A Note For My Readers
The Transparent Ironist hereby wishes to notify his readers that there will be no edition of his blog today and tomorrow morning since he shall be busy writing a long letter to Dr Gayatri Spivak Chakravorty. Dr Chakravorty had published an influential essay in 1988 called 'Can The Subaltern Speak?' in which she had announced, not surprisingly, that subaltern (= silenced) women cannot speak, in the sense that they are shadowy and marginalised figures whose voices cannot be properly interpreted or received by others. In the light of the enthusiastic response that he has been receiving to the predicament of his cousin Ms Shefali Raha (see the post immediately below this one), however, the Transparent Ironist sees a ray of hope in the encircling gloom, and is inspired to believe that some subaltern women are increasingly making themselves understood (no?). He shall therefore write to Dr Chakravorty that when she had written her essay way back in 1988 she could not have foreseen the emergence of www.realappearance.blogspot.com as an eloquent medium through which such subaltern women could attempt, even if attempt only to fail, the risky task of making themselves heard as they seek to free themselves from the oppressive tentacles of the sinister Family. (If you have any personal comments for Dr Chakravorty and want me to include them in my letter to her, please feel free to leave them here before 6 : 00 pm Eastern Standard Time, Saturday 5.)
posted by The Transparent Ironist @ 8:31 am
16 Comments:
At 4.3.05,
Anonymous said…
What a formal and serious language you use lol! It's like you would address to high statesmen or something! Come on, we're just your readers, from where such a bombastic expression way?
At 4.3.05,
Anonymous said…
Anyway, lots of luck with your letter! What will happen after this letter? What is its purpose? I look forward to find out news about it!
At 4.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
Yes, I shall keep you posted on this.
At 5.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
A note to my readers : I am still very busy in writing the promised letter to Dr Chakravorty. The problem with such a letter is that it has already been written even before I try to write the first word on it. Nevertheless, I am still trying to type, still trying to speak for and with all ye subalterns out there. Perhaps I should start with the last word of my letter. Maybe in that case Dr Chakravorty would have the last word on the topic too.
Hmm, that would also give me an excellent pre-text to write the letter to her in the 'first place'.
At 5.3.05,
Anonymous said…
Perhaps a subaltern should be writing the letter?
----------------------------
I remember reading the first sentence of this post, and I sensed the loss of something extraordinarily beautiful. I thought this is it, the last one of my doses, and I could almost hear the screams in my head! Why is he doing this to us? Can't he see it's so totally unfair? But then again, when was anything ever fair? *sigh*
So I started hating you, myself, and everything else.
lol, ok, I'm not that psychotic, but anyway I then continued reading. And of course I do not possess the right words to describe the immense relief I felt when I realized it would only be for a few days! Yaayyy the ironist isn't leaving us in this dark, damp place after all!
I'm actually grateful,now I have the time to go back to all those posts that I never got to read : )
And this was yet another example telling me, do not jump to conclusions when you do not have the right information!Grrr, ok, I'll try next time : )
anOn
At 5.3.05,
Anonymous said…
Hey, TI you've got fan mail!!!
I admit TI has judicious doses of humour, sarcasm, righteousness, ambiguity, remoteness, immediacy and incomprehensibility...
:-)
aNon
with a uppercase n so you know its not anOn
At 5.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
Dear anOn (not to be confused with aNon), The problem with a subaltern doing this speaking is that according to Dr Chakravorty the subaltern cannot speak.This does not mean, of course, that the Ironist can do the speaking on the subaltern's behalf. But then Dr Chakravorty never said that the subaltern cannot WRITE. That is a strategic loop-hole in her argument which I am trying to make use of.
At 5.3.05,
Anonymous said…
to write any comment to her about her letter/article in 1988 we have to read it first. Can you send it to us? so that we can write our comments.
At 5.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
One can dissect anOn and aNon in this manner. anOn = an + On, hence an idea that is always on; and aNon = a + Non, hence a nonexistent reader. Therefore, anOn is a continual source of ideas, responses, counterarguments and views. On the other hand, aNon is in some ways an even more formidable reader for this reader claims not to exist and yet exists only too apparently.
At 5.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
I do not know if one can read that essay of hers on the net. However, here is a good introduction to that essay :
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/spivak/spivak2.html
At 6.3.05,
Anonymous said…
It's a male dominated world. It has been and will continue to be for a long time.
Why is it that people view women as beings whose 'voices cannot be properly interpreted or received by others'? Solely for the reason that they were made to be so (by men). Women have been made to feel inferior to men from the beginning of time. And that will not change, unless until women decide to do something about it.
Women and men always had different roles in life. They, in my opinion, are in no way equal to one another, so they cannot possibly have the same roles. They differ psychologically as well as physiologically, and they complement one another, they cannot do without one another, hence the creation of a man and a woman, otherwise we'd just have males or females. If they possessed the same qualities they wouldn't differ. What I'm trying to say here and forgive me for my messed up English (I have trouble putting thoughts into words) , is that women because of their femininity are more apt to take on work that requires less physical activity and to tend to affairs that need the employment of the more sentimental sex. I am in no way saying that women cannot be the breadwinners of their families, but what I'm trying to make clear is that it has been this way for a very very veryyy long time! So it's just become the norm.
