly, the l'tt'Gti"Nctlott ofthe past
rrom the l'ttl()estn.tetcJ pcnpccllvc• of those 'hidllcn from
hi.u~.· 'lliK K followed by • cn"t"' •••C"'..ml:'ttl of l~ col.
lectivc's ex~ 111111..111u"I'Nc:d from• ro~~~~ ofwntribu·
110M. and Wllh S.ptt1fi,! rt.f~IIOC 10 tc-*'
Rttent yean h.ave J«n the proliferation of
critical feminist cUIIenges 10 the assumed lnvis--
•btlttyofwomen.. upeceally en relaa.an to 'dew:l·
opment''and and:ropoiOJ,Kaldi.KOUfSL"S. Inl'b·
ibilil)·and Po~'r(l986). Leel1 Oube confronts
the issue of womett 's invis1bil11y from a muhi..di·
mens1onaJ pen-pective htghlighti na how in vislbil·
•ty is consuucced by OUL'Iidc C.lltemal agents. (de-
velopment planners Md lmthropologists) and in-
siders. for whom, •Nomen's invisibility is embed·
dcd incommunilyttnd trndllional cultural values.
Within lhe insider/outsiderfrrunc:s, womencmage
primarily as w ves and mothers, largely.
or
marginalized from the spheres politics and pro-
duction.•
I ( 1970 : 161). In nos early wort. M .N, Snnivu
Prior tO the C"rK:tJC.ncc o( I growmg lwaK:·
ness orgcnderreluaon:J 1n chc m1d to late 1970's.,
women were problbly more vtsible in anthropol·
Ol)' than othc:r5ocial JC IC:RCCl!., but thi.s vi.sibili1y
was circumscribed. From the: outset. within an·
thropology, sc:x o~ratcd as an organiLingprinci·
pie which structured the an~~lyil$ ofkins.hip, fam·
ilyand marriage. Within the village india context.
the underlying ort nnizationu.l mode was that o f
chccastcsyst.em,the mechanism whereby gender
was subsumed to a prcdom1nandy Hindu cui ture.
AnlhropologicaJ studiesofltle 1960's and 1970's
Illustrate the point. 1be synchroniC focus of the
myriad '\·illag.elndia studi« 1'101 only fa.kdtocre-
atc a lhc:oretical s:paec: for lhe analysiS Ofconflict.
nabo 1mpedtd the analysis of tender rt-lalions•
Within anthropological writing; or this pcnod.
women are COnJtructed. as gc:ftdc:red s.ub,cctl
throoah Hindu rituals and practices, which ~in~
fort:etheinubordinat ion and invisibility within a
patriarchal system. Two classic examples ofthil
pmctice l~re found in the rc-.spcclivc analyses or
(Dumont, 1970) and (Srinivas, 1962). In both
in uane~..:. s•ndcr iuuc£ arc ab'-Cnt, and tho only
refertncesto women are in relal.ion to pollution
Jnd (onnal ntualrole.s govemi•g marriage. In
lhe-pallon ~·olh endogam) andh)'Jlef'Somy,
women arc defined only 1n re1alion to mt:n and
dvou&h the Brahmanal c:anoo. Dumont i$ inter-
ested in Hindu religious law defmcd ttvough the
sacred texiS. Hence: '"A menstruuing (or prc·pu·
bertal) woman my not mount her husband'&fu
ncral pyre, she must wait ror (our days and the
final bath (she would have to bathe in My case
before bumina hersclr alive)" ( 1970: 88),and "A
menstruating woman may not cook for her fam ·
ily" (91). In adi5c;;u5$ion ofsecondary marriage,
Dumont alerts his readers 10 what he sees as the
libe.rating' effects of primary mliTiage in whioh
certainwomen(e& theNayarwol'lenofMalahM)
art: ritually mamcd to gods., objec:u.. froits or pl:antJ
does noc de:pan tt&mf.candy frcm this pc:rspec·
live in(omu na. ¥orilhouteriu.:al c:tmment. that: ..A
wife who shows uuc:r devotion c(her husband is
held up as a.n edeal" ( 1962: 47) This idenhzc:d
model Q(wur111anhoud Informs hLsOOservauon that
"A woman's hope ls to predoceue her husband
and thus avoid bccOfning a widow" and " A wife is
cntWed to half the religious merit earned by her
husband by fa!ICing. prayingandpenance"(47).
Jn 1\er introduction to Hbm,nin Indian Sod·
~tr ( 1996). the second volume cf five tn the So-
cial Structure and Chang~ series in honour or
M .N. Srinivas, K&Nna Chanam contends that
Srinivos'la&crwortc~<lledslhegnduale"""'<ncc
o(a position which ad:nowlcdges the S.tgnafICanCe
 2 KATECURIUE
of sender as a key vndnblc in :mlhropology. No
reference is m\ldc by Chnn11na to his early work
und the way in which womanhood 15 constituted in
accordance with the Ihen prevailing male anthro-
pological orthodoxy. Qrtainly, by 1978.Srinivas
had modified h1s •de.u .and. anchoring his anaJy.
s•s wrthin the division of labour, he demonstrates
how women of dafTcrent socaaJ Strala contribtued
to prodocuve worl w11h1n a patnarchal rural
tcOOOmy. Thc:over.tll fr.une-.-ortcofSnnivas' 1978
analysis. howe"'«. IS ,. hat he pcrtlCIVC$ as the Iran·
siuon from tradation to modem•ty "'hat. in his esti·
mation. e-nables women tO mo ve from o ne struc.·
tuml and cognitive frame of reference co another!
II
l'kntifying women's vl!cibility is now a major
preoccup:ll ion ofacadcm ic rem i nists and ac1ivises.
