From: Khairul Haque Chowdhury <khc03-AT-uow.edu.au>
Subject: Re: subaltern
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:08:33 +1000 (EST)


Goldie,

Even the ex-oppressed cannot speak for the oppressed, as all the 
discourses are monopolised by the oppressor.  When an ex-oppressed tries 
to represent the oppressed, s/he is doing so in oppressor's terms.  
Nothing but misrepresentation follows, as a result Subaltern will never 
be able to speak.



Khairul Chowdhury

English Studies

University of Wollongong

E-mail: khc03-AT-uow.edu.au


> Even in Gramsci the position of the subaltern is confusing (if anyone has
> read it in Italian it might work better). The subaltern in military terms
> is as junior as you can get and still have officer authority. But the OED
> will tell you that "subaltern" once was a reasonably common word for
> inferior. Still, the problem in Spivak does relate to the general
> difficulty of the oppressed speaking out. The recent posting from Said
> about the fatcat members of the Palestinian Authority is a typical comment
> made on those who outsiders see as the oppressed who can speak but who the
> oppressed say are no longer really oppressed. Well-paid union execs,
> persons of colour who are university professors, etc., etc. It is only if
> you see "oppression-identity" as an essence, one with goes with colour,
> gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., etc., regardless of social
> and economic status, that you can say the oppressed can speak. Otherwise,
> someone else, perhaps someone who was oppressed yesterday, is speaking for
> the oppressed.
> terry
> 
> Terry Goldie
> English Department
> York University
> North York, Ontario
> Canada
> M3J 1P3
> voice: 416-604-3670
> fax: 416-736-5412
> email: tgoldie-AT-yorku.ca
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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