EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

When Spivak explains speaking vs. talking I feel she is saying that anyone can talk, but speaking means what you are saying is heard, understood, and contemplated. She uses speak very broadly because she explains that even actions (without words/talking) can be a form of speech as long as they are understood, thought about, and get your main idea noticed. In reference to who can/cannot speak in today’s world, I believe all-too-well that the most unheard voices are children/teens and minorities. Many adults don’t take children and teens/young adults seriously; therefore they blow off opinions and suggestions they may have. Minorities probably have the worst deal as far as being heard goes. Too many people are still very racist and refuse to open their minds to the opinions of minorities.

I was very confused when reading the Spivak article, on the definition of Subaltern. I was trying to relate the relationship of subaltern with her story about the British coming into Bangledash and not fixing the irrigation canals. She said that the example had little to do with women, but why does she add that in the article? I finally understood the definition when in class we said that the definition was those who have no speaking abilities, those who are truley unheard. That reiterates the fact the these groups of people can talk, but what they say is not heard by anyone else. Their thoughts, opinions, and desires are gone to waste.

When reading this article I was wondering if she was refering women as the only subaltern group.
She never really metions another group of people as much as women. I also didnt know what the whole article was about when they were having the conversation about ecological work. Maybe I wasnt reading carefully enough, but I really dont know what that has to do with the subalten.

I think that "subaltern" is simply the subordinate, the subjected, the oppressed. It is ironic and confusing then that it would have to be discerned. Who gets to be a subaltern? Who is really oppressed? It starts to get rediculous and verbose. I think both Spivak and Said are spreaking so much to say just a little, as if there is a insecure need to sound extra smart. This actually serves to turn readers off, and limits their audience. Then again it sort of seems that in both there is a defensiveness that makes the reader apprehensive to be thier audience. We question wether we can legitimately claim that we "understand" maybe we're the enemy too.

Speaking is when you are talking to have someone hear you, to get your voice heard, and your opinions thought about. Talking is merely voicing anything about nothing important, just a simple conversation with no merit. Anyone and everyone has a chance to speak but the real question is who chooses to speak. The voices heard are the ones speaking loudly enough for everyone to hear with words and actions. They do this because they really believe in what they speak on and want their opinion heard. Sometimes we hear a cry of a speech but politics or majority groups and races stomp on it. However, if one has enough will power they will find a way to speak in a word or action.

To me the subaltern is a class that is glanced over by society so that they do not have any powers what so ever. It is not necessarily a group of people that have less power than everyone else. These people still have the ability to get their word out and make a point, possibly in order for them to become more equal. The subaltern does not even have this. They are isolated in that they, through societal constructs, cannot make their own opinions and beliefs known and have no freedom.

Spivak makes the distinction between “speaking” and “talking”. “Speaking” is when ones beliefs are heard and taken into consideration by others. Speaking requires a conversation between two people, groups, etc. The other party must understand and acknowledge the speech and opinions within. Therefore “speaking” is a two way street. There needs to be the speaker and the listener who actually “listens”. “Talking” is the act of speaking; however other people are not necessarily listening and acknowledging the speech. Anyone can talk, however the act of talking does not necessarily imply that others acknowledged it. The powerless groups are able to “talk” but not “speak” because they can express their opinions, it is just that no one will consider them.
The people who can speak are the those who have power or they may not have power but have their opinions backed by others that do have some power. The voice any single person hears is based on what they choose to hear. If someone refuses to acknowledge someone’s opinions there is no way that person can get through to them.

Although speaking and talking may seem to go hand in hand, this is not necessarily so. As Spivak and many of our classmates have already mentioned, speaking is an action that requires someone to be listening. Talking is an action of the vocal chords and does not mean that one is speaking. People talk to themselves all the time, and maybe at times that person is listening too, but we just say “I was talking to myself.” We don’t say “I was speaking to myself.” This may just be a small glitch in the way English works, but I read more into it. It makes me think that talking really doesn’t matter. It’s just a process to make sounds. Even if what you say makes sense, it doesn’t matter if there is no audience. In order to speak one must be heard and in order to be heard one must have some pull or power. Those who are able to speak have people who listen to them. It seems like the voices that are always heard are those in power, with the most resources who can not only get their voice out there, but can make people listen to what they have to say.

