I know we have all been somewhat beating the whole "subaltern" issue into the ground, but I happened to stumble upon something that outside of the class that I thought was quite interesting in connection with women that would be considered part of the subaltern group.
I was field experience teaching over at Bloomington North High School, and during what I suppose would be considered a study hall period, I was able to sit in on a film screening in the room of the teacher that I was assisting. The film was a documentary on domestic violence of African American women in economically poor situations. The film talked about how women of that lower economic community are constantly taken advantage of and subject to domestic violence by the males of the same community. After giving a lot of information and examples of the situation, the women in the documentary basically made a plea for help to stop the domestic violence, but the way that they went about making the plea spoke to the voicelessness we have discussed the subaltern having or not having.
The women said that the only way that the violence would stop is if other men were to take the initiative and make a stand against domestic violence. Only then would the violence come to a stop. I thought that this strategy was quite interesting based on what we have discussed about Spivak in class. This group of subaltern women are using their "voice" to make a plea to stop domestic violence, but their actual plea is for men to stop the domestic violence. The message that they are sending is that they are reliant on men to take action and make a real difference. Their voice isn't really taking action, it is asking another voice to take action. I thought this threw a wrench somewhat into the whole voicelessness aspect of subaltern women. They are speaking, but they are asking other to make a statement. Does this give them a voice if they are recognizing the total reliance on others to have an influence? I know that it is a little confusing, but it is that reason alone that I thought it was interesting enough to post about. These women have a voice, but it is a voice of indirect influence, so how much of a voice is it really?
After our reading of Spivak's case on Bhaduri, I would say that the authenticity of a voice is determined by its public reception. In the case of these African women, they may make a plea for the men to stop fighting, but if the conflict continues, that plea simply fades into the past as a mere attempt at ending the violence, instead of a catalyst for a solution.
ReplyDeleteSpivak writes saying, "Gulari cannot speak to us because indigenous patriarchal "history" would only keep a record of her funeral and colonial history only needed her as an incidental instrument" (807). The African womens' reliance on men to take action is not what detracts from their voice, it is the men's determination to keep fighting that makes the plea powerless.
From our discussions my best description of subaltern is a group of individuals who have absolutely no authority or power over the conditions they are in, be they social or political. Since the men seem to be the root of these issues, it gives the women a direct object to communicate with. This indirect influence is part of the subalternity. It is a vice in which having a voice is not good enough. This is the tragedy behind the subaltern.