At Subaltern Studies, Kishore Buddha responding to Daipayan’s series of posts (we had linked to one of them earlier) on subalternity in India, offers his views on why Dalits cannot speak as long as they use religion as a basis for social formation:
Linked by kuffir. Join Blogbharti facebook group.Here I would like to turn to Gayatri Spivak, who informs us of the peculiar problematic of a logocentric assumption of cultural solidarity among heterogenous people. She had also asked in a manner only expected of a critical thinker: “Can the subaltern speak?”. These two assertions by Spivak help us understand why the Dalit woman expressed those words. Rakesh Sharma’s documentary Chet’ta Rejo further buttresses this point. The film, based on two years of research, looks specifically at the patterns of arrests and litigation since 2002 in Gujarat. A majority of those charged with rioting, arson, murder etc are either tribals or Dalits and OBCs (for more read full report here). While Deep rightly locates the problematic in the Brahminical order, which “othered” the woman into being a Dalit in the first place, he misses an opportunity to point at the elephant in the room, i.e., the subaltern cannot speak!
Thanks for this link. Very interesting points made by writer. I enjoyed the other writers’ pieces as well.
What the writer has ‘articulated couching himself under the superstructure of the logocentrism of bourgeoise construction of sociological theory and subaltern studies is instructional in its hegemonic approach obfuscating the radical and transformative message which, might probably be abstracted somewhere (most probably as a function of pendulum swinging precariously within the conflicting area of modern and post-modern thought) deep within the layered interstices of this pure unadulterated bull-shit of a discourse.’
Sorry to be so blunt Kuffir. But I feel strongly about such jargonish obtuse writing which fails miserably in conveying its underlying theme. What is more irksome is the standard response to such an objection is the limitation of words to capture the reality that the author is trying to ‘encapsulate.’ It makes a person who is genuinely interested in participating in such a discourse queasy and sceptical about the motives and intellectual rigour of the writer. One then is forced to consider that the fraud uncovered by the Sokal affair may not be such an exceptional case after all.
Anyways, I take that back. I am not suggesting that the author does not have a point or that he is using jargon to fill a void brought on by bankruptcy of ideas. However, what is the point of cloaking the discourse in such unecessarily dense phrases when the same can be said in plain simple clear English understandable to everyone.
Seriously!
pankaj,
you’re welcome.
chetan,
share your frustration to an extent. :) perhaps, the writer feels the subject is too complex to be explained ia a more simple manner.
Some things *are* too complex for simple language. which is why studying the Spivak essay the writer alludes to is one of the most head-clutchingly frustrating experiences I ever has in college.
But honestly, to keep on and on (and on!)theorising about how the subaltern cannot speak? It’s counterproductive. Why not shut up and give them a chance to speak for once?
aishwarya,
yes :)
that was incomplete- every age finds its own earmuffs, i guess.
Sorry not relevant to the link. ( I did not read it for personal reasons: anything below font 10 or in another case, aesthetics like white letters on black template are beyond my taste, sorry)
Here is a sincere question I have been meaning to ask you folks; by putting up a link here do you endorse or associate with the views of the writer? I really cant figure, if it is so, because this sort of linking is fairly new in my online experience, and recently I have seen the hopeless exchange of banalities ( that’s Naipaul btw) as a result of one such mediocre effort. (not here).
I am bit baffled and would appreciate some explanation of the prevalent custom here or in general ? I ask because it is a bit baffling to see the comment feels he needs to explain himself to the person who has linked and has been offered possible explanations.
Thanks.
Kuffir - My friend Isheeta on reading this thread replied with “The subaltern cannot speak because Spivak has the mic”. :)
Sunil - I can only speak for myself, and I generally link to posts I agree with (because I’m immature and generally only like posts I agree with) but it’s certainly not a policy, and I know that the other contributors have linked to posts they didn’t wholly endorse but found interesting.
Plus, of course, Blogbharti has multiple contributors, and we don’t all agree on everything.
