Subaltern Mythologies

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/subaltern-mythologies/
by Vivek Chibber

Postcolonial theorists have to stop insisting we choose between the universal and the particular.

(Remeike Forbes / Jacobin)

Since its release in March, the response to Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital has, in many ways, been as e!pecte". #rom many within postcolonial theory itsel$, there has been pre"ictable hysteria an" %itriol. &ut "i"n't anticipate the stream o$ positi%e engagement, e%en $rom within cultural stu"ies an" some (uarters o$ postcolonial theory. &ruce )obbins' re%iew in the latest issue o$ N+1 $alls somewhere in-between. *is tone $or most o$ it is respect$ul, sometimes generous. *e (uite ably sets the conte!t $or the boo+'s arguments an" tries to lay out what is at sta+e. n this, he rises abo%e the mu"-slinging that has been the resort o$ some o$ his colleagues. &ut once )obbins sets out his own criticisms, the essay "egenerates into a series o$ "istortions an" misconceptions. ,hat ma+es them interesting, an" worth respon"ing to, is that they con%erge with misgi%ings that e%en sympathetic rea"ers ha%e e!presse". -he cru! o$ )obbins' criticism comes at the en" o$ his re%iew, an" centers aroun" three issues: whether my %iews o$ the .nglish )e%olution o$ 1/40 an"/or 1/00 are "e$ensible1 whether my $ramewor+ can apprehen" the "i$$erence between .ast an" ,est1 an" whether

my materialism is really a restatement o$ rational choice theory. 2n all three counts his criticisms are mista+en.

3et us start with the .nglish )e%olution. n the boo+, e!amine" whether )anajit 4uha's %iew about the e%ents o$ 1/40 were correct. 4uha, in essence, un"erstan"s 1/40 to be an instance o$ a 5bourgeois-"emocratic re%olution,6 in which the emergent capitalist class un"erta+es an" accomplishes two goals 7 the era"ication o$ $eu"al lan"e" relations, an" the establishment o$ a liberal, consensual political or"er. showe" that this %iew is irre"eemably $lawe", an" that it sets up an illusory contrast between the histories o$ the bourgeoisie in the .ast an" the ,est. #irst, the .nglish )e%olution was not a war between a rising bourgeoisie an" the ancient regime, $or the economy was alrea"y largely capitalist. Secon", an" most importantly, the %ictorious post-re%olutionary regime ha" no interest in, an" "i" not establish, the liberal, encompassing, consensual or"er that 4uha attributes to it. n $act, it stro%e mightily to s(uelch what "emocratic rights there were. ,hat the re%olution be(ueathe" was a narrow bourgeois oligarchy. )obbins "ismisses this argument out o$ han" as being wrong. *e seems to thin+ that an economic trans$ormation o$ this magnitu"e ha" to ha%e occurre" through something li+e a political re%olution. *ow, he as+s, coul" $eu"alism ha%e "isappeare" without anyone noticing, without a 5political commotion68 seem to, in his %iew, ma+e politics rece"e into irrele%ance. -wo points are worth mentioning here. #irst, "o not say that $eu"alism was replace" without any political commotion or trans$ormation o$ political relations more generally. n $act, as argue in some "etail in the boo+, there was an important political trans$ormation that accompanie" the change in agrarian relations in the -u"or era 7 the lan"e" classes ac(uire" greater an" greater political power $or themsel%es throughout the country by capturing local juri"ical institutions an" in parliament by controlling regional elections. 2%er the course o$ a century, they bent the structure o$ the state towar" their own interests, constraining the monarchy in its unilateral power. -his was a trans$ormation o$ epochal signi$icance, in that they slowly turne" the state into an organ o$ their own power 7 albeit with a monarchical $orm. -he stri$e in 1/40 was the $inal act in a "eca"es-long e$$ort by 9harles to wrest control away $rom the lan"e" classes, centrali:ing it again in the person o$ the Monarch. -he

