Sherpa SS 1 PDF

8/20/2016
AMarxistCritiqueofSubalternPedagogyinIndianAcademiabyChepalSherpa
CounteringtheHegemonyofHegemonyinSocialScience:
AMarxistCritiqueofSubalternPedagogyinIndianAcademia
ChepalSherpa
CentreforPoliticalStudies,SchoolofSocialSciences,JNU
INTRODUCTION
ThepublicationofRanajitGuhasElementaryAspectsofPeasantInsurgencyinColonialIndia in
1983 marked the beginning of Subaltern School in Indian academia. From books and articles
published by distinguished academics like Partha Chatterjee and Sudipta Kaviraj to daytoday
academic lectures of teachers and discussions amongst students in universities and colleges, a
significantshiftwithintheacademiatowardspostcolonialtheorisationandsubalternstudieshave
takenplace.Thesubalterndeviationandshifttowardscultureandcommunityspecificstudies
havecreatedapedagogywithintherealmofbourgeoisideologicalpositioning,comfortablyshying
awayfromcrucialissuesofexistingclassantagonismsinIndiansociety.Thesubalternschoolhas
http://toanewdawn.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/amarxistcritiqueofsubaltern.html
1/16
8/20/2016
employedGramscisconceptofhegemonyindefiningtheIndiansocialrealityithasappropriated
theconcept/theoryandadjusteditwiththeissuesofculturalidentitiesinunderstandingsocietyand
replaced class with community in the analysis of the Indian state. The paper locates this as a
misappropriation of theory by subaltern school leading to pedagogical crisis within existing
educationalandacademicpedagogy.Theepistemologicalframeworkproposedbytheschoolisan
extension of the dominant discourse of power. The paper recognises subaltern school as an
established pedagogy in the academia and educational institutions and tries to provide a critique
basedonMarxisttheoreticalframeworkandanalysis,whereinideologycritiqueformsthebasisof
study.
It is only by decoding the hegemony of hegemony and bringing back class based critical
pedagogyintheacademia,thatwecancreateanalternativetoongoingpedagogicalcrisis.Thisis
nottosuggestthattheexternalonslaughtofneoliberalismoneducationisunimportant.Rather,the
argumentistonecessitateandtopeepintotheinternalcontradictionswithintheexistingpedagogy
andwaystocounteritbyplacingpedagogyoftheoppressed.
PostcolonialisminIndia
The radical overtones of subaltern school in academic practices might appear as the alternative
theoreticalpracticeinpedagogicrelationsbutthepoliticoideologicalbaggageoftheschoolisladen
with objectifying tendencies of the power/knowledge game of the very biopolitical model they
propound.[1] The project of subaltern studies have only led to further objectification of the
subalternclassesandpopulation,moreliketheIndianstateorBritishRajthanofferingaradical
projectofemancipationandfreedom.It is true that the subaltern historiography has widened the
horizonofunderstandingofthepolitical,buthasfurtheredthescopeforconservativeradicalism
atthesametime.Thisistypicalintheprojectwhichthesubalternschoolhavesetforitselfwriting
the history of the politics of the people or political consciousness of the subaltern which in
2/16
8/20/2016
othersenseisfurtherobjectificationanddeliberateimpositionofagencyandpoliticalsubjectivityto
thepeople,asifthesubalternclasseswerevoidofpoliticalconsciousness.
Subalternschoolfailstounderstandthenotionofhistoricaltime.Theprojectofsubalternschool
is limited only to the review of history on the basis of essentialist dichotomies elitesubaltern
whichfixescommunitiesandgroupsinsocietytoimmobileandstaticzoneswherehistoryfindsno
breathing space, nor creativity. Further, the dichotomy is a metaphysical one, similar to Hegelian
universalism,wheresubalternschoolsparticularessentialisttakeandcompartmentalisationleadsto
particularuniversalismofthesubalternintoanautonomousdomainofhistorywhichfurthergets
reifiedandalienatesitselffromthetotalityofhistoryandhistoricaltime.
