Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Mousa Anbari ¹
• Narges Souri ²
• Hamidreza Jalaipour ³

¹ Associate Professor of Development and Social Policy Department, University of Tehran,, Tehran, Iran.

² Phd student of Socil and rural development , Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

³ Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Based on the theoretical logic of subalternstudies, this article has dealt with its internal criticism.Its main question is whether it is possible to trace an elitist strain in it despite the claim of these studies?For this purpose, by using the secondary analysis method and relying on the opinions of three leading figures of this approach, namely RanajitGuha, DipeshChakrabartyand GayatriChakravortySpivak, a formulation of the theoretical claims of subalternstudies has been presented.These studies criticize the elitist historiography for ignoring the role of the subaltern in making history and defines its goal as searching for the role of the subaltern in historical and social developments in order to recognize the subaltern as an independent subject. These studies explore the "positive role" of the subalterns in building their destiny from a compassionate position and try to make visible the politics of the subalterns, which are invisible in elitist historiography.The critique of the present article to the subaltern studies project is that by considering the subaltern as a" clean-handed object" and neglecting the issue of subaltern domination and the fluidity of the subaltern position, it has ignored their "negative role" in the production and reproduction of the relations of domination.The marginalization of the negative role of subalterns in these studies has caused that despite the claim of being anti-elitist, there are elements of elitism in the analysis of domination relations.

Keywords

• : clean-handed object
• episteme of imperialism
• dominion of subaltern
• anti-elite historiography
• studies of subaltern

Main Subjects

• Social history