In Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?” the position of subalternity is exemplified by:The Tribals of PirthaThe Hindu widow who immolates herself on the pyre of her dead husbandThe nationalists who died during the Great Bengal Famine of the 1940sLord William Bentinck

According to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, why can’t the subaltern speak?

According to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, why can’t the subaltern speak?Because the subaltern is muteBecause the subaltern is an anonymous entity, and thus cannot be trustedBecause the subaltern is in a position of disempowerment from within whichdiscourse is impossible, and therefore is never heardBecause the subaltern is considered to be insane and dangerous

1. What is the idea of 'sub-culture' referred to in the readings, particularly as discussed in terms of 'scenes' by Emma Baulch?

According to West,  what is parrhesia?Group of answer choicesfrank speecheducation in the deepest senseburying the deaddemocracythe examined life

Janaka’s Conventional View of WomenInterrupting Sulabha’s questioning, Janaka addresses her at length. Afterstating that he respects Sulabha and desires to know her thoroughly,Janaka demands to know who she is, whose she is, where she has comefrom, and where she is going. He declares that he is free from the vanityof kingship, and he is the only person who can discourse to her on eman-cipation. He emphasizes his high spiritual lineage by pointing out thathe acquired his knowledge from his guru, Panchashikha of Parasara’srace. Janaka claims that even though he is a king and is married, he hasattained knowledge of the Atman (knowledge of oneness of one’s Atmanwith the universal Atman), and is free from all attachments. Thoughalive, he is emancipated. He is free from love for his wife or hatred of hisenemies. In terms very close to those of Krishna’s instructions in theBhagvadGita, he states that he views a lump of gold and a clod of earthas equal, and a person who wounds him as equal to a person who honorshim.He then makes the bold claim that he is superior to all ascetics whohave renounced the world. His argument in this regard is that an ascetic’srenunciation of the world may be only apparent, not genuine, while con-versely, a king’s attachment to and enjoyment of the world may be appar-ent, not genuine. He then aggressively tries to demonstrate that Sulabhais not a genuine renunciant. His argument is not entirely logical for itproceeds in the following manner: I am superior to all renunciants; renun-ciants may be attached to the world while kings may be unattached tothe world. You, Sulabha (because you are a woman), are actually attachedto the world, while I, the king, am not attached to the world. The onlyprima facie true proposition here is the second—most people would agreeDownloaded by Pragya Gupta ([email protected])lOMoARcPSD|2012453584 RUTH VANITAand many texts demonstrate that some ascetics may be fake while somehouseholders may be emancipated. However, Janaka then proceeds todemonstrate his third proposition by appealing to conventional notionsof gender roles, while his first proposition remains unproved. His bullyingtone and his masculinist attitude to Sulabha seem quite inappropriate fora person who claims to be detached from the world and therefore fromsocial prejudices.He begins his argument regarding Sulabha by telling her that her behav-ior does not correspond to the ascetic way of life. She is delicate, shapely,and youthful, and he therefore doubts that she has subdued her senses.The implication here is that a young and beautiful woman is incapable ofovercoming her desires for sensual and sexual pleasure.He then goes on to say that her act of entering into him by Yoga powersis sinful. He equates this act with sexual union, and in fact, a type of rape,as he had not made any gesture inviting her to enter into him. Assum-ing that this is a physical union between a woman and a man, he pointsout that it is wrong in at least four ways. First, since she is a Brahman(he assumes that since she is an ascetic, she must belong to the Brahmancommunity) while he is a Kshatriya, a union between them would causean inappropriate mixture of two varnas (literally, colors; figuratively, thefour groups into which society is broadly divided). Second, since she is anascetic and he is a householder, a union between them would cause aninappropriate mixture of two ways of life. Third, since neither of themknows to which gotra (exogamous clans, marriage between members ofwhich is forbidden as incestuous) the other belongs, it is possible that theunion is an unnatural one between members of the same gotra. Fourth, ifshe is married, the union is sinful (interestingly, his being married wouldnot make his union with her sinful, as a man may have many sexual rela-tionships, but a woman only one). Finally, since he does not desire her,her union with him is like poison.He then goes on to speculate that she may have perpetrated all thesesinful acts because of “ignorance or perverted intelligence” (Ganguly1973, X:61), but in any case, by trying to display her superiority to men,she has shown herself to be a wicked woman. He wonders whether she isthe agent of some rival king. This speculation indicates that he is unableto conceive of an autonomous female agent and so thinks she must bemerely an instrument, acting at the behest of a male. Janaka concludesthis diatribe by stating that the power of kings consists in sovereignty, thepower of Brahmans in the Vedas, and the power of women in their beauty,youth, and marital blessedness, therefore one should never try to deceive aking, a Brahman, or a good wife. He then reiterates his questions regardingwho she is, whose she is, and where she has come from