Therefore what is the alternative to the existing crisis? As social science and academia definitely
constitutesapartofthesocialprocess,verymuchlocatedwithinthestructureswhichinhabitcrisis,
what role do subaltern studies have as pedagogy in Indian academia in the given context of
crisis?CanSubalternSchoolbeconsideredacriticalpedagogy?Ifnot,whatisthealternative
pedagogy? How can we establish pedagogy of the oppressed in significant ways?What is the
alternativetotheexistingcrisisintheacademiaandsocietyatlarge?
In this pursuit, the first section of the paper deals with the theoretical aspect of subaltern school,
analysing the arguments and thesis of elite and subaltern in reference to the social relations,
dominance without hegemony characterising the state with special reference to Ranajit Guhas
workswhichformedthebasisofthesubalterndiscourse.Thelatersectionwillanalysethesubaltern
pedagogicdiscourseandcriticallyengagewithitslimitations,particularlylookingatitspedagogical
formandthepoliticoideologicalcontentofthewholediscourseofsubalternschoolandexplorethe
possiblecontoursofalternativetotheexistingeducationalcrisis.Thepaperisasteptowardscritical
engagement with the contradictions within pedagogy. There has been a little orientation to
ideologicallyplacetheseestablishedpedagogiesandproduceasystematiccritique,thispaperwill
besignificanttowardsthateffect.
3/16
8/20/2016
Gramsci:wrotethebeginning
HistoricalBackground:
InfluencedfromItalianMarxisttheorist,Gramsci,thesubalternschoolinIndiastartedinthe1980s
with the project of writing subaltern history of South Asia and countering the elitism of both
colonial and bourgeoisnationalist historiography of Indian nationalism. Ranajit Guha was the
founderoftheschoolandlaterjoinedbySahidAmin,ParthaChatterjee,DavidHardiman,David
Arnold, Gyanendra Pandey and others. Subaltern studies, emerged in the aftermath of Maoist
peasantinsurgencyofNaxalbariof1967andIndiraGandhisEmergencyyearsof197577.[2]The
disillusionment with the orthodox Marxism and the elitist historiography led to this project of
writing history of the subaltern groups and classes in India. Following Gramscis prescription:
Every trace of independent initiative on the part of subaltern groups should therefore be of
incalculable value for the integral historian. Consequently, this kind of history can only be dealt
withmonographically,andeachmonographrequiresanimmensequantityofmaterialwhichisoften
hardtocollect.[3]
4/16
8/20/2016
Thefirstvolumeofsubalternstudieswaspublishedin1982undertheeditorshipofRanajitGuha,
thefounderoftheschoolbytheOxfordUniversityPress,Delhi.Thefirstfourvolumesoftheseries
SubalternstudiesI,II,IIIandIVtill1985underhiseditorshipmainlyfocussedonwritinghistory
from below about 19thand 20th century India (Chaturvedi, 2000). While first four volumes
focussedonthepeasantrebelconsciousness,bytheendofSubalternStudiesIV,theshifttowards
debates within subaltern school about the future of the project had already taken place. With the
publication of Subaltern Studies V and VI in 1987 and 89 respectively, the shift towards post
Marxism has taken place with the growing crisis in Marxist theory and influence of Foucauldian
notions(Chaturvedi,2000).Bythistimetheprojecthadassumeditselfformallyasapostcolonial
projectwiththegrowingacademicdebatesandengagementsintheinternationallevel,particularly
with the publication of Selected Subaltern Studies in AngloAmerican academic world and
U.S.A.IntheSubalternStudiesvolumesVIIItoX(199299)wecanseeincreasingadoptionof
postMarxistforms,accommodatingitselftotheculturalistthemesofhumanitiesinacademiaof
USA.
Thesubalterns?
5/16
8/20/2016
StructuralSplitinSubalternHistoriography
ThecentralissueforsubalternschoolinattemptingtoapplyGramscisideasandconceptsinIndian
context is that of autonomy. Gramscis concern was to explain why state power in modern
capitalistsocietieswasdifficulttooverthrow,ashewaswritinginthefascistItaliancontext.Hewas
also concerned as to why the subordinated were not able to create their own leadership and
organization.Inotherwords,heemphasisedthatthesubalterngroups[4]werealwayssubjecttothe
authority of the ruling groups. The subaltern studies in contrary to this hegemonic theory has
deviated and rather argued that the subaltern politics constituted an autonomous domain which
neitheroriginatednorwasitdependentuponelitepolitics(Guha,1982.p.4).Thesubalternschool
arguesthatthesubalterndomainhasitsrootsintheprecolonialperiodcontinuingtooperateinnew
strains, both in form and content.[5] Similarly for Chatterjee, without the autonomy of the
subalterns, their identity would not exist at all where they can resist and at the same time be
dominated. Without autonomy, they would be integrated and encapsulated within the life and
cultureofdominantclassesthereforetheideatoconceptualisethewholehistoryofthesocietyinto
divisions. Chatterjee argues that the elitist historiography in India emphasised on history as a
processwithoutdivisioninsocietyandintheprocesshasdestroyedthehistoryofthesubaltern.
