This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of Cultural Sociology

John R. Hall, Laura Grindstaff, Ming-Cheng Lo

The subaltern, the postcolonial, and cultural sociology

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 Raka Ray, Smitha Radhakrishnan Published online on: 21 Jul 2010

How to cite :- Raka Ray, Smitha Radhakrishnan. 21 Jul 2010, The subaltern, the postcolonial, and cultural sociology from: Handbook of Cultural Sociology Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203891377.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 collection ofthousandseBookspleasegotoww To purchaseyourowncopyofthisoranyTaylor&FrancisRoutledge’s This editionpublishedintheTaylor&Francise-Library,2010. ISBN 0-203-89137-6Mastere-book adoko utrlscooy/eie yJh .Hl,Laura Hall, R. John by edited / Grindsta sociology Library cultural British of Data the Handbook Cataloging-in-Publication from Congress available of is Library book this for record Data catalogue Publication A in Cataloguing Library writing British in permission without in publishers. now system, or the means, retrieval recording, from other or or and or storage reproduced photocopying mechanical, information or including electronic, any reprinted invented, any be hereafter by may or or book known form this any of in part utilized No reserved. rights All Grindsta Laura Hall, R. John 2010 © business informa an Group, Francis & Taylor the of imprint an is 10016 Routledge NY York, New Avenue, Madison 270 Canada and Routledge USA by the 4RN in OX14 published Oxon, Simultaneously Abingdon, Park, Milton Square, Park Routledge 2 by 2010 published First n dtra atr niiulcatr,tecontributors the chapters, individual matter; editorial and .Clue .Hl,Jh .I.Grindsta II. R. John Hall, I. Culture. 1. references. bibliographical Includes SN1:978– 13: ISBN ISBN 13:978– 306 2010 HM621.H344 .cm. p. – c22009049917 dc22 ff n igCegLo. Ming-Cheng and 0 0– – 203 415 – – 47445 – 89137 – 0 (hbk) (ebk) 7 ff n igCegL o selection for Lo Ming-Cheng and , ff ar.II o Ming-Cheng. Lo, III. Laura. , w.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 eeiaie n nesod n ttefiue fntoa ltst egenuinely be to elites national of nations failures their of the most comprised at nations that postcolonial groups and non-dominant that understood, of ways inclusive the and at imagined instead looked were They paradigms. developmentalist or 6) 1982: eta othe to Central subjectivity Subaltern called volume history of a subjects the of as viewed publication were that groups the movement subaltern the a with which launched 1982 England in 1. in historians light Volume Indian public of to group a came 1970s, late the In sue yGasi h emsblenrfre otoeecue rmsaepower. state from excluded those to referred subaltern term the Gramsci, by used As of failure apparent the indeed, (and, states independence Asian after South world) years of postcolonial backdrop thirty the the promises against their 1980s to early the in Writing praht ninhsoycnerc oilgcludrtnig fclue speci culture, of understandings the how sociological the for enrich case of it the can but out make disciplines, history we other spilled Indian essay and has this world to the In project approach of sociology. the areas of other short later, into stopped poli- history, volumes has the and and twelve Asia culture, South Today, power, of dispossessed. bounds of questions the to of attention tics simultaneous by marked was work ihrgr otikn bu ain,clnaim n h rdcino knowledge. of production the and colonialism, nations, about thinking to regard with fteecnb oata aigo oe ntewiigo itr,teecna es eademys- a employed, be are least method at and can there ideology defeated. history, what displaced, of And stake, present. deferred, writing at the which the are into advanced, in interests continues parties power scribes material past what its of the what from taking of of past much actual exposure Indian see, no the tifying shall be of we recital control can as objective wrest there since, disengaged to if present, no attempt the events, an of of contestary, curators narrative sharply and Olympian rather calm is It no facts. ideas, of of history no is Theirs — uatr itrassuh xlntosta a usd fotoo Marxist orthodox of outside lay that explanations sought historians subaltern “ h elrdamof aim declared The uatr Studies Subaltern h uatr,tepsclna,and postcolonial, the subaltern, The —“ h itrcfiueo h aint oeit t own its into come to nation the of failure historic the rjc a h Gramscian the was project uatr Studies Subaltern aaRyadSih Radhakrishnan Smitha and Ray Raka a opouehsoia nlssin analyses historical produce to was utrlsociology cultural ” fi Carbry20a 15). 2000a: (Chakrabarty ueo h subaltern. the of gure ’ ’ ouain.Their populations. alr olv up live to failure uatr Studies Subaltern uatr Studies Subaltern Si 98 vii) 1988: (Said ” (Guha fi 3 cally fi 35 rst , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 “ RADHAKRISHNAN SMITHA AND RAY RAKA 36 ee speci refer obcm a become to lensuist h ol,RnjtGh de Guha Ranajit world, the to studies altern o mn h lt,speci elite, the among not hthsldt t hr fciiim,ntbytecag fesnils.Gh speci Guha essentialism. of charge the notably criticisms, self-determination of subalterns share for writings, its capacity scholarly to early and led the sphere has in separate that Indeed, a agent. inhabit an to as seem subaltern the recuperate to fmlil om fdmnto nwy htwr o euil ihrt lrls or pluralism to either reducible not were that had ways who in (O Marxism domination those economistic of center forms the multiple to of bringing o of indeed and possibility marginalized and the excluded up been opened formulation cious population rudta h oiiso h epei h ooilpro omdaculturally a formed period colonial the in people the of politics the “ that argued hsatnm.Hwvr te coas(hda18;Ai 94 ersne the represented 1984) of Amin form consciousness. powerful 1989; contradictory most (Bhadra more the a scholars enjoyed possessing peasants other as formulation, subaltern However, his In autonomy. 