Feminist historians 3re in the forc:front o f this
proJCCt. highlighring how women ha\'C been ex·
c:luded as actors and authors ofhistory,thc:ir voices
muiOd(OlaknvartundRoy.l988). Olaknvarti
(Sanpri and Va..id, 1990) considcn the way in
v. hich beliefs about the sratUJ of ..omen in the pa:st.
den \·cd from both form.ol h1\torteal narr.w.i ves and
popular myth., 01rc l'ntn'imiued. Internalized and
reconstituted ovtr time. Hence, nationalist writ·
ers, reacting against the colonial view of the sub·
jugatcd [ndian woman, idcalited the Aryan god·
dcss : the enduring Sita, the glorious L.ak.shmibai,
the loyal Savitri. Tile cullur:tl encounter between
India and E.ng_Jandstructurtd the context in which
a predominantly Hindu. no11onalist male middle
class reconstituted a fe.male identity. 1n contrast
with lhc prevalent colotual conceptions of Wesc.
ern (modern•ud) women • 1n ~hKh IJle t0ea11zecl
Aryan woman of the VediC pcnod emef!Cd as the
dominant rnoc:kl of the female past. By the late
ninctecnlh c.entury, the Vcd1c c1ru; was relegated
to the mislS of time. rejected a• a legitimate object
ofh1storical research.
Ch::.kravani's nnnlysiscoincides whh nndcom·
plcmcnts that or SumnnuaBnncrjec (Sangari and
Vaid. 1990). Both authors s lum~ the common aim
or the Recastirrg \Vomtn collection editors For
whom an immanent conception of patriarchy. in
wh~hC\'ety aspect ofrealny i11 ge.ndered.provtdes
the Stilling point fat mak1nc sense ortnc histori·
calproces$C$wluchwuc:ouredpaonarchalsysoems
tncolonial India. Banerjee 5«ks torechscover tht:
los:l female voice. IIXin&lhe popular culture of
Bengali W<'lmen. expressed through poems. sonas
und drum a · mnrginalizcd in nineteenth t:cntury
Bengal bycolon1alists and the Bengali male elile,
Running concurrently. but diverging from lhe
dkho4omi7ed colonial construction of woman·
hood (5UbJuptcd Indian women/independent
educated "'CS:tcm women). the Jkngah bltodr
alot e.na~ 1n 1niu:uing and Framing female
cultuntl emanc1paiJOO within a rev1taliud Vtd.c
contex11 n whKh tht robu.suulbent.ic: producb of
popular fem:ak culture were dcniro lcgiumaey
One other instance of the way in which patri·
archy pcrmeaccs state and civil society, con ~ti·
tutin& nnd upho lding patriarchies ror different
classes nnd In dirfcrent historical conj unctures,
is explored in Lata Mnni's (Sangari and Vuid,
1990) annlys1s of the discursi\'e aspects of the
JDti debale. Man1's approach is to decode three
tCKt5 l'ePfCJCntina three separate and distincth'e
threads or discourses : the official colooial, the
Hindu reformist or Indigenous progres.sh·e (as·
socialcd '*llh 1he Bengal Renaissance rev1vahst
reformers such as Rammohan Roy v.-ho ch:al·
lenged lhe Orlhodolt interpretation ofVed1e 1ens
on san); ond the Hmdu traditionalist or •nd•a·
enous conKrvati\'C. In Mani's reconstruction,
the coloni11l emphasis on the centrality of!W:rip·
tureto Indian society. in itselfan Orientalist shift
from a vnricgutcd popular oraltraditiQn • :muc·
tured the terrain on whic.:.h the sati debate tOOk
place. Sincelhedomainoftradjtion was located
widdn Brahmanicalscriptures. the d~bate ccn·
tred on t:Ciiptural interpretation. Within this con-
text, the three books selec:led by Mani • I) 1he
1818 lc.ucr of the Supcrintcn<kru of rohcc
(Waher Ewar) 10 the Judicial Oeputmenl: 2) the
Bena:ah Rammohan Roy's 1830 tract in favour
ofabolition: 3) lhe petition to the GO\'CmorGen·
tral Opposing the regulacion . constituted 1hree
di.slinct sc:nptural repr-esentations. The rcalsuf>..
j«t, woman. is remo ved from the htSt()(ical stage:
excluded as actor and author (Chakravani nnd
Roy, 1988). Women • whether acquie.' ictnt or
resistant · are portr.lyed only through male dis·
course suucturcd 1hrough the polarity or heroi nc
orvtet.im
This d1scursive perspec.th·e (see Oayatri
Spivak, 1988) focusc.s on analyz.in' different
(male)larldascourses.s ~hileacknowledgln& the
absent female VOICe. llle colonial discourse
G6NDER.SUIJALTERN STUDIES AND'IliE INVISIIJU,I'rY 0FW0M£N
(white men saving brown women from brown
men)and the traditionalists' discoursc(thcwomcn
uctuall;r wanted to die) deny the fema le(object of
the dis;ourses) a discursi\·e location as acting
agent. For Spivak, the colonial discourse onsati
is pan <•fa system of representations that fonn the
re-ality .,f India. In this sense, colonialism is not
merely tcrntorially determined, but is a subject-
constituting project (Spivak. 1985). Within the
coloni3l disc:OtlrS(' o n smi lh~ w om;tn j._ l'nn-
structcd as an object o r slaughter. the eternal vic·
tim, an object to be saved. by thecnlightencd civi-
li7.edcolonisers. from the bestiality ofHinduism.
The rermlle subject is denied a subject position.
Shecar.nOtSJ>eak. She is represented lhrough male
or
discourse . and is thus the site an idcologic.al
battleground. in which others speak for her. In·
tcrvenin g between co l('nial ist and traditionalisL'>,
the Bengal Enlighteners' d iscourse is the
colonialists' representation of the noble
Hindu. For Spi\•ak, the sati is caugh1 between
imperialisl and indigenous patriarchy. Her voice
is lost und cannot be retrieved from the silence of
hiSIOI)'. As a subject, s.hecnn now only be co nsti-
tuted throug h positions accommodated wichin
contending pntrian:hnl d isco urses.11
m ern anthropologiSts and hiStOrians CL'i lUbjcct Of
N>r !he editors and contributors of (Reca.\·ting
Wom ea. 1990). a feminist historiography
reappraises and reconstitutes historiography. It·
confronts and d cconstructs Ihe dominant male
orthodoxies : colonialist and nationalist Here.tl\e
stated <lbjcctivc coincides with that ofthcSubal·
tunStlldies scholars in the six volumes (1982.
