ASSIGNMENT

UNIVERSITY OF CHAKWAL
COLLEGE OF ART AND SCIENCE

Darakhshan Kiran

UOC-BSENG-F2020/010

BS ENGLISH (VIII)

Submitted to

Prof Mubashar Hassan

Topic

The rhetoric of English India

Woman skin deep

Can subaltern speak?

 Can the subaltern speak?

“Can the Subaltern Speak?” is a seminal essay by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, first published in
1988. It is a key text in postcolonial studies, feminist theory, and critical theory. In this essay,
Spivak critically examines the role of Western intellectuals in representing the “subaltern,” a
term used to describe marginalized and oppressed groups outside the hegemonic power
structure.

In “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak uses the term “subaltern” to refer to
populations that are socially, politically, and geographically outside of the hegemonic power
structures. These groups are marginalized and oppressed to the extent that they are denied
access to the mechanisms of power and representation within society.

The subaltern are those who are excluded from and oppressed by dominant social, political,
and economic structures. This marginalization is so profound that the subaltern cannot
represent themselves or be represented adequately within the existing power dynamics.

Spivak argues that the subaltern’s voices are systematically silenced by these power structures.
Even when they attempt to speak, their voices are often co-opted, misinterpreted, or ignored
by those in positions of power. Thus, the subaltern are deprived of their agency and ability to
articulate their own experiences and perspectives.

Spivak introduces the concept of epistemic violence to describe how dominant groups
maintain their power by controlling the production and dissemination of knowledge. This
control effectively erases or distorts the knowledge and experiences of subaltern groups.

Spivak is critical of Western intellectuals who claim to speak for the subaltern. She argues that
this form of representation often perpetuates the same systems of domination and silencing
that marginalize the subaltern in the first place. Intellectuals, according to Spivak, must
recognize their own complicity in these power dynamics and strive for more ethical and self-
reflective forms of engagement.
 Spivak provocatively concludes that the subaltern cannot speak within the frameworks
provided by the dominant power structures because their voices are always mediated and
altered by these frameworks. This does not mean that the subaltern are literally voiceless, but
rather that the mechanisms of representation and communication available to them are
inadequate for conveying their true experiences and perspectives.

Spivak argues that Western intellectuals often speak for the subaltern rather than allowing
them to speak for themselves, thus perpetuating a form of epistemic violence. This act of
representation is problematic because it imposes the intellectual’s own biases and perspectives
on the subaltern, silencing their true voices.

Spivak suggests that the subaltern, by definition, cannot speak within the context of the
dominant discourse because their voices are always filtered through the lens of those in power.
Even when subalterns attempt to speak, their voices are often co-opted or ignored by the
dominant structures.

Spivak discusses the case of sati (the practice of widow self-immolation in India) to illustrate
how colonial and nationalist discourses both silenced the subaltern woman. The British
colonialists condemned sati as barbaric while using it to justify their rule, and Indian nationalists
romanticized it as a symbol of cultural tradition, neither truly representing the woman’s
perspective.

Spivak introduces the concept of epistemic violence, which refers to the ways in which
knowledge and discourse can be used to marginalize and oppress subaltern groups. By
controlling the production of knowledge, dominant groups maintain their power and silence
the subaltern.

Spivak challenges intellectuals to acknowledge their own complicity in systems of oppression

and to rethink their approach to representing subaltern groups. She calls for a more self-
reflective and ethical engagement with subaltern voices, one that recognizes the limitations
and responsibilities of the intellectual’s position.
In summary, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” is a critical examination of how power dynamics in
discourse and representation affect the ability of marginalized groups to have their voices
heard. Spivak’s essay remains influential for its profound implications on how we understand
and engage with issues of representation, knowledge, and power in postcolonial and feminist
contexts.

Woman skin deep

“Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism,” commonly referred to as “Woman Skin
Deep,” is another influential essay by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. In this essay, Spivak
examines the intersection of gender, colonialism, and literature through the analysis of three
novels: “Jane Eyre” by Charlotte Brontë, “Wide Sargasso Sea” by Jean Rhys, and “Frankenstein”
by Mary Shelley.

Spivak argues that the issues of gender and imperialism are deeply interconnected. She
explores how the oppression of women within a colonial context is both a gendered and
racialized experience. This intersectionality is crucial to understanding the full scope of their
marginalization.

Spivak critiques Eurocentric readings of literature that often ignore the colonial context in
which these works were produced. She emphasizes the need to consider how colonialism and
imperialism shape the narratives and characters in these texts.

In "Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism," Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak offers a
critical analysis of Charlotte Brontë's novel "Jane Eyre." Her examination is grounded in the
intersection of gender and imperialism, highlighting how colonial discourses shape the narrative
and character dynamics in the novel. Here are the key points of Spivak's analysis of "Jane Eyre":

Spivak situates "Jane Eyre" within the broader context of British colonialism. She argues that
the novel is not just a story about a young woman's struggle for self-realization and
independence but also a text that reflects and perpetuates colonial ideologies.
The character of Bertha Mason, Mr. Rochester's Creole wife, is central to this analysis. Spivak
views Bertha as a representation of the colonial "Other," whose presence and portrayal are
deeply intertwined with imperialist attitudes.

