Practice question · Multiple choice
Spivak argues that to be heard the subaltern must use forms belonging to the power being resisted. Why does that NOT mean historians should give up on recovery?
Hints
- Ask what the alternative to doing the work would leave.
- The claim is about the STATUS of the recovery, not its possibility.
Show the answer
B. Because the conclusion is about honesty, not abandonment
Why
Reading a counsel of care as a counsel of despair is the standard misreading. The point is to keep working while refusing to pretend the recovered voice is unmediated.
Practise Postcolonialism and Subaltern Studies
The app has 5 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. History I is free to start.
More questions on Postcolonialism and Subaltern Studies
- Said held that Orientalist scholarship was superb AND that it served empire. Why are those two claims not in…
- Why was Guha unsatisfied by nationalist history, which had already displaced the British account?
- Why does Spivak answer "can the subaltern speak?" largely in the negative?
- Most surviving evidence of peasant revolt is police and court records. What does that do to a history of the…
- Sort each formulation: Eurocentric habit or Chakrabarty’s corrective?
- Said held that Orientalist scholarship could be both technically excellent and an instrument of empire.
- Chakrabarty says the "waiting room of history" still speaks someone else’s grammar. Whose, and why does that…
- What four questions does this tradition hand a working historian, of anywhere?