1989) edited by Ranaj it Guha. The initial intcl·
lcctual 1nspiral ion under!ying the S"ubaltcm project
is Gutu's critique of colonialist (Orientalise). na·
1ionnl ht (elitist). and Marxist ( western) d is-
courses. n~e critique of Marxism is dire<:ted at
!hal Eurocentric variant which denies theoretical
space to peasants, nomadic and pastoral tribes,
o utc-al)tes, and tho.o;e on the margin of society
(Brass, 199 1). F'or lheco ntributors to the project,
the common aim is a shared focu s on the recon-
struction of the past from reconl)truc.ted per!'pcc.-
tive.o;ofthose 'hidden from history'. Theobjec·
tive, is the production of an history from below
lhrough the identification of an emergent subal·
tern con.sciousnessabsent in bothcolonialjst and
Mliontlisl historical narra1ives. In the Preface to·
3
volume I. Guha sets the agenda for the serles speci-
fying the prommjon or asystematic and informed
discussion, or .subahern themes in the field of
South Asian studies ( 1982: vii) in the interest o f
rectify ing 1he eli1ist bias characteristic of much
research and academic work in lhi.s partkulnr area
(vii). The term 'subaltern'' equated " ith 'infe-
rior rank'. is deployed as a nomcncla•urc for the
general nnribule of subordination wh!ther ex.-
p reued i n 'tcnn.s: o f c ha,;g , C1L$1C:, age. gr.ndc r a nd
office or in any other way' (vii). Following
Gramsci, ·Notes on Italian HistOf)'. · s•bordina-
tion is perceived as a constitutive element in a bi·
nary relationship in which the otherco:~st itutivc
clement is dominance, consequently, ·subaltern
groups are always subject to theaclivit) of ruli ng
groups. even when dley rebel and rise up'
(Gramsci, 197 I :55). Guha's introduc1ory com-
ments frame the agenda for 1heserics. and within
chis article I shall explore the com.mitment to the
expressed aim with reference 10 gendet.
Despite Gayatri Spivak's endorsement of the
subahcrn groups 'scrupulous consideration of
women' (volume IV) the actual evider.ce is le.o;s
compelling. Certainly, as VccnaDasc!aims. the
subaltern scho larsareconc.erned to d isplace west·
discourse in ravouro f d~e subaltern a.o; .subject or
history but. in Ihe main. the subaltern is male and
rural. The subaltern project entails a s:.i(( away
fro m the centrality of labour in general, and the
proletariat in panicular. Jnemphasiz.ing the man-
ner in which predominandy rural male subalterns
engage with forms ofdomination eg law. bureauc-
racy. police, medicine etc., the contributors un-
doubtedly challenge traditjonal anthro;>nlogical
perspectives on tribes and castes. lnstaacesof fe-
male subaltern encoun.ters with power arc.few, as
are indications or gender awareness on lhc part of
many contributors. There are significant excep-
tions which warrant consideration.
In a discussion of land rig:hls and social op-
pression in Bihar 1947 • 1978, Arvind Das (vol-
umell, 1983) introduces a thcmetakenupby femi-
nists.' namely, the sexual ex.ploitalioa or dalit
women by rich peasants and landlords. From 1967
onwards in Nema village (Patna District) there
were struggles by rnainlydalit landless labourers
and poor pc.asanls over the right to a 10inimum
wage. Against this backdrop,therapeofwomen
4 KATE CURRIE
by landowners and police was so widespread that
village girls had difficulty in finding husbands.
Inone ofonly three chapters in the six volumes on
urban labour, Oipcsh Chakrabarty (volume II.
t 9{S3). writing on jute w0f1c.ers in Cak:uua 1890 ·
1940. illuwates how the Government o f Bengal
and the jute mill owner.; co nspired t o) inhibit the
•ntcmali7..ation of the notion ofequali!y before the
taw and fonnal freedom of co ntrac! by the mi 4
• nificant theme. Even here. Spivak remains the
gram rural jute workers. Working conditions in
the jute mills were not objects o f Government
knowledge. Rules were lax, and little value was
aurib\ned to worke r 's lives. Workers were vic·
11ms o f numerous accidents. Wome1 died when
loose-fiu ingclothingc-a ught in the machinety.
'lhe Das and Ct\akrabany chapters in volume
II ( 1983)cenainly illustrate the subordination of
women in unequal binary relationsht>sofpower.
and the gender se.nsitivityof the twoa•thors. What
tS unclear, however, is whether the re is any sug·
gestion in th e documentary sources that women
actively e ngaged with the particular fonns of
domination. ls there , for the:.women. a ' mome nt
ofrebellion'? How, if at all. is it constituted'? The
·moment o f rebellion ·, nowevcr, Is central to
Chakrabany's analysis of trade unions (volume
II J) in the Calcutta jute mines betwe:n 1920 and
1950, in which he analyses the role c.f a woman •
Prabhabati Oas Gupla· in the leadership of the·
I ~9 strike. Oas G upta was a young Bengali
woman committed to the interests o f the wotking
class and,asa key leader of'The Bengt~l Jute Work·
er's U nion. she was able to e ffectively organize
the workers in strike action. D as G upta'sconsid·
erable inn uenceon the worke rs was not so much
a consequence of organizational skiU, but rather
her inspirational capacity to ignite a nd sustain
mass ac-tion at the ' moment o f rebellion'.
