Spivak discusses social class in terms of dominance and subalternity, heterogeneity and homogeneity, but I have found little that makes mention of the criteria that must be met in order to have the power to silence others, even those who do not speak verbally? "Bhubaneswari attempted to 'speak' by turning her body into a text of women/writing," compensating for her unserviceable voice, but "in her own family, among women, in no more than fifty years, her attempt failed" (807). In those fifty years, what power was granted to "her own emancipated granddaughters" -- participants in what Spivak calls "a new mainstream" -- that made them eligible for silencing Bhaduri?
Or is the silencing of an oppressed group less an act of vindication for the dominant group and more a failure of comprehension? Spivak contends, "All speaking, even seemingly the most immediate, entails a distanced decipherment by another, which is, at best, an interception. That is what speaking is" (808). Whether defensive interception against speech or inadvertent failure to interpret speech, discovering the reasons behind acts of silencing may be a viable means of inserting the subaltern "into the long road to hegemony" (Spivak 808).
Vanessa, what an interesting question -- and most likely a key question in trying to work through Spivak's particular agenda in the 1999 version of her essay. I'll take up part of it here, but I do hope others will jump in and work through it with you.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to actually follow the part of your question that asks about the relationship of silencing to subaltern. Given Spivak's discontentment with the many ways that "subalternity" has been taken up as a substitute for "marginalized" or "oppressed" (which she does not necessarily support), I imagine what made her initially decide that Bhaduri could not speak was her assumption that Bhaduri's granddaughters could not see the mechanics of the discrimination that Bhaduri suffered, nor could they see the mechanics of the enculturation that caused them to misremember her action as an illicit love affair. I think Spivak may have called it a "failed attempt" (807) because Bhaduri's intentions to rewrite the social text of sati-suicide by killing herself were missed.
Toward the end of her article, as she revised that earlier passionate expression, Spivak uncovers a bit more of her discontentment. Perhaps a related silencing occurs by Bhaduri's other young, distant relative who now works in an emerging South Asian global financialization market (which may imply a connection to imperializing agendas).
-Prof. Graban