[6] The autonomy of the subaltern domain of politics has been a recurrent theme in the essays
contributed to the Subaltern Studies. Let us discuss the dichotomy between the elite and the
subalterninthesubalternhistoriographyinamoreelaborateform.
Ranajit Guha, the founder of subaltern studies in his book Elementary Aspects of Peasant
Insurgency in Colonial India, taking from Gramscis understanding of the subaltern makes a
structural split between elite and subaltern domain of politics, dichotomized into two different
worlds,hearguesthatthepeasantorsubalternconsciousnessisindependentandautonomousof
6/16
8/20/2016
theelite.Guhashowsthisintheprocessesofmobilizationamongthepeasantsbasedonprimordial
relations and solidarity based on kinship, community identity during the times of insurgency. He
furtherextendstheargument:thatthepeasantconsciousnessispoliticalincharacterandpossesses
rationalityofitsown.ThisunderstandingofGuhabreaksawayfromtheMarxistunderstandingof
thepeasantryasprepoliticalpeoplecharacterisedbynonmoderntendencieslackinganypolitical
consciousness eminent among those Marxists was Eric Hobsbawm[7], Guha criticizes this
historiography in its fullest. This criticism of Guha is also extended against the elitist
historiographyofcolonialismandnationalisminIndia.
Given this thesis, the Subaltern Schools project of creating an alternative historiography and
counteringthedominanthistoriographiesofliberalimperialismandliberalnationalisminIndia
is based on the assumed dichotomy between the elite and subaltern, where the dominant
historiographies masquerade subaltern domain through the unified field with all ideologies and
politicalpracticesoftheperiodarticulatedwithinasingledomain,[8]thedomainofelitepolitics.
Therefore the task of creating an alternative historiography of the subaltern, a social history
antithetical to the colonial and nationalist historiographies representing the subaltern agency
becomesessentialinthesubalternschoolsproject.
Thesubalternthesisofeliteandsubalterndomainshouldbeunderstoodinthehistoricalspecificity
ofcolonialmodernity.Thecollaborationofthenewelitethroughthecolonialeducationsysteminto
thecolonialgovernmentalpoweriswellassumedbythesubalterns.SudiptaKavirajarguesthatthe
British Raj in its civilizing mission attempted to change the fundamental nature of the Indian
societythroughGramscianism,[9]forexample,thecolonialmastersadoptedtheculturalstrategy
of reforming Indian society through creating an elite intelligentsia assuming the homogeneity in
culturalstructureofIndiansocietysimilartothatoftheEuropeanbourgeoissocietywhereuniform
commonsenseprevailed.TheconfigurationofpowerincolonialIndiaconstitutedthenativeelite
7/16
8/20/2016
as well, this elite as shown was appropriated by the colonial state in its realm of epistemology
whichlaterformedthenationalistelite.Thisbringsustothequestionofstructuralcomplexityof
theIndiansociety,theorganisationofpowerandthediscourseitemittedtosustainitselfthrough
vocabulariesofknowledge.Inhiswords:
Eventually, the colonial establishment was able to alter the entire conceptual apparatus of a
significantcrustoftheIndianelite,especiallythenewelitethathadcomeintobeingthroughthe
colonialprocessitself.(Kaviraj,1994)
Thequestionofthenatureofcolonialstatebecomesimportantforthesubalternproject,because,
unliketheEuropean(metropolitan)context,wherethebourgeoishegemonyoverotherclasseswith
formallegal bourgeois institutions existed, the paradox in the colonial setting was that the same
bourgeoisie was based on domination through the colonial state. Therefore the nature of colonial
state was characterised as dominance without hegemony where subjugation of the subaltern
classes under the domination of the elite was maintained through the power relations. To quote
Guha:
Wetaketheenigmaofthatoversightcommontobothofthoserivalideologies(colonialistand
nationalist)asourpointofdepartureandgoontosuggestthatthecolonialstateinSouthAsiawas
very unlike and indeed fundamentally different from the metropolitan bourgeois state which had
siredit.Thedifferenceconsistedinthefactthatthemetropolitanstatewashegemonicincharacter
with its claim to dominance based on a power relation in which the moment of persuasion
outweighed that of coercion, whereas the colonial state was nonhegemonic with persuasion
outweighedbycoercioninitsstructureofdominance.(Guha,1998,p.xii)
Asfarasdominanceofthestatepowerisconcerned,thepostcolonialunderstandingisbasedonthe
abovementionedassumptionandtheorisationofhistory.ThenationalbourgeoiseliteinIndiafailed
8/16
8/20/2016
tospeakforthenationhencethestateasameasuretomaintainthedominanceoftheeliteoverthe
subaltern(Guha,1998).Theideaofcolonialstateexercisingdominationwithouthegemonycomes
fromtheGramscianunderstandingofthestateintotworealmscivilsocietyandpoliticalsociety.
