The first time I heard the word subaltern was in the context of postcolonial literary studies. The subaltern classes seemed to be colonized peoples. I thought “subaltern” was a good term, for that Other (alter) which is, of course, always Underneath (sub). I then discovered that “subaltern” was originally a military term, referring to lower ranking officers. I said hunh? If the subaltern are the oppressed, what are the foot soldiers? Or are they just too unimportant to consider? Here is a quick study on the word subaltern, from which we can learn a few other things as well.
Violence is always [outside] the law. For, within nationalist history, what was violence becomes in Walter Benjamin’s terms, “sanctioned” and thereby ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state. Nationalism itself requires the absorption or transformation of justifiable but nonetheless irrational acts of resistance into the self-legitimating form of a political struggle for the state.
In this respect, both [nationalist and imperialist] historiography conform, for all their differences, to what Antonio Gramsci . . . defines as the hegemonic history of the ruling classes. Against this dominant history, as is well known, Gramsci posed the history of the “subaltern” classes, which, “by definition, are not unified and cannot united until they are able to become a ‘State’.” Gramsci’s term gave a name to that movement of radical historians of the Indian subcontinent who, in reaction to imperial and nationalist traditions of historiography, have concentrated their researches on the history of workers’ and peasants’ movements and of other “subaltern” groups. . . .
“Subaltern,” one of the many euphemisms by which Gramsci sought to evade prison censorship, could possibly be translated accurately back into orthodox Marxist terms as “proletarian.” Yet to read Gramsci in this fashion is to reduce the complexity of this legacy whereas to read with his terms, even where they are imposed by circumstance, is often to read in the line of his potential, though occasionally . . . beyond his own limitations. The term “subaltern” has accordingly been taken to apply to groups that do not conform to a classical Marxist definition of the proletariat. . . . Such an extension of the term clearly implies overstepping the limits of Gramsci’s largely class-oriented thinking . . . . A more critical deployment of the term, however, detaches it equally from his understanding of proper historiographic method. For Gramsci clearly envisages subaltern history as one which is completed, unified, only at the moment when the subaltern group itself takes over or becomes a state[.] . . .
For Gramsci, the subaltern is the state in emergence, its history yet to be but inevitably to be unified. The “episodic and fragmentary” nature of its history at any given moment is contingent upon its own fragmentary and emergent condition rather than an essential quality. . . . If one defines the subaltern not as that which desires the state but as that which is subaltern because it resists or cannot be represented by or in the state formation, its “episodic and fragmentary” history can be read as the sign of another mode of narrative, rather than an incomplete one, of another principle of organization, rather than one yet to be unified. . . .
[F]rom the perspective of dominant history, the subaltern must be represented as violence. “Must” in two senses: that which cannot be assimilated to the state can only be understood outside of the law . . . ; secondly, the history of the state requires a substrate which is counter to the laws of civility and which it represents as outrageous and violent, in order that the history of domination and criminalization appear as a legitimate process of civilization and the triumph of law. Subaltern groups can thus be thought of as having a double history: on the one hand, they play out their own discrete and complex formations and traditions; on the other, occluded by their difference from dominant narratives and forms and by those forms themselves, they are nonetheless “intertwined with [the history] of civil society and thereby with the history of States and groups of States” (Gramsci, Prison Notebooks 52). That intertwining, however, persists as an interface between the state form and what it cannot assimilate, transforming the residua of its historical processes into a limit on its unity and totality and, potentially at least, into sites for emergent and articulate resistance.
–David Lloyd, Anomalous States: Irish Writing and the Post-Colonial Moment (Duke, 1993), 126-28.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Your source here clearly does not know what they are talking about. Having held the rank of ‘subaltern’ and various others, up to Major, I can assure you that what the person you quote says is totally incorrect. When I was I subaltern, we did mostly peace keeping. We have done that also (mostly) since. When we were in Ireland, we were also keeping the peace there too.
Is this what people at universites do and believe? If so, it seems to me that our taxes are should not be spent on this. A Google search would have enlightened you. If I actually do these tasks and you do not, then this looks pretty bogus to me. What the hell kind of professor are you? Should you (or your source) not at least get the facts correct before you pontificate?
Hugh F-B.
Well Hugh F-B., it looks as though you haven’t read the post. If I wanted to take with you the tone you have taken with me, I would say something like, are you really this illiterate? It seems to me that if you are, our taxes should not be spent on paying you to be at such a high rank. What kind of peace keeper are you, that you speak to anyone in this tone? Should you not at least get the facts correct before you pontificate?