Oavid Arnold's analysis ofpeasant consc ious-
ness a nd peasant action d uring the Madras fam·
ine 1876 . 1878(volume OJ) effectively integrates
the gende r dimension in relation to min-maling
ceremonies.' relief. prostitution, lOOting and sui·
cidc. In many small tow n disturbances rural Ia·
bourers. freque ntlyda/sts,joincd w ith other sub·
altems in looting grain stores. I n one instance in
December 1876 in the m arket tow n of
Kalladaikurichi (lirune lvc li O istri: t) between
400to 500 people., women included, looted stores.·
For Arnold, thecri.sis o f fami ne is seen as a win-
dow o n suballcrn consciousness and a<: lion. As
famine co nditions become more acute. however.
any apparen1village solidarity collapses: reciproc-
ity crumbles under condilions ft>undcd not on
mutual eA~.:ha ng.; but inequal ity.
Not until volume V, following Spivok's vol·
ume IV e ndorsement · ironically. the fi rst contri·
bution by a wornar. · does gende r e merge as a sig.
sole female contributor to the series. Paralleling
Arnold's analysis of struggle s in Madras. David
HardimaneJtploresthe role ofwomen in Bhil pro·
tests against rising prices and grain shortage.sdur·
ing the 1899 fami ne in £astern Oujnrat. Arnold's
own conlribution focuses on the 1896 • 1900
plague in lhc: Bombay Presidency. E.Jttending
Foucault's analogy between prison and hospital
tothecolonial context. Arnold e mphasizes the im-
portance of isolation in the interests <>f control,
rcfonn. a nd cure. Certainly. Foucaul!'s de linea.
tion of separation and enclosure. in maintaining
control a nd upholding power differentials . is
manifested in a variety o f colonjal locations and
forms. In Arnold's analysis,the plague dramatitcd
the importance of the body· the body ofthe colo-
nized • as site o f the conflict between colonial
power and indigenous politics. Indian and colo.-
niaJ perceptions of the p lague administration re-
flected a struggle over control o f the indigenous
body, and the power o f the rulers in controlling
that body. The-predominant western pcrccptjon
of the hospital as a disease free, sanitized e nvi-
ronme nt was a t variance w ith the lndjan perce p-
tion of ·a place of pollution, contaminated by
blood and faeces, and transgressing nonnsofcaste ,
religion,a nd purdah ' (19 87:62). The 'moment of
rebeiHon • occurred on Oc.tober 29th 1896 w he n
a ro und 1,000 mill-ha nds attacked Bombay's
Arthur Road hospital a fter a wo man wo rker,
suspected of plague , was forcibly admitted. In
thi$example, the degradation of the woman at the
hands of the authorities was a poignant symbolic
expression o f the degradation o f a colonized peo-
ple.
Tne Poucauldian innuence is a lso cvidelll in
Ranajit G uha's accountof 'Chandra's Death' ("ol·
ume V). in which a specific event i.s approached
through the analysis of the official construction
o f d ocume ntary nanatives, a nd in wh ic h·lhe con-
fession is seen as an e xpression of relations of
GeNDER. SUBALTERN STUDIES AND THE INVISIBILITY OF WOMEN
power and control (Ooty. 1996). Ouha's recon-
struction of events are based on an incident oc-
c urring in Bengal. in which a woman (Chandra)
died following an abortion, in the year 1849
( Bengali year 1255). Chandra'sd eath was inad·
\'erte ndy procured by her sister w ho, in evidence,
recounted obta ining, preparing and administer-
ing the fatal dose of medicine in the expectation .
orprecipi1:uins the :abortion. Ironically Chandra.
a widowirnpregnatedand abandoned by her lover.
was killed by the very act aimed at saving he r from
a living death as social outcast. G uha's rendition
of the e pisode. in which the feck less love-r de-
manded tha t the te-rmination take place. exempli-
fies the subofdinalion of women to patriarchal
structures of law. fami ly. and religion. As Veena
OaJO ('klume VI) has noted. Guha's exploration
of the j udicial d iscourse is illustrative in depict-
i ng patriarch a l asJOertion over the female
subject(s). Ultimately. no guilt is auributcd to the
lover, w hile the female relati ves' supportive act
is deemed criminal.
Spivak ( Volume V). in a heady theoretical pot
poorri incorporating Fouc ault, Dcrrida, Barthes,
Lacan, Marx, G ramsd and others. e ngages in a
roconstructivist literary representation or a woric.
Sumdayi"i (Breast Giver), written by the Bengal
woman writer Mahaswe ta De vi and translated by·
Spivak. Sra"d(lyitti is a poignant account or
Jashoda the professional mo«herwho. having sue·
coured some fifly c hildren, d ied of breast cancer.
In Mahasweta J.)evi"s original story,Siandayini is
a parable ofdecolonized IOOia, an allegory of l n-
diaell.ploiled and abused by lhe very classes sworn
topr<Nccl her. Spivak doesn't muc h like this alle-
gorical interpretation, favouring he-r o wn narra-
tive in whichJashoda is the subahemconstituted
as gendcred subject. In this reconstructed account
a dense post· modernist a nalysis is interpolated by
Marx· distinction betwee n use value/exchange
value (the milk produced for one's own c hildren/
the milk produced for exchange) all(( necessary
labour/surplus labour (production for one 's own
c:hildrenfproduction for the-children of the mas·
tcr 's family). Here. Spivak's plea that ' Marxian
and reminism must become persistent intenvp·
tionsofcac h other' (104) is less tl•an convincing.