And since the beginning of time men had all the opportunities that women didn't. They could easily get an education, they could easily get jobs, they could easily get anything. And so our dear women were suppressed. Left in the control of men. I see it everyday around me, forget the 12th century, right here, right now, in the 21st century. And I ask myself why? What is it thats regressing us when we live in a world so progressed?
But I also see more and more women educating themselves, and standing on their own two feet. Getting their voices heard, and standing up for their rights. I do not think any man could work 8 hours a day, and tend to housework and raise children, all together, and still handle it well. No wonder womens threshold of pain is 8 times higher!
I know my thoughts are stray, I started out with something and ended with another, though I am excused, it's way past my bedtime :P
Women are simply the weaker sex and so it made it easier for men to take advantage of them. And they did. And continue to do so, but hopefully not for long. People I hope, will come to realize that the world will run better on compassion and tolerance and understanding. Oh and on reason. It's something we have, but are we using it?
At 6.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
Dear anon, That was a careful, well-argued, and patient summary : probably you think and feel best when it is way past your bedtime. As you point out, women have been labelled as the 'weaker sex', and this is yet another male 'construction'. Men have projected women as 'weak' because they want women to believe that they really are weak and neeed the protection of men, and also remain that way in a subordinate position. In technical terms, they call this an 'ideology'.(In an analogous manner, the British in India projected Hindus as the 'gentle Hindoos' because they wanted Hindus to believe that they really were nice little submissive creatures who would never rebel against their colonial masters. Just as their Victorian wives would not rebel against themselves.) However, many working women do 'go through' much more than their husbands can possibly imagine.
I would myself say that men and women perceive, experience, and respond to the world in distinctive ways, but also emphasise that there are significant areas of overlap between these responses. That is, it is wrong to claim that men and women inhabit two completely cut-off zones across which no communication is possible. If that were really to be the case, books, novels, newspapers, and essays would have to be divided into two water-tight groups : one for a specifically male-audience, and the other for a specifically female-audience.
At 6.3.05,
Anonymous said…
".......They, in my opinion, are in no way equal to one another, so they cannot possibly have the same roles............"
But actually their roles were/are/will supplimentary to eachother. They need eachother and that is the creation of nature.
"...........women because of their femininity are more apt to take on work that requires less physical activity and to tend to affairs that need the employment of the more sentimental sex............"
I have seen in many parts of India women (still in their supressed state of mind) work hard...physically and their men do less work as compared to them. So it's not true...it is again created senario by males.
".........They differ psychologically as well as physiologically.........."
Very true. You can see one of the blogs below about 'THE LOCATION OF SUFFERING'...
'At 10:01 AM, The Transparent Ironist said…
What is 'pms'ing'?
At 6:16 PM, Anonymous said…
Going through pms=premenstrual syndrome!
And as Merriam puts it: a varying group of symptoms manifested by some women prior to menstruation that may include emotional instability, irritability, insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, depression, headache, edema, and abdominal pain -- abbreviation PMS'
.....................
which indicates the real part which makes women weak...psychologically and physically for some time.
But for their benifit(male's) they have misused and are misusing the reflections of this part of woman's physiology.
Thr reality is women are really strong and capable that's why nature has given the role of genertor/creator to her and not to man. When a person is weak then starts harming others out of feeling of unsecurity (according to psychology) similarly about men who tend to dominate women.You can go through many books regarding gynacology you will come to know more about this. It's very sad that in India still such kind of reading is prohibited (not physically but psychologically) for men so most of them they don't have much knowledge about this.
So it's creation of nature and we have to respect nature and not being submissive or suppressive about any roles. Ultimately the physiology (naturally) can't be changed.
At 6.3.05,
Anonymous said…
Women are strong in terms of their tolerance of physical pain being much higher than that of males, however an average womans mass of lean muscle comes in no way close to that of an average mans. And when I stated that women are the weaker sex, I was referring to brute strength. I totally agree with TI that the term 'weaker sex' as a whole and in general is a construction, made solely for the purpose of weakening women even further.
And for the parts were my post suggested that women and men are two totally different creatures, I am sorry, for I do not believe in that, I was only trying to clarify that physically and mentally they are not one and the same, as many people nowadays want to believe. And that is why society has devised different roles for them.(Though they do share many 'perspectives').
I was born a year and a half ago. I have not studied any philosophy, sociology, anthropology (or even proper English for the matter) or any sciences of the kind, though I intend to when I make the time. I merely wanted to open my eyes and awaken my soul. I am sick of using this letter 'i' (maybe I would not be mistaken to refer to it as a word as well?) but currently reading a book on general semantics 'Science and Sanity' and figuring a way out to prevent its usage. But for now I (ouch) wanted to say that our world is messed up beyond repair (on the days when I become a gloomy pessimist), but still on the other hand, with every birth, an infant enters this world with the message that the supreme Deity has not given up all hope on humanity.
Not just yet.
anOn
At 8.3.05,
The Transparent Ironist said…
What about infants who die within a week of entering the world? What message is the supreme Deity trying to give us through such infants?
At 9.3.05,
Anonymous said…
The fact that there still exists a world with humans is why I believe there is hope left.
Post a Comment
<< Home