Spivak talked about the cultural problems of developing countries in the post-colonial era. She believed that elite groups controlled the culture of these developing countries for a long time. Economically, we can think that although these developing countries have gained independence, their economic system still serves the old suzerain countries. A typical example is West Africa to France. Although the old colonizers left, the economic development of the newly independent country still needed to follow various rules set by the old suzerainty. The old suzerainty also had a significant cultural impact on these countries. The false colonialist elitism’s culture still suppresses the real, local culture until today, which is the theme of Spivak’s article, namely “Subaltern”(Spvak, 1988).
As an essential representative of deconstruction, while calling on the international community to pay attention to the voice of the people of developing countries, Spivak further analyzes the occurrence of this situation, that is, the colonial elitism mentioned in the previous paragraph. Spivak cites Guha’s analysis of Subaltern studies of India. During the more than 100 years of the British Raj government’s rule over India, the Indian population has gradually formed four main groups, which Derrida called “antre”: the dominant foreigners, the natives who had the dominant position in all India, the natives who had the dominant role in Indian regional place, and the ordinary Indians (Derrida, 1981). The first two groups were regarded as elites. After India’s independence, foreigners left, and some people in the third group rose in their political and cultural status, thus becoming new elites. After these elites have mastered the cultural power, they have the ability to convey the “voice of India” to the world. However, because they have been influenced by colonial culture, their thoughts and values have long deviated from the real, local culture. And that called: “colonialist elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism.”(Guha, 1982) At the same time, because they cut off the channels for the Subaltern to speak to the outside world, the real, Subaltern’s culture can not occupy the mainstream. They can’t speak.
Spivak believes that the state Subaltern is also similar to the status of women. That is, there is no right to speak freely, and some have to obey the orders of the family head. Women have been playing a silent role in society, which is similar to the state of the bottom group. The analogy of Spivak effectively helps us understand the social state of the underlying groups. (Spivak, 1988)
Obviously, it is not easy to let Subaltern speak, but we can gradually recognize who should represent a nation and a country because of these great thinkers. And unite to help them regain their voice, just as the great feminist movement of the last century did.
Cited source:
Guha, Ranajit: Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995. University of Minnesota Press 1997.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty: “Can the Subaltern Speak?”. In: Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Eds. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988: 271-313.