3). this (1982: it upon dent ewe h oiatadtedmntd dpigamodi a adapting dominated, the the and pushed dominant hegemony. the and also between formation, xiii) theory subject agency, postcolonial 2000: of exploration and the (Chaturvedi remained Foucault Marxism imperialism Enlightenment to of speci of twentieth-century Gramsci version the certain foundation from beyond a the work move to challenging on the hold now But to is attempting agency while thought subaltern of autonomy The 1989). Sarkar example, con for violent (see, e through inversion structuring only and uneven not negation but possible cultural local powerful was through traditions, reconceptualized resistance also work oral that this but magic, Simultaneously, holding resistance. (e.g. agency, shaping forms resistant in cultural etc.) customs, non-hegemonic religious of workings multiple it,salsaepaatisrece,adteursn fhl epe (Sivaramakrishnan peoples grain hill analyzing of In uprising resistance. studies forms the of 217), multiple and forms 2002: documented insurgencies, invisible) multiple peasant scholars documented (otherwise small-scale studies they the riots, subaltern too and as so caste-based, domination, Just of groups. colonial, marginal religious, of notably power power, of modes prahst utrlsuis twsa hstm ohta dadSi rie the praised In Said theory. Edward postcolonial of that Chaturvedi, shades both on Vinayak time take of to this began words at theorizing was the subaltern It that and studies. deconstructionism project con- cultural Derridian 1987, to in as published approaches Foucault well V, on Volume as draw with the power, to However, increasingly in Gramsci. came ideas Antonio tributions of central work were the was consciousness, subaltern in on engaged colonial scholars of and formulations precolonial the of h uatr lse,b de by classes, subaltern The autonomous nptigtesblena h etro hi nlss uatr coasintended scholars subaltern analysis, their of center the at subaltern the putting In h os de loose The hra rmca-nprdnto fsblent ihihe h distinction the highlighted subalternity of notion Gramscian-inspired a Whereas h hoeia nprto nteeryyas etil ewe oue n IV, and I Volumes between certainly years, early the in inspiration theoretical The fi ” al owresadpaat.Yt nteesyi hc eitoue sub- introduced he which in essay the in Yet, peasants. and workers to cally n h oiatidgnu n oeg lt Gh 92 ) hscapa- This 7). 1982: (Guha elite foreign and indigenous dominant the and ffi ‘ ” State e nwdnn h cp fsblent,Gh aiiae h theorization the facilitated Guha subalternity, of scope the widening In ce. oan aallt h lt,btnihroiiaigfo tnrdepen- nor it from originating neither but elite, the to parallel domain, fi iino h uatr emte eocpulzto fdi of reconceptualization a permitted subaltern the of nition ’ , — ” rmc 17:5)woe u h emwscmol sue to assumed commonly was term the but wrote, 52) (1971: Gramsci seilyi h al oue of volumes early the in especially fi ’ iyo ooilIdat h osblt ftikn bu late about thinking of possibility the to India colonial of city aln20:84). 2000: Hanlon fi al,a the as cally, fi iin r o uni not are nition, — ntebssntjs fcas u loo at,gender, caste, of also but class, of just not basis the on ff uatr Studies Subaltern c fclnaim swl steitrciee interactive the as well as colonialism, of ect “ “ htsat sapoettyn oetbihthe establish to trying project a as starts what eorpi di demographic fi e h uatr ipya hs h were who those as simply subaltern the ned — fi dadcno nt ni hyaeable are they until unite cannot and ed ’ in ocpulzto fkoldeand knowledge of conceptualization s . fl ecssmlrt hs nBritish on those to similar uences ff rnebtentettlIndian total the between erence uatr Studies Subaltern — fi vna h oethemes core the as even dnto fhgmn,the hegemony, of notion ed — ” characterization a 20:xii (2000: — eeldthe revealed ff fi – erent ff xiii). cally fl ects ict Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 set h xsec fsblencncosesotieo ooiladntoaitpower, nationalist speci and the colonial articulate of outside to consciousness aims subaltern and of existence the asserts opeeydn h xsec fa uooosshr.Rte,seage htsc a such that argues she veri Rather, be sphere. autonomous never Spivak an can of history. proposition existence of the accounts deny completely elitist of realm deconstructionist ad Guha hand, power. elite through stituted poststructuralist Guha and Ranajit in Gramscian contained between tension productive a power. is of argue conceptualizations would we what “ oee,atog i con frssac hoie nucnetn peasant unconsenting an theorized resistance of account his although of of notions However, science notions ways, political rethink many to and aiming history In revolt, especially time. peasant dominated the in that at result hegemony not and did consciousness that false resistance of acts altern Spivak work Gayatri the notably with most grappling series, while