Search results

The purpose of this paper is to highlight various ways in which micro-aggressions and other forms of institutional oppression have affected subaltern professors and students in the academy.

This qualitative case study draws from testimonios collected from fall 2010 to spring 2016. Six testimonios are incorporated in the study, and they stem from a various set of data. These testimonios show patterns across data set regarding systemic oppression subaltern that professors have experienced in the academy.

As the findings of this study show, subaltern professors face intersecting forms of discrimination – often race, language, accent, gender, and class based – in predominantly white institutions. Their testimonios unravel the complexity of the professional, academic, and personal lives of these professors highlighting their professional achievements and successes. Their testimonios demonstrate at the same time the ways in which various forms of oppression might have limited their life chances and opportunities.

Suggestions are made as to how social justice educators and policy makers can collectively challenge and eradicate these social wrongs.

This paper is an original take on both micro-aggressions and institutional oppression affecting subaltern professors and students.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between foreign-born faculty and academic freedom. Upon identification of the focal population, a literature review of the multifaceted challenges that foreign-born faculty face in academy is offered. It is followed by an analysis of the ways in which faculty respond to these challenges and an investigation of scholars’ proposals for institutions of higher education that aim to provide inclusive spaces. This chapter concludes with a discussion of ways in which institutional initiatives can assist foreign-born faculty and promote spaces for their exercise of academic freedom.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit Spivak’s seminal essay “Can the Subaltern Speak” and the perennial challenges of researchers to collect information about the Other, focusing on the recent developments in affect theory.

The paper brings into the conversation the recent work on affect and sentimentality by Lauren Berlant with Spivak’s claims in the essay concerning the representation of the subaltern by scholars and researchers. The paper draws on Berlant’s work to trouble the liberal culture of “true feeling” as well as the liberal subject implied in Spivak’s essay as a subject who is “actively speaking.”

Recent theoretical developments on the affect theory make an important intervention to the perennial methodological tensions about representation, ontology and epistemology – as raised by Spivak and others over the years – and inspire new ways of thinking with the tools of doing qualitative research.

Bringing into the conversation, the affect theory and Spivak’s iconic essay have important methodological implications for qualitative research.

The goal was emancipatory, to characterise and dislodge oppressive management practices, to allow for the possibility of seeking an alternative organisational construction free of postcolonial/subaltern subordination and discrimination in a local, well-documented narrative.

The study was informed by a postcolonial/subaltern perspective and drew on the employment experience of an Aboriginal woman, Canada’s first Indigenous Dean of a law school. The researcher employed a combination of case study and critical discourse analysis with the aim of advancing rich analyses of the complex workings of power and privilege in sustaining Western, postcolonial relations.

The study made several conclusions: first, that the institution, a medium-sized Canadian university, carefully controlled the Indigenous subaltern to remake her to be palatable to Western sensibilities. Second, the effect of this control was to assimilate her, to subordinate her Indigeneity and to civilise in a manner analogous to the purpose of Indian residential schools. Third, that rather than management’s action being rational and neutral, focused on goal attainment, efficiency and effectiveness, it was an implicit moral judgement based on her race and an opportunity to exploit her value as a means for the university’s growth and status.

Through a postcolonial/subaltern perspective, this study demonstrated how management practices reproduced barriers to the participation of an Indigenous woman and the First Nations community that an organisation was intended to serve. The study demonstrated how a Western perspective – that of a university’s administration, faculty and staff – was privileged, or taken for granted, and the Indigenous perspective subordinated, as the university remained committed to the dispossession of Indigenous knowledge and values.

Keeping Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in mind, the purpose of this paper is to examine the itinerant curriculum theory (ICT) as a subaltern momentum unveiling how ICT informs subaltern ways of being and thus, potentially, the research lens for qualitative approaches. In this context, the paper examines how curriculum as an ideological devise produces an epistemicide – the killing of knowledge – an epistemological havoc cooked up daily in the process of qualitative studies promoting and legitimizing a specific modern western Eurocentric episteme.

The paper dissects modernity as a colonial zone, creating “abyssal thinking,” a eugenic system of visible and invisible distinctions that legitimizes the visible, i.e. “this side of the line” and produces “the other side of the line” as “non-existent.”

The paper urges the need to decolonize leading modern western Eurocentric counter-hegemonic traditions such as Marxism.

The paper analyzes ICT’s contribution to subaltern struggles, asserts ICT’s commitment against any form of canon, grabs the educational matrix of qualitative research as an eugenic beast from its very own ideological horns, alerting the need to examine any study of education and society within the ideological eugenic political economy and modes of production of systems pillared by poverty, exploitation, segregation, and intellectual rape.

The dialogic nature of new organization development practices brought a dramatic shift in relation to the way OD has had been practiced in the past. However, contemporary literature indicates that OD still has to go a long way if it has to play a central role. The purpose of this paper is to speculate for the concerns being raised about OD practices and propose an interpretive approach to fill in the gaps.

