In Spivak’s writing, “Can the Subaltern Speak”, she mentioned a term “subaltern studies” which helps some part of her propositions about subaltern. After the reading, I would like to focus on the basics of subaltern studies. The formation of  subaltern studies as an intervention in South Asian historiography occurred in the wake of the growing crisis of the Indian state in the 1970s. At that time, nationalists struggled against British rule because the “program of capitalist modernity sharpened social and political inequalities and conflicts”(Prakash, page1476). Subaltern studies was inspired by Ranajit Guha, a distinguished historian os India which was also mentioned in the reading. Guha and eight scholars based in India, UK, and Australia constituted the editorial collective of Subaltern Studies until from 1982 to 1988. The word “subaltern” came from Antonio Gramsci’s writings,”refers to subordination in terms of class, caste, gender, race, and was used to signify the centrality of dominated relationships in history.” Subaltern studies mainly focus on the historiographical contest over the representation of the culture and politics of people. Accusing colonialists, nationalists, and Marxist interpretations of robbing the common people of their agency, and it’s a new approach to restore the history to the subordinated. The “subaltern” now appears in many studies on Africa, Latin America, and Europe, and what remained consistent is the effort to rethink history from the perspective of subaltern.

Return to Spivak herself, She is one of the influential critic who is related to Post-colonialism  , Feminism, Deconstruction and Marxism. And I will also introduce some backgrounds of the people mentioned in the reading. She was a follower of Derrida, and criticizes Foucault accusing him in cooperating with capitalism and imperialism.As a member of “Subaltern Studies Collective”, “She attacks the Eurocentric attitudes of the West. She holds that knowledge is never innocent, it is always operated by western economical interest and power”(Ambesange Praveen, page48).

sources:

Ambesange Praveen, V. “Postcolonialism: Edward Said & Gayatri Spivak.” Research Journal of Recent Sciences E-ISSN 2277 (2016): 2502.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography.” Nepantla: Views from South, vol. 1 no. 1, 2000, p. 9-32. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/23873.

Prakash, Gyan. “Subaltern Studies as Postcolonial Criticism.” The American Historical Review, vol. 99, no. 5, 1994, pp. 1475–1490. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2168385. Accessed 6 Feb. 2021.

The caste system is something that many believe was completely derived from Hindu culture in India; not many realize that British colonialism was actually one of the main driving forces in the development of this system. Not only was the system a result of British interpretations of texts that previously did not hold utmost importance, but the entire Hindu religion did not effectively come into existence until these interpretations were established. The chancellor at the University of California, Nicholas Dirks, has done extensive research on British colonialism’s negative impacts on Indian society. He said that ‘[u]nder colonialism, caste was thus made out to be far more – far more pervasive, far more totalizing, and far more uniform – than it had ever been before, at the same time that it was defined as a fundamentally religious social order’ (Simha). In essence, the British were able to use this system as a form of control that limited the power/respect held by the majority of citizens in India. This was a system placed everyone in a certain inescapable label or group that would decide what they could do with their lives. The explanation that the caste system came completely as a result of ancient Indian culture does not hold up, as before colonial times in India there was evidence that “social identities were constantly malleable” (Chakravorty). There was instances of  people rising up from humble beginnings to become important figures of society, something that became nearly impossible with the system that would later be imposed by the British.

Gayatri Spivak would eventually come to address the impact that Western colonial interpretations and rule had on “third world” countries and their people. Dividing people up within their own countries made it difficult for them to stand up and develop a unified voice. Division was used as a tool in many cases of colonialism in order to gain control, as it is the most effective in inhibiting the ability for a group to develop a fight against another when they are busy fighting themselves. The effects that the colonial form of the caste system had on India are still seen today because of that strong division that it created, even with some of the modern day efforts to push towards a change in the structure.

Al-Bayyati, Hana, et al. “Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.” Postcolonial Studies, 13 Sept. 2020, scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2014/06/19/spivak-gayatri-chakravorty/,

Chakravorty, Sanjoy. “Viewpoint: How the British Reshaped India’s Caste System.” BBC News, BBC, 19 June 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734,