the decon- scholarship, outside more the published studies toward tended writings subaltern postcolonial, subalternist the was (Cooper of of studies areas of study subaltern own end towards whom their turn for structionist in they larger departments, as a imperialism literature tension of in and this part Scholars colonialism with 1994). grappled of Mallon Africa histories 1994; and the America Latin with of engaged Historians critics. of share fteSblenSuiscletv eoae ihScott with resonated collective Studies Subaltern the of with simultaneously an and analysis discursive of use increased di the the as by within power accompanied of was understanding Foucault to turn nteltrtr nrssac,wieteSiainapoc a ese npostcolonial in Scott seen be James can approach found be Spivakian can the argumentation knowledge. while perhaps of of resistance, is line critiques on that Guha literature consciousness the the subaltern continues in a that constituting Scholarship possible. in tically power elite of ness hoy a npatc n ehddcntutoit n a h oeta obring acknowl- to (implicitly) in it potential dialectics because the precisely binary had Subaltern crisis such and of assert that deconstructionist, point to edged the method continuing to and argued by while historiography practice contrast, dom- dominant project, dominance in in the a Spivak, was of and as framework. theory, con- dominated studies binary/dialectic notion his the a subaltern reworked however, within between that articulated, remained clearly his and is distinguish Guha inating, in power as to which Even continued boundaries through rule. against ceptualization modes the bourgeois mobilized diverse to who pushed acknowledging consented those and neither generally formulation, more expanded his subalterns in nor consent: colonialism without possible was Gramsci reworked (1982) Guha Spivak Gayatri and a h uatr Speak? Subaltern the Can o a hs w prahsb eocldwt n nte,i tal none On all? at if another, one with reconciled be approaches two these can How subaltern the of conceptions divergent the in illustrated clearly most is tension This mn tde fcncoses oilgssadatrplgssaems aiirwith familiar most are anthropologists and sociologists consciousness, of studies Among “ uatr Studies Subaltern voices, ’ ’ “ 18)aayi frssac mn aa esns ulse almost published peasants, Malay among resistance of analysis (1985) s s uatr osiuns is consciousness subaltern “ uooossphere autonomous — ” ’ nesadn h di the understanding s nti omlto,aeiacsil eas hyaearaycon- already are they because inaccessible are formulation, this in uatr Studies Subaltern “ eosrcigHistoriography, Deconstructing H UATR,TEPSCLNA,ADCLUA SOCIOLOGY CULTURAL AND POSTCOLONIAL, THE SUBALTERN, THE ’ pnn sa htintroduced that essay opening s ” eisddntg aiytgte,adec trce t own its attracted each and together, easily go not did series ned h mrec fdvreitrouoshighlights interlocutors diverse of emergence the Indeed, ff fi fi s n utlyrd hs w tad fscholarship of strands two These multilayered. and use ’ d n htatuyrdclhsoigah a nybe only can historiography radical truly a that and ed, oino eeoyt ocpulz oiac that dominance conceptualize to hegemony of notion s cin,ielge,adclue ftoeotiethe outside those of cultures and ideologies, actions, c ” ntemd18s ct ogtt con o sub- for account to sought Scott mid-1980s. the in ftesbleni oiial trciebcueit because attractive politically is subaltern the of ff “ svns fpwrrltosadtepervasive- the and relations power of usiveness uatr agency subaltern … ’ prah nteohrhn,de not does hand, other the on approach, s reuil discursive irreducibly ” ntal ulse nVlm IV. Volume in published initially ” ’ uatr Studies Subaltern oecnet n intent. and concepts core s mrigfo h writings the from emerging ” Sia 98 11) 1988: (Spivak oteworld, the to only theore- 37 ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 ai mrcnSblenSuiscletv,sblensuispoie ihstof speci set history, rich American Latin a of the analysis provided formed post-Marxist advancing studies who for scholars subaltern South global American collective, poor Latin Studies the those “ of Subaltern aims For American political 2001). the Latin resistance advancing Rodríguez to that 1994; commitment of a (Mallon nature with more methods the textual which positivist, melding to less extent a view. the from also provided hidden but be studies resistance, may subaltern subaltern By studies we of her, subaltern. knowledge subaltern bility the the about and of contrast, acquire subaltern intentionality the re to In of the come power 1998). apprehend the might and between Moore relationship know the in to questioning ability (cited the classes questioned superordinate mining Scott subjectivity, RADHAKRISHNAN SMITHA AND RAY RAKA 38 counterhegemonic further to meant agenda cultures political deconstructing citi- a critique, of radical retaining questions American of ideals. examine while Latin vehicle to of dominance the collective the episte- Overall, original ways through of the well. critical governance bourgeois of as a and scope de-centering sociology zenship Americanists the for move, Latin upon lessons expanded for same important project provided the bears studies that in subaltern mology and, being, 9). West and 2001: (Rodríguez knowing the production knowledge de-centering bourgeois of By incapacities and limitations the otueu o oilg,pras stewyteLtnAeia eso fsubaltern of version American Latin societies America. the of Latin way in history