Abstract

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988) remains a cornerstone of postcolonial theory, critiquing the limits of representation and epistemic violence inflicted on marginalized groups. Spivak challenges Foucault and Deleuze’s claim that the oppressed can transparently articulate their conditions once ideological constraints are lifted, arguing that such views obscure the West’s sovereign subject position and the international division of labor. She defines the subaltern as those excluded from social mobility, with women doubly silenced by native patriarchy and colonial imperialism. Distinguishing Vertretung (political proxy representation) from Darstellung (discursive portraiture), Spivak warns against their conflation, which enables essentialist portrayals. Through the colonial sati debate and Bhubaneswari Bhaduri’s misinterpreted suicide, she illustrates how subaltern voices—even bodily ones—lack transactional significance within hegemonic discourses, leading to her famous conclusion: “the subaltern cannot speak.” Engaging Benita Parry’s critique of denied agency, Spivak defends her position against romantic essentialism. The framework applies today to NGO imagery, digital activism, and refugee representation, where empathetic Darstellung rarely yields genuine Vertretung. Spivak urges intellectuals to unlearn privilege and practice ethical listening rather than patronizing voice-giving.