AccordingtoGramsci,thestatecreatesandmaintainsitshegemonythroughcivilsocietyoverthe
subordinatedclasses,hearguesthatitistypicalofthewestEuropeancountrieswherebourgeoisie
hasprevailedoverthesocietyandhasbecomehegemonicovertheotherclassesworkingclass,
peasantsetc.Inotherwords,thebourgeoisierulesoverthesocietythroughthemeansofpersuasion
ratherthancoercion.ThesubalternschooltakesfromthistoarguethattheIndianexperiencedoes
not show hegemonic Bourgeoisie but exercise of power through domination which in essence is
basedoncoercion.
Thesubalternschoolincounteringtheelitehistoriographyasthebodyofknowledge,whichledto
objectification of the subaltern groups to mere appendage of elite nationalism, has in the process
gone to the extent of critiquing the whole Enlightenment Project. The further claim of the
subalternstudiesisthatIndiancaseisanexceptioninwhichuniversalizingtendencyofcapitalhas
notbeenrealized.GiventheIndiancase,subalternsarguethatcapitalhasplayedadifferentrolein
Indianhistory,wherecolonialismhadtothwarttheprocessofcunningofreasoninthecolonies
and the enlightenment project of human emancipation failed to accommodate its objective, rather
thewholeenlightenmentdreamgotconvertedintoanightmarewherecolonizerslegitimisedtheir
aristocraticrulethroughtheideologyofitscivilizingmission.
ThesubalternstudiesprojectstartedwiththethesisthatIndianbourgeoisiefailedtospeakforthe
nation. The historiography of subaltern school is to rewrite the history of the subaltern domain,
wherediscoursesofnationalismisconsideredtobeelitediscoursewhichdoesnottakeintoeffect
the politics of the people. Sudipta Kaviraj identifies nationalism as a discourse of the elite in
9/16
8/20/2016
colonial India,[10] the nation as an idea is assumed to be associated with Bourgeoisies non
hegemoniccharacteroverthesubalterngroupsinthesociety,thereforethisapproachofsubaltern
studies has compartmentalised the social reality and experience of social classes into alienated
zonesofstructures
Aninstanceofclassstruggle
For Gramscis concerns was a concern of philosophy of praxis, the praxis through which
permanentvictorybreaksthesubordinationofthesubalterngroups(Gramsci,1971.P.55).The
understanding of hegemony in Gramsci is devoid of complete overhaul of the conditions of
existence in which the subaltern finds himself. He is to be understood in the light of this
philosophicalprojectofarrivingatthepraxiswhichcouldbringaboutthevictoryofthesubaltern
classes. For Gramsci, it can only be realised in the praxis guided by class struggle. The
consciousnessofthesubalternclassesdefinedintermsofpopularculture,language,andfolkloreas
the spontaneous philosophy of the subaltern in the form of commonsense is not to be
understoodasautonomousdomain,butlinkedtothewidersocialworld,asmechanismsthrough
whichthesubalterncommunicateswiththeworldheinhabits.Thesubalternschoolhasplacedthe
subaltern domain on the basis of community relations with the structural split between the elite
andsubaltern,wheretheelitedomainofpoliticsisindependent.
