Can The Subaltern Speak Summary
They were relegated to the household, and made to submit to the male-dominated patriarchal society, as has always been prevalent in our country. Indian women, who fought as equals with men in the nationalist struggle, were not given that free public space anymore. They became homemakers, and were mainly meant to build a strong home to support their men who were to build the newly independent country. Women were reduced to being second class citizens. Sprawling inequalities persisted in their access to education, health care, physical and financial resources and opportunities in political, social and cultural spheres. It was almost unthinkable for women to have a choice or a say in matters of marriage, career or life. Rather she had no voice
…show more content…
They are compelled to be muted. Their voices do not get an opportunity to speak out of the women’s problems and needs. Their desires always get lost before the grand narratives of patriarchy, even the national history and narrative rarely recognize the major contribution of the females in the texts or document. Whenever the woman is portrayed, she is put in the second position below the man. She is always kept silent. Identifying this issue, Indian critic and feminist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak asks— can the subaltern speak? in her essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’. To answer this question, she says: “There is no space from which the sexed subaltern subject can speak . . . The subaltern cannot speak” (Spivak 103-104). The reason, Spivak shows, is that Indian woman is always given a label of Sati or good wife. “Sati as a woman’s proper name is in fairly widespread use in India . . . Naming a female infant ‘a good wife’ has its own proleptic irony . . .” (102). By giving a great woman portrayal to the Indian woman, the grand narrative of patriarchy stereotypes the status of woman in the society. Through this, a boundary is imposed on the Indian women’s lifestyle and so-called freedom. While examining the power and position of Indian women, Spivak observes a fragile
They are compelled to be muted. Their voices do not get an opportunity to speak out of the women’s problems and needs. Their desires always get lost before the grand narratives of patriarchy, even the national history and narrative rarely recognize the major contribution of the females in the texts or document. Whenever the woman is portrayed, she is put in the second position below the man. She is always kept silent. Identifying this issue, Indian critic and feminist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak asks— can the subaltern speak? in her essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’. To answer this question, she says: “There is no space from which the sexed subaltern subject can speak . . . The subaltern cannot speak” (Spivak 103-104). The reason, Spivak shows, is that Indian woman is always given a label of Sati or good wife. “Sati as a woman’s proper name is in fairly widespread use in India . . . Naming a female infant ‘a good wife’ has its own proleptic irony . . .” (102). By giving a great woman portrayal to the Indian woman, the grand narrative of patriarchy stereotypes the status of woman in the society. Through this, a boundary is imposed on the Indian women’s lifestyle and so-called freedom. While examining the power and position of Indian women, Spivak observes a fragile