I think that Spivak`s text is a very interesting reading of the work that have been doing by the subaltern group studies. In a very “polite” tone, is proposing to change the focus of this kind of studies. Turn them from exposing the “Indian” and “objective” point of view, to use the theoretical tool of the deconstruction. Spivak quote often the text of Guha to show in which way the Indian historian is reproducing the same critic that he makes to British historians. Guha speaks about the self-consciousness of the peasant rebels something that is very related, according to Spivak, with the Marxism. According to Spivak, Guha`s ideas would lead to a “inevitably objectify of the subaltern and be caught in the game of knowledge and power” (207). This means that whilu you try to show “what actually happened” from the “Indians point of view” you are sentencing to the subaltern to be a saturated category.
It is at this point where appear one of the main issues of the “subaltern studies”. What is the relation of the subaltern studies with the subaltern? This is the relation of the observer with the observed. And that, in the end, is one the biggest issues in this kind of theoretical discussions. Because we know that the group of subaltern studies are not the peasants rebels of the XIX century, not just for being “Indians” you became “the voice” of what was muted by the Empire. And this is very interesting when Spivak talks about the case of women. The concept “subaltern” has, in some way, the same characteristic than the concept of “class”. Many things can be in. And just a few can be out. So, the notion of “subaltern” it is not actually a very specific category. It is defined by the opposition with the “hegemonic” group. Hence, distinctions like gender, race and ethnicity are hard to manage under this big name of “the subaltern”.
I have the same doubts about the Subaltern Studies. Could the subaltern be represented by the subaltern studies group? It seems like the subaltern don’t even have the chance to express their feelings and opinions by themselves. Then the subaltern studies group tried to be the impartial one in the reread of historiography. The perspective of authors or historians should always be an essential element for us to consider in the study of literary and cultural theory. However, if the subjectivity of authors is always suspicious to us, is there any discourse or narrative that is not partial in our life? The notion of “subaltern” is also extensive, that’s a prerequisite for Spivak, from a viewpoint of deconstruction, to bring forward arguments that are related to Marxism and feminism.
I agree in the sense that I do not see the originality in the term “subaltern”. You are right that it is only defined in opposition to the dominant discourse. I am unsure what is the main objective of subaltern studies. Voice is still not given to the subaltern (as you mention Ariel) but your question is very interesting. It is very difficult to eliminate subjectivity or the perspective of authors, so I do not believe that there exists impartial discourses or narratives. But of course, then this becomes problematic because if we are always skeptical of who is speaking, then no real perspective regarding cultural/literary theory can be developed. If according to Spivak, you cannot actually try to explain what really happened from the Indians’ point of view and by speaking from the British perspective this also does not give a true account, then who can speak? It is quite frustrating.
Who can speak? Well, it seems to me that Spivak is asking who is representing whom, and how are they doing it? She is not arguing that the subaltern cannot speak but that it is important to recognize that this speaking comes from many places including from within dominant discourse. So an indigenous Nigerian writer will appropriate the language of the colonizer, and certain things that go with it, to resist oppression. The female, lesbian, Nigerian voice, for example, can be heard as constructed from many positions: oppressed within a patriarchal community, within a straight community, and a marginalized colonial community.