Volume VI ofSubalttnt Studies was the final'
work edited byGuha.and in hjschapteron ' Domi·
nance Without Hegemony ..... ' hcexplon:spOwer
s
i nooloniallndiathrough the interaction o f domi-
nance and subordination. For G uha. domi nance/
subordination is a relation constituted by compo·
nents whose idioms - order and Da11da arc: de-
rived from two distinct paradi,g msof political c ul-
ture ( British, aod pre-ooloniallndian). The pre-
colonial Indian idiom Dando - an e nsemble of
power, authority and punishment, deriving from
the law tofMan" . it ident ified with the Ieins and
the male. II is a manifestation of divine w ill in
state afTai rs. a nd exercised lhrough thee ntitleme nt
of laOOiords over tcnants,pattchayats, a nd patTi·
arc-hal morul codes. On one level, the introduc-
tion by Guha of gender in the contell.t o f Hindu
mylhology. coi ncides with the d iscussions found
in Dumont and early Srinivas. Howc\·cr, Guha's
objective is q uite d iffere nt in that he introduces
gender in order to illustrate , as w ith the myths of
krishna and the gopis (mi lkmaids) o f Vraj, the
primacy o f the male in the sexual politics o f a pa-
triarchal society. Thc.gt>pisan:: denied any inde·
pendent sexual pleasure, their role is merely to
nurture and please thei r lord. Women's inhe re nt
nature thereby transcends eroticism and is ex-
pressed,through the ideology o f submission and
subordination, in acts o f unquestioningdevotion.
This takes us straight back to the Brahmanical idc-
ali7.cd view of appropria te wifely behaviour re-
corded. without critical comment, in the works of
early Sri nivasand Dumont.
There is a current fashion amongst certain post-
modernist feminist.s tocritic izc the work of femi -
nist activists-on gender and the representation of
women. This tendency is exemplified in Julie
Stephens' strange contribution ( ' Feminist. Fic-
tions : A Critique of the Category Non-Western
Woman in Fe-minist Writings o n India') to vol·
ume VJ which. as Susie Tharu (volume VI) ob·
serves, 'degenerates into a moral stick to beat femi-
nists' (p. l 31). Stephens.. indeconstructivist mode.
is at great pai ns todemonstmte that fe minismc.ol-
lides and coll udes w ith the discourse of
Otientalism. 11 Both nationalist (exemplified by
Kishwar and Vanita(eds), 1984)and non-nation·
alist (exemplified byOmvedt, 1980) variants are
singled out for attack .. Both se ts of authOt$ ap-
parently engage in stereoc ypi ng the women whose
voices thc.y seek to represent. The nationa lists,
by portn\ying and endorsing a mythic ideali'I.Cd view
of Indian womanhood; a nd the non· nationa list by
6 KATE CURRIE
dr:awing :a picture of the m il itant. tribal ::tetivist
brc.1king thrQOgh police lines. Stephens dajms
that t>c:Nh approaches. via direct speech. are strUC·
lUred to conform to a true feminist consciousness.
Indian women. elite a nd subaltern, have become
objcctsoffeminists' gaze, and feminists arc ' blind
tothe irown image maki ng' (p. 93). The two per·.
specti ves constitute the female subject (Indian
women) in different ways. In the non· nationalist
depiction of Omvedt. middle class women are
denied an autonoroous role in hilttOI)' : they arc
somehow less authentic. less 'subjects in their own
right than tribals. peasanls. or w ome n from urban
slums' (p. I07). Well ! This seems a rather ex-
truordinury critique from a c ontributor to a serie s
in which the expressed a im is to privilege subal·
tern groups. Ofc ourse, a.'i G uha proclaims in the
Preface ( Volume l). thc term subaltern is used in
the $Cries as a gene ral auribute o f subordination
whether expressed ' in terms of class. cnste, age.
gender and office or io any mhcrway'. Nonethe·
less. non-e lite women are subject to greater de-
grees of subordination precisely because of the ir
objective locntion in intersectjngstructuresofeco-
nomic. PQliticnl.cultural and sexual power. Here.
S tephc ns seems to have ptoblems in comprehc nd·
ing a reality m wlliCh mba! and low caste women
are e ngaged in ongoing toil. and struggles· and J
am not simply talking barricades. of one form or
aootheragainst thcir multi-layc-rcdOppre$$iOn. Ul-
timately, the writer. as subject does mediate be·
tween the investigated subject and the text This
applies to Spivak. Stephens a nd other
dcco ns tructj ....ists as it does to those associated with
Mamt.\'hi and O mvedt. However. Man~tshi and
Omvedt. inspiteof theirdifferenccs ·view femi-
nism not simply as a discourse. but as a vehicle
for change. In this , they stand apn11 from S tephens.
Om\•edt's e arly work We \Viii Smash This
PriSOtt : lndiat• Womett in Strugglt ( 1980) pro·
\•ides Stephe ns with w hat she see as a prime ex·
ample o f the assumed fa llacy in w hich the femi·
nist left claim to speak for ' real woman' . At a sub-
stanti ve level, Stephens succeeds in misrepresent·
ing O mvedt's portrayal o f Indian women as ex-
d usively slum dweltcn;..adiwuis. and/or peaS..-'l.IUS.
First. Omvedt i nteracted with a variety o f lndian
women engaged in protest activity and radical
politics in Maharashtra including : agric-ultural
l abourc~. u;i)a.n w()(-l:;C~. col lege lltudenu:. bank
e mployees. some or whom were Brahmins( 1980
: 5). Secondly, O m\'edt iscautiously cir<:umspcct
about the level of political organi zation underly-
ing women's activism identifying. i n the case of
middle c lass women (students and employees). a
' lad or solidarity and the absence o f u common
perspective' (p. 163}: and in the case or w orking
class and rural wom~-n .a lack of independent gras.s
roots organizations. Thirdly. O nw edt acknowl·
edges that the women with whom she imcrnc tcd
were not typical i.e. were neithe r reprcscnmtivc
of a generalized category or Indian womanhood,
nor mndomly selected. T hey were. as she indi-
cates ( 1980 : 5) women from an area w ith a strong
tradition of revolt. who were invoi\'Cd in organi-
zation and protest activity. This is the sense in
which thcirvoic..-esareauthcnt•c. S tephens· analy·
sis mi rrors that of Spi vak ( 1988) for whom
O mvcdt is characterized as. the radical aeti,•ist
in vestigal ing subject. unable to transcend her o wn
positionality. For both Stephe ns and Spivak the
narrative (of India women) is reconstructed to
conform to a ' true fem i nist consciousness·
(Stephe ns). ihe subaltern cannot speak. In true
Foucnuldian style. the llrtic ulationof the wom·
en's voice is a product o f the authOr function: the
author manages the discourse. One maJOr prob·
lem with thjs type o f analysis. highlighted in Susie
Tharu's c ritique o f Stephens., is that ideology as
expression ofclas.s interest gives way UJ u notion
of ideology thllt is d iscursively produc<Xl and1ha1
production. in thccaseo f Omvedt's works. issulr
jcct to simplistic caricature and parody. What is
entirely misse-d is t he acknowledgement t hat
Omvedtand myriad other reminists illustnu e how
women, from different bac kgrounds. engage w ith
fonns ordomination.