cultures the the colonial is upon dominant perhaps, focused of sociology, studies critique radical for for useful tools Most of set a provide diain n eaeamge o coasi related in scholars for magnet a became and admiration, uatr tde n h eutn rtqeo ovninlhsoigah a e oa to led has historiography conventional of critique resulting re the broader and studies subaltern concept. analytical important “ 650 emsrcl ntecneto Hall theo- of term adequately context the not the is adapt in politics critics strictly subaltern same term shift of these that may complexity although instead the power, rized, arguing that of charge by matrixes studies politics multiple subaltern in and within criticizes subjectivity work agency Moore subaltern of ethnographic Donald of anthropologist own autonomy immediacy example, his the “ and for of subaltern from dynamism Zimbabwe, idea viewing Drawing the Eastern the that ignoring struggle. of charge by parts and the misleads rural subjectivity is sphere essentialism subaltern autonomous of of an charge the as to politics Related 1997). Brass eua fteehorpi nfvro icrie eosrcins praht be to approach deconstructionist discursive, a of Spivak of new favor that critique her embraced in intellectual In have troubling. ethnographic the politically and the of in V, of position its Volume refusal the under after and inquiry especially ethnography of demands, of studies critique subaltern the welcomed have rvln theories, traveling subaltern suatriy nesoda eainlpoeso dniyfrainadtecrafting the and formation identity of process relational a as understood [s]ubalternity, fl itraso ai mrc seilyebae h uatr tde taeyof strategy Studies Subaltern the embraced especially America Latin of Historians Guha h wrns fhweiepwrcntttskoldeta sebde within embedded is that knowledge constitutes power elite how of awareness The xv,admr utlyrdacuto gny cnwegn o nytepossi- the only not acknowledging agency, of account multilayered more and exive, – 1 soa 01.Teeitrouosbene interlocutors These 2001). Escobar 51; ’ onigcamo an of claim founding s ” fl xvt bu ehd cosdsilns nhoooit,frtems part, most the for Anthropologists, disciplines. across methods about exivity a noe ntewk fsblensuis hc eoe o hman them for becomes which studies, subaltern of wake the in enjoyed has ’ dao eitneicue nyitninlato ie tunder- at aimed action intentional only included resistance of idea s ” n hso thus and fl ec Pl 97.Sil ayhv lofudteapparent the found also have many Still, 1997). (Pels uence ff rda potnt obro hoydvlpdi the in developed theory borrow to opportunity an ered “ ’ uooossphere autonomous oinof notion s ’“ ’ edn ftedbtssurrounding debates the of reading s “ Others articulation “ subaltern, fi rmtervvlta h term the that revival the from t ” ” samaso hnigthrough thinking of means a as ” fi trce smc rtcs as criticism much as attracted lst nae(opr1994; (Cooper engage to elds 19:30.Ohrciisof critics Other 370). (1998: ” ” se o xml,L 2001: Li example, for (see, hoigt nepe the interpret to choosing fi al to cally sat fi   elds ,or Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 ntdSae n utai ihihsti seto h ain mhszn htin that emphasizing nation, the of aspect this highlights Australia “ and States United signi most The studies subaltern and Sociology which in argues, ways (1996) the Ortner investigate Sherry to want example, might for who India, colonial in widow-burning, ob rdal ul hog speci through built gradually be to Durkheimian of display a a such, ritual, as Spillman collective of and, secular Lyn engagement entity sociologists through cultural for this enacted solidarity. politicized as focus deepen a importantly critical as to most of nation which the point of with a speci notion tools been our provides has expanding while nation scholarship the Subaltern of culture. entity cultural The nation the internal and and Culture marginalization and limit of production, sociology we knowledge which conversations nation, Here, in productive the and most knowledge. to colonialism. itself the culture and manifests have central of insight can expression ship this made studies the which subaltern of be and and in forms must culture dominant issues the three colonized, cultural to between and of ourselves relations colonizer the understandings of between to analyses those that including is dominated, culture of sociology the fml oiac nnntet etr ninsceycno os ihu seeming without so administrators. do colonial cannot of society discourse the Indian to century subscribe nineteenth to in dominance male of isve iul ftento sbigfnaetlysmlrt te ye fcollective of types between other to divide similar the fundamentally being problematizes as nation in the rituals of rituals view dies oko uatr tde coasecuae st d ainlt savtlai of axis vital a as nationality add to us encourages scholars studies di subaltern simultaneously of gender work and narrative class, single be powerful race, may a 1989). forge struggle) Pandey to 1984; anti-colonial others (Amin the displace nation nation ultimately within the and may of as memory events (such these collective of events on ratives same work the extends di how memorialized and show into they (Hall feeds as studies also subaltern of scholars intent subaltern political the with well resonates uatr n otooilsuispsttento smr hnrta efrac or an performance as ritual rather than itself more makeup. racial nation as and nation the class, the treating gender, posit identity, certain studies a even of postcolonial