On learning to speak to the text: tracing the trajectory of theorizing the Subaltern

Abstract

In this essay, I intend to initiate a (combative) conversation between three types of text in relation to the concept of Subaltern. The (combative) conversation, in turn, intends to trace the trajectory of the Subaltern as a concept and the crucial interventions at theorizing the Subaltern. Although Subaltern as a concept has come a long-non-linear way, especially, due to the influential and pathbreaking work of the Subaltern Studies Collective, I am of the view that the nuances of theorizing the Subaltern are not adequately attended to, even by the Subaltern Studies Collective. There is even a bigger elephant in the room, that is, Subaltern Languages. There is hardly any discussion, let alone intervention, about subaltern languages which, in turn, leads to the crucial dynamic between Subalternity and Language within the niche of Subaltern Studies. This is the theoretical concern that I am struggling with and attempting to intervene in. I argue, in this regard, that the language of the subaltern—which, oftentimes, is not even recognized as a language—is the most sensitive indicator of subalternity and broadly, the most sensitive site of subalternity and hence, potentially the most responsive site if one may earn the right (while persistently trying to guard oneself against vanguardism and multiple temptations and manifestations of benevolence) to intervene in the site of subalternity with the subalterns in the long term without claiming success and activism. In order to make this broader conceptualization and to learn to work towards that task—a task that is always yet ‘to come’—one needs to attend to the nuances of the concept of the Subaltern. That is the task I assume in this essay. And, of course, I acknowledge that it is ambitious and aspirational. I use the verb ‘assume’ and at the beginning, I use(d) the verb ‘intend’—the former is perhaps less audacious than the latter—and both these verbs counter-intuitively point to contingency. Assumption and intention always already have something which is beyond ‘my’ control and above all, they are texts in their own right—it is to be read, and of course, contingently so. If I can try, at best, to work around/with this contingency, this essay might end up becoming a crucial point in my broader research focus of Language and Subalternity whose contours I still cannot quite anticipate. That being said, in order to read the nuances of the concept of Subaltern, I attempt to speak to three types of text—first, the Notebook 25 which is the “Special Notebook” that Antonio Gramsci has dedicated to the Subaltern Social Groups (here, I will draw insights from four celebrated Gramsci scholars, namely, Joseph A. Buttigieg, Marcus E. Green, Peter D. Thomas and Peter Ives); second, the staging of a subaltern community in the novel, When Memory Dies by Ambalavaner Sivanandan and third, Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri’s recent book (2023, published in Sinhalese) titled, Kithalangamuwe Marthelis: Lankā Sama Samāja Pakshayé Anek Ithihāsayé Parichchedayak [Kithalangamuwe Marthelis: A Chapter from the Other History of Lanka Sama Samaja Party] and the allegory of “Hindi and Urdu” by Saadat Hasan Manto. As my point of departure, and to implicitly and fragmentarily stage the dynamic of language and subalternity, I write something like a Keyword entry on the word Subaltern which I identify as a Keyword, in Raymond William’s sense—this is a gesture which, in many ways, is instructed by Williams’ method and in some ways, my entry deflects from it. These three types (or genres, if you will) of text—the first text is a theoretical text of a certain kind, the second is a piece of literature that does not tokenize or exoticize Sri Lanka, instead, it more or less, ‘abides by Sri Lanka’ and the third text type includes a calculated mishmash of an interview, a biography and a theoretically informed historical account of Sri Lanka’s oldest political party and a politically loaded allegory about the workings of Language—will be read in such a way to attempt to stage a (combative) conversation amongst the three, most importantly, as opposed to ‘applying’ Gramsci or using the two texts grounded in Sri Lanka as ‘evidence' to prove or disprove Gramsci. The (combative) conversation as such and my attempt at speaking to the Text is haunted by my ongoing small-scale work with an ādivāsi group in Sri Lanka while learning their language, to which I shall not explicitly refer in this essay.