Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Univ

Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'Érudit : info@erudit.org Article "When the Subaltern Took the Postcolonial Turn" John Roosa Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique du Canada, vol. 17, n° 2, 2006, p. 130-147. Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante : URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/016593ar DOI: 10.7202/016593ar Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir. Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Document téléchargé le 9 février 2017 11:38 When the Subaltern Took the Postcolonial Turn JOHN ROOSA Abstract This essay evaluates the changing research agendas of Subaltern Studies, an influential series of books on South Asian history that began in 1982. The essay criticizes the original research agenda as articulated by the series editor, Ranajit Guha, and the subsequent agenda proposed by several members of the Subaltern Studies collective. Guha initially proposed that studies of colonial India understand power in terms of unmediated relationships between “the elite” and “the subaltern” and endeavour to answer a counterfactual question on why the “Indian elite” did not come to represent the nation. The subsequent agenda first formulated in the late 1980s, while jettisoning Guha’s strict bina- ries and crude populism, has not led to any new insights into South Asian history. The turn towards the issues of modernity and postcolonialism has resulted in much commentary on what is already known. Some members of the collective, in the name of uncovering a distinctly “Indian modernity” and mov- ing beyond Western categories, have reified the concept of modernity and restaged tired old debates within Western social theory. Résumé Cet article analyse l’évolution des directives éditoriales de Subaltern Studies, une série influente de livres lancée en 1982 et portant sur l’histoire de l’Asie du Sud. Dans cet essai, l’auteur étudie l’orientation de recherche suivie dès le début par le rédacteur en chef, Ranajit Guha, et la compare aux programmes que proposèrent par la suite plusieurs membres du collectif Subaltern Studies. À l’origine, Guha avait souhaité que les études sur l’Inde coloniale soient fondées sur une conception dualiste du gouvernement opposant « l’élite » et « les subalternes »; Guha voulait aussi que les auteurs s’efforcent de répondre à une question hypothétique, à savoir pourquoi « l’élite indienne » n’avait pas réussi à représenter la nation. Vers la fin des années 1980, la série prend une orientation différente qui délaisse le populisme rudimentaire et rigoureuse- ment binaire de Guha, mais qui n’ouvre toutefois aucune nouvelle perspective sur l’histoire de l’Asie du Sud : certes, les débats sur la modernité et le postcolonialisme suscitent maints commentaires, mais ils ne sortent pas des sentiers battus. À force de vouloir découvrir une « modernité typique- 130 ONLINE JOURNAL OF THE CHA 2006 REVUE EN LIGNE DE LA S.H.C. ONLINE JOURNAL OF THE CHA 2006 REVUE EN LIGNE DE LA S.H.C. New Series, Vol. 17, issue 2/Nouvelle Série, Vol. 17, numéro 2 ment indienne » et s’éloigner des critères occidentaux, quelques membres du collectif ont fini par réifier le concept de la modernité et n’ont fait que resituer les mêmes vieux débats à l’intérieur du cadre de la théorie sociale occidentale. A fter publishing twelve volumes and two anthologies spread over more than two decades, the Subaltern Studies series on South Asian history has by now acquired a history of its own. Rarely has an academic venture among his- torians attracted such international attention and prompted such wide-ranging critical commentary, to the point that even collections of book reviews and commentaries about the series are marketable.1 In academic discourse, the older meaning of the term “subaltern” (a low-ranking military officer) has now been firmly supplanted by the loose, quasi-Gramscian meaning used by the col- lective: the working class, peasantry, subordinate classes, or whoever is not part of “the elite.”2 Just looking at the expanding interest in the series and the impressive publishing and employment records of the historians associated with it (the standard joke being that the subalterns are now colonels), one would be tempted to plot the trajectory of the series as a triumphal forward march. Some critics, however, have plotted the story as a decline from the laudable “history from below” agenda of the early volumes to a postcolonial agenda pre- occupied with colonial discourse analysis in the later volumes.3 In this essay I propose an emplotment that is neither a rise nor a fall, nei- ther a romance nor a tragedy. The multiplicity of authors, topics, and arguments prevents the telling of a neat unilinear story. Although the series as a whole lacks a single overarching intellectual trajectory, either up or down, forward or back, it does certainly contain something we can call a “postcolonial turn.” (The term “turn,” a horizontal movement to one side, avoids the evaluation car- ried by other topographical metaphors.) Its first anthology (1988) was introduced by both Edward Said and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, two literary 1 Vinayak Chaturvedi, ed., Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial (London: Verso, 2000); David Ludden, ed., Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical Histories, Contested Meaning and the Globalization of South Asia (London: Anthem, 2002). 2 Ranajit Guha, “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India,” Subaltern Studies, R. Guha, ed., vol. 1 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982): 8. 3 Arif Dirlik, “The Aura of Postcolonialism: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism,” Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, P. Mongia, ed. (London: Arnold, 1996); Richard Eaton, “(Re)imag(in)ing Otherness: A Postmortem for the Postmodern in India,” Journal of World History 11, no. 1 (2000): 57-78; Sumit Sarkar, “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies,” in Chaturvedi, ed., Mapping Subaltern Studies; Rajnarayan Chandavarkar, “‘The Making of the Working Class’: E.P. Thompson and Indian History,” History Workshop Journal 42 (Spring 1997): 177-97. 131 WHEN THE SUBALTERN TOOK THE POSTCOLONIAL TURN critics whose books were then becoming the foundational texts of the post- colonial field.4 Some of the authors of the essays in the second anthology (1997) proudly positioned themselves within that field.5 Surprisingly, a word that had been absent in the early volumes of the 1980s had become the badge of honor on the subaltern historian’s uniform by the 1990s. This essay, instead of attempting an engagement with the full range of the subalternists’ work, focuses on their research agendas, that is, their general ideas on the questions that South Asian historians should prioritize. I look at those texts in which they have theorized the articles in the series. This essay first reviews the original research agenda elaborated by Ranajit Guha and then examines the subsequent postcolonial agenda proposed in the writings of Partha Chatterjee, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Gyan Prakash. The transition between the two agendas was not a complete rupture, but it was certainly enough of a break to merit the appellation of a “turn.” I argue that both agen- das have been inimical to the advance of research in South Asian history. What contributions the eleven volumes of the series have made to South Asian histo- riography (and there are many) have been accomplished largely in spite of these research agendas, not because of them. While I would prefer to ignore the pro- grammatic statements and focus on the original contributions of the series, I believe they need to be addressed; they form the part of the series that travels. These agendas have become the topics of debates from Latin America to Southeast Asia, often among people who are unfamiliar with the broader liter- ature in South Asian history.6 A rethinking of the individual articles outside of the frameworks through which they have been usually placed is sorely needed. For example, the laudable semiotic and Foucaultian approaches in many of the essays have remained largely undeveloped. But such a rethinking is beyond the scope of this essay. Here, in limiting myself to the programmatic side of the series, I will argue that Guha’s proposals for the study of power and the post- colonialists’ proposals for the study of modernity do not help historians move beyond the trivial and already-known. The problem is not, as some critics have 4 Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1988). Bart Moore-Gilbert views Said, Spivak, and Homi Bhabha as the postcolonialism’s foundational writers: Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics (London: Verso, 1997). 5 Ranajit Guha, ed., A Subaltern Studies Reader 1986-1995 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997). 6 See for instance the way Ranajit Guha is lionized in Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage, 1994): 245-46, 249-51, 253-56. Also see how some scholars of Latin America have appropriated the series: Ileana Rodriquez, uploads/Litterature/ article-quot-when-the-subaltern-took-the-postcolonial-turn-quot-john-roosa.pdf