The depiction of women's engagement with
forms o f domination plays no centrul role. in the
Subaltern Swdies project. yet Stephens is pecu-
liarly silent about the analysis of ge.,de r in that
context. What issurprising. thcn, is the eageme:s.s
of Stephens 10 c ritique feminists w hile failing to
address and assess !he gender d imension of the
series. My a im in this piece. is to redre!ls the bal-
ance by beginning to explore the approaches to
the general attribute of subordination (Guha. vol·
ume J. vii) with specific referen ce to gender.
GENDE:R. SUBALTE"RN Sl\JOIES AND THB INVISIBD..ITY OPWOMSN
NOTES
I. i:Aamplestnt.ludc: : OO\k.ker, I99.S:Eisontd. 1991:
Jahan.1995: Kabecr. 1994, Scott,I99S.
1. Anearlycxcql(lon. which K'knowlodges the very
tignificanl role o( women 1n producuon. is that
or Boserup. 1970.
). An allaNll \"'C pcnperti\C 1J ckpic1cd in~ film.
Sou. by ohe ll<l11>1 du«t<Jr Aponu $<ft. H<t<.
die ntual matN~f: (10 • CfC'C) o( • luftcfiarrpptd
•"'OlDIIL ~Q piiCt ll'l the tntnt1CJ oflhe family
economy and rehJJOUt propntty.
4. VMiatJOnS on Che trad:ltloNmodemuy, S~mk.nb
wioNwestcmJz.alion O~mcs abound in tbe lit·
erarure(ca: M1lkr 197.5. Sln;h 1977, Kolenda
1986). FOt a modlfiotl ve11ioo. rejee1lng1he as·
sumplion !hid the: acqubllion of modem valutS
and cducaliOI\ enh:mce women'J free<lo•n a.OO in·
dependence, see Uddle and Joshi 1986. The<>b·
sc:rvatjon they make. which 11lso emerg« m
Shanna 1980 and IX.w~• 1996. 1s that withm the
modemily frame. women n:rnain subordina~ed
10 p:Yri3tt"h:IJ SINCIUICS of domi~U:n« in which
lhepalnarthalfa.tn~ly~a~.csthe:JOcialsra­
"""'lht"""""'"' prol......,(«lhtpwpo<col
ftlbancing 1b ov.-n ~tJOft.
S Spi:'"*·~··lthmany contemponwyUJidlev
tual.s. includ•nc fcm1nhu. iJ 1nOuenced by
Foucault 19n. 1978, on dl~~
6. Dorothy Stein 1981 bau; •lso analyzed tradit-
ionalim and modemi teD In the MAli debate. via
Ram Mohan Roy's 1818 pamphlet which as-
s:omed the fonn of a fi c:donal debate between
3d\'OC3tc and opponent of the practice. Unlike
Mani and Spivak, Slcin pollta)'Jihe wnmensati
c.x.clus.lvt:lyas vtcthns.
1. Tr.and~ccd from 'MJblltemo' and drawn frOm
Anmnio Gramsct · s analysu. or lhc role: of subor•
dina1e classes in bcp:mon1c rule (ke PriS()If
~ . 1911 )
I. See. for imu.ntt.. Mtft. 19'16. 1913: OmYUk.
1978: E\'C't'CII. 1916 Olher •'Orb • u~ludins
thM of the Stru Slt4Att Sa"tltotana, 1989:
Cusecn. 1987; ~. 1991. focus on the role of
women 1.n rvm upn''"'~
9. In rela&Jon to rain-mal.ln,a ceremonies. Arnold
dcscnbcs the n:.veual of the conventJooaJ gen-
der roles in a ceremony in which wo~n washed
and held the plough ( 1984 : 7J).
10. Wilhin the colonial conte•t. the coo•rol of dis·
cursive sp3cc (ca. Oo,·ernn-.c:nt acts n:gul.ating
rc:llll•o~» ~ we¢ft Cftlf)loy"n •nd acrvQI\U) ,-.:In-
forced the conlrUI O<tct phym~al space Dunn.g
lbe sttug.lc (Or 1l'MitpencJmce from 8ntl$h Nlc
1n Kenp. a Yl11qJUlJOft ptopammc was~~
dlxcd. FKcdom Cl.Jhkn and sympMhu:c:rs •ue
sen110 decc:ubon umpt.• .cl trmthes •-ue cllg
7
around vlllat:.es to maintain their isolation ($CC
Dooy. 1996).
II , 1'hc nocmn or Orientalism has been discullc:d at
Jeng1h tl"whtre (S.aid, l978: TUrner. 1978.
Lndcn. 1990etc:). In SaKI's original analy1Js, the
diJcourse ofOriau:ahsm was c:s.sentially a dii·
cowsc o(power· genented by Oricnaahttschol·
an.todalthtonsu and c:olortial admini.suaaors
•hlch cNnctcnud a set of social. cconomk.
ond pol""'>l "'buoosmps llc<w<en Europe ond
the cotoales
REFERENCES
Ar.oid. 0 1914 •vamu•e ln ~tianl Consoous:nr::u and 1\:.a.'