simultaneously and are Subaltern they as even belonging, fsblenadpsclna coassgasteiprac fwmni h rainof creation the as in work but women the actors of examples, as importance of just the not set signals nations well-known scholars postcolonial a postcolonial In and bodies. subaltern raced of and classed, gendered, through h otx fpriual ainls n ooilpoet Catre 90.Ti insight This 1990). (Chatterjee projects colonial and nationalist particularly of context the ete societies settler ff nescinlapoce ihnscooyaearayeggdwt usin fhow of questions with engaged already are sociology within approaches Intersectional rne sidvdasaecntttdtruhntoaiyo es fnational of sense a or nationality through constituted are individuals as erence, fi ieo miia td.Wti utrlscooy ainls a enviewed been has nationalism sociology, cultural Within study. empirical of site c “ traditional fi ” ff atisgtta uatr tde n otooiltere rn to bring theories postcolonial and studies subaltern that insight cant rnl neieadsblenclua pee,adythwmse nar- master how yet and spheres, cultural subaltern and elite in erently ieteUie ttsadAsrlaasneo olciesldrt had solidarity collective of sense a Australia and States United the like ” or ’ “ oko etniladbcnena eertosi the in celebrations bicentennial and centennial on work s H UATR,TEPSCLNA,ADCLUA SOCIOLOGY CULTURAL AND POSTCOLONIAL, THE SUBALTERN, THE primordial fi “ id frtas(plmn19) eas uhstu- such Because 1997). (Spillman rituals of kinds c ” traditional oite,udrtnigtento ssclrritual secular as nation the understanding societies, fi ueit usin fproa dniy The identity. personal of questions into gure symbols ” and sat ftento,hsoiiigti oein role this historicizing nation, the of   “ embodied ” modern a ato agrcon larger a of part was ” rcieta slvdout lived is that practice tal. et oite nawythat way a in societies 03.Tewr of work The 2003). — h relation- the “ fi feminists guration 39 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 usino oe yakn hs artvscnrbt oa to contribute narratives whose asking by power of question scholars production Subaltern the for site the production Knowledge strategic of conceptualization and our symbolic of simultaneously culture. scope a of the as navigation these extend and it up studies opening viewing By subaltern nation, 2005). inquiries, (Radhakrishnan control of little kinds have often themselves women “ hog h moidcaatrntol ftento,btas of also thinking but for nation, exploration the of of areas only new up not opens character insight embodied an the Such and subaltern through how subjects. theoretical demonstrating as broader by excluded literature the nationalism complements and gender which subjects the insight, of work generalizable empirical a yields studies rmWrdSsesTer,cniudt suetesm efcnandEurope, self-contained same the assume to continued Theory, Systems World from world of structure the about theories. methods questions their di nineteenth- Their with of generated emphasized engagements they sociologists the the that society that twentieth-century formed assumption argued Marx, Europe this early recently the of self-contained by has and basis (1997) within a narrated the Connell that from Raewynn on as assumed complexity Thus was way labor) modernity increasing it limited of rationalization, crux; of division a on empirical unfolding or center in organization, stories the told the of of been (whether stories Durkheim has Weber, analytic story The dominant discipline. this modernity, of credibility. more given are voices authorial whose as 1995; and McClintock 1990; producers speci the focused Enloe which biological have 1989; in scholars as Anthias ways Subaltern include and 1996). central nation Walby ways (Yuval-Davis the the actors) (other of and political one women gender overtly as engages on role literature project symbolic burgeoning nationalist gendered a this with acknowledges synergies that important yielded has RADHAKRISHNAN SMITHA AND RAY RAKA 40 self-conscious the with sociological erased was the that history of a formation imperialism, of methods and viewpoint the con case the in example, For context. Asian South the surrounding in debates nation the the of for icons became bodies niiulcocs u hyas aeo uhbodrsmoi aecsassociated a valences felt of symbolic deeply broader understandings of and much racial result cultural, on a and take artistic, be gendered also may public the women they the with Indian but where look, African choices, can Africa, South we individual South that of question, ways performances post-apartheid this in address political to or To symbols oppression example, projects? become ostensible nation-building for their bodies undermine of gendered virtue or do by support how projects national Alternatively, of marginalization? symbols as serve discourse discourses nationalist and of colonial method in the deployed instance, were women how only shown famously has modernity, fscooya icpiecm noeitnea es npr oadestecharacter the address to part in least at existence into came discipline a as sociology If o ih h oiso oe n e h r usd h el fpolitical of realm the outside are who men and women of bodies the might How fi ssmos ee ssbet rptnilctzn nteronrgt(90.I this In (1990). right own their in citizens potential or subjects as never symbols, as ue hog gender. through gured fi ueit eeoi icussa bet vntog hyaeapparently are they though even objects as discourses hegemonic into gure ” hc r lascntutdi eaint es fnto,adoften and nation, of