I also found what Karl said to be very interesting. It does seem that, as a white American reading this work, maybe I will never understand completely because I am able to speak and be heard. Is Spivak making me feel guilty? I’m not sure.

I can see where someone would confuse speaking and talking as they are usually synonimous, but Spivak makes her definition of speaking fairly clear. You can talk all you want, but if no one listens, you might as well have not opened your mouth. It reminds me of the proverb "if a tree falls and no one is around, does it really name a sound?" If you talk and no one listens, have you really said anything? I find this to be very inspiring to really listen to what others have to say, both those who can and cannot speak.
I do find the idea of the subaltern somewhat confusing. What makes someone subaltern? I'm sure the idea of the third world and those who are impoverished would be included in its description, but what pushes something into that category? I don't think Spivak made that distinction very clear.

My definition of "subaltern" is anyone who is oppressed, who is considered lower than other people, who is considered of lesser quality and substantiality. In terms of speaking vs. talking, i think that everyone can talk, but only those whose voices are heard can speak. The main speaking forces in the world are the nations who are more economically and technologically advanced than others. Many parts of Europe, North America, etc., have the ability to speak; while certain parts of Asia and Africa can talk, but have a harder time speaking. Talking is forming opinions, etc. and voicing them; while speaking is talking and being heard.

I can also see that speaking and talking are two entirely different things. If they were the same thing.. they’d be one word! (just kidding) Seriously though, I think that in order to speak, as Gayatri and other classmates indictated, one has to have an audience of some sort. You can talk all you want, but that doesn’t mean people will listen. Well here’s a question: if you talk to yourself, is that talking or speaking? Technically, you have an audience, but they audience is yourself… hmmm.

I think that Bhubaneswari Bhaduri was talking and no one heard her, but through her suicide, she finally spoke. I don’t like that, but I guess that was the way it was. We can’t change the past.. only the future. I think that Gayatri’s focus on Bhubaneswari’s incident was very necessary. Not only did Bhubaneswari speak for herself, but Gayatri did as well.

I think a subaltern are people who have no rights as a citizen, or may not even be considered citizens. Those who's actions are controlled by others without having any input of their own. People who are subaltern would include slaves, the lowest caste members, and illegal immigrants.

The difference between speaking and talking is that talking is refering to actually saying things out loud. Speaking is the interaction between the one who is talking and another who is listening. Subalterns can talk, but does not mean they are speaking because speaking would entail somebody else hearing what they have to say. Spivak's whole notion of subalterns is that they have no real voice in any matter because no one will bother to hear and understand what they are saying, and that is why speaking does not apply to subalterns. Speaking and speech have broad applications beyond simply uttering words. I think any action that draws others to listen and wonder at what you are doing entails a speech on your part.

Yashkumarie highlights a good point--did Bhubaneswari only "speak" after Spivak "heard" her? Spivak speaks against a "museumizing" advocate for the subaltern, but did Bhubaneswari's utterance--to become "speaking"--require Spivak's advocacy and careful listening?

I think maybe I was a little harsh. I do think that this gets a little wordy and therefore hard to understand, but I think that it's imiportatnt to talk about. Think of all the bogus philosophy out there, it took a long time to build a discourse of "orientalism" and may take a long time to build a discourse about its deconstruction, these are early writings in the genre right?

I would say the subaltern is a group of people who are oppressed, not only oppressed, but also do not have to ability to be heard. The subaltern are essentially 'invisible' to the rest of the world, because of the oppression and because people don't listen to what they have to say.

Talking is the act of conveying ones ideas. Where as speaking is a relationship betweeen the one talking and the one listening. In order to speak, you must be heard. But talking is simply forming words and thoughts, not necessarily being listened to.