This could, however, perhaps bear a little contextualization. Neither the author, nor the writers upon whom he is commenting, are talking about actual military officers. Gramsci used the word as a code word for the oppressed (or some oppressed) classes, because he was writing in prison and his texts needed to pass by the censors. Then other scholars used that term, in reference to Gramsci’s thought, and further developed the analysis of which it was now a part. The author of the passage I quote is then bringing that body of work to bear on the structure of some modern Irish novels and the representation or articulation of state and nation therein. So we’re talking political and social theory here, as they can relate to the structure of literary texts–we’re not discussing actual military ranks, or job duties of military officers, or which officers are considered subaltern and which are not, in which country and which historical era.
Not knowing Gramsci well when I first encountered the word in the body of theory David Lloyd discusses, where ‘subaltern’ refers to the oppressed classes, I wondered: why use a term referring to officers of any level in that context? It seemed like an odd parallel: if one were going to make an analogy between military ranks and social classes, subaltern officers would not corrrespond to the lowest classes. Knowing that Gramsci had to write in code, helps. Also, as this passage shows, Gramsci was interested in hegemony and counter-hegemony – hence, in part at least, from what I can divine at present, the interest in the using a term which corresponds not to the most powerless classes, but to one which has some sort of authority and power, although not enough to dominate. But remember, now, this is my thinking blog, not my finished-published-specialized research, so do your own reading, don’t just quote me. –Z
P.S. Hugh F-B: actually, you must have read the blog pretty closely, to figure out (correctly) that I am at a state-funded institution. It could be private, you know, and then there would be no taxpayer money involved. So, let me give you a little more information: many of my students are currently members of the armed forces. Many others are veterans. Several outrank you. I’ve got some _decorated_ veterans here. And any one of them could probably beat you up pretty good (as they would put it)–these are some Southern boys and girls right here–and no, they are not ignorant yahoos, or blind adherents to current U.S. foreign policy!!!
Subaltern . . . is a divergent word, it just shows your interest things other than military history, hurrah for that!
The one I find funny is a hangover from when the ‘u’ was written a ‘v’: which has led to the pronounciaton of ‘Lieutenant’ as ‘Leftenant’ in britain: a tenant in lieu of something? Or a tenant who has been bequeathed something? Or maybe a tentant with a certain political persuasion?
Just checked “Candide’s Notebooks” which coincidentally has a good-yet-depressing entry on euphemisms.
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/CN111606.htm#1
Hi Absorbant! That “leftenant” pronunciation also just sounds just so STUFFY! On Candide’s Notebooks (great title), “food security” 😉 !!! O Brave New World.
This is a big conversation to get into in bloglandia (but, then again, I guess this is what bloglandia is for…):)
“When I was I subaltern, we did mostly peace keeping.”-Hugh F-B
Hugh,
Noone is arguing that the “subaltern” (I’m using this to mean “the oppressed”) are not peace keepers. They are probably much better at peace keeping than the U.S. military. What I interpret is that their violence is not legitimated by the nation-state. Therefore, it is genuine, actual violence in the hegemonic imaginery. Counter hegemony would be to legitimate their violence as peace keeping or self-defense.
I think…
Cero,
On another note: I don’t like that SUBcomander Marcos (“sub” because he works under and takes orders from the indigenous women and men who make the decisions?…) changed his name. Do you know why he did that? Maybe because he didn’t want a military style name anymore? hmmm…
Anyhow,
Have you read Walter Mignolo?
Hola Luisa – the ‘delegado cero’ name had to do with the recent presidential elections … in relation to which there were delegates … the EZLN would not give official support to any party or candidate, or run any either, because they are not ‘in that’ and don’t want to get co-opted to it. I could be clearer on this but I want to go eat lunch first ;-). This isn’t quite on point, but check out this very cool post from the Zapagringo on the past and present of the Sup phenomenon.
Mignolo, yes, lots, but not his recent book _The Idea of Latin America_.
Speaking of the role of the military in “keeping the peace in Ireland,” I wonder if H F-B is aware the the phrase “beyond the pale” has its origins in the English occupation of Ireland? From “Word Origins” http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorp.htm
Pale
The word pale dates to the 14th century and comes to us from the Latin palus, or stake, via French. The original English meaning was the same as in Latin, a stake, particularly one used to make a fence or border marker. You can still find this sense in the modern paling fence or palisade.
From the literal sense of a fence or boundary line, the metaphorical sense of boundary or limit developed by the beginning of the 15th century. By the mid-16th century this had developed into the sense of a jurisdiction or boundary within which a particular set of laws was valid.