DipeshChakrabartywasrightinhiseulogizationoftheparadigmshiftinsocialsciencewiththe
comingofthesubalternstudies.[11]Theparadigmshiftwasashifttowardsatechnicalpedagogyof
Biopolitical model of situating social relations as governmental rationality and outcome of
disciplinaryandgovernmentalpower.Thestructuralsplitbetweentheeliteandsubalternisthe
effectofthispedagogicformulation.Subalternschoolsdichotomybetweentheeliteandsubaltern
istheeffectofthissynthesis.Theeliteisassumedtobethepartofthemodalityofpowerfreefrom
10/16
8/20/2016
the social bond and the subaltern groups possessing consciousness structurally placed. Partha
Chatterjeeproclaimstheconsciousnessofthesubalternpeasant:
Following Guha, the argument of the subaltern studies group of historians has been that by
studying the history of peasant rebellions from the point of view of the peasant as an active and
conscioussubjectofhistory,oneobtainsasanaccessintothataspectofhisconsciousnesswherehe
is autonomous, undominated. One thereby has the means to conceptualise the unity of that as
grounded in a relationship of power, namely, of domination and subordination. Peasant
consciousnessisacontradictoryunityoftwoaspects:inone,thepeasantissubordinate,wherehe
accepts the immediate reality of power relations that dominate and exploit him in the other, he
deniesthoseconditionsofsubordinationandassertshisautonomy.Ithasalsobeenarguedthatthe
community is the space where this contradictory unity of peasant consciousness makes its
appearance.[12]
Thecommunityisthepregivenidentityofthesubalternwhichexistindependent,whichattimesis
consideredasnonmodern,basedonthetraditionaltiesofkinshipandcommonfamilialbonds.The
structural split created by subaltern school is fraught with tension and contradiction between
subalternagencyandstructuralismofcommunity.Actuallythesubalternconsciousnessisfoundin
autonomousdomainbytheschool,thisautonomousdomainisaninstanceofstructuralrealization
ofcommunityinitsinnerlogic.ThecommunityiscommonsenseasGramscihadargued.Inthat
sensethesubalternisalwaysautonomous,whydoesitneedtoreclaimitsconsciousness,sayonlyat
times of rebellion or insurgency or riot, in resisting the domination of the elite? Therefore the
paradoxofsubordinationandautonomydidneverexistforthesubalternpoliticsinactualityhere
the subaltern school confuses community with classstruggle. Therefore community is only an
instanceofclassstruggle.
11/16
8/20/2016
SubalternCommunity,aParticularUniversalism
With the coming of subaltern studies, class has been replaced by community in Indian social
science. The whole lot of publications by members of subaltern studies were focussed on
communityasthecentralapproach,thishowever,isamanifestationofpedagogiccrisis,because
the pedagogic formulation of subaltern studies in the form of paradigm shift into community
specifichistoriographyisbasedonthestructuralsplitofpoliticsintoautonomousdomainsaswe
have discussed above. The structural split between the elite and subaltern leads to specific and
particular universalism where the whole social body is dichotomised and compartmentalised into
twoparallelhistoriesofsocietywhichisdisconnectedfromthesocialorganizationofgroupsin
society.Thisparticularuniversalismofcommunityasrealityinsubalternstudiesisnomorethana
falseconsciousness,aswehaveseen,theessentialistapproachoftheschoolinitscrazeforfinding
thevagueandsometimesmetaphysicalsubalternconsciousnessatthesametimehastorecognise
thedominationandsubordination.Thetheoreticalassumptionoftheschoolwhilemaintainingthe
particularistic autonomy of the subaltern classes, in parallel measure has to safeguard the
particularisticdominationofelite.Ifthisequationistoexist,thesubalternapproachhastostartwith
statusquo, the universal affirmation of particularities of both elite and subaltern. For that matter,
subalternstudiesintheprocessobjectifiedthelowerclassesinthetechnicalityofitsapproach.
