The essay “Can the subaltern speak?” by Spivak sheds light on similar arguments posed by Ahmed in our previous readings and points out the western perspective of most post-colonial (and definitely colonial) theories of the western world.
The philosophy of colonialism often relied on the narrative of the west saving the rest of the world, as represented by the example of the British banning Sati, an ancient practice in India where the wife was immolated with the death of the husband. The ban was viewed as “white men saving brown women from brown men” (Spivak, 1988). The ban also helped the British establish their rule over India, which then in turn what deprived the country form growth. In dissection of the events, one can recognize the many master slave dynamics, such as the local inhumane practice of Sati, and the British rule over India. The events then, in very shallow terms, is just one master suppressing the local master slave dynamic, which in western perspective is only described as well put by Rudyard Kipling, “The White Man’s Burden”, which is the perspective of the west saving the east (Kipling, 1899). It is important to acknowledge the absolutes drawn in the analysis, the British ban of Sati was a major event in the growth of Indian culture which often religion extremes of practices, however, the use of such bans to establish a colony, and use of such philosophy of colonialism of the west fails to view the rest of the world in they way it views itself, the master slave dynamic, that yes the rest of the world also has its local problems with social justice, but the western interference can not be viewed as an interference for the good of the east.
Spivak also raises an argument that the rest of the world is mere subjects to the theories of the west (Riach, 2017) which is where the ideals of Ahmed and Spivak align. Although it is true that the western theories put the west in a centralized position, even drawing the parameters in which the rest of the worlds theories should exist, however, modern reflexiveness of such theories signifies the theories of the world more. The resemblance of the argument, though, can still be seen in many fields. Questions can be raised that are of relevance now such as – Is universalization of ethics neo-colonialism?
References:
Kipling, R., 1899. Modern History Sourcebook: Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden, 1899. [online] The Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Available at: <http://source.books.fordham.edu/mod/kipling.asp> [Accessed 6 March 2017].
Riach, G. (2017). An Analysis of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s Can the Subaltern Speak? (1st ed.). Macat Library. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912281770
Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Retrieved September 18, 2021, from http://abahlali.org/files/Can_the_subaltern_speak.pdf.
I think you bring up many great observations in your presentation. One being how you talked about the colonizers coming in and replacing the previous people in the master position. It shows how the shift in power can end up creating the subaltern group. I also liked how you bring up the fact that what the west thinks is correct is not the same in the east, and while they could bring positive change by introducing these new viewpoints, they force them without the groups deciding for themselves to choose that option.
I enjoyed this presentation and think the question asked is very interesting. I would argue that the universalization of ethics could lead to neo-colonialism. The West failing to appreciate and recognize cultural practices allows them to be abolished. Getting rid of culture is the first step in achieving disunity and conquering a country. Western countries invading and failing to preserve culture is detrimental to societies and wreaks havoc on the inhabitants of these countries.