Also by the end of the 15th century, the word term English Pale was being used to denote the lands in France ruled by the English king. Subsequently, the proper name the Pale was applied to various English settlements in foreign lands, notably in Ireland. In the 18th century, it also began to be used for the region in Russia where Jews were permitted to settle.
The phrase beyond the pale, meaning to beyond the limits of law or decency, was in use by the mid-17th century. The phrase is a reference to the general sense of boundary, not to any of the particular places, such as the English Pale in Ireland, which bore that name.
(Source: Oxford English Dictionary)
In other words, Englishman used “beyond the pale” as synonymous with the barbarous/uncivilized/Irish (just go back and read you some Matthew Arnold) who were thus, by definition, to be policed (by subalterns in the military sense).
Yes, precisely. And this comment is an example of good scholarship, y’all! –z
I forgot that you have private universities over there. A point to you. I also took a look at the OED and discovered that the military use of the term ‘subaltern’ is not always the usual one. Again, my mistake. I did not realise that the word was ambiguous.
In the Army, a subaltern is a junior officer. As such we do useful work, stopping people killing one another and things like that. (At least, that is what I did, when I held that rank). We are not ‘oppressors’, unless you want people to keep on killing one another. We try and keep the population safe from those who would do them harm. As a result, we often become the targets of those people. Perhaps this means that we are the ‘oppressed’ ones?
I am puzzled though about some of the comments: Since when has copying stuff from a web site, or the OED amounted to good scholarship? When I was in school, that was called cheating.
I still have not got the faintest idea what the fellow originally quoted was talking about though. It still sounds like rubbish to me. At least in the military case, subalterns, like all soldiers, are subject to detailed rules of engagement that strictly perscribe what is and is not permissible. So, it is simply wrong to claim that they act outside the law. I therefore renew my objection — does anyone here actually know what they are talking about?
Hugh F-B
Hi again Hugh F-B …
1. The thing is, ‘subaltern’ as used by Gramsci, and then others, does not refer to the Army at all. He was a Marxist thinker and was trying to come up with a word for ‘proletariat’ which would pass the prison censors … and he was doing this in the context of trying to figure out how hegemony works within the nation-state. He used this word, subaltern, and then others developed the work he had done further, so that subaltern refers to oppressed classes and racial groups, colonized peoples, those living ‘beyond the pale’, etc., esp. when one is talking about how power works. So ‘subaltern’ as used by these scholars does NOT refer to the military. But this use of the term has these odd origins, and for us it is worth knowing them if one is going to read the word used in scholarly articles on post-colonial topics, assign such articles in classes, etc. Once again, it is NOT a military term as Gramsci uses it. In other words: neither Gramsci, nor the Subaltern Studies Group, nor Lloyd, nor I, nor anyone on this comment thread, are talking about you. And you, it appears, do not have the intellectual curiosity necessary to enter this conversation. And I am glad that, with your attitude, you are not ‘peacekeeping’ anywhere near me. I am displeased with you.
2. David Lloyd is talking about the Irish post-colonial novel. His book is, I suppose, difficult, not really accessible if you have not done graduate work in literature and literary theory. It is easier to understand if you know the work of the writers and theorists to which he is referring, yes. Otherwise, it may be pretty opaque. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about: if you tried to read a really advanced article in astrophysics, or economics, or psychology/cognitive science, without having studied the field, and you did not understand, would you assume the author was ignorant, or that you were? It is an odd attitude: “I do not understand it, so it must be the author’s fault.” “I do not understand this conversation, so the people in it must not know what they are talking about.”
3. Quoting David Lloyd for reference purposes, no, that is not plagiarism, it’s called reading: people do it worldwide. Citing the OED for clarity, that is not plagiarism either, it’s called making sure one has one’s facts straight. Walter Benjamin & David Lloyd are not saying that subaltern officers are violent. They are talking about when violence is considered ‘legal’ or legitimate, when it is not, etc., etc. – and when violence is redefined as NOT violent. Perhaps this is easier to understand if you consider that some people the U.S. government has considered ‘freedom fighters’ were considered terrorists where they were fighting, and vice versa. What is violent, and what is legitimate violence, depends quite a lot on who is drawing the distinctions.
4. It is possible that you do not agree with JoannaO’s, Lloyd’s, or some of the other commentators’ views on British policy in Ireland, when ‘peacekeeping’ is peacekeeping and when it is, ah, colonialism, etc. That’s fine. But on the academics: you might want to do some reading in the area before you just come in and spout off: I do not have the time, and I certainly do not have the obligation, to deliver years of education to you in a discussion thread in an anonymous, recreational blog.
–Z