From: NADEEM OMAR <AJXNOT-AT-ccn4.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>
Date:          Sat, 3 Feb 1996 16:11:03 GMT0BST
Subject:       Re: subalterns


Hi Raka!

YOU wrote: 

> I recall Spivak arguing somewhere (can't remember which of her 
numerous
> pieces) that  the moment the subaltern begins to be "heard", she/he
> ceases to be subaltern. 

Perhaps you remember, among others, the following bits.
"...It is disingenuous, however to forget that ,as the collectivities 
implied by the second group of noun start participating in the 
production of knowledge about themselves, they must have a certain 
share in some of privileges that contaminate the first group.(....)
Therefore Gramsci speak of the subaltern's rise into hedgemony.... 
..One of the assumption of the subalternsit work:that the subaltern's 
own idiom didnot allow him to know his struggle so that he could 
articulate himself as its subject" (In Other Worlds. p253.)

Now what conclusions are to be drawn tentalively.
When subaltern produce knowledge about themselves, there `ontological 
purtiy' and `marginalised purism' cannot sustain itself. They become 
as "contaminated" as the oppressor and "rise into hedgemnony".Thus,
her conclusion:"subaltern's own idiom" cannot allow him to "know" 
herself "as its subject". 
If so,
The question is why her idiom doesnot allow??
Either there are no epistemological tools availible or it is a 
theoretical impossibility. What do you think

Because, when you say

>which is why it is not only a question
> of "Can the subaltern speak?" but more important, "If she spoke, would
> she be heard?"

You assume that she can speak in idiom, guess which one is that "her 
own" or .....?

N.Omar





     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---