You are on page 1of 23
40 Can the Subaltern Speak? Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Some ofthe most adil ericsn coming out of he Wes today she rsa of intereted deseo conserve the subject ofthe Wex, or the West ax Subject. The theory of plied ‘subjects ives, an isin of undermining subjective sovereign whl often providing a cover for this abject of knowledge. Although the hatry af Earope ts Stes narativaed bythe lw, plies economy and ology of the Wes, this concealed Subject petnds it har no. go plitial deerminations. The much-pblcizedertigue ofthe sovereign subjects aeaally Inaugurates a Sajec Iwill rue for this conlusion by considering ext by (#0 ‘eat practsonesof he cago elects and power convertion betwen ‘Michel Foucault and Giles Deleze" have chose this fsendly exchange between two activi philosophers of istry because undoes the oppesition berween authoritative theoretical production and the unguarded peacice of contersstion, enang one to gmp the track of ideology. The pattcpents in thu comertation enphasze the mot important Contebutions of French possrecuralst thers Ast, chat he etworks of Powerldeelineaest age so beteogeneens, cht thet reduction to cere ative counterprodcive = 4 persent ciqe needed; and second, tat Inelecrnis ma stm 0 disclose and know the scours of oes Other. Yet the wo sytematal gore che question of Healogy and ther own implication it Intdlcual and economic ry. “Although one of sche presupostions i the criqu ofthe sovereign subject, the comerstion between Fowcele and Deleuze fxined by two monic snd From Neon and L, Graber ats), Maso and the Inerpratation of Cale, (Com theSubtrm Speok? ° snooymous subjecteintevoltion: °A Maoist? (FD,"p. 205) and ‘the worker’ struggle’ (FD, p.217).Inellecals, however, are named and diferentes, rocever& Chinese Mom e nowhere operative. Maovam here sil? este {ire of narrative spec, which would be a haan sbetorcal baal were ‘ot thatthe innocent appropriation of che proper ame ‘Maoism foe the exert ‘Phenomenon af French ialectual ‘Maoign” and subeequen ‘New Philosophy” Sympomatcly venders ‘As’ anparen= ‘Deleuze’ reference othe workers supe ally problematic obviously s genalesion: "We ae unable to touch [power in any poine of aplication ‘ekthout ining ours confronted by this diane mas, at we ae neces Ted. tothe denier Blow i up completely. Every paral revolutionary attack of (ic skein this way tothe worker stg’ (FD, p. 217). The apparent Inaliy signal snow. The statement ignores the tematonsl dvon of Tabor, gesture tha alen mae poreracrai policaltheory.* The iyocation ofthe worker ug ble nt very innocence; tis ineapabe of dealing with ‘label espa: the subjec production of worker and Unemployed within ation ate idgogie nts Center; the increasing wiberaction ofthe working asin he Pesiphery fom the realization of sup ale and thus fom: humanistic’ tein ‘in consmeram; and he lrgeacle presence of pareaptalis abor aswell as he heerogeneous seraciral ster of agriclue ia the Peiphery. Ignoring he ‘erermational division of labor) rendering “Asa (and on ‘occasion “Aiea ‘tanoparet (anesthe subject ontenibly the Third Word’; reaching the legal sje of sociaoad capital ~ shee are probleme at common #9 much pposstracurlt ab to suactaralst theory. Why should such occasions be ction in presiely howe intelectual who are our bet ropes of keterogeneey ‘nd the Other? "Te ink othe workers’ sagt is ocaed in the deste wo blow up pomer at any ‘pola oft appistion. Thi eis apparent based on «imple alorzaton of Bois dotrecive of ony power. Waker Benjamin comments on Bauddlres ‘omparshe pole by way of quotasons fom Marx Marc ainsi eden ofthe comptes de profenion aos ‘Tey have oer sin but the imine one of ovetbrowng he cing vce, they proton den the soe eta ngheosf he Stoker thee car eres Thor age ~ ot olan Bt plein ~ at ‘Ee baits ma (bck cous) he ore of es ected Fpl who repeat {teeta se of te moveot snd of whom they cn ever Keane eel Indeed, they cin of te ll rpracnnres [Reprienatr)o he Bury: Bal’ pola tg andamenaly