Bertha Mason is depicted as the "madwoman in the attic," a figure of monstrosity and
madness. Spivak argues that Bertha's racial and cultural background plays a crucial role in her
characterization as a threatening and exotic other.

Spivak highlights how Bertha Mason's voice and perspective are systematically erased in the
novel. Bertha is denied any narrative agency or subjectivity, her story being told only through
the perspectives of others, particularly Mr. Rochester and Jane.

This erasure is reflective of the broader silencing of subaltern voices within colonial discourse,
where the colonized are denied the ability to represent themselves.

Jane Eyre's journey towards self-assertion and independence is contrasted with Bertha's lack
of agency. Spivak suggests that Jane's empowerment is, in part, made possible by the
marginalization and suppression of Bertha.

The novel's resolution, which sees Jane and Rochester reunited after Bertha's death, reinforces
the imperialist ideology that upholds the white, British woman's position at the expense of the
colonial subject.

Spivak critiques feminist readings of "Jane Eyre" that celebrate the novel solely as a feminist
text about female empowerment. She argues that such readings often overlook the ways in
which the novel is complicit in colonialist and racist ideologies.

A more nuanced feminist analysis, according to Spivak, must take into account the intersections
of gender, race, and imperialism.

Jean Rhys’s “Wide Sargasso Sea” is discussed as a prequel to “Jane Eyre” that gives voice to
Bertha Mason (renamed Antoinette Cosway). Spivak appreciates Rhys’s attempt to provide a
backstory and a perspective for a character who was silenced and marginalized in Brontë’s
novel. However, Spivak also critiques the limitations and complexities of Rhys’s portrayal of
Antoinette’s identity and agency.

In her essay “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism,” Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
examines Jean Rhys’s “Wide Sargasso Sea” as a counter-narrative to Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane
Eyre.” Spivak highlights how Rhys’s novel seeks to give voice to Bertha Mason, reimagining her
as Antoinette Cosway and providing her with a backstory that reveals the colonial and racial
tensions underlying her character’s fate. While Spivak appreciates Rhys’s effort to humanize
and center Antoinette, she also critiques the limitations of this portrayal. Rhys’s narrative, while
more sympathetic to the colonial subject, still operates within certain constraints that do not
entirely escape the influence of imperialist ideology. Spivak underscores the need for a critical
examination of how even well-intentioned representations of the subaltern can perpetuate
some forms of marginalization.

Spivak touches upon Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” to discuss how the creation of the “Other”
(the monster) mirrors the colonial creation of the subaltern. The monster’s lack of a voice and
identity can be seen as analogous to the silenced and marginalized subaltern subject.

In Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism,” her
analysis of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” serves to illustrate how the creation of the “Other”
parallels colonial discourses. Spivak draws attention to the monster’s marginalized status and
lack of a voice, which mirrors the subaltern’s position in colonial societies. The monster, created
by Victor Frankenstein, is an embodiment of the colonial subject who is constructed by and
dependent on the colonizer yet remains outside the boundaries of the human community. This
exclusion from humanity, coupled with the monster’s silenced perspective, echoes the
epistemic violence faced by subaltern groups. Spivak’s critique emphasizes that the monster’s
narrative, like that of the subaltern, is mediated through the dominant discourse, thus
reinforcing the hegemonic structures that define and control the marginalized “Other.” By
drawing these parallels, Spivak invites readers to reconsider the implications of representation
and the production of knowledge in both literature and colonial contexts, urging a recognition
of the deeply embedded imperialist ideologies within classic texts.
 Spivak’s analysis is a call for a more nuanced understanding of literature that takes into
account the ways in which gender and colonialism intersect. She urges readers and scholars to
recognize the imperialist underpinnings of classic literary texts and to consider the voices and
perspectives that are often excluded or marginalized in these narratives.

In summary, “Woman Skin Deep” by Gayatri Spivak is a critical examination of how gender and
colonialism intersect in literature. Through her analysis of “Jane Eyre,” “Wide Sargasso Sea,”
and “Frankenstein,” Spivak highlights the need to consider the colonial contexts and the ways in
which imperialist ideologies shape the representation of women and the subaltern.

The Rhetoric of English India

"The Rhetoric of English India" by Sara Suleri explores the complex interplay between British
colonialism and Indian society through the lens of literary and historical texts. Suleri, a
renowned scholar, examines how English literature and rhetoric shaped and were shaped by
colonial encounters in India.

Suleri situates her work within the broader field of postcolonial studies, focusing on the
discursive practices of the British Empire in India. She highlights the importance of rhetoric in
colonial power dynamics, showing how language and literature were used to justify and
maintain colonial rule.