The subaltern concept of community is nothing but an anthropological understanding of the

subalternclassespeasantsandruralmassesintermsoftheculturalandcommunitarianrelations
theyinhabit,asRanajitGuhaheavilyderivedfromstructuralanthropologyinhisworksonpeasant
insurgencies.Thisiswherethesubalternschoolassumethepedagogyofstatusquo,asthiskindof
formulationonlygivesasymptomaticunderstandingofthepeasantandsubalternclassesintermsof
fixityandparticularisticlabelwithinhistory.Thisisbecauseofthebiopoliticalmodelofsubaltern
12/16
8/20/2016
school, for example, in the case of communalism in India, the subaltern school categorises it as
nonmodern,authenticetc.asGiriwouldargue,itfailstorecognisethefactthatcommunalismis
verymuchinternaltothesocialorganisationofIndiansociety.[13]
ParticularUniversalismtoTotalUniversalism
The pedagogic formulation of the subaltern studies is based on community, as we discussed

above,itisbasedonHegeliandialecticofmasterslaverelationwhichclosesallthepossibilityof
newtotalityofuniversalismwheretheoldceasestoremainandqualitativelychangestoatotally
new form. In this regard, pedagogy of philosophy of praxis as asserted by Gramsci becomes
important. I here argue that the pedagogy within which the subaltern school has been framing its
thesisisaclosedonethatisofcommunityunderstoodasparticularuniversalismwhichprevails,
and does not have any alternative than to get tangled in the particularuniversal frame. What
kindofalternativepedagogyarewetalkingaboutthen?IherebringinMarxssolutiontothestatus
quoofstructuralsplitofsubalternpedagogy:
Theorganisationofrevolutionaryelementsasaclasssupposestheexistenceofalltheproductive
forceswhichcouldbeengenderedinthebosomoftheoldsociety.Doesthismeanthatafterthefall
oftheoldsocietytherewillbeanewclassdominationculminatinginanewpoliticalpower?No.
the condition for the emancipation of the working class istheabolitionofeveryclass (emphasis),
justastheconditionfortheliberationoftheThirdEstate,ofthebourgeoisorder,wastheabolition
ofallestatesandallorders.Theworkingclass,inthecourseofitsdevelopment,willsubstitutefor
theoldcivilsocietyanassociationwhichwillexcludeclassesandtheirantagonisms,andtherewill
be no more political power properly socalled, since political power is precisely the official
expression of the antagonisma struggle of class against class, a struggle which carried to its
highestexpressionisatotalrevolution.[14]
13/16
8/20/2016
ThisideaoftotalisalsofoundinGramscisschemaofhegemonywherethesubalterngroupsare
integratedwithinthesystemofoppression,theGramscianalternativetothedialecticbetweenthe
eliteandsubalternisthetotalrevolutioninsteadofsubalternschoolsparticularuniversalismof
autonomy.
Conclusion
Thereforethealternativetothepedagogicalcrisisinsocialsciencetodaycanonlybefoundinthe
Marxian thesis of totality, which implies the abolition of existing status quo, the idea of total
revolution can only be brought about by reinstating the pedagogy of class, identical to the
pedagogy of the oppressed enunciated by Paulo Freire. The representation of the forms of
exploitationanddominationinthesocietycanbeunderstoodintotalitycontrarytothereifiedand
dichotomisedsociopoliticaldomainsproclaimedmainlyinthediscoursesofsubalternstudies.
The totality which I am arguing is not to be misunderstood with the totalitarian tendencies of
regimeorauthoritarianblueprintscritiquedandabandonedevenbytheleftintellectualmovements
(theFrankfurtSchoolscriticismofvulgar/orthodoxMarxismcanbetakenintoconsiderationhere)
inthe20thcentury.Ratherthepointistothinkofcertainwaysoutfromtheexistingcrisis,inwhich
the close approximation we can think is only of class struggle as cognitive practice where
Gramscisprojectofphilosophyofpraxiscanbeascertainedandreclaimedinourquest.
References
Chaturvedi,V(ed.),2000.MappingSubalternStudiesandthePostcolonial,(London:Verso).
