Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies,

Saurashtra University, Rajkot.

Critical note on Gayatri Spivak’s ‘Can the Subaltern Speak ?’

Harsh Vyas
Critical - Theoratical ‘isms’ II , ECT-5(A)
Prof. Henna Muliyana
28th May,2021
In the essay, Can the Subaltern Speak ?, Gayatri Spivak states about the
neglected class and treatise to the process revolving around this class. She starts
introducing her matter of essay, that is taking West (considering them as rulers
or in power) as subject or subjects (those affected -comes under that power) of
West. Further noticeably she points out to the subject-effect thoery to justify the
outcome’s - generalisation made on behalf of those who are affected -
unconsciously biased covering of facts.

Spivak points out the problamatic loopholes; especially that of not recongnizing
the reason behind the ideology and if there is the knowingly attained answer
then it’s non application in practice , being in intellectual and economoic
society. Here a certain course of affairs between power and labour, she knows
very well, cannot be diminished: thus even intelluctually taken considerations
and understandings are also at the verge of being counter attacked.
Marx’s idea, to which however Baudelaire confirms, that central there is the
desire to overthrow the current power in the Other (that ignored/neglected
class). To which Spivak, mentioning Deleuze and Guattari’s definition of
desire, directs the attention to the misconception of taking Desire as not having
fixed subject, by which it may mean that the other class under power does not
possess a consistency of desire towards it’s subject matter.
Spivak correcting that; its not desire that is lacking in subject or subject lacks
desire, but the problem lies in the interest factors. Continuing on that similar
finding relativity with the interest of labour class or as she states ‘Other’ and
comparing it to what we, as not into action, understand or perceive from how it
is represented by intellectuals of society; is what she finds problem with.

The central idea is then not of suppression of that Other class, but the
dellusioned representation given as their voice. For which she rightly quoted
Deleuze, “there is no represenation, but an action” ; to make a point, however it
may be unconscious but, a representation can be two: first as taking place of
(speak for) and second recreate similar as re-presentation. Therefore having or
being an ‘action’ as only existent (not the represented), the help done by
intellectuals of giving sound to Other class; are themselves not for the fact in
action of suffering and hard working, where on the other side not being in
action here leaves them only on the other side of rulers or the power who can
speak.
So, the question is raised upon rather the system, why only one of that system:
when it is said one of them (in power) means not the intellectuals as having
intention of the same as those political power, although the intellectuals brought
up into that same. For this case which we can label as instance of not being one
of suppressed or not having experience of that life, cannot be able to speak of
‘Other’ (which he/she never went into) side.
Despite of all the reality, it is still the typically old. That’s the reason why
Spivak feels that unknowingly or knowingly (for labour class and for whom its
represented) the gaps of faults are being filled ignoring “to establish the
condition where prisoners themselves would be able to speak” (Deleuze).

She uses further the words Vetreten for that represented and Darstellen for that
re-presented. Somewhere finding it confusing to differentiate between, however
was needed, I personally feel of seperating it from it’s heterogeneous existence
to be not misinterpreted. Possibly Vetreten take notes of ‘taking place of’ for
Other, justifying and maintaining it’s tune with that of his/her own present life
(that being spent in -which is & was- never Other). And Darsellen by the mean
of portraying or displaying only.

In essay it is also compared with Feminist Criticism. That the ‘Figure’ of

Woman : Autonomously made as not giving attribution but the attribution or the
present characterstic aroused by crisis is itself the innate nature, which ofcourse
isn’t. Before this lines come in the theorizing idea, it is already stated previously
in this same essay that “a reproduction of labout requires (also) its submission
to ruling ideology of the workers and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate
the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so
that they, too, will provide for the domination of ruling class” (Althusser).
It says all about our roles, no matter what we play, that we to be into the melody
of action in present, turn ourself (not willingly) in starting or be already as one
of that supposedly character -which is manipulated from its root- to play the
role. And it becomes autonomous that we never realising about our behaviour as
not itself ours, believe to be the one we were from inner, unconsciously
accepting what we are told we are.

Concluding all, it is clearly visible that even in current period of time Subaltern
cannot speak, and need of representative is somehow now at the root which
most of time binds themselves from speaking about own, which is represented
by intellectuals as Other. This dogma of never letting the voice come out of
those whose ‘concrete experiences’ can speak by the mean of presentation
instead of representing it, is convincigly dealt and discussed upon.

Adding on at last, the only limitation I realised; or possibly thought of as not

necessary -avoided giving further explanation to it. That interest of class is for
sure deconstructed very well, but somewhere or the other for every class, except
the one in power, interests rely upon the desire they have for the progress. Now,
‘The’ interests are only which leads any human forward; level of satisfactory
would be different but as it is stated in essay itself ‘being deceived’ is nature of
no desire/interest, and thus we always, even realising about our exploitation,
somehow, have to stay in the same position. Keeping our interest higher than
choosing no approximity of receiving it, is the main issue. That’s why -not
having or neglected interest of the Other class is not true- true only if compared
with interest of those who are in power. It was stated here by Spivak that not
having unity, similarity of power’s interest and labour’s interest, keeps all
labours’ interest aside, making them to unite of amongst those thrown.
Till then it was appropriate at the best, to add after process behind; those unity
amongst people of Other class is not concious, its just saperately casted out
people who having no where to go becomes a class, conciously though having
their separate level of satisfactory.
Only by this reason I firmly believe every individiual speaks for self often, not
heard though, because all are speaking only when ‘One’s self’ level of
satisfaction has been not fulfilled. And speaking along a person himself/herself
become Other from that Other class, as others are watching until and unless they
are not exploited on their level.
That’s where the biggest loophole gives space for intellectuals to represent or
re-present (as they are never without power, if not in power) the neglected class,
it is needed unless those people do not realise of ‘speaking for’ their own
people; not just seeing one speaking against.

Bibliography :

1. Spivak, Gayatri. Can the Subaltern Speak ?. Epub ed.