)e%olution itsel$ was a war o%er what +in" o$ state an alrea"y bourgeois .nglan" woul" ha%e. My argument "oesn't consign politics to irrele%ance 7 it simply corrects an erroneous story about what the battle was o%er. &ut e%en more importantly, )obbins $ails to un"erstan" the real issue. .%en i$ the tra"itional story about the re%olution were true 7 that it was a political re%olution le" by the bourgeoisie against a $eu"al state 7 it woul"n't be enough to sa%e the Subalternists' case. #or them the central issue isn't whether or not .nglan" was alrea"y capitalist by 1/40. t is, rather, whether or not the capitalists who came to power were committe" to a liberal, consensual, inclusi%e political or"er 7 their commitment to 5spea+ $or all the nation.6 ;n" on this score, there is no "ebate among historians. ,hat the .nglish bourgeoisie wante", an" what it erecte" a$ter 1/00, was a narrow bourgeois oligarchy, geare" centrally towar" the e!clusion o$ popular classes $rom the political arena. -he heroic bourgeoisie against which 4uha compares that o$ the .ast is a historic myth. point out the centrality o$ this issue at some length in chapter $our o$ my boo+, but )obbins seems not to ha%e notice". *is entire line o$ criticism is not base" on any empirical groun"s at all. *e rejects my argument, not because he has any $acts to marshal against it, or any historical literature he can cite < but $rom $irst principle. *e announces $rom on high what e%entsmust loo+ li+e in the a"%ent o$ capitalism. $ a particular narrati%e $ails to con$orm to his mo"el, so much the worse $or the narrati%e. -his approach to historical in(uiry $its better in a church or synagogue than in the aca"emy.

2n the secon" issue, the chasm putati%ely separating .ast $rom ,est, )obbins $ares no better. trea" lightly here, since his argument gets mur+y. &ut he seems to thin+ that a $ocus on the uni%ersal properties o$ capitalism, which he ta+es me to be recommen"ing, can only en" up papering o%er the real "i$$erences between regions. So e%en though it might be that capitalism has swept the globe, surely we want to e!plain the "i$$erence between 5capitalism in the style o$ =.; an" capitalism in the style o$ )ana >la:a.6 *e argues am not intereste" in such mun"ane matters, being sla%ishly boun" to capitalism as a 54ran" ?arrati%e.6 ;s proo$, )obbins cites that it is not until page 2@0 that e%en broach how .astern capitalism actually "i%erges $rom its ,estern counterpart. &ut this criti(ue is "isingenuous. My entire boo+ is we""e" to showing that ta+ing cogni:ance o$ certain uni%ersal $orces is no impe"iment to also e!plaining "i%ersity. -he

issue o$ social an" historical "i$$erence is paramount to my argument. -he clearest "iscussion o$ this is in chapter nine, on Aipesh 9ha+rabarty's rather torture" analysis o$ abstraction. e!plain there that the %ery uni%ersali:ing $orces o$ capitalism also generate "i%erse $orms o$ capitalism, because e%en though the pressure to accumulate is common across economies, local response to it can be (uite %arie". -his is in part "ue to the une%enness o$ the accumulation process itsel$, but also because o$ the contingencies o$ class con$lict an" local institutional in$luences. 9apitalism thus uni%ersali:es its "ynamics, but e!ists in %ariable $orms. My "iscussion o$ this issue is in a section title" 59apitalism an" Ai%ersity )e%isite",6 in which summari:e the argument in its subsection 5-hree Sources o$ Ai%ersity in 9apitalism.6 literally spell out what am arguing 7 an" )obbins somehow still manages to miss it. t is true that "o not pro"uce an actual theory, a historical account, o$ why this or that country's capitalism Bsay Swe"en compare" to ;rgentinaC turne" out "i$$erently than another one. &ut that is because ha%e to set the argument at the same le%el o$ generality as the theories that critici:e, those o$ the Subalternists. -he argument coming $rom their camp is not that some particular theory is $alling short1 it is that any theory built on certain premises is incapable o$ e%er recogni:ing "i$$erence. try to show that the +in"s theories they impugn are in $act (uite capable o$ appreciating historical "i%ersity, an" show what it is about these theories' logic that enables them to e!plain both uni%ersal processes, as well as "i%ergent social $ormations. then point, on page 2@0, to the %eritable mountain o$ literature that "oes just that 7 e!plain how Swe"en an" ;rgentina are both capitalists but still "i%erse. "o not o$$er such an e!planation mysel$ because "o not ha%e to, because it has been at the core o$ se%eral theories' research programs $or more than one hun"re" years.