Chakrabarty,D.2002.HabitationsofModernity:EssaysintheWakeofSubalternStudies,(USA:UniversityofChicagoPress)
14/16
8/20/2016
Chakrabarty,D.1989.RethinkingWorkingClassHistoryBengal18901940,(U.S.A:PrincetonUniversityPress)
Chatterjee,P.(ed.),2009.TheSmallVoiceofHistory:RanajitGuha.(NewDelhi:PermanentBlack)
Freire,P.1970.PedagogyoftheOppressed,(London:Continuum)
Giri, Saroj (2010) 'Hegemonic Secularism, Dominant Communalism: Imagining Social Transformation in India', Rethinking
Marxism,22:1,130147
Gramsci, A, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, in Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds and trans. (New York:
InternationalPublishers,1971)
Guha,R.1998.DominancewithoutHegemony:HistoryandPowerinColonialIndia.(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress)
Guha,R.(ed)1982.SubalternStudiesIIX,(OxfordUniversityPress)
Guha,R.1983.ElementaryAspectsofPeasantInsurgencyinColonialIndia.(OxfordUniversityPress)
Kaviraj,S.2010.TheImaginaryInstitutionofIndia:PoliticsandIdeas.(NewDelhi:PermanentBlack)
Marx,K.PovertyofPhilosophy
[1]SubalternSchoolusesbiopoliticalmodelwhichtheorizesthatinmodernsocieties,powerandpoliticsoperatesoverlifeandbody
ofindividualsandpopulationthroughknowledge,thereforeknowledge/power.MichelFoucaultsDisciplineandPunishand
Governmentalitystandsseminalinthisregard.SeePaulRabinowsTheFoucaultReader,(1984).
[2]Chaturvedi,V(ed.),2000.MappingSubalternStudiesandthePostcolonial,(London:Verso).
[3]Gramsci,A,SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooks,inQuintinHoareandGeoffreyNowellSmith,edsandtrans.(NewYork:
InternationalPublishers,1971),p.52.
[4]Actuallythephrasesubalterngroupswasusedinreferencetoclass.Gramsciusedthephraseinordertoavoidfascist
surveillanceinItaly.
[5]ThisargumentcomesstronginDipeshChakrabarty,hearguethattheconsciousnessofworkingclassinIndiaislinkedto
premodern,authenticlinkages,verydifferentfromtheEuropeanworkingclass.SeeChakrabarty,D.1989.RethinkingWorkingClass
HistoryBengal18901940,(U.S.A:PrincetonUniversityPress)
[6]Chatterjee,P.1983,Peasants,PoliticsandHistoriography:AResponse,SocialScientistNo.120
[7]E.J.HobsbawmwasaBritishMarxisthistorian,hisbookPrimitiveRebels(Manchester,1969),arguesthatpeasantuprisingis
associatedwithbanditryshortofanyorganizedpoliticsandideology,conformingtotheprimitiveandprepoliticalformofsocial
life.
15/16
8/20/2016
[8]Guha,R.1998.DominancewithoutHegemony:HistoryandPowerinColonialIndia.(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress),p.9.
[9]KavirajreferstothecommonsenseofenlightenmentrationalityinEuropeansocietieswiththecomingofRenaissanceand
bourgeoissocialorder,Gramscireferredtoitascommonsenseofrulingideologydispersedinsociety.Kaviraj,inordertoexplainthe
projectofcolonialstatetochangethecultureofIndiansocietyintoitsprojectofEnlightenmentthroughnativeelitedefinesitas
Gramscianism.
[10]Kaviraj,S.1994.OntheStructureofNationalistDiscourse,inKaviraj,S.2010.TheImaginaryInstitutionofIndia:Politicsand
Ideas.(NewDelhi:PermanentBlack)
[11]Chakrabarty,D.2002.HabitationsofModernity:EssaysintheWakeofSubalternStudies,(USA:UniversityofChicagoPress)
[12]Chatterjee,P.2000.TheNationandItsPeasants,inVinayakChaturvedi,ed.,MappingSubalternStudiesandthe
Postcolonial(London:Verso)pp1718.
[13]SeeGiri,Saroj(2010)'HegemonicSecularism,DominantCommunalism:ImaginingSocialTransformation
inIndia',RethinkingMarxism,22:1,130147
[14]Marx,K.PovertyofPhilosophy,pp.1467.
16/16

Sherpa SS 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sherpa SS 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/20/2016

The subaltern concept of community is nothing but an anthropological understanding of the

The pedagogic formulation of the subaltern studies is based on community, as we discussed

You might also like