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

Extended abstract:

Critical reading of subaltern studies: the issue of subaltern domination and the necessity of

a rethinking

The current research criticizes the studies of Subordinateas a late approach whose initial core emerged in 1988.The main question that has been tried to be answered is whether, despite the fundamental claim of Subordinatestudies that it is anti-elitist, it is possible to trace elitist aspects in it?To answer this question, the secondary analysis method was used, which actually re-analyzes previous data and research.In this regard, the first-hand sources of three leading figures of Subordinatestudies, namely Ranajit Guha, Dipesh Chakrabartyand Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, have been examined.

Few researches have been conducted in Iran focused on the theoretical approach of Subordinate studies.However, one can find historical studies with the approach of social history or history from below.A search in the conducted research shows that two categories of research have been conducted in this field:First, the researches that have dealt with the theoretical conflicts of Subordinatestudies approach;Researches such as Narration of History in SubordinateStudies by Jamal Mohammadi and Jahangir Mahmmudi, Introduction to SubordinateStudies by Amir Ali Nojoomian and Gholam Abbas zoulfaqari, Spivak and SubordinateStudies Beyond Foucault by Reza Najafzadeh are included in this category.Second, researches that have often used this theoretical approach to analyze the history and society of Iran with a sympathetic stance.The emptiness of the mentioned researches is the neglect of the problem of the dominion of Subordinate, something that the present study tries to reveal through the channel of internal criticism of Subordinatestudies.

The approach of subaltern studies, following Gramsci's approach, focuses on the theoretical expansion of the concept of subaltern.Ranajit Guha criticizes the elitist historiography of India for ignoring the role of the people in making history and emphasizes that the studies of the subaltern recognize the people as the subject of their destiny.Examining the peasant revolts in India, Guha mentions the existence of an independent realm of subaltern politics, which, of course, is different from elite politics.According to him, the elitist historiography of India has left the politics of subalterns out of the scope of its historical research due to its view of legitimate politics.

Above all, Dipesh Chakrabartytries to distinguish the border of Subordinatestudies from Marxist historiography because the accusation has been made by thinkers like Arif Dirlik that Subordinatestudies are nothing but the Third World version of Marxist historiography.According to him, although Subordinatestudies, like Marxist historiography, aim to free Subordinatefrom the humiliation of future generations, it differs from it in some aspects:First, because of the emphasis on the relative separation of the history of power from world history, and second, because of the analysis of the ratio of knowledge and power in historical archives.Referring to Guha's and Hobsbawm's debate on the concept of pre-political consciousness, Chakrabartyshows how Guha raised the issue of domination without hegemony by emphasizing plural modernity and showed that precisely because of this, the possibility of the emergence of the realm of subaltern politics alongside elite politics in India arose. As a result, contrary to Hobsbawm's idea, the consciousness of the rebel peasants in India cannot be considered a pre-political consciousness or the remnants of the feudal system. According to Chakrabarty, Subordinatestudies are distinguished from Marxist historiography for another reason, and that is Foucault's encounter with historical documents and archives.

In fact, Spivak rethinks the positions of subaltern studies and tries to show the difficulty of making the consciousness of the subaltern visible through the criticism of post-structuralists such as Foucault and Deleuze.According to her, Foucault and Deleuze, as heralds of heterogeneity, ignore the role of ideology, geopolitical determination, and international division of labor, and as a result, put the intellectual in the position of a hidden subject.According to him, they forget that imperialism allows only the assimilated subject to speak. As a result, although the subordinate can speak, he actually only speaks of what the episteme of imperialism has allowed him to narrate.

The criticism which is based on the theoretical assumptions of the subaltern studies is ignoring the fluidity of the subaltern situation and, as a result, the domineering face of the subaltern.Guha, Chakrabartyand Spivak have a common understanding of a problem, which is that they consider the condition of subaltern as the condition of lack of dominance.While every subordinate at any level can have two faces: dominant and dominated.This means that subaltern can be in the position of exercising dominion over another subaltern or their peers.But the domination of the subordinate is ignored in these studies and the subaltern is considered clean-handed object.Unwanted invisibility of subaltern's domination in the realm of history and politics gives these studies an elitist facet, and this is the moment when subaltern studies violates its main theoretical assumption, which is to be anti-elitist.

Keywords: clean-handed object, episteme of imperialism, dominion of subaltern, anti-elite historiography, studies of subaltern.