지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Subaltern Studies Group(SSG), formed in the early 1980s, criticizes the current writings on Indian history by arguing that the nationalist and Marxist historians of India wrote from an elitist point of view, conspring with the modern colonialism of Europe. Those historical writings appropriated the people of India for their political purposes, and therefore the consciousness proper to Indian people or 'the politics of the people' has been excluded or marginalized. SSG accordingly concludes that the history of Indian people could not be correctly reconstructed as long as historians assume 'the essential subject' of Indian history to be '(Indian) nation' or 'class(es)'. These subject categories consider other categories such as gender, caste or religion, which have been operating in Indian history, as deriving from an essential category, then explain them by reducing them to that category, and thereby exclude and dominate them. In this sense, the types of essential subject like nation or class function in collusion with the ruling strategies of colonialism which, by 'institutionalizing the enduring hierarchies of subjects and knowledges', reduce the complex differences and their interactions in the Third World's colonial relations to the dualism of colonial power. Based on these observations, SSG presents the subaltern as a new subject of Indian history and the history of the Third World.
There exists, however, different positions within SSG: R. Guha and G. C. Spivak. They have different views of the autonomy of the Subaltern.
Despite these differences SSG views the subaltern as possessing "a radical heterogeneity with, though not autonomy from, the dominant." SSG also attempts to discover in the subaltern, who are subject to the dominant discourse/power but still different from the ruling elite, the heterogeneity appearing in the crevice of the dominant discourse/power when the latter was pressed. To recognize this heterogeneity means to pay attention to 'the difference' that makes 'subaltern history' conceivable. Nationalist history, of course, acknowledges the difference when it stresses India's own culture or mentalities distinct from those of Europe. The difference in nationalist history, however, is constructed within the discursive structure of colonialism resulting from European modern Orientalism, and thus contributes to reproduce and strengthen the dominant discourse of colonialism. Unlike national history, Marxist history challenges 'the rule of difference' of Europe by stressing the universality of Indian history. Yet the identity of Indian history could not be established by asserting that Indian history underwent a process identical to that constituted by modern historical discourse of Europe. Such an assertion once again illustrates Eurocentrism. The difference that 'subaltern history' stresses is not a difference subject to the discourse of colonialistic modernity produced by Europe but one resistant to it: 'a recalcitrant difference.' In other words, resisting the dominant discourse/power which identifies or normalizes Indian people as possessing a single identity or essence, the subaltern as a subject of the history of the Third World exists in a space of difference where it neutralizes the dominat discourse/power's operation and function, reverses and reappropriates the dominant value-codes.
There exists, however, different positions within SSG: R. Guha and G. C. Spivak. They have different views of the autonomy of the Subaltern.
Despite these differences SSG views the subaltern as possessing "a radical heterogeneity with, though not autonomy from, the dominant." SSG also attempts to discover in the subaltern, who are subject to the dominant discourse/power but still different from the ruling elite, the heterogeneity appearing in the crevice of the dominant discourse/power when the latter was pressed. To recognize this heterogeneity means to pay attention to 'the difference' that makes 'subaltern history' conceivable. Nationalist history, of course, acknowledges the difference when it stresses India's own culture or mentalities distinct from those of Europe. The difference in nationalist history, however, is constructed within the discursive structure of colonialism resulting from European modern Orientalism, and thus contributes to reproduce and strengthen the dominant discourse of colonialism. Unlike national history, Marxist history challenges 'the rule of difference' of Europe by stressing the universality of Indian history. Yet the identity of Indian history could not be established by asserting that Indian history underwent a process identical to that constituted by modern historical discourse of Europe. Such an assertion once again illustrates Eurocentrism. The difference that 'subaltern history' stresses is not a difference subject to the discourse of colonialistic modernity produced by Europe but one resistant to it: 'a recalcitrant difference.' In other words, resisting the dominant discourse/power which identifies or normalizes Indian people as possessing a single identity or essence, the subaltern as a subject of the history of the Third World exists in a space of difference where it neutralizes the dominat discourse/power's operation and function, reverses and reappropriates the dominant value-codes.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 민족 혹은 계급 : 본질주의적 주체형태
3. 서발턴의 개념에 관한 두 시각
4. ‘차이‘와 서발턴의 역사
5. 맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
그람시의 서발턴 개념과 서발턴 연구
역사교육
2002 .09
-
비교사를 다시 생각함― 섭알턴 연구(Subaltern Studies)의 관점에서 ―
영국 연구
2001 .01
-
다시, 서발턴은 누구/무엇인가?
역사학보
2008 .12
-
그람시와 ‘서발턴’ 개념
역사교육
2002 .06
-
‘서발턴(의) 역사’와 로컬 역사/로컬리티
로컬리티 인문학
2009 .10
-
[원문] New Global History and the Challenge of Subaltern Studies : Plea for a Global History from Below
로컬리티 인문학
2010 .04
-
[인도] 다양성의 확대와 담론 형성의 기반 구축
역사학보
2014 .09
-
[논문] 동물원의 미학: 한국근대소설의 하층민의 형상과 섹슈얼리티에 대하여
한국근대문학연구
2002 .10
-
새로운 지구사와 서발턴 연구의 도전 : ‘아래로부터의 지구사’를 위한 변명
로컬리티 인문학
2010 .04
-
스피박의 서벌턴 이론과 소통의 문제
인문과학연구
2011 .09
-
역사교육의 담론과 학문적 가능성
역사교육
2006 .03
-
우리나라 대학의 세계사 교육의 문제와 개선방향
역사교육
2008 .12
-
해방 이후 역사 교육과정 개정을 둘러싼 쟁점
역사교육
2006 .03
-
Mapping World History in Korea
The Asian review of world histories
2015 .01
-
初等學校 歷史敎育 編制와 內容의 系列化 問題
역사교육
2003 .09
-
타자의 역사: 그 외연과 내포
역사와 담론
2003 .12
-
전근대 국사의 형성과 그 발전
韓國史學史學報
2008 .01
-
역사교육 계열화를 위한 고등학교 국사교육 내용구성 방안
역사와 담론
2005 .04
-
역사교사의 인지적 특성이 역사수업에 미치는 영향
역사교육
2004 .03
-
Reading the People as a Subaltern Character in 2 Kings 7
Canon&Culture
2019 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-374-015444860