Suleri argues that British colonial discourse in India was not just a matter of cultural imposition
but a complex negotiation of power. She examines how British writers and officials used
rhetoric to construct an image of India that justified colonial dominance while simultaneously
revealing their own anxieties and contradictions.

The book analyzes various representations of India in British literature, from the romanticized
Orient to the 'civilizing mission' narrative. Suleri delves into works by authors such as Rudyard
Kipling and E.M. Forster, illustrating how these texts reflected and reinforced colonial
ideologies.
Suleri pays special attention to the gendered dimensions of colonial rhetoric. She discusses
how colonial discourse often depicted Indian women as passive victims in need of rescue by
British men, thereby legitimizing colonial intervention as a moral duty.

The analysis highlights the intertextual nature of colonial literature, where texts refer to and
build upon each other, creating a layered narrative of colonial experience. Suleri also explores
the hybrid nature of colonial identity, where both colonizers and colonized are transformed
through their interactions.

Suleri employs a critical and theoretical approach, drawing on postcolonial theory, literary
criticism, and historical analysis. She deconstructs the texts to reveal underlying power
structures and cultural assumptions. Sets the stage by outlining the theoretical framework and
main arguments.

Each chapter focuses on specific authors and texts, providing detailed analyses of their
representations of India and their role in colonial discourse. For example, the analysis of
Kipling's works delves into his portrayal of British imperialism and its impact on Indian society.

Suleri's work is significant for its nuanced analysis of colonial literature and its emphasis on the
rhetorical strategies used to sustain colonial power. It contributes to a deeper understanding of
the cultural dimensions of colonialism and the ways in which literature can both reflect and
shape political realities.

“The Rhetoric of English India” by Sara Suleri makes significant contributions to postcolonial
studies. Suleri’s work delves deeply into the rhetoric used by British colonialists, demonstrating
how language and literature were essential tools in the maintenance of colonial power. By
unpacking the subtleties of colonial discourse, she provides a framework for understanding
how colonial ideology was constructed and perpetuated through textual representation.

Suleri’s analysis bridges literary criticism, historical context, and postcolonial theory,
showcasing an interdisciplinary methodology. This approach highlights the interconnectedness
of cultural, political, and historical narratives in the study of colonialism, encouraging a more
holistic understanding of colonial and postcolonial dynamics.
A notable contribution of Suleri’s work is its focus on the intersection of gender and
colonialism. She explores how colonial rhetoric often employed gendered narratives to justify
imperialism, presenting Indian women as symbols of the colonized land in need of British
protection. This gendered analysis enriches the discourse on how colonial power relations were
articulated and maintained.

Suleri emphasizes the intertextual nature of colonial literature and the concept of hybridity,
where colonial and indigenous cultures and identities are seen as mutually influencing and
transforming each other. This perspective challenges the binary oppositions of
colonizer/colonized and contributes to a more nuanced understanding of identity in the
colonial context.

By re-evaluating canonical British texts and their representations of India, Suleri encourages
readers and scholars to reconsider the traditional literary canon. Her work calls for a re-
examination of these texts through a postcolonial lens, revealing the ideological underpinnings
and the cultural implications of colonial literature.

Suleri’s analysis extends beyond the colonial period, examining the lasting impact of colonial
rhetoric on contemporary cultural and political relationships between the West and former
colonies. This ongoing relevance of colonial discourse in modern times highlights the enduring
legacy of colonialism and the importance of postcolonial critique.

Suleri’s integration of postcolonial theory with literary analysis offers new theoretical insights
and tools for scholars. Her work enriches the theoretical landscape of postcolonial studies by
providing a detailed examination of the rhetorical strategies employed in colonial literature.

By highlighting the power dynamics in colonial literature, Suleri’s work encourages the inclusion
of diverse perspectives, particularly those of the colonized, in literary and historical scholarship.
This advocacy for multiple viewpoints helps to deconstruct the Eurocentric narratives that have
dominated historical and literary studies.

In conclusion, “The Rhetoric of English India” contributes to postcolonial studies by offering a

detailed and nuanced analysis of colonial rhetoric, emphasizing the importance of gender,
intertextuality, and hybridity, and by encouraging a re-evaluation of canonical texts. Suleri’s
work helps to deepen the understanding of colonial and postcolonial identities and power
relations, making it a foundational text in the field.

While the book is highly regarded, some critics have noted that its dense theoretical language
can be challenging for readers not well-versed in postcolonial theory. Additionally, the focus on
British texts may overshadow the voices and perspectives of Indian writers from the same
period.

"The Rhetoric of English India" is a seminal work that offers a comprehensive and insightful analysis of

the interplay between literature, rhetoric, and colonial power. It remains an essential text for scholars of

postcolonial studies, English literature, and history, providing valuable insights into the complexities of

colonial discourse and its enduring impact on contemporary cultural and political landscapes.