جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « مطالعات فرودستان » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Based on the theoretical logic of subalternstudies, this article has dealt with its internal criticism.Its main question is whether it is possible to trace an elitist strain in it despite the claim of these studies?For this purpose, by using the secondary analysis method and relying on the opinions of three leading figures of this approach, namely RanajitGuha, DipeshChakrabartyand GayatriChakravortySpivak, a formulation of the theoretical claims of subalternstudies has been presented.These studies criticize the elitist historiography for ignoring the role of the subaltern in making history and defines its goal as searching for the role of the subaltern in historical and social developments in order to recognize the subaltern as an independent subject. These studies explore the "positive role" of the subalterns in building their destiny from a compassionate position and try to make visible the politics of the subalterns, which are invisible in elitist historiography.The critique of the present article to the subaltern studies project is that by considering the subaltern as a" clean-handed object" and neglecting the issue of subaltern domination and the fluidity of the subaltern position, it has ignored their "negative role" in the production and reproduction of the relations of domination.The marginalization of the negative role of subalterns in these studies has caused that despite the claim of being anti-elitist, there are elements of elitism in the analysis of domination relations.

During the last two centuries, particularly in the post-World War II period, many former colonies in the Middle East have gained independence. However, there is a growing gap between countries—dichotomized into different groups in the international system such as Developed or Undeveloped, North or South, First World or Third World, Center or Periphery, West or East, and so on. The Middle East or ‘the Islamic East’ is one of the regions which have been suffering from either drastic backwardness or dependent development. In postcolonial discourse, the epistemological agency of the non-European world is revived and the one-sided narration of westerners about the whole world is not the only source of knowledge. Intellectual and political elites of the newly independent societies as ‘nationalist and anticolonialist subjects’ entered into battle in order to change the subordinate position of these countries in the international order and find ways to overcome the problem of underdevelopment and dependence on the western countries, but these so-called ‘Middle Easterners subjects’ as referred to in this paper were unable to be independent subjects and actually became subjected to the influence of the external forces. Most Middle Eastern intellectual and political elites had to change their attitudes and activities due to eurocentrism, especially in the area of foreign policy and international relations. As the subjects of the Eurocentric international order, they unconsciously cooperated with the forces which intended to maintain the existing international order, despite the fact that they were initially trying to change this superior-subordinate arrangement in protest against its unequal nature.  The so-called subjectivity of  these elites has led  to an even expanding backwardness in many parts of the region.The authors’ main objective is to answer the following research questions:  1. How have the postcolonial discourses, which have originated from the Eurocentric international order been reinforced? 2. Why were the anti-colonial elites of the Middle East ultimately influenced by the Eurocentric view in spite of their initial opposition to eurocentrism? In the research hypothesis, it is argued that the worldview of eurocentrism of the Middle Eastern elites and intellectuals have acted as positive reinforces of the Eurocentrism perspective and orientation in the Middle Eastern countries. To answer these questions, they use the framework of the theories of post-colonialism, and draw conclusions from Spivak's discussions of the subalterns and domination, Edward Said's writings on the subject of Orientalism, and the discourse of the elites of the so-called Islamic East who had struggled to confront the challenge of backwardness of their countries during the 1960-1970 period. The findings of the research showed that even some of the staunchest anti-colonial political elites and intellectuals—in spite of their rebellion against imperial powers and critical views of the Eurocentric attitudes of the westerners—ended up as the subjects of the European-dominated international order. Such results are valuable for understanding the persistent backwardness of countries in the Middle East which are confronted with this challenge in different ways and varying degrees of severity.

This manuscript is devoted to the critique of Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Spivak as part of the study of history from below deconstructs historiography. Her central theme is the critique of the subaltern-maker sign system. She uses Althusserian concepts such as the theory of ideology and apparatus alongside concepts such as the differential identity, trying to link the grammatological psychoanalysis to the political economy. This is the strength of her work, but there are also serious criticisms of her project. For example, Spivak blocks the path of claimed change and emancipation by declaring the subaltern's inability to speak and her need to be represented. Following Derrida's call to speak of the subaltern through the vague force within us, he opens the way for a kind of ecstatic intuition that works to release the power of imagination and aesthetic taste. Spivak wanted to make the subaltern studies a general theory by linking the international political economy with the hermeneutics of sacred, legal, and educational texts, and literary criticism, but she rarely moved beyond the realm of literary criticism. The validity of her critiques of Foucault and Deleuze can be questioned by referring to their original works.

Wasini Al-Araj, an Algerian contemporary novelist, has used the literary form of novellas a device to represent the problems of subalterns including women. The aim of this study is to check the character of women inhisnovel "Country of butterfly" from the perspective of Gayatri Spivak. Spivak has a postcolonial feministic approach, and she is one of the leading characters in "Subaltern Studies" that introduce homeless people, poor farmers, daily paid laborers, and women as examples of subalterns. However, Spivak focuses on subordinate females. The purpose of "subaltern studies", including Spivak, is to reflect the voice, activity, and mentality of subalterns. This study is based on a descriptive-analytical method. The results indicate that wasini Al-Araj has adopted a reconstructive approach in his novel by giving centrality to women through the narratives of the novel from the perspective of a woman. Also, by granting women agency, social activity, relationships based on logic, choice of spouse, and the ability to see and write, Al-Araj seeks to reconstruct the common subjectivity about women. He has portrayed the gender subordination of women in matters such as forced marriage because of aging, polygamy, men’s right to divorce, loving boys, and so on.

Postcolonial studies is a new discipline dealing with non-Western countries and their cultures، which fall within the scope of cultural studies. This critical approach refers to a set of theoretical attitudes which analyze the colonial discourse with emphasis on colonial consequences. These studies lay emphasis on colonialism as an intangible and cultural issue which still exists. The field and subject matter of postcolonial studies، due to emergence of new issues، has a very wide scope. This is because of the wide scope of the subjects falling within scope of postcolonial studies، which include، theory، literary critique، economic and political studies as well as research about colonial governments، identity and cultural studies. This leads to some ambiguities and controversies in the primary encounters of the researchers with this field of studies، causing some writers to consider conceptual unity and integrity for this field. It seems that a more precise study of the branches and approaches of this field is necessary. Hence، attempts have been made in the present paper to restudy the subject matter and approaches of postcolonial studies and analyze the ignored aspects of this discipline through a critical approach.

This paper challenges the possibility of a `single sociology for a world' through the study of a dual problem. The question about the universality of sociology has two different answers. First position defends a single sociology for a world, and second position derives from the critique of the first by proposing a dual problem, namely, political and epistemological one. This article, upon a glance through the history of the subject, defends the necessity of a multi-lingual sociology, because a mono-lingual and mono- cultural sociology not only induces uniformity and stagnation of the discipline but causes ineffective and nonproductive sociology in other historical and cultural contexts.