Q. Discuss how Spivak connects colonialism, patriarchy, and the structures of power to the subaltern’s marginalization. How does ideology shape the way subaltern voices are heard, or not heard, in both colonial and postcolonial contexts?
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” addresses the relationship between colonialism, patriarchy, and power structures.
She shows how these forces combine to silence subaltern voices. Her argument emphasizes that the subaltern, particularly in colonial and postcolonial contexts, is marginalized not only by colonial power but also by the gendered dimensions of patriarchy.
This intersection of colonialism and patriarchy is central to Spivak’s analysis of how ideology shapes the way subaltern voices are either suppressed or misrepresented.
Suppression of Subaltern Voices
Spivak begins by explaining what she means by the term “subaltern.” In general, the subaltern refers to individuals or groups that are socially, politically, and economically oppressed.
These are people who exist outside of the dominant power structures. They have little access to resources or influence. They are often marginalized or silenced by those in power.
Spivak’s use of the word extends beyond just the economically disadvantaged. She applies it to any group that is systematically excluded from having a voice or participating in mainstream discourse.
Spivak critiques the colonial experience. She argues that colonialism was not just a political and economic system. It also created a structure of knowledge that categorized and excluded certain voices. In this system, the colonized people were often seen as incapable of speaking for themselves.
Western intellectuals, colonial administrators, and even missionaries represented the “native” as silent, primitivé, or in need of guidance.
This marginalization involved more than political and economic subjugation. It also involved control of knowledge. Colonial powers established educational and social systems that defined what was considered rational or civilizéd.
They ignored or distorted the voices of the colonized. They filtered their experiences through the lens of European superiority. This created a double silencing: the subalterns could not speak, and their histories and cultures were erased or reinterpreted in ways that justified colonial domination.
Spivak argues that the subaltern cannot speak because the very systems that define what constitutes knowledge and power are constructed in ways that exclude their voices.
She refers to this process as “epistemic violence.” Colonialism imposed its own framework of meaning and reduced the subaltern to silence.
Therefore, the colonial system not only oppressed subalterns in a material sense but also oppressed them in a symbolic one by denying them the power to represent themselves.
The Role of Patriarchy
Patriarchy also plays a key role in compounding the subaltern’s marginalization. Spivak uses the example of the practice of sati (widow burning) in India to illustrate how colonial and patriarchal structures silence women.
Colonial powers, particularly the British, saw sati as an example of the barbarism of Indian culture. They presented themselves as the enlightened saviours of the oppressed woman.
However, in this narrative, the woman subjected to sati never got a voice. The colonial government claimed they were protecting these women, but they never asked the women what they wanted or needed.
Spivak argues that while the British were eager to “save” Indian women from practices they deemed oppressive, they did so by reinforcing their own power and dominance.
Double Oppression of Women
This highlights how patriarchy operates within colonial power structures. Even though the British claimed to act in the interests of Indian women, their intervention aimed to maintain control over the colonized population.
In this context, the women themselves were silenced. Their voices were ignored, and they were viewed only through the lens of the values of the colonial powers.
The combination of colonialism and patriarchy, Spivak suggests, creates a situation where women, especially those from colonized and marginalized groups, face double oppression.
They are subject not only to the violence of colonial rule but also to the patriarchal systems that control their lives within their own cultures. In this way, the ideology of both colonialism and patriarchy work together to silence the subaltern, particularly women.
The Role of Ideology
As Spivak argues, ideology plays a crucial role in silencing the subaltern in both colonial and postcolonial contexts. Ideology refers to the beliefs and values that shape how people understand the world and their place in it.
In colonial contexts, the ideology of Western superiority and civilization justified the subjugation of entire peoples. Colonized subjects were often depicted as “savagé,” “primitivè,” or “irrational.”
Their cultures were dismissed as inferior. This ideological framework excluded the possibility of these people having valuable knowledge or a legitimate voice in matters of governance, culture, and society.
In the postcolonial world, these ideologies do not disappear. While formal colonial rule may have ended, the colonial mindset persists in various ways.
The dominant Western narratives about progress, civilization, and rationality continue to shape how the voices of marginalized people are heard (or not heard).
In postcolonial societies, the subaltern still struggles to be heard within systems of education, law, and governance shaped by colonial ideologies.
Spivak critiques how intellectuals, activists, and even feminists often replicate colonial ideologies when trying to speak for the subaltern. She points out that even when people try to represent the interests of marginalized groups, they usually do so from their own position of privilege.
For example, Western feminists may attempt to speak for women in the Global South. However, in doing so, they may not understand the specific cultural, social, and political contexts that shape these women’s experiences.
This can lead to misrepresentations and silence the voices of these women, as outsiders once again shape their perspectives.
The Limits of Representation
One key point Spivak makes in her essay is that even when the subaltern speaks, others often do not hear their voices in the way they intended. The structures of power in colonial and postcolonial contexts filter and distort subaltern voices.
This is particularly evident when subalterns attempt to resist or protest against oppression. Their actions are often co-opted or misunderstood by the dominant powers, who frame them within their own ideological framework.
For instance, in the case of sati, while the British colonialists may have seen themselves as rescuing women from a harmful practice, they failed to understand the full social, cultural, and religious significance of the practice for the women involved.
Similarly, feminist movements in the West may try to represent the struggles of women in the Global South but often fail to listen to their specific concerns or acknowledge the broader socio-political conditions they face.
Spivak’s analysis of colonialism, patriarchy, and power structures shows that the subaltern’s marginalization is not simply a result of oppression.
It also results from the ideologies that shape how oppression is understood. Colonial and patriarchal systems are intertwined.
