How they made subalterns speak
Unlike India, class rather than caste
provides the key to the interpretation of the political, social and
economic history of Sri Lanka
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay Can Subalterns speak? has been
considered as a ground breaking writing in the field of postcolonial
studies.
The term ‘subaltern’ first appeared in the context of philosophy in
the works of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Initially it was used to
describe a lower rank in British military forces.
Literary it refers to any person or group of inferior rank and
station, whether because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation,
ethnicity or religion. In the context of Indian history, so much
attention was paid on the political consciousness of elites, who
inspired the masses to resistance and rebellion against British. A small
gathering called ‘The Subaltern Studies Group’, which was founded by
Ranjit Guha on non-elites – subalterns as agents of political and social
change.
 |
|
Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak |
In the late 1970s, the term ‘subaltern’ began to be used as a
reference to colonized people in the South Asian subcontinent. This term
is used in postcolonial theory. The exact meaning of the term in current
philosophical and critical usage is disputed. Some thinkers use it in a
general sense to refer to marginalized groups and the lower class – a
person rendered without agency by his or her social status.
Others such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak use it in a more specific
sense. She argues that subaltern is not “just a classy word for
oppressed, for Other, for somebody who’s not getting a piece of the
pie....In postcolonial terms, everything that has limited or no access
to the cultural imperialism is subaltern - a space of difference. Now
who would say that’s just the oppressed? The working class is oppressed.
It’s not subaltern....Many people want to claim subalternity.
They are the least interesting and the most dangerous. I mean, just
by being a discriminated-against minority on the university campus, they
don’t need the word ‘subaltern’...They should see what the mechanics of
the discrimination are. They’re within the hegemonic discourse wanting a
piece of the pie and not being allowed, so let them speak, use the
hegemonic discourse. They should not call themselves subaltern.”
One can bring another term synonymous to subaltern, and it can be
‘nobody’. They are marginalized, underrepresented and unspoken. But one
day nobodies become somebodies and change the direction of
socio-political stream of a country.
Many researches have been conducted on the contribution subalterns in
building a nation. These include wide range of literature published in
India based on research on peasants’ and working class struggles. And
also, critical discourse on Indian caste system largely contributed to
nourish the subaltern studies.
Sri Lanka scholar and feminist activist, Kumari Jayawardhane is one
of the best researchers who have conducted extended studies over Sri
Lankan subalterns. Her books such as The Rise of the Labor Movement in
Ceylon (1972) and Nobodies to Somebodies: The Rise of the Colonial
Bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka (2002) provide an insightful analysis on non-
elites who marked a significant position in Sri Lankan socio-political
scenery.
Unlike India, class rather than caste provides the key to the
interpretation of the political, social and economic history of Sri
Lanka. According to Jayawadhane’s interpretation the rise of the
bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka comes after the beginnings of colonial rule but
it predates the rise of coffee plantations in the mid nineteenth
century. ‘Nobodies’ from the countryside and benefited from profits from
land ownership, cinnamon cultivation, transport contracts, farming of
rights to collect tolls and exclusive rights to sell liquor in certain
areas became ‘somebodies’. They also continued to branch out into other
activities including land acquisition, graphite mining and state
employment.
Jayawardhane points out that there were fissures within the
bourgeoisie, between the “nobodies” or new rich and the “somebodies” or
the older established families. Jayawardhane explains with authentic
examples how some individuals who held lowest position of administrative
structure of the Kandian Kingdom in 18th century (like korales and
vidanas) became rich and attended to the class of aristocrats after
becoming liquor renters (renda rala). Jayawardhane correctly points out
that most of “somebodies” who existed in the time of British rule had
attained that status during previous periods of colonial rule under the
Portuguese and the Dutch.
She also acknowledges the impact of politics on class formation. The
British, when they selected representatives to the Legislative Council
in the nineteenth century, selected commercial entrepreneurs from among
the Muslims and professionals from among the Tamils but clearly
preferred the more conservative landowners among the Sinhala majority.
So then subaltern achieved the right to speak at least in a limited
context.
Jayawardhane documents how the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie was westernized
and accepted cultural norms of the British. Some of them converted to
Christianity and became critical of some indigenous practices such as
polygamy and divorce by consent. They valued foreign education, European
sports and Western-style houses. Okay, that might be how they showed the
gratitude towards their masters. Anyway it is another story. |
