She is best known as a postcolonial theorist. Though her early career would have included “applied deconstruction.” Her reputation was first made for her translation and preface to Derrida’s Of Grammatology (1976) and she has since applied deconstructive strategies to various theoretical engagements and textual analyses including feminism, Marxism, literary criticism and postcolonialism. eflexivity in prefaces” (editor’s introduction to The Spivak Reader) and “absolutely unreadable, its only virtue being that it makes Derrida that much more enjoyable.” Her subsequent work consists in post-structuralist literary criticism, deconstructivist readings of Marxism, Feminism and Postcolonialism.

It signifies not only the act of response which completes the transaction of speaker and listener, but also the ethical stance of making discursive room for the Other to exist. In other words, “ethics are not just a problem of knowledge but a call to a relationship” (Introduction to The Spivak Reader).

She interrogates the politics of culture from a marginal perspective (“outside”) while maintaining the prerogatives of a professional position within the hegemony.  she brings the outside in. These contradictory positions have led her to develop the notion that the center is also a margin, more like the center line on a road than the center of town.

The goal of essentialist critique is not the exposure of error, but the interrogation of the essentialist terms. Uncritical deployment is dangerous. Critique is simply reading the instructions for use. Essentialism is like dynamite, or a powerful drug: judiciously applied, it can be effective in dismantling unwanted structures or alleviating suffering; uncritically employed, however, it is destructive and addictive.

In critical theory and post colonialism, the term subaltern designates the populations which are socially, politically and geographically outside of the hegemonic power structure of the colony and of the colonial homeland. Subaltern was coined by Antonio Gramsci, notably through his work on cultural hegemony, which identified the groups that are excluded from a society's established institutions and thus denied the means by which people have a voice in their society.

 

Spivak's essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" perhaps best demonstrates her concern for the processes whereby postcolonial studies ironically reinscribe, co-opt, and rehearse neo-colonial imperatives of political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural erasure. According to Spivak, postcolonial studies must encourage that "postcolonial intellectuals learn that their privilege is their loss" (Ashcroft. et al 28).

Spivak borrows the term “subaltern” from Gramsci, in order to refer to the unrepresented group of people in the society . In the Indian cultural context, “subaltern” acquires more significance as the people have struggled hard for Indian independence. She prefers the term  as it encompasses the exact picture of the lower class people. India is a land of varieties and vitalities. It is divided into different states in the name of class, religion, language, ethnicity, gender and citizenship. In this scattered outlook, the condition of the subaltern is all the more pathetic. Spivak came to the forefront of literary circle with her celebrated essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?”.

 Spivak proposes a theory of subalternity in her essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In this essay, she vindicated the limitations of the subalterns, asking “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (283). By “subaltern‟ Spivak means the oppressed subjects or more generally those “of inferior rank”. According to her, “In the context of colonial production, the subaltern has no history and cannot speak, the subaltern as female is even more deeply in shadow” (287). Her statement “subaltern cannot speak” has litigated flames of controversy in the post-colonial context.  The theory formulates that the subaltern can speak but others do not have the patience to listen to them. The message conveyed by the sender does not reach to the receiver as it is hindered by the element of noise. Articulation is an involuntary act by the human beings but to interpret things in the real sense takes conscious effort on the part of the listeners.

Racial discrimination began with the advent of colonialism. Colonialism had a specific game plan behind the venture. In the name of civilizing the East and purify them from barbarity, the European forefathers imprinted their foot-marks on various countries as a source of autonomous power. In order to carry out the administration in new colonies, the Europeans established political order and it was executed either by force or by hegemony. The binary oppositions led to the creation of racial discrimination between the white settlers and the natives. In order to carry out the smooth functioning of all the activities, the white imperialists advocated the policy of “Divide and Rule”. The criterion for racial superiority or inferiority was on the basis of colour and wealth. The society was divided on the basis of racial issues. The subalterns were made to believe that they belonged to an inferior race and so not fit for making any real contribution to the society. The white settlers always emerged as champions of the superior race. Such type of comparisons subjugated the will and aspirations of the subalterns. The white settlers very often resorted to violence for the implementation of various policies. Racial subalternity continues to evolve its repercussions even after the colonial rule. In the post-colonial studies, the term “race” has paved way for “ethnicity” so as to account for human variation in terms of culture, traditions, social patterns and ancestry.

