(Tina)Theresa Hannah-Munns
Article Review
Leona Anderson
July27, 2006
Das, Veena. (1989). “Discussion: Subaltern as Perspective,” Subaltern Studies VI: Writings on South Asian History and Society, edited by Ranajit Guha.
While the title “Subaltern as Perspective” makes this article seem to be an introduction through discussion of an entry point into subaltern studies, this is not the case as this discussion is one by and for those already intimately associated with this discipline. Coming from an indigenous political perspective, I had to read this article three times over to filter through the nuanced layers of critical analysis built within this discussion paper. Though many critiques of various analytical footing are addressed, such as value analysis, distribution of roles, the study of group dynamics, orders of narration, and the like, some of the primary steps to producing colonial deconstruction seemed to be missing. The answer lies in the main critique that Das forwards within the multi-intellectual veneer of her discussion. I had to come to the realization that, as she explicitly states but I did not give enough emphasis in my own interpretive process, Veena Das is critiquing the critiques forwarded within the first five volumes of Subaltern Studies, critiques that nuance the positions of anthropology, history, and then the meeting of the two within the South Asian Subaltern field. This field is similar, but not the same, as that of indigenous studies in which I have been schooled.
In Indigenous Studies, cross-cultural dialogue through storytelling is the method for the meeting of anthropology and history, the meeting of mainstream scholarship to indigenous scholarship, that creates an ethnohistory that seems to be similar to but surpasses the stage where Subaltern Studies was at in volume six of their journal. This seems to be one of the calls produced by Veena Das to subaltern scholars; to produce more critical analysis of the layers between the disciplines by using more of the subaltern histories as viewed by the “chroniclers of the cultures” (324). Veena Das critiques one subaltern author, Pandey, who states that “‘non-official (thus non-colonial) sources are neither quite so abundant nor as easily accessible.’” (314); as Das points out, the voice of the “locally-produced histories” (324) are not issues about amount or accessibility of thes materials, but of authorizing or lending legitimacy within academia and the officiating historical lines of construction for these materials to create an impact onto the main narrative of colonial history. This issue is a central point to be addressed, to create the academic space to allow the subaltern voice through rather than the colonizer once again speaking for the colonized culture, in order for this line of scholarship to provide the political framework that will deconstruct “the consciousness of ourselves as colonial subjects” (310).
This deconstruction is already intellectually in place for Subaltern Studies to move from being a conceptual position of reason to that of an action orientation. Das’ formulation and expanded critique of Weber’s rational and affective action categories as polarized residual categories rather than complimentary ones can lead to a “relation of authenticity” (312) between the Subaltern and the institutions of the colonizer by bringing the voices of the local chronicler’s into their articles, into their academic and theoretical mindsets, and thus creating a more ethical space of “contract” (313).
Not even Veena Das has fulfilled her own call to action as her examples are void of the local chronicler’s voices and her discussion empty of the Subaltern voice speaking for themselves. Her call for reciprocal analysis can still be maintained, the layers of critique can still be forwarded, but the local chronicler’s voice would lend authenticity that renews the academic institution rather than perpetuates the codependent assumption that we as Eurocultural descendent or Euroculturally trained scholars can speak for the oppressed. The oppressed have a sincere voice of agency once the academic doors are opened to them, as indigenous studies proves, but we as academics, no matter the level of intention towards reciprocal relationships, must become humble enough to deal with the voice of reaction that covers and/or surrounds the voice of agency that the chronicler’s bring to the academic table. Without the subaltern voice, no matter how many multicultural scholars are trained, subaltern studies, including this discussion article, continues to be a colonial machine of discourse.