In response to Marcia's comment:

I think that Bhubaneswari's utterance did require Spivak's advocacy and careful listening. Maybe someone else would have come along and really "listened" to this woman's story by examining why she had died. But Spivak definately was a vessel in which this story was exposed. Is Spivak being a hypocrite then when she talks about "museumizing" the subaltern? Didn't she do this when spreading the story of Bhubaneswari? How are the subaltern suppose to be heard if only a few people are really listening...can't the people that are listening make an impact on the people that are ignoring the subaltern by telling their stories? Lots of questions....:)

In response to Jen's last question:

Just like we were discussing in class if people who are not part of a group have the right to tell others their stories in order for more people to listen. I have been thinking about it and it depends on if the writer has a bias or not. Writers who tell a story from the perspective os a group like the subaltern, most definitely have to have a deeper connection to understanding that group of people. By making judgements and arguements about a person who is completely different from you displays an inaccuracy of the real emotion or belief of that person. Usually the intentions are good, to inform others of a situation that may need to be "fixed", but that perception in itself is arrogant since it is placing one person in the position of needing help and the other in the power position of giving help. The real message that should come across is an accurate depiction of that person and their emotions and thoughts in certain situations.

jen's question is an intertesting one. However, the problem with others telling the story of the subaltern, or the unheard is that they will be telling the story with there own personal biases. It seems that the best way to get the subaltern heard is through literature. If people won't listen when they speak, then authors from that area (or any authors for that matter) need to write on the subaltern. Spivak is probably the best example of this. THe people who choose to write on subaltern should do so in a way that is as unbiased as possible. They also need to write about the subaltern in a way that shows them as humans and as equals, not as minorities or people we should feel sorry for.

Frankly speaking, i found this article to be something very difficult to comprehend, mainly because she uses so much of words to explain something, which otherwise could be explained in a simple sentence. As far as i understood, subaltern is an untouchable, much like the osus in Achebe's "Things fall apart". They are the minority and are the ones who do all the "dirty" works of society like cleaning drains and stuff. They dont have even the basic rights and most importantly they cant even "speak" and "talk". Just like its been pointed out so far, speaking is having someone to hear you while talking is something which is said without it getting comprehended or even acknowledged. Maybe they had been oppressed for so long that the widow had no option but to "speak" through her action.

From what I got out of the article, subaltern meant some of the people in "third world" countries who are not heard in the world forum for one reason or another. For example, the ruler of a "third world" country would not be part of the subaltern crowd becuase he has more power and can have realtions with press and create realtions with foreign countries, allowing him to voice his concerns.
Spivak notes a difference between speaking and talking. I took talk to mean in the literal sense, talk. When you hold a conversation with someone, you are litterally talking to them and you use your vocal chords to talk. To speak, in Spivak's terms, is to be heard. I think that one reason people in "third world" countries cannot speak, is a result of them being cut off, mostly from technology, from the rest of the world. Press is another problem. If a "third world" country has no freedom of the press, then it's a lot harder for them to voice their opinions.

Before reading this, I had no idea what subaltern was until I looked it up in the dictionary. To me, it means someone that is discriminated against, or thought of as being lesser, of lower class. The difference between "speaking" and "talking" is how you portray yourself while your doing it. If you come across as being confident and if you believe in the words that your saying, then I would say your "speaking". But if you say or agree with something, and fail to speak up or take action then your just "talk". It depends on how well an individual can carry themselves and succeed in winning the hearts of other people based on the words they say.

When it's said that a failed insurgency is a failure to speak, I think that this means that if one isn't going to say something thought provoking or something of substance it isn't really speaking. I guess this could be where the difference between speaking and talking begin to show themselves. Talking would be just agreeing with a point that was already brought up, or when someone says something of little importance. Speaking is when something is said that really provokes negative or positive thoughts of others that they either fight or agree with. I think this is actually a very specific definition because before this, it was thought that speaking was the same thing as talking, and that would be considered a broad definition.