sense a to relation in constructed always are which — oprtv n ae netra examination external on based and comparative ’ oko h oiiso nweg rdcinsek ietyt the to directly speaks production knowledge of politics the on work ff rne ewe iiiain(ee n rmtvns (there). primitiveness and (here) civilization between erences “ edn gis h grain the against reading sat   “ h moaino ios nclna ni,Lt Mani Lata India, colonial in widows, of immolation the , canon ” nte12s lhuhmdr oilg,apart sociology, modern Although 1920s. the in fi al ntewy nwihwomen which in ways the on cally ” “ hti oebde nsubaltern in embedded so is that new ” ot fiaoe which over Africa South — “ h ugss re suggests, she universal “ tradition ” rt and truth fl ” ected and ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 oilgsso utr aebe cieyitrse n nae ntewy nwhich in ways the in engaged and interested actively construct been have people culture of Sociologists colonialism internal democratize and historians Marginalization and to decolonize particular to not us challenge is reciprocate. theorists parentheses, to production. need postcolonial in knowledge any and add feel Asian subaltern not may do Thus, South I Europe of of problem, production historians The history; very position: European the in subaltern works circulation, power a and of occupies asymmetries production the history knowledge given that global argues in Chakrabarty Dipesh of production, models knowledge plural with understanding working of of necessity challenge the the and brings traditions traditions. knowledge. studies multiple European subaltern of with then, coexistence intersect the culture, and on of live sociologists nevertheless For they morality, and authority, naeeti re ofrhrnac u nesadn fthe of understanding our nuance further to order in engagement hnw a olne ra h usino rniint oent slna or linear as modernity to transition of question the treat place. to longer place from no time-lagged can simply we then modern coasgnrlyhv o nae ihteeitleta traditions intellectual these with engaged not have generally scholars oacs,egg,adrpeettevie fnndmnn rus sw aeshown have we As groups. non-dominant e of multilayered voices its been the has represent studies and subaltern engage, of access, project to greatest the Perhaps struction. hc,freape lt a o en(hkaat 00:5 in 2000b: way a (Chakrabarty in to been history ceased not to traditions has Arabic relegated intellectual were Plato and earlier analysis example, Persian, and of for thought loss Sanskrit, of which, the in categories fact, whole traditions in and intellectual was, thrive, rule countries: colonial colonized of in result One rule. nial modernity into formed ol artd(xetfrteacut ydpnec hoit)inrdo glossed or ignored self- com- theorists) as not dependency capitalism was by and accounts modernity Europe the e of that the for story over the (except demonstrated Yet narrated have imagined. monly previously theorists as postcolonial contained, and historians n t oent.I hsvi,tescooia tre htw nw el n act and tell, action social know, of political roots we and the social that or of societies, stories consequences entire sociological of the parts even the constitutive or vein, the problems, understand this we In how upon, modernity. its and nyb eesr oudrtn h odtosudrwihtradition of which and under would capitalism it conditions sociological that of the such modern history understand given, Much as to the modernity models. necessary of and multiple be tradition model between only of one opposition acceptance the in took an belief theory toward from and away modernity, shift a necessitate misrecognize only not do ourselves. West misrecognize the we in but us world, of the Those of parts inaccurate. other worst at and incomplete om fcptls oent,i i obcueo t atclrhsoy hc ae its makes which Thus, history, world. particular the its of of certain parts developed because other Europe so Western in did If unlikely it progress. replication modernity, historical capitalist of model of single forms a create to story speci a with place In h uatr unt ocutrfcsdatnino h nweg e knowledge the on attention refocused Foucault to turn subaltern The uatr itra iehCarbry(00)rmnsu htErp a speci a was Europe that us reminds (2000b) Chakrabarty Dipesh historian Subaltern rvnilzn Europe Provincializing — npr u otetaiin hteitdpirt ooils n capitalism and colonialism to prior existed that traditions the to due part in ff c fEurope of ect fi “ itr n hti a encsl o st aeuieslzdthat universalized have to us for costly been has it that and history c h Other. the e se per ’ H UATR,TEPSCLNA,ADCLUA SOCIOLOGY CULTURAL AND POSTCOLONIAL, THE SUBALTERN, THE eainhpt t ooisi osiuigbt t capitalism its both constituting in colonies its to relationship s rubytesrnetsaeetaottesblent of subalternity the about statement strongest the arguably , e fw rn htteeaemlil aso being of ways multiple are there that grant we if Yet . ” uatr tde o studies Subaltern “ hr-ol itrasfe edt ee to refer to need a feel historians Third-world ff r potnte odee that deepen to opportunities ers “ rvnilzn Europe provincializing – ) lhuhEuropean Although 6). — “ ’ Other l hs r tbest at are these all ocpso power, of concepts e se per ” ” ff 20b 28). (2000b: cso colo- of ects n t con- its and a trans- was ” would ff ort … — fi 41 c Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 hda .1989. G. Bhadra, mn .1984. S. Amin, References power of regimes which in ways the highlight scholars subaltern