Post-colonialism marks the end of colonial period and the dawn of the new era. The post-colonial period is a significant one for the subalterns because both the nation and the people have just been relieved from the terrible clutches of colonial rule. This period embarks on a mission to reproduce the colonial experience of the subalterns in literary works. All the colonialised nations of the world have a subaltern identity. It is only in the post-colonial context that they do realize their past-subordination. Spivak, the post-colonial critic, incorporated all the original ideas behind post-colonialism and preferred the term subaltern.

The society has identified the woman as a person who belongs to the “fairer sex”. Males and females co-exist in this society for the harmonious growth and development of the nation. They share equal responsibilities in supporting the family but at the same time gender difference occurs even in the family. Females play a vital role in the reproduction process and still they are labeled as “the second sex or the weaker sex”. The concept of the “Subject” and the “Other” points to the proposition that only the males have the right to live in the society. Males themselves cannot live in the society, so they consider women as their supporters and treat them as secondary. In “Can the Subaltern speak?” Spivak says:

As object of colonialist historiography and as subject of insurgency, the ideological construction of gender keeps the male dominant. If, in the context of colonial production, the subaltern has no history and cannot speak, the subaltern as female is even more deeply in shadow (287).

In the Indian cultural scenario, the historiography failed to represent the contribution of women towards the materialization of Indian independence. It would be now difficult to retrieve the voice of the subaltern or trace the tyrannical process behind the subaltern classes. Women had a very limited role to play in the society as they were not allowed to think independently. They are pleased to live with their men and they carry out a lot of household duties that come under the category of unpaid labour. Though women are proficient in doing many jobs, they are not allowed to make any kind of initiatives in their lives. The gendered subalterns are playing the role of mere shadows to please their men. The role of the shadow comes to an end when the light goes out of her husband.

“Can the subaltern speak?”  Is a rhetorical question asked by Spivak and her intention was not to invite any kind of reply but to state the impediments of the subalterns. The essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” discusses the problem of widow sacrifice in great detail and Spivak reiterates her standpoint that subaltern cannot speak and the condition of the woman is even more complicated. Though women obeyed the whims and fancies of their men, they had a voice within themselves, a voice of dissent and disapproval. All women who became victims of patriarchal violence and atrocities had something to say or they wanted to make their position clear whether they were for or against a proposition. The historian failed to record the voice of dissent and especially that of the subaltern women. It would be now very difficult to recover the dissenting voice of the subaltern and the case is further complicated as they lost between colonial power structure and the Hindu religious codes.

Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” provoked a flood-gate of controversies from every nook and cranny of the world. The essay became controversial because Spivak reiterated her opinion that the subaltern could not speak and that the condition of women was more pathetic. One of the reasons for this controversy was the comparison of the words „speak‟ along with „talk.‟ Spivak regrets for the way in which the entire concept of the essay is misconstrued by replacing the word „talk‟ instead of „speak‟. Many critics use the sentence “subaltern cannot talk” as against the sentence “subaltern cannot speak.” (Spivak, The Spivak Reader 289). In her essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, Spivak states that „the subaltern cannot speak‟ by attaching a special emphasis on the element of noise. The communication that takes place between a subaltern and a non-subaltern is actually lost due to the element of noise. The element of noise is influenced by the racial, cultural and socio-economic factors. The goal of communication is achieved only when the desired message is conveyed to the receiver. Though the sender tries his / her level best, the communication is interrupted by the element of noise.

In “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, Spivak propounds her theory of subalternity. The crux of her theory is that „the subalterns cannot speak.‟ The tenets of the theory became controversial as they were interpreted with false conviction. Spivak‟s theory of subalternity does not admit the concept that subaltern cannot talk. Spivak has attached a special significance to the term „speak‟ in her essay. By speaking, Spivak means transaction between speaker and receiver. When the subalterns try to speak, the message that they try to communicate becomes totally distorted. It happens in a continuous process because others are not ready to listen to them. As people turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the subalterns, communication system fails and no transaction takes place. The subalterns are not able to have transactions with others because of the disparity that exists in the society. The subalterns were subjected to the colonial rule and only the colonizer had the voice. The entire concept of „voice‟ is determined by the „subject‟ and the category of the „other‟ does not have a voice of his/her own. After the colonial rule, the subalterns were again subordinated to the elite upper class. The subaltern women continue to suffer and there is little scope for further improvement.

Spivak’s theory of subalternity is still relevant as people suffer in the name of gender, class and creed. As change is the only permanent thing in the world, the subalterns should continue to make their position clear before the authorities. It is only when the authorities heed to the pleas of the subalterns that the new dawn of life may be enjoyed by the subalterns in its fullness.