Liking, endorsing, agreeing are all different things with considerable overlap. But thank you very much, things are better understood for me.
cheers
I am slightly confused by the discussion here. Kuffir has merely linked to an article and it is being met with protest, which results in indignation and contempt of a few comment posters. The debate dangerously borders on censorshop (which is ironical for a site whose main purpose is to provide links to content from the wider world — when I say it in simple words it lacks the depth and abstraction that academic writing does). Then it borders on contempt for the writing and the writer. One person is dismissive of the piece simply because of its font size (sunil, with a few clicks of the mouse you can increase the font size — and you are peddling untruths — for example, that the article text is white color over a black background).
First of all the writer has written something in his own space on the web. So your attempts to “silence” his voice perhaps are ironical.
the writer cites Spivak only in one paragraph and then goes on to explain it in fairly simple terms. the rustic anti-academic charm some posters throw is interesting. one instructs kishore buddha to shut up and let the subaltern speak. if only she had bothered to read the article:
“This will require coming up with an alternative view to their self. I am in no position to articulate it for them. All we elites and privileged can do is help them locate their voice, instead of speaking for them.”
another comment poster is exasperated why the subaltern argument is being hammered over and over again. my response to that would be — why don’t we stop teaching/talking about all those concepts that are fairly well known. this is a fairly silly position to take (at the least) and dangerous (in the extreme).
academic language is obtuse, yes. but only to those who do not understand (or will not care to understand). it is powerful and evocative and says a lot more than what can be expressed in lay language. i think you are missing another point — the person writing the article is an academic, what do you expect of the person. the site clearly states it is an academic blog. france, germany have produced great philosophers and thinkers in the modern times because the ordinary public rises above the lay and ordinary to understand them.
chetan, thanks for bringing up the sokal affair. if academic writing should be taken with large doses of salt, how about we extrapolate the logic of that to the content on the web. we all know that the shallowness of a lot of content on teh web (especially teh comments that follow!) is fairly axiomatic. so shall we be dismissive of your comments? i find such arguments being nothing more than using isolated cases (which can be generalised) to apply them in other places. no, your comments have to be understood and given the respect it deserves. it is only after a careful scrutiny and analysis can we come to a conclusion that it is not worth a paisa.
i suspect a more dangerous underlying human tendency at work beneath those reactions.
@makemywish:
I am speaking only for myself. I will let Aishwarya and Sunil defend their own views.
I wrote my comment on Blogbharti and not on the Subaltern blog. As such whether the subaltern blog is meant for academic writing is a moot point. (The other articles there have not been written in such an abstract language). Blogbharti, however, is clearly not meant for academics. Even though the purpose of Blogbharti is giving space/voice to diversity of opinions, if the articles linked through here cannot be understood by the readers of blogbharti or the issue underlying that article is getting dominated by unnecessarily dense prose, then I, as a reader, reserve a right to complain. How does it amount to calling for censorship? Do you want readers to be cowed down and not express any opinion they have about articles linked through blogbharti because someone like you thinks it amounts to ’silencing’ voices?
Academic writing need not be that dense, unless the academics want to form a coterie of their own without wanting any outside scrutiny. Look at today’s economic writing. They have reached billions through their ideas clearly expressed in layman’s terms. They too could have expressed their ideas using marginal utility and other such academic jargon. Yet they thought that that would be to the exclusion of millions who have not studied the discipline. They didn’t act as if the general public owed them enough to study economics in order to have any discussion with them.
If you are concerned about diversity, I think you are supporting an exclusionary idea that disallows people genuinely interested in participating in a sociological discourse, thus dissuading a diversity of opinions from studying and discussing the idea.
france, germany have produced great philosophers and thinkers in the modern times because the ordinary public rises above the lay and ordinary to understand them.
This is clear condescension on your part and I cannot go without condemning it even though that makes me sound petty. You are clearly suggesting that what the writers write in dense prose is above the ‘ordinary’ and ‘lay’ writings. Remember, nobody owes the writers anything. You just have to look at the comments on the article on the subaltern blog to understand that the writing style has dissuaded any comments on the content of the article. The same is the case with comments here. I am sure Aishwarya, Sunil, me and Kuffir would have been more than happy to discuss the themes and ideas expressed there and perhaps would have added a little value to the discussion had the article been written in an accessible language.