To me, the subaltern is just another way of saying "third world." I really feel that the connotations presented in this new word are not so much better if any better at all. Sub automatically puts bad thoughts in my mind and some people may be confused because they are not familar with the new phrase.

As far as the third world speaking, often time nobody is there to listen. This Spivak relays to us as talking. In recent history, there have been cases of the third world not listening to the Western world as well. The best example of this is the Aids crisis. It seems the western world has reached out to Africa for this awful disease and told Africa that their traditional practices of sex are spreading this disease at an unbearable rate. The use of condoms has been talked about, but not many have taken to the new idea. I understand that this may be an extreme case, but sinceAfrica has spoken out about Aids, the Western World has helped out. In this particular instance, the West seems like they are the ones doing the talking.

I actually looked up the dictionaries definition of subaltern and it actually means lower in rank, secondary, or subordinate. I found this very interesting as it related to the story of Foe. I thought the subaltern definitely seemed inferior to others. The story gives an example of a women who kills herself because her words were not heard because she was “inferior” and as a result the only way she could relay her problems was through her actually death. For someone to “speak” their must be interaction between the speaker and the listener, or an understanding. I also found it interesting that our actions seem to be out of “nonknowledge” or undermining. Those who act out or act different are supposedly those who have a lack of knowledge to express their feelings and emotions in knowledgeable words. At least that’s what it seemed Spivak was saying. The subaltern are incapable of speaking even if they have a tongue and a voice they are not given a voice or given the wisdom to have a voice heard.

I actually looked up the dictionaries definition of subaltern and it actually means lower in rank, secondary, or subordinate. I found this very interesting as it related to the story of Foe. I thought the subaltern definitely seemed inferior to others. The story gives an example of a woman who kills herself because her words were not heard because she was “inferior” and as a result the only way she could relay her problems was through her actual death. For someone to “speak” there must be interaction between the speaker and the listener, or an understanding. Actions seem to be out of “nonknowledge” or undermining to the subaltern. Those who act out or act different are supposedly those who have a lack of knowledge to express their feelings and emotions in knowledgeable words. At least that’s what it seemed Spivak was saying. The subalterns are incapable of speaking. Even if they have a tongue and a voice they are not given a voice, or given the wisdom to have a voice heard.

Even in "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Spivak is arguing, not necessarily on the subaltern's behalf, but assuming their intent. The subaltern perspective is really our western perspective bending itself into something that we think resembles what they want to convey. And if you think about it that way, the subaltern can never speak, for when they are given the opportunity to speak they are forced to put their plight into the language (not necessarily french, english, etc but with phrases that westerners can understand) familiar to the western world. Here they give up their subalternity and become a representatively western voice.

I suppose you could say that the subordination of the subaltern lies in the division of those who know how to speak and those who know how to be heard. Inevitably the subaltern is one who knows how to speak, but not how to be heard.

The difference of speaking from talking was highly distinctive. As speaking denotes that you really speak out your ideas rather than just talking. I agree as well that those whose voices aren't heard much are those of the kids or the young ones. Adults must help in improving self esteem in children so that they won't think that they are not worth hearing or that their ideas are not worthy.

Improving self esteem in children could help them speak up. They have these good and brilliant ideas sometimes that they don't realize its value because they don't believe in their selves.

If "speaking" requires "listening", then doesn't the listener ultimately hold power in matters of "speech"?

That is to say, if the voices of the subaltern are not heard, it is because those with the power to listen do not do so.

Likewise, the subaltern have a limited ability to reduce the ability of the dominant to "speak" to them; a form of resistance based on an ignorance and exclusion of dominant voices.

Yet if "speech" is read to encompass actions as well, then the subaltern are to some extent bound to hear the "speech" of the dominant.

Ultimately the question of whether the subaltern can speak rests on whether the "altern" (the "everyone else") engage in selective "listening" practices or not.

One possible solution to the problem of not being "listened" to is to center one's discourse within the dominant framework. Just as a disease becomes part of the body, so this discourse will tend to break down the dominant framework from within.