11111 Aclion Matlta.. t 816 • 8" ill R. 0\lba(ed). S11bal
tttn Stwlus,lll. New Ot:Un : OxJonl Univcnity Prc:u ,
_ . 1987. ''TwchlnJihc Body : f't:;npec:d'ICSontbe lnd11n
Ptllttue. 1896 • 1900"' in R. Gll21a (td), s~ixl/tm• .' iMI
iu, V, New Delhi • O•ford Univcnity Press.
IJ.akld'. I. 1994 'T111 StraWJic Sil1nc•: Vcttbr 4!11tl & 1'
~t~M~Iit ,~cy. l..oMofl : Zed Boots.
a.an.trkit. $, 1990 "M:arpa:thm~ or Women'• Popul;w
Cult•~ .,. N•lldttlldl c:c.n.., Bcnca~- m. K. s.pn
... s ...... (c4J). .«&Jiutz w..,.. . UwyJ,. ......
C.,_,.H~I'okwlnwy ; R~U•~J~
,_$1_
BaKnp.E.I970 ~)--.,iii~Dt,~.
Bn.u.. T 1991 ..,..... fg ft' Soballkftf.. New Soall
Mcna.-uad l.he (Re·) Emup;:w:e: ot a(~ . • ).tod
c.-bed (Middle) PhPN".n.rJmmtlllCJ//'Uj~,.,S~·
fls. ll(2) 173 · 20S.
OW:ra...anl, U. 1990. "Wh~ttC\'C't HAppened 10 the VocUc
0..Jt10ricfll.al"m, Nalion:Uas1nand aScnpe forthe Prut·
in K Sun.prl ••ld S. V.id (cd$) R«QStr'~U "~N!N'n : l!.t·
.141)'1 111 lltdmrt CIJI,.flial HLrwry, New Jerwy : Ru'IC''
Univt.n.lty 1~.
__ andRoy,K 1988 "I•SearchofOurPasc:ARt~vicwor
lhc Um.l•tOII• 111d Pouibilitic:.s or tbe H1AOriotf19h)'
o( WCHI'lt• let EArly lftdi.~t"'. £c011011tic 41111/ PIJIU1nl
14'tdi). XXlll (ll) ·l·lA
CM!a&M. K 1996 ~l•tlod'Ucboa- ia AM Shoalil. B S
B~oYIILv, &A R •a•y(ed:s).~,S,,• ..,_MJ
~~~ __,.... ,...fi«k'1.Ncw0c•
s..
Olew. O 1991 ""'tt\o~CWEu:ay ; Womea's)hdoryanllfitM·
... ReYOII1 • lhe Trbhap Md Tdta&:_, Slnlgkt:-,
/hJkbll fJ{ ~,.,dArimtSdtOlttfl, lJ (I} 61-67
Cltilttl. P. 191"7 ~--~~ U! tht Ttblraftl Upnn111 Rfj1wl
PrJOI' %liN'It 411111 Rrll0htrmrt41)' I..Ndrt#up 1946 41.
Caleuu• : Nay• Pr..t•h.
Cha~blny. O 191l1 ··owuhttun~t fcwKnowledte ofWOft .
lh.g·Chu COfldilitlfl!' : Employers, G<wc:mment and lllc:
lule Wotk(H ol C.lcuuo. 1890 · l ~'s" In M. Outm
(cd), .~INJitf'tJI Stfjd•'~s. II, New Oclhi : OJIJOtd UnJYCro
•lly Pre••
1934 "Trade Uniofts •• a H~IIJ Cw.llld: : 'Thr.
llllCI Work.cn ol Calc"aa, 1920 • 5tr ca R Gulla (c:d).
.....
s.IMINflll ~IM/u.J, Ill New Delhi : O:dOtd VN\~1)'
0.. A. t MJ • A.pat\M Cllcaact flOIIQ ~ _. Bdow
B.W 1...7 7rill R O.(e:d)..w..tlt,.~. ll
New Ora. Odfl"t U.'w:nitr Pft::A
8 KAT£ CUfUtl£
OHIJ, N. 1996. "'Women's CmpiOyll'ltllil and their Fnmiti:d
Role in India" in A.M. Sh•h. B.S. Ravb.kar, E.A.
R111rwwamy (eels), Sod4rl SIIIN.' IWrt rmJ Cl4nllft \til·
"'""1: ~tlfi4$tJCI~ry. New Oelhl : S•CC·
Ooty, A..L. 1~. /lff(Hrl.fl ftt(tNIIffiN, Ufllvm«yo(Miru.e.
totl Preu.
Orubc. L. IIJI6 Hlftllrodlld'-'' ln L. 01*. E. l.neoct;, s.
Artir:nu {cds}. Kl:..,.-..1)'11*1 f>N'IHt • IJ..wyJ CJIII ~
u.u.
......,....._
ill s.wty-.1 t>tw~. """'Delhi · Odonl
.,...._, L 1910. H - Hwrwtltinu : n.t Gutt SJ*•
~io , . _ •. ......_ Ptbrda.
fhoa.D.(cd) 1991 INk .... •IWOt-w,_,.,l"rwu:~.
M~u.l~y~•
Ew:l'rt'l. J 1986 -we Were: •• tile ftorefronr or the F!Jbt :
FC181illiu Theory • .., ~'" i• llldi111 Gms·Roots
Mo~-emenu", ~tltAs.!'o~ lidi,.Nt. VI t 1): 17 • 14.
if
F011uull, M. 1972. Ariat:t~I<JSY Ktthwlt4igt, London:
T~tvistool:.
- -· 1917 .DisripltM Wid PilttiJit : Th1 Birth r.ftii~J Priwff,
London: Alk • L~~ne:.
