In her influential work Can the Subaltern Speak?, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak examines how marginalized groups, particularly women, are silenced by systems of power. She highlights two types of representation. The first, “representation as speaking for,” involves political advocacy, where a leader or figure speaks on behalf of the oppressed. The second, “re-presentation,” refers to the portrayal or depiction of these groups in writing or art. Spivak emphasizes that these two forms of representation—political advocacy and creative depiction—should remain distinct.
Drawing from Marx, Spivak notes that a social class does not represent itself directly but is instead represented by individuals who act as its voice. Marx differentiates between two kinds of representation: Darstellung and Vertretung. Darstellung refers to the portrayal or depiction of something, like crafting a narrative or image. Vertretung, on the other hand, involves acting on behalf of others, such as when a politician speaks or makes decisions for a group.
Spivak argues that colonized people were reduced to the status of the “other,” stripping them of their identity and replacing it with stereotypes. She introduces the concept of epistemic violence, which refers to the control and erasure of indigenous knowledge and traditions. An example of this is the British imposition of rigid British laws over Hindu traditions, fundamentally altering Hindu law. In 1835, Macaulay proposed the creation of a class of Indians who would serve as intermediaries between British rulers and the Indian population—individuals who appeared Indian but adopted British values and behaviors. This, Spivak argues, is a form of epistemic violence.
Spivak links this to the question, Can the subaltern speak? The term “subaltern” refers to groups that are socially, politically, and economically marginalized. Spivak contends that subalterns, particularly women, are denied a voice. In colonial history, women were silenced twice—first as subalterns and then as women. She critiques the British narrative that framed their abolition of Sati as a moral mission to “save brown women from brown men,” a perspective that ignored the voices and agency of the women involved. On the other hand, some Indian natives claimed that the women wanted to die, which further silenced the true perspectives of these women. Both narratives, Spivak argues, erase the real voices of subaltern women.
Spivak recounts the story of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri, a 16- or 17-year-old relative who committed suicide in 1926 in Calcutta, to highlight how the voices of subaltern women are silenced. Bhubaneswari had been tasked with carrying out a political assassination for India’s independence but, unable to complete the mission, chose to end her life. She deliberately took this step during menstruation as a way to make a statement.
At the time, suicides by young women were often dismissed as the result of illicit relationships or unplanned pregnancies. Bhubaneswari’s decision to die while menstruating was a bold attempt to challenge these assumptions and redefine female suicide. Her act also contrasted the traditional practice of sati, where widows sacrificed themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres. According to custom, a menstruating widow was considered impure and had to wait until her cycle ended to perform such acts. By waiting for her menstruation to commit suicide, Bhubaneswari subverted these traditional ideas and made a powerful statement. Spivak contrasts this act of resistance with the story of the goddess Durga, whose sacrifice is widely celebrated. However, the voices of subaltern women like Bhubaneswari remain unheard and erased from history, despite their efforts to resist oppression.
Bhubaneswari Bhaduri’s suicide was intended to make a bold statement: that women could sacrifice their lives for meaningful causes, such as India’s independence, rather than being reduced to narratives of illicit affairs or unplanned pregnancies. By turning her body into a form of protest against patriarchy, she sought to challenge societal norms. However, her message was misunderstood. When Spivak investigated Bhubaneswari’s story by speaking with her family, the responses were disappointing. One family member questioned why Spivak was focusing on Bhubaneswari, who had passed away, instead of her living sisters. Another dismissed her death as being the result of an illicit love affair. These misunderstandings exemplified the silencing of subaltern voices and led Spivak to conclude that “the subaltern cannot speak.”
Bhubaneswari Bhaduri, while silenced, was not a true subaltern. She belonged to the middle class and had access to the independence movement, which gave her certain privileges. However, her attempt to communicate a powerful message through her suicide was still misunderstood and dismissed by society and her own family. Spivak contrasts Bhubaneswari’s fight for India’s independence with the life of her great-grandniece, who now participates in global capitalism. Reflecting on this, Spivak expresses regret, lamenting that “Bhubaneswari hanged herself in vain,” as her act of resistance and its intended message were erased.