#inally, the (uestion o$ rationality. )obbins seems o$ two min"s here. *e accuses me o$ o$$ering a mo"el o$ action "eri%e" $rom rational choice theory, on top o$ which he heaps on $urther opprobrium 7 not the least o$ which is the "rea"e" sin o$ being 5pre-"ialectical.6 &ut he also (uic+ly "raws bac+ an" a"mits that he might be e!aggerating. Since it isn't clear which o$ his accusations he actually belie%es, let me a""ress the (uestion s(uarely. Ao rely on a rational choice mo"el o$ action8 ha%e to a"mit being pu::le" by this (uestion, since go to some lengths in the boo+ 7 not just in a $ootnote, as )obbins

wrongly asserts 7 to show how an" why my argument is not a %ersion o$ rational choice theory. )obbins is again a little "ishonest here. *e uses a (uote $rom me about the 5asocial in"i%i"ual, ho%ering abo%e his culture, ran+ing his pre$erences,6 implying that that is the %iew that wish to en"orse 7 when he +nows per$ectly well that, in that passage, am lampooning that %iew as one that reject. So what is the %iew that en"orse8 Ao re"uce agents to asocial automatons8 ,hat actually say in the boo+ is three things. #irst, that people are largely shape" by their cultures, but that culture "oes not go 5all the way "own.6 -here are some nee"s that e!ist an" en"ure in"epen"ently o$ culture, an" chie$ among these is the nee" to atten" to one's physical well-being. Secon", that people are typically cogni:ant o$ this nee" an" it there$ore generates interests that in$luence political an" social interaction. ;n" thir", that it is the uni%ersality o$ this nee" that e!plains the uni%ersality o$ resistance to e!ploitation 7 since the latter typically un"ermines the $ormer. ?ote that "on't simply assert this argument 7 show that the actual historiography o$ the Subalterns themsel%es %ali"ates this proposition, e%en though they "eny it Bwith the e!ception o$ 4uha, who ne%er "enies itC. ?one o$ this entails a commitment to rational choice theory. ;ll am o$$ering is one route to what was once calle" materialism, an" those are two %ery "i$$erent animals. "o not imply, in"ee" e!plicitly "eny, that people are wel$are-ma!imi:ers. ?or "o suggest that people are sel$ish or competiti%e in"i%i"ualists 7 the two implications most commonly associate" with rational choice an" which are rightly rejecte" by others. ,hat "o say is that people ha%e a healthy appreciation o$ situations in which they are being oppresse" or e!ploite", that this appreciation hol"s stea"y across cultures, an" that it generates reasons $or action. -his is why what we typically see is what Dames Scott calle" 5e%ery"ay $orms o$ resistance.6 #urthermore, my argument "oes not in any way imply that a concern $or ones well-being is all there is to human nature. n the boo+, o$$er that people are probably also har"-wire" $or a "esire $or autonomy or sel$-"etermination. &ut also say, an" will repeat, that human nature is in $act much richer than either o$ these 7 there is the innate creati%ity, the "esire $or lo%e, $or social ties, $or meaning. ;ll those nee"s an" capacities that Mar! "escribes in the1844 anuscripts are ones that accept. -he reason $ocuse" on one particular property is that this is the one that is at the core o$ Subalternist arguments an" it is the aspect o$ human nature they "eny, especially to people with "ar+er s+in.

t is worth repeating that Mar!, the .nlightenment thin+er with the richest conception o$ human nature, ne%er "oubte" the e!istence o$ basic human nee"s, nor the importance o$ material interests as the $ount o$ politics an" political struggles. ,hat ma"e capitalism unjust was that it turne" 7 an" in so many parts o$ the worl", continues to turn 7 wor+ers li%es into a struggle aroun" their bare material well-being, suppressing the "e%elopment o$ their other mani$ol" capacities. ,e shoul" o$ course object to any theory that re"uces peoples' moti%ations to those $ocuse" on this one goal, but we shoul" be e(ually suspicious o$ a theory that "enies or impugns its salience outright. -he most "eplorable conse(uence o$ the 5cultural turn6 is that it "oes just this, an" )obbins' response is just another e!ample o$ it. -he sa" $act is that e%ery accusation )obbins throws at me was anticipate" in Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. *e is $ree to "isagree with the "e$enses o$$er in that boo+, but in preten"ing that "on't a""ress the issues he raises, an" in simply ignoring what e!plain (uite clearly an" at great length, )obbins only con$irms what pre"icte" near its en" 7 that the most li+ely response $rom the "e$en"ers o$ postcolonial theory will be to "ismiss an" calumniate outsi"e criticism, rather than a""ressing it s(uarely.