- -· (td) 1971. I. Pirrrr N.Mrw,, .A Cn.u tr{P11J'ffdtk /11
,,., /9tlt CtlllUI'1'. London "•"'"'
CtatmCl A. 1911 Sdtc,,OtU frv- 111<t PtlJO#I Nuttboub, ·
«~~~led Md lnM&Mcd b)' 0 llcwc Wid 0 Nowell Smilh.
t.o.dola : t.awraKc .,.. ,.'blwl
Glh&. 1.. 1912. "'1'rdt«-- k. Owllatt4)~fl.~
I : 1\tiaiiq:J- .s-.l ..W. HIJ,., 4Mfll.s.nn,. ,_....
lkh: Odotd U.."'Cn~C)' PftM
_ lm. ~~h.. .. R C. (CII) ~
.ftwin "· New DdM • ()doni u.iYCf'At)' Pfas.
__ 1919. -Oomiau« W1lliiMt tteaemony a.d 1U
Hwoo•I>Jiii!Pby- ill R, Otiha (CIIf) Swbatu,, Stlt4Nu VI.
~ Ddhi : OdOfd Ut~ivcmey Pl"f:"
HanfimM, 0. 19117. '"TM 8hlb Md $1\aft~l,:.ar~ ol Eautm
Gajurur- ia R. Gulla (cd,), S411M/~tm Sr..tttn•. Vol. V,
NewDdhi.
Liddle, J. a..d Joshi. B. 1984 Dt•jjl""'·' •"f,,.,,~11dt~t<# :
Gtttfkr. CwJt Ulld C.luu ktlltti•N, l..ottdil": :ad Boots.
M11t1i. L 1990. "'Conttndo.al TtldltiOM : The Oebllk'OeSau
111. Col011.1al l.odla'" Ill K S~Ap'i loRdS Yald (cds). Rt·
~~ : Uup uii~ C~tHUll""¥.~
ktwy Ruccers Ua•wn•tY Pft:t.t
Mld."t 1916.1he~Mo;UWSII ' A~' Mo¥¢.
fi'ICfllin Mllhli"Mhlra", TIH /ow."MI tJfPN1<4tlll .v.r.d~rJ,
1 (4): "n ."'1.
- 191). "LII\CUcn Women Orpnitc : cas~ S t"tl)' ol 1111
Orpni1111lon Ia Rwrlll A.ndbtl" Mutfu.rhi, J (2) 2J.46
Miller, 0 .8 1914. FNM lf••tutrJv ,_ Srrt~ti}Tt•••Mtt , New
Ddtll : OdonJ U•ivertilly Press.
Om'f'Cida. 0 19'11 "'Womc:n lll'ld ftwMI Re-¥ok in India", flk
w.r-141/ fn.tNtel s.n~dlin, S ()) :.)70. 40J
_ . 1910 ... WiU s..wu.tr A1U p,,_ : r..t.. ~~~..,.
..._,....-w- Ro.tk41t _.K<:pA
....
s-1. E. 19'11
Stoii.C.It9J
Orw~. t..o.doa.
~t.-IDHtl; Jlll : ~qN...t
.......
tfllltrMI-M#O.f4 ..... 0111CJ1lwo-"')'.~ Yot\
Slw'lnL U 1910. ~'"' '"~ urtliPflll"#m' "' l'o'mJif·l'l'J I
Ly••
/NIItr, Lofldoll b\'iJ:IQCt,
Sin&h. Y. 1917. "The Chil\llll.C l)alt:RI or Soc•al Slttllfk:l
lion. ill IJKWa'"in M N Srit~iW$ :tIll. Dimtw~Jmn tlJ $1J•
,'in/ CllllllJtt U.lndijJ , fl wnbay AlliN ll>ubln.hl.• n
S pi¥1k , U. 1985 " Discuuio n Subaltern SHHJiu ·
bcCOMir~lll.l tlistOty" : it1 II. Cuba l~d), .~l1411trfll
Stlldll$, 1'1, NcwOdhi : Oli.IOf(J Ut~ivtrsity Pfet.S
- - · Itt?, "'A U1c-_,.. llc,_-,...,..... or lloc S .....lte"'
M.ahMMt" De,..,.,
Scauda)'i•r WI. ft. Gulla •~•- Swb-
.,ltt,,.Stw6•J· V, New DeU. : O.ront Un.•\~BIIY ~
So•w•. M>l «' at 1962. Guk ,.. ~~~,.,. hwli11 •INI Qflwr
fȴ1J, eo.e.y AMI ~AC!iow5c
Snm.,.., M H ltll 7Jw Clwutz.~tt PuJII- -f /.,._
...,__ttcw Dc-lllll ChJont U.~y r.a.t..
$Ida. 0 1911 """-'t-'.o . . . . S«aec • NonMttw: .._••
tUUCMI" •• ' , ShanN (~). lllllrri.dw.b ~ '*GJ ...
Nnbn~ I,W.., Calc.w:ta · Firma Kl.M P\-1 Lid
S~ptftt.. J 191t '"Pe-mi.iY FicuO•I ; A Cnti!QU( .,-llw C• ·
CJOI")" NOfl WeSiem Womea ia FemintY Wrt~lftJIOI' In•
dia" ill tt Ovlu {cd), SiiiJU/tuiiSr,.m~,. VL N'~w 0.:11\i
:0.-fonl Unlvcnit)' ~
'*
Strcc Shokd Son,Jhotau. 1989. IK-rt' Mul.inx Hut~·
l),ft' SmrltJ I( IW"'""
I" 1/f# Ttl''"~*' P#V1pl#) j'll~tJt,··
gftJ, London : :hd RookJ.
TluoN, S 1989 "'Response 10 Julie Sleph..'tls" l.n R. Cullu
Ced),SIIb.'l lll'r"Stlldrt,J, VI, N- Ddhi : 0-~~:rord Ua iVCJ•
silly Preu
T ur.J, 8 1911 ;~.,,. fiiMI11t# J:-1 t/Qri~lcii•JM. ~
AlldMIIU•.,•