This paper traces OD’s glorious journey, which began with egalitarian values. This section builds on the dynamics of power and politics which was integral to the OD movement and further reviews and critiques the contributions of new OD approaches that has its foundations in postmodernism and social constructionism. In the second part, the paper discusses the critical perspective and introduces the concept of subaltern to fill in the gaps in new OD approaches. Further, the paper finds a ground to integrate and redefine the boundaries of critical and subaltern studies.

The paper proposes an interpretive approach for designing and carrying out OD interventions and introduces the concept of critical-subaltern OD. This approach recognizes the importance to engage with the dialectics or contradictions present between (and within) OD interventions. Through this interpretive approach, the author positions critical-subaltern voices as an integral part of OD interventions and change management.

The interpretive approach gives an insight into the unacknowledged and unheard socially constructed realities of change and OD practices for sensemaking. The approach would also be instrumental in enhancing the levels of engagement and productivity in unacknowledged and non-dominant employees.

This paper is a departure from the modern literature of critical management studies and builds on the critical theory on OD. The paper proposes by roping in the benefits of subaltern studies into OD practices. The paper builds ways to include voices of those, who never gain a voice. In brief, toward the end of the paper, the author proposes an interpretive approach and moves toward critical-subaltern OD. Through this interpretive approach, the author positions critical-subaltern voices as an integral part of OD interventions and change management.

The classic essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak takes leftist western intellectuals to task for essentializing subaltern subjectivity. I say this as someone who is guilty of this very thing and is struggling with this very question in my work as qualitative researcher. While Spivak concludes the essay with a resounding, “No,” she does provide us with a blueprint for conduction effective qualitative analysis using Derridean deconstruction. But after the deconstruction is done, how might I think about intellectual uncertainty and regret? Reflecting on a study of domestic workers I disbanded, in this paper I examine these questions and further query the limits of intellectual representation. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This essay uses ethnography as an approach.

Through an engagement of the seminal essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” I argue that in the ethnographic relationship, researchers will be sure to come up against their own limitations, but that does not mean they should refrain from the work. Rather, being open to seeing our errors, and working through uncertainty and regret, reveals something vitally important about the participants of our study and about ourselves.

This essay adds to the academic discussion on the ethics of researching subaltern subjects, and expands on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of contradictory consciousness.

In “Can the subaltern speak?,” Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak makes the important distinction between representation as “Vertretung” and “Darstellung.” She also produces a strong version of whom she regards as a subaltern woman. Thirty years on both the distinction between “Vertretung” and “Darstellung” and the question of who the subaltern woman is, remain extremely important, not least in methodological considerations in cross-cultural contexts. A number of questions may be asked in relation to representation, such as: how distinct are its two meanings in the interviewing context? And how do they relate to the notion of the co-production of knowledge which has gained such traction in the past three decades? The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In this paper, I draw on cross-cultural interviewing experiences. Starting from the silence of illiterate rural women in a study conducted in Madhya Pradesh, India, in 2011 (Mohanraj), this paper draws on the research experiences of the author and a number of projects reported on in Cross-Cultural Interviewing (Griffin, 2016) to elucidate how one might re-think both representation and subalternality in the contemporary globalized context.

The experiences of cross-cultural interviewing I draw on in this paper show that in the contemporary context subalternality may be more productively understood in terms of a continuum rather than as the radical state of unreachable, unspeaking alterity that Spivak proposes.

The paper contributes new perspectives on Spivak’s notion of the unspeaking alterity of the subaltern in light of globalized developments over the past 30 years and specific experiences of cross-cultural interviewing, as these comment on Spivak’s insights.

In any time and space and under any circumstance, we find peasants are never passive actors in their livelihoods and rural development. Instead, they always create space for manoeuvre in order to make changes. This chapter analyses the innovative actions taken by the majority of rural inhabitants in rural areas during the overwhelming modernization process, so as to affirm that peasants are the main actors of rural development. It is they who have shaped the transformation of rural societies and the history. Through the analysis, this chapter concludes that rural development is not an objective, a blueprint nor a design. It is not the to-be-developed rear field in modernization. It is not the babysitter for cities, nor a rehearsal place for bureaucrats to testify their random thoughts. Rural development is what peasants do. The path they have chosen reveals scenery so different from modernization. If we regard development as a social change, or a cross with influential meanings, we could understand rural development as peasants’ victories over their predicament. Villages accommodate not only peasants, but without peasants villages would surely vanish. In this sense, the most important part in rural development or rural change is peasants – their conditions and their feelings.

The purpose of this paper is to engage some of the central themes of Gayatri Spivak’s seminal essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak? (CSS)” In particular, her criticisms of post-structuralism’s treatment of the “subject” as well as its privileging of “discourse” and micrological analyses of power vis-à-vis her discussion of Foucault and Deleuze.

The paper also draws on a historical materialist approach to examine how Spivak’s own work often reinscribes the discursive and politically pusillanimous tendencies of both post-structuralist and post-colonialist thought.

This lends itself to the “complexification” of capitalism – a bourgeois form of mystification of capital’s essential workings and the underlying class structure of the globalized economy, inclusive of “postcolonial” societies.

The authors conclude that CSS – while an important question – is ultimately a misdirected one that, in effect, mistakes discursive empowerment for social and economic enablement.