beyond he nt of ‘hse penal ont, He cold pehaprhave me Pubes stem, “Ol of plc waded Sy one sing: the ea, soa ‘Thelin tothe workers sage i oat simalin dese, Elsewhere, Deewze and Gnatan have atempted am alernatve detnition of dire, roving the one « Cpe Chatrevorty Soa ofeced by prychosnalysi ‘Desir doesnot lack anything t doc ot ack its bjs. Tes, eather, the subject tha i Inking desire, dese that lake ved salt, there no xed sobjecexcepe by represion. Des and it objet are aunt ‘she machine, ab 2 machine of a machine. Dei i macine, the object of desite ‘koa conected machine, so thatthe products ie from the proces of prong {and something detaches sel fem producing to prodace and pers lover the ‘agabond, nomad subjec.™ “This deinion doesnot aker the spect ofthe desiring subject (or lever subjects that attaches 9 specie tancer of deste or fo eodution ofthe essing machine, Moreover, when the conection between desire andthe subject is taken as relvant or merely severed, the mbjecelec that mcepioly tera is much ike the generalized slealogial subj ofthe theorist This may De the legal subject of soiled cpial, nether labor nor management, holng = “aron’ passport, sng a strong’ or hast curency, with supposedly unquestioned cers 16 de proces. eis ceraaly aot dhe desing subject as Oe. “The failure of Delewe and Gastar to consider the tlaons beeen deste, power and subjectivity endes them incapable of arculating a theory of interest In this cone, ther ndference ro eoony (a theory of which i necessary fr a snderanding of interes) aking bat consent. Fowl commitment #0 “genealogical specelation prevent him rom lating, nea nares ike Marx nd ‘Rend, watenheds in some continous teat of ilectual hao." This ommitzent hat created an unforanane rextance ia Foucasts work to ‘ete lcogial risque. Wesem speclatins a the ideological eproducton of soil ‘elton: belong to that mainstream, and iis within thi radon that Ahir ‘ents The eprdaction of Iabour power ruses no ely reprodacon of Sills, bu alsa atthe same tne, a rependuction of ts sulsiion To the Puing ideology forthe workes, and reproduction ofthe ability to manipulate the ung ‘deology correc forthe agent of exploitation and repesion, 20 that ther 00, ‘wil pope for the dominion of the rang dans an-and by words” [par lo parce ‘When Foucault considers the pervasive heterogeneity of ower, he dacs mo ignore the immense insicuional heropeniy that Ahuse hte atempts Co hema Sima, in speaking of alances and systems of sgn, the sate and War machines (ile plea), Deleae and Gustar are opening vp that very ld. Foacaut innot, however, admit that a developed theory of sdclogy recognizes ite Wn ‘teal production nnsttionslty, a well ain the ‘lie instrament or the formation and scumastion of knowledge (PK, p 102), Bese these pilospbers ser obliged co sec all arguments naming the concept of ideology 25, only schematic rather than textual they are equally obliged to produce a mechanically Schematic oppostion beeen attest and dese. Thus they align themselves with ‘urges acologie who Sil the place of ideology with acontinnic"uncomscious ‘or partubjocine cure’. The mechanical elation between dese and interest 5 ‘Sear h och sentences at: "We never dee against ou ines, becuse iceres® “ways follows and fads elf where deste har placed if (FD, p- 215). Aa Can the Subaltrn Speak? ° unierenited desiree the agent, and power ips in ete the effets of desi: "power. produces pose elects at the level of desire ~ and alo atthe evel of Sowldge (PK, p39) "Thr paraobeve mtx, cosehatched wth heteropeniy, where in he snared Subjes, at lett fr door intellectual worker tloeed bythe new Iegemony of dete. The race for the la instance now bween economics snd power, Because deze is tacily dened on an orthodox model, i is unitary ‘ppoed eo ‘eng dese’. Ideology as alse consciousness being deceive) has ‘been called into question by Athsser. Even Rech implied noions a alec wll ‘her than adchotomy of deception and undeceived dese "We moe seep te terean of Reichs no, ee mame