개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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.
그람시의 서발턴 개념과 서발턴 연구
Gramsci's Concept of 'Subaltern' and Subaltern Studies
이용수
그람시의 서발턴 개념과 서발턴 연구
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This essay is a critical review of "Antonio Gramsci and the Concept of Subaltern" written by Professor Kang, Ok-Cho. In her article, Kang closely examines the usages and the meanings of the term 'subaltern' in Gramsci's texts, and suggests that historians of Subaltern Studies, although influenced by Gramsci's Marxism, are misusing the term in some aspects. Her critiques, however, misunderstand the theoretical and political position of Subaltern Studies as a postcolonial criticism.
In Subaltern Studies, 'subaltern' on the level of theory is not a category to identify a certain real social group and to investigate its nature. Rather, it is a general term to signify a critical position in the relation of power. The historians of Subaltern Studies argue that the historiography of Indian nationalism has long been dominated by elitism and colonialism, presuming exclusively the domain of the elitist politics. Their studies show that vast areas in the life and the consciousness of subaltern classes were never integrated into the elitist hegemony, and that there existed a sharp contrast between the domains of the elite and the subaltern in India during the colonial period. In this sense, elite-subaltern dichotomy (or the concept of subaltern) is a theoretical apparatus which allows the historians of Subaltern Studies to intervene in the Indian nationalist historiography and to criticize its colonial discourse/power.
They originally attempted to (re)construct the history of subaltern. Yet their project came to a predicament, that is, the problem of representation as power. As a matter of fact, it was a problem from which they could not escape as long as they tried to reconstruct subaltern's consciousness and behavior positively. They realized that, as Prakash puts it, the project to retrieve subaltern as a full-blooded subject-agent must fail, for subalternity in itself means a minor position that could not be undone retroactively. As a result, they came to recognize subalternity as an abstraction inferring the intractability inside the dominant discourses.
The rethinking of subalternity led them to deconstruct their initial project. Instead of composing the history of subaltern, they now analyze and criticize from the postcolonial perspectives colonial dominant discourses and ideologies of Eurocentrism, Globalization, History as progress, etc. In doing so, they adopt and appropriate the concepts/theories of poststructuralism, on the one hand, as a means of self-critique of the West and of Marxism, on the other hand, to criticize the overwhelming dominant power of capital over the historical, cultural, and economic conditions in the so-called Third World today.
Some scholars in our discipline deny the relationship between Subaltern Studies and Marxism. All historians of Subaltern Studies in fact have a Marxist background, both politically and intellectually, and in many ways remain within its problematic. Their postcolonial criticism thus is a revised Marxism in the context of the Third World, or a critical integration of Marxism and poststructuralism.
In Subaltern Studies, 'subaltern' on the level of theory is not a category to identify a certain real social group and to investigate its nature. Rather, it is a general term to signify a critical position in the relation of power. The historians of Subaltern Studies argue that the historiography of Indian nationalism has long been dominated by elitism and colonialism, presuming exclusively the domain of the elitist politics. Their studies show that vast areas in the life and the consciousness of subaltern classes were never integrated into the elitist hegemony, and that there existed a sharp contrast between the domains of the elite and the subaltern in India during the colonial period. In this sense, elite-subaltern dichotomy (or the concept of subaltern) is a theoretical apparatus which allows the historians of Subaltern Studies to intervene in the Indian nationalist historiography and to criticize its colonial discourse/power.
They originally attempted to (re)construct the history of subaltern. Yet their project came to a predicament, that is, the problem of representation as power. As a matter of fact, it was a problem from which they could not escape as long as they tried to reconstruct subaltern's consciousness and behavior positively. They realized that, as Prakash puts it, the project to retrieve subaltern as a full-blooded subject-agent must fail, for subalternity in itself means a minor position that could not be undone retroactively. As a result, they came to recognize subalternity as an abstraction inferring the intractability inside the dominant discourses.
The rethinking of subalternity led them to deconstruct their initial project. Instead of composing the history of subaltern, they now analyze and criticize from the postcolonial perspectives colonial dominant discourses and ideologies of Eurocentrism, Globalization, History as progress, etc. In doing so, they adopt and appropriate the concepts/theories of poststructuralism, on the one hand, as a means of self-critique of the West and of Marxism, on the other hand, to criticize the overwhelming dominant power of capital over the historical, cultural, and economic conditions in the so-called Third World today.
Some scholars in our discipline deny the relationship between Subaltern Studies and Marxism. All historians of Subaltern Studies in fact have a Marxist background, both politically and intellectually, and in many ways remain within its problematic. Their postcolonial criticism thus is a revised Marxism in the context of the Third World, or a critical integration of Marxism and poststructuralism.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 서발턴: 권력관계에서의 비판적 포지션
3. 서발턴의 역사: (불)가능한 기획?
4. 서발턴 연구: 지배담론에 대한 포스트식민적 비판
5. 맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
그람시와 ‘서발턴’ 개념
역사교육
2002 .06
-
비교사를 다시 생각함― 섭알턴 연구(Subaltern Studies)의 관점에서 ―
영국 연구
2001 .01
-
다시, 서발턴은 누구/무엇인가?
역사학보
2008 .12
-
[논문] 동물원의 미학: 한국근대소설의 하층민의 형상과 섹슈얼리티에 대하여
한국근대문학연구
2002 .10
-
'서발턴의 역사(Subaltern History)'와 제3세계의 역사주체로서의 서발턴
역사교육
1999 .12
-
탈식민 페미니즘과 외국문학 연구
인문과학
2012 .12
-
Hegemony in Applied Linguistics : Issues of Clarity, Cohesion, and Praxis
응용언어학
2018 .06
-
Reading the People as a Subaltern Character in 2 Kings 7
Canon&Culture
2019 .10
-
스피박의 서벌턴 이론과 소통의 문제
인문과학연구
2011 .09
-
The Role of Suicide in the Conservation of the Subalterns’ Dignity and Identity
새한영어영문학회 학술발표회 논문집
2016 .05
-
‘서발턴(의) 역사’와 로컬 역사/로컬리티
로컬리티 인문학
2009 .10
-
스피박의 서발턴(하위주체)의 관점에서 바라 본 아시아 여성신학과 민중신학적 담론에 대한 문제 제기
신학논단
2013 .06
-
정치적 행위와 서발턴의 유목적 정체성
사회와 철학
2017 .04
-
미리암 쿡의『하야티, 나의 인생』에 나타난 아랍 서발턴의 타자 윤리학
새한영어영문학
2013 .11
-
“하위 계층은 말할 수 있는가?” : 지역문학에 나타난 민중성
영어영문학
2014 .05
-
[원문] New Global History and the Challenge of Subaltern Studies : Plea for a Global History from Below
로컬리티 인문학
2010 .04
-
동양의 여성주의와 서구의 가부장적 텍스트 : “다락방에 갇힌 여성”과 하위계층으로서의 여성
동서비교문학저널
2013 .06
-
개혁개방 이후 중국영화에서 나타나는 하위계층의 재현 양상 연구 ― 저항과 순응을 중심으로
중국학
2017 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-374-015487267