here, RADHAKRISHNAN SMITHA AND RAY RAKA 42 scholars Subaltern economy. a be most to Europe been appeared political have and sphere that global sphere States very the subaltern United of that a world dynamics the the the the of in to how more revealed communities examined Katrina has marginalized Hurricane it invisible. rendered of have little South, economy a global towards the terms, on dichotomous less understanding or our colonialism. more extend internal in behalf of view can on to theory we speaking tend cultural sociologists, nationalists we Indian as which bourgeois insights, marginalization, of of these case Borrowing the in peasants). (as of internal or India) about tural bourgeois or nationalist, colonial, bu h ntdSae sapltcltrioyi hc uatr rusaerld but ruled, are groups mainstream. political subaltern and which social in the territory in political participation a or as consent without States United the about lcmn?B nertn nitrs ntepltc frpeetto ihabroad a with representation dis- of of politics politics o and studies the subaltern cultures in Narmada engagement, subaltern the interest political on or an of conversation Mumbai conceptualization integrating global in a By groups inform placement? subaltern India displaced in of Valley struggles the understanding experiences, everyday their constitute that power linkages of study, re to relationships the also studies Orleans the but exploring subaltern New upon by while in informed focus tools communities world, only similar sociological set marginalized the of new to example, set a around a for ask marginalization using groups to In sociology subaltern of them. allow between about can kind nationalism questions We this bourgeois West. of and the Linking colonialism within e of privilege groups. dynamics the and power assess non-dominant of to layers characterize attempt about question then a can also but West, and rs,T 1997. T. Brass, h ol ihwiht s noaieqetosta r eeatt u tngahe of ethnographies our to relevant are that questions world. an innovative contemporary ask the to as which with Ward tools the Ninth the does example, for How, scope. in con- multi-sited ethnographic a subjects, or such of formation that tional the existing in contradictions spheres power political the state of of of possibility role the consciousness the and of full explorations (with raises) ceptualization introduce we doing, Studies ed., lhuhteepnieshlrhpo utrso lblzto a oue extensively focused has globalization of cultures on scholarship expansive the Although “ uha xlrto assnwknso usin,sm fwihcudb transna- be could which of some questions, of kinds new raises exploration an Such Othering “ uatr Studies Subaltern Others, 44:201 24(4): fl c upon ect ” “ “ fi ” “ hr World Third adia aam:Grkpr atr p 1921 Up, Eastern Gorakhpur, Mahatma: as Gandhi hnbcmsntjs usinaotteitrcin ewe East between interactions the about question a just not becomes then h gainMt,the Myth, Agrarian The l lo o oeknso ersnainadntohr?Hwmight How others? not and representation of kinds some for allow eld “ hte xenl(si h aeo ooilpoutoso knowledge of productions colonial of case the in (as external whether h etlt fSblent:Knaaao Rajdharma. or Kantanama Subalternity: of Mentality The — – ff 45. ce ytedidsraiaino h Sadtegoaiaino the of globalization the and US the of deindustrialization the by ected o noe lc,adlcigi oiia capital political in lacking and black, income, low oueV.Dli xodUiest Press. University Oxford Delhi: VI. Volume , how ecm oko htw oaotteecmuiis nso In communities. these about do we what know to come we ” ’ hno the of than mhsso h tutr fhgmn losu othink to us allows hegemony of structure the on emphasis ff — cso htpwro o ecm oko and know to come we how on power that of ects tutr n ii u aso nwn bu cul- about knowing of ways our limit and structure ‘ New “ ’ is World, First ouimadthe and Populism “ autonomously. ” n e ti hs h occupy who those is it yet and ’ it ad ecudnot could we Ward, Ninth s – 22. ‘ New ” ff ” rthe er uatr Studies Subaltern ’ ” Right. p 54 Pp. fi — ” l fsociology of eld – ora fPeasant of Journal hs worlds whose 1i .Guha, R. in 91 — :1 3: whether – 71. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 opr .1994. F. Cooper, soa,A 2001. A. Escobar, 1990. C.H. Enloe, al .. et,MJ,adBtai .2003. 2001. M. T.M. Battani, and Li, M.J., Neitz, J.R., Hall, onl,RW 1997. R.W. Connell, rmc,A 1971. A. Gramsci, —— 1982. Ranajit. Guha, aln ..1994. F.E. Mallon, htrei .2000. V. Chaturvedi, clnok .1995. A. McClintock, ai .1990. L. Mani, or,DS 1998. D.S. Moore, ady .1989. G. Pandey, O rnr .1996. S. Ortner, ahkiha,S 2005. S. Radhakrishnan, 1997. P. Pels, cwr,H n a,S 2000. S. Ray, and H. Schwarz, 1989. S. Sarkar, 1988. E. Said, 1990. P. Chatterjee, —— 2000a. D. Chakrabarty, orge,I 2001. I. Rodríguez, ’ Review Localization. Press. California of University inaoi:Uiest fMneoaPress. Minnesota of University Minneapolis: nvriyPress. University ed. R., Publishers. International York: New Routledge. n .Vi,eds., Press. University Vaid, S. and Zone. History. .SnaiadS ad eds., Vaid, S. and Sangari K. Zimbabwe Press. University Rutgers ooilSuhAsia. South Colonial ieenhCentury. Nineteenth ed., Postcolonial otaatedSuhAfrica. South Post-apartheid Governmentality. Bengal. Press. University Oxford Press. University Publishers. 9 1(1): aln .2000. R. Hanlon, 1997. . 