werent dosed petal omens thy ‘ctully dese a fascist ege’ (FD, p. 213). “These philosophers will nor eters the thought of conse comeadiction ~ thats where they addy part company fom the Left Ta the name of deste, they rentodace the undivided subject int the discourse of power. Foucault often Secrns ro conflate indvidal and sujet and the impact on is own metaphors is peshpsinensid in his lowers Becase ofthe power of the word power, Fouexule admits to using the metaphor o he pone which progresses isservoundlg. Soc ips become the ule rater than the exrpion nes eta hands And tht radiating pin, animating an efecively helices dcouree, lt the empy place ofthe agent with the hisoncal nan of theory, the Subject of Europe’ opcault articulates another cotllary ofthe disavow of she sole of dst in repredcing the soa relations of prdetion an unquestioned valorization ofthe ‘ppraed a subjey,he ‘objec beng, ax Deere admiigly emarks, to eablah ‘ondone where the prisoners themacves would beable to epea’. Foucault adds thatthe masesAnow peetectly wel, cea” ~ once again the thematic of beng tndeceived~ they know far beer than (che imtlletual and they ceil say sey well (RD, pp. 206,207). ‘Wha happens tothe tie ofthe sovercgn subject in dese pronouncements? The limits of this representational realism are Yeathed with Deeaze: ‘Realty i wha acualy happens in factory, na school, i barracks, in 2 prison ina poi Seton’ (FD, p.212). This forcing of the necessity ofthe dca task of ‘oumterhegenonic ideological producto fas ot been slay. It hs beiped ost erpancin ~ he using foundation of advanced eats: econ Po define ts own tens as'anereteexpeiena’, What actualy happens’ Idee, the concrete expeice that i the guarantor ofthe plical appeal of poisons, {oldie and schoolchildren i Gislosed through the conercte experince Of the Inclleual, the one who diagnoses the epsteme." Neither Deleuze nor Foucault scm awere thatthe iclleraal within socialized capa, brandishing concrete ‘operons, can help consolidate the international dvion of labor "The unfcognzed conadicion within » position that valrzes che concrete ‘experience of the oppreted, wie being vo weil about she historia role of the {nella ismsitined by a verbal dippage. Thus Deleuze makes this remarkable » epee Otro Se pronouncement: theory slike a box of tools. Nothing to do with dhe signe? (FD, p. 208) Considering thatthe veralsm ofthe theoretical world ands access ‘any world dened agar 3 ‘pracacal reducible, such = delarstion helps ‘nly he ltaletualasous o prove that nll labo jus ike anal labor Ieinvwhen sipiers ar lef ook afer hemesies hat verbal sippages hep ‘The signer sepresetason” ss a eae im point Inthe same diminre tone that Severs theory's link wo the signer, Deleuze declares, There is no mae ‘epresenations the’ nothing But aon! ~ ion of theory and ction of practice ‘which relate co each oser a5 relays and form nesworks (FD, pp. 206-7) Yet a imporeant point is being made here the production of theory is lo practice; the ‘opposition between absrac pure theory and conte ‘applied practice 00 quick inden. "i i indeed, Dees’ argument, hit arclaton of i problematic. Two sense of representation are Being run together representation at speaking fo’ 36 ‘n politics, and rpreseration as sepresentation, at im art or philosophy. Since theory isso on ‘action, the theoretiian does noe represent (peak for) the ‘oppressed proup Indeed, the subjects not sen representative conscousess {one representing ely adequately), These wo sense of representation = within seme formation andthe law, onthe one hand, and in webeepreition, onthe ther ~ are related but wreduablydsconinuous. To cover ovr the dscontnty Witham analogy that i presented as a proot recs apa 4 patadoxcl subject ‘etlepiag” Becace the peron who speaks and acs i aheayr a lpi ‘bo theoring inellecual fr) party or unio’ can represent those who 22 Sod supa’ (FD, p. 206), Ate thse who act and stwgele mute, a opposed to ‘hoe who act and spat (PD, p. 206) These immense problems re bared nthe