I think this is valid criticism, certainly not amounting to censorship.
chetan: to conflate the discourse of humanities/sociology/political theory and economics is rather specious to say the least! all the “accessible” economics writing has done nothing to ameliorate the problems caused by capital. instead it has largely obfuscated the issue. the lay person has no understanding of economics. you overvalue your own analysis. are you saying i can stop the average person on teh street (the educated class) and ask them about economic issues and they will be able to explain it to me.
i read and reread the article and it is fairly simple in its language. there is only one paragraph, which makes a reference to spivak. those are not even the writers’ words. i am not even sure you have read the article.
when you say you did not participate in the discussion on the writers’ site, are you implying that your participation is important and necessary? isn’t this ironically an elitist position (even though it is couched in “i am a simple proletariat” attitude that your discourse espouses.
i think this discussion will lead us nowhere as your position is fairly entrenched. i found the article thanks to blogbharti and benefited from the article.
all the “accessible” economics writing has done nothing to ameliorate the problems caused by capital.
And pray tell me what has all the inaccessible “humanities/sociology/political theory” done to ameliorate those problems?
are you saying i can stop the average person on teh street (the educated class) and ask them about economic issues and they will be able to explain it to me.
An average person who reads any blogs related to economics will surely will able to explain it to you, unlike an average person reading dense obtuse prose wielded to explain sociological phenomena which can be and has been (read Ashis Nandy among the subaltern scholars) easily explained in plain and clear language.
there is only one paragraph, which makes a reference to spivak. those are not even the writers’ words. i am not even sure you have read the article.
I am not sure you read my comment. I have no problems with him quoting Spivak, maybe Aishwarya has a problem but I don’t. In fact, “Can the subaltern speak?” is the only quote by Spivak in the article and I might add it is clear in what she is saying as opposed to the preamble to the quote written by the writer. So, now should I cast aspersions regarding whether or not you have actually read the article when you say that dense words in the paragraph mentioning Spivak are not the writer’s own?
I am glad you benefitted from reading the article. I did not, and thought that I would have had benefitted had the article been written in a more approachable prose. Therefore I expressed my frustration. I don’t see why you should be bothered and have a problem with that.
I am surprised that my dissatisfaction about not being able to participate in a discussion that is close to my heart leads you to call me elitist while you defend writing in exclusionary prose that going by the reaction here isn’t to the liking of many readers. And yes, a capitalist elitist pig that I am, feel that my participation is as important and necessary as the participation of elite academics who claim to speak on society’s behalf in a language that excludes the general society from accessing/analysing/critcising their writing.
Wow. Yet another not again moment for me. But hey! I’m always glad to explain my position.
Basics :There is no room for dismissing a piece I haven’t considered at all. Unlike you, who asks me to increase the font size , I have neither asked the linker not to link to such write-ups nor requested the readers not to read such posts.
I have given the reasons behind why I have not considered reading this piece ( any piece as a matter of fact) as an explanation for my irrelevance to the folks who run this place out of social courtesy. I have not requested anyone to share my values or disavow their own.
But in fact puzzlingly, It is YOU who request me to increase the font with a few clicks, which is like asking to use a magnifying glass to read a fine print.
Ha Ha Now, I wish I was peddling untruths (what a phrase ! what a phrase!; I have said, in another case; which is not the precious piece in question ( alright?). Again it is put as a courtesy to explain the irrelevance of my comment, which later goes on to request to clarify the custom here, just to erase my ignorance on such matters. Which, as you can see has been elaborated in subsequent comments.
So sorry to disappoint , no conspiracy here!
But since you ask me grant your wish , the only relevant thing I can share in the context, is Spivak is like a Dyanora telly. Quite eighties. That’s all I can say I’m afraid.
The rest of your comment of course, is not my concern.
Regards
Sunil
Another potential succumbs to mediocrity! Way to go Chetan!