The Subaltern and Hegemony

Throughout “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” Gayatri Spivak mentions the idea of hegemony, as well as the hegemonic influence on society which influences the subaltern. I personally understood the term to mean the accepted norms of a particular community or society that do not necessarily have a legitimate basis; however, in order to understand Spivak’s article more clearly, I looked up a more formal definition. The Bedford Glossary provides the following reference: hegemony is “the dominance or dominant influence of one nation, group, or class over another…especially ideological and cultural manipulation and control” (221). I feel that this is incredibly important to consider when reading the article, specifically in terms of the classification of people. For example, it is noted that, there is a clear separation between, and acknowledgment of, “the demographic difference between the total Indian population and all those whom we have described as the ‘elite’” (Spivak 802). Here, the reader is forced to consider what the qualities or factors are that make a certain person, group of people, appear to be more ‘ideal’ than others. The simple and most immediate answer is most likely that the elite have, among other things, more material possessions and overall opportunities. However, this idea can be complicated when one wonders about who has been designated the ability and power to determine such a seemingly finite division amongst people. In this case, the only reasonable explanation is the definition of hegemony provided in the glossary. The Indian “elite” were decided solely on the overall opinion of society based on culture and a history of acceptance. This is further exemplified in the story at the Spivak’s article. Even though Bhubaneswari committed suicide as an attempt to demonstrate her political view and support, because she was a woman, her intentions were misinterpreted, against all of her efforts, based on the history of the culture. So, despite her “attempt to ‘speak’ by turning her body into a text of woman/writing” she was unsuccessful in conveying her true point because of her role in a hegemonic society (Spivak 807). After building her argument and disclosing this story, Spivak is able to claim at the end of the article that, “the subaltern cannot speak!” (Spivak 807).