2000b. . h itrcTr nteHmnSciences Human the in Turn Historic The ” – ” 9 1516 99: 32. ” oenAinStudies Asian Modern uatr tde:Wiig nSuhAinHsoyadSociety and History Asian South on Writings Studies: Subaltern p 1 Pp. mrcnHsoia Review Historical American odnadNwYr:Verso. York: New and London . ’ “ atr Highlands. Eastern s Chandra rvnilzn uoe otooilTogtadHsoia Di Historical and Thought Postcolonial Europe: Provincializing ” “ “ h nhoooyo ooils:Clue itr,adteEegneo Western of Emergence the and History, Culture, Colonialism: of Anthropology The Foreword. “ “ oiia Geography Political – “ eitneadtePolmo tngahcRefusal. Ethnographic of Problem the and Resistance “ ayrktAa,Di Adat, Masyarakat “ 3i .Gh,ed., Guha, R. in 53 otniu rdtos h eaeo aii ooilIndia. Colonial in Sati on Debate The Traditions: Contentious – “ h ak-vtro irmu:AVlaeSadli al-wnit Century Early-Twentieth in Scandal Village A Bikrampur: of Kalki-Avatar The Con “ ” aaa,Bahs n ae:Mkn eiitSneo nentoa Politics International of Sense Feminist Making Bases: and Beaches, Bananas, 45. eetosfo rsnNotebooks Prison from Selections h ooilCntuto fCmuaim rts rtnso eaa nthe in Benaras on Writings British Communalism: of Construction Colonial The “ “ h ai mrcnSblenSuisReader Studies Subaltern American Latin The h rms n iem fSblenSuis esetvsfo ai American Latin from Perspectives Studies: Subaltern of Dilemma and Promise The utr isi lcs Re Places: in Sits Culture h ainls eouino h Women the of Resolution Nationalist The nulRve fAnthropology of Review Annual “ apn uatr tde n h Postcolonial the and Studies Subaltern Mapping “ “ eatn oe:Esy nIda ooilHistory Colonial Indian in Essays Women: Recasting h sCasclTer Classical? Theory Classical Is Why ’ “ meilLahr ae edr n eult nteClna Contest Colonial the in Sexuality and Gender, Race, Leather: Imperial nSm set fteHsoigah fClna India. Colonial of Historiography the of Aspects Some On ” fl uatr tuge n h oiiso lc:RmpigRssac in Resistance Remapping Place: of Politics the and Struggles Subaltern Death. s ” “ eoeigteSbet uatr tde n itre fRssac in Resistance of Histories and Studies Subaltern Subject: the Recovering c n oncin ehnigClna fia History. African Colonial Rethinking Connection: and ict uatr tde n otooilHistoriography. Postcolonial and Studies Subaltern p 132 Pp. “‘ p 72 Pp. ” iet hwOrTu Colors True Our Show to Time p v Pp. H UATR,TEPSCLNA,ADCLUA SOCIOLOGY CULTURAL AND POSTCOLONIAL, THE SUBALTERN, THE ” 5 645 35: ” edradSociety and Gender – – eatn oe:Esy nIda ooilHistory Colonial Indian in Essays Women: Recasting ” – 1 nVnykCauvd,ed., Chaturvedi, Vinayak in 115 9in 69 p 34 Pp. 0 139 20: i nRGh n .Sia,eds., Spivak, G. and R.Guha in xii utrlAnthropology Cultural opno oPsclna Studies Postcolonial to Companion A 9 1491 99: – ff uatr Studies Subaltern 76. rne n h iiso eonto nIndonesia in Recognition of Limits the and erence, uatr Studies Subaltern – – 2i .Gh,ed., Guha, R. in 62 74. n ro:Uiest fMcia Press. Michigan of University Arbor: Ann . oilg nCulture on Sociology – 515. fl rn.adeie yQ or n ..Smith. G.N. and Hoare Q. by edited and trans. , cin nGoaimadSblenSrtge of Strategies Subaltern and Globalism on ections 9 262 19: 6 163 26: oueV.Dli xodUiest Press. University Oxford Delhi: VI. Volume , oueV.Dli xodUiest Press. University Oxford Delhi: VI. Volume , ” 33 Ags) 344 (August): 13(3) – mrcnJunlo Sociology of Journal American – 81. 83. ’ h edrdPltc fIdans in Indianness of Politics Gendered the : uhm C ueUiest Press. University Duke NC: Durham, . ’ Question. s odnadNwYr:Routledge. York: New and London . odnadNwYr:Verso. York: New and London . uatr tde edr 1986 Reader: Studies Subaltern apn uatr tde n the and Studies Subaltern Mapping ” p 281 Pp. eetdSblenStudies Subaltern Selected eh;NwYr:Oxford York: New Delhi; . ff e rnwc:Rutgers Brunswick: New . adn A Blackwell MA: Malden, . erence ” ” – eata iw rmSouth from Views Nepantla: 81. p 233 Pp. – e eh:Oxford Delhi: New . 0 nTJ McDonald, T.J. in 304 ” ” e Brunswick: New . p 1 Pp. ” mrcnHistorical American – 0() 1511 102(6): 3i .Sangari K. in 53 p 88 Pp. e York: New . – nGuha, in 9 Berkeley: . ’ – Forest s Delhi: . 2 in 126 – 1995 – 57. 43 . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 16:39 27 Sep 2021; For: 9780203891377, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203891377.ch3 ua-ai,N n nha,F 1989. F. Anthias, and N. Yuval-Davis, iaaarsnn .2002. K. Sivaramakrishnan, 1985. J. Scott, RADHAKRISHNAN SMITHA AND RAY RAKA 44 1996. S. Walby, 1997. L. Spillman, pvk .C 1988. C. G. Spivak, eds., e ok Verso. York: New nvriyPress. University .Sia,eds., Spivak, G. Press. University Cambridge York: New and Cambridge tde Project. Studies enn,adteGoaiaino ot Asia South of Globalization the and Meaning, Woman – Nation epn fteWa:Eeya om fPaatResistance Peasant of Forms Everyday Weak: the of Weapons “ ” oa n Nation. and Woman ainadCmeoain raigNtoa dniisi h ntdSae n Australia and States United the in Identities National Creating Commemoration: and Nation eetdSblenStudies Subaltern Selected p 212 Pp. “ – uatr tde:Dcntutn Historiography. Deconstructing Studies: Subaltern State e ok t Martin St. York: New . – 5i .Lde,ed., Ludden, D. in 55 “ iutn h uatr:HsoyadAtrplg nteSubaltern the in Anthropology and History Subaltern: the Situating ” “ Introduction. p 235 Pp. eh:Ofr nvriyPress. University Oxford Delhi: . odn Anthem. London: . – 4i oa aarsnn ed., Balakrishnan, Gopal in 54 ’ Press. s edn uatr tde:Ciia itr,Contested History, Critical Studies: Subaltern Reading ” p 1 Pp. – 5i .AtisadN Yuval-Davis, N. and Anthias F. in 15 ” p 3 Pp. e ae,C:Yale CT: Haven, New . – 2i .Gh and Guha R. in 32 apn h Nation the Mapping . .