Question

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” proposes which of the following?

• A. The voice of the subaltern is appropriated by ‘intellectuals’ desiring to speak for the subaltern.
• B. It is easy to confuse writing about the subaltern with the subaltern speaking for herself.
• C. All women are subaltern and therefore cannot truly speak.
• D. The ‘intellectuals’ speaking for the subaltern and the subaltern speaking for herself can be equivalent.

Hint:

Spivak's key argument is that the subaltern—the most marginalized individuals in a society—cannot be heard or represented authentically by intellectuals within Western academic or political frameworks because these frameworks are part of the very structure that silences them.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A, B

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the main arguments presented in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's influential and complex essay, "Can the Subaltern Speak?". The essay is a foundational text in postcolonial studies and critiques the ways in which Western scholarship attempts to represent marginalized groups.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze each option in the context of Spivak's arguments:
(A) The voice of the subaltern is appropriated by ‘intellectuals’ desiring to speak for the subaltern.
This is a central thesis of Spivak's essay. She critiques Western intellectuals, including prominent thinkers like Foucault and Deleuze, for their attempts to represent the subaltern. Spivak argues that when these privileged intellectuals "speak for" the subaltern, they often end up silencing them or imposing their own theoretical frameworks, an act she describes as "epistemic violence." Their representation, even if well-intentioned, becomes an appropriation that masks the actual experiences and voices of the marginalized.
(B) It is easy to confuse writing about the subaltern with the subaltern speaking for herself.
This option also reflects a core argument in the essay. Spivak makes a crucial distinction between two kinds of representation: "Vertretung" (political representation, or speaking for) and "Darstellung" (re-presentation in art or philosophy, like a portrait). She argues that intellectuals often collapse this distinction, mistakenly believing that their academic "re-presentation" of the subaltern is the same as the subaltern having a political voice ("speaking for" themselves). This confusion obscures the power dynamics at play and the fact that the subaltern's voice remains unheard.
(C) All women are subaltern and therefore cannot truly speak.
This is a misinterpretation of Spivak's argument. While Spivak focuses on the figure of the subaltern woman to illustrate the deepest levels of silencing (due to the combined forces of patriarchy and colonialism), she does not make the universal claim that all women are subaltern. Her analysis is more nuanced, pointing to the specific, structural silencing of the most marginalized women who are cut off from lines of social mobility and representation.
(D) The ‘intellectuals’ speaking for the subaltern and the subaltern speaking for herself can be equivalent.
This statement is the direct opposite of Spivak's entire argument. The central point of "Can the Subaltern Speak?" is to demonstrate that these two acts are not, and cannot be, equivalent within existing power structures. The intellectual's act of speaking for the subaltern is fraught with problems of power, privilege, and the risk of epistemic violence, and it cannot substitute for the authentic, unmediated speech of the subaltern.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Based on the analysis, options (A) and (B) accurately capture the main proposals of Gayatri Spivak's essay. They highlight her critique of intellectual representation and the fundamental problem of voice and power in postcolonial discourse. Options (C) and (D) are misreadings of her argument. Therefore, (A) and (B) are the correct choices.