In our discussions of race and ethnicity, we have often been faced with
the pressing question: can cultures from the margins subvert mass culture and
reincorporate new meanings and implications into the hegemonic apparatus? My
answer is yes, marginalized cultures can re-appropriate mass culture for the
benefit of the marginalized. There is, however, a catch to this subversion.
Since the theoretical formation of such concepts as the margins and the
mainstream, the center and the periphery, the oppressed and the oppressor, the
hegemonic and the subverted, there has been a very real and constant interaction
between the colonizer and the colonized. Despite common perceptions that the
colonizer is the backbone of the colony, the fact remains that the colonizer
cannot exist without the colony. Marginalized and mainstream cultures are
constantly coming into contact with each other, and although the margins are
often exploited for the benefit of the mainstream, the mainstream is highly
dependent on the labor of the margins. In order to upkeep its position, the
center positions itself as the authority, of which the agency of the periphery
is filtered into the domination of the center. The center, as represented by
mainstream society, holds the power to define society. The periphery, as
represented by marginalized society, is often the labor force that upkeeps the
comfort of mainstream society. Since the center holds the power to define
societal “norms,” and the periphery lacks the agency to change hegemonic
society, the margins cannot truly affect mass culture unless there is full and
equal access to the tools of communication in the society.
In her notorious article “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Gayatri Spivak
asserts that the subaltern cannot speak. According to Spivak, “everything that
has limited or no access to the cultural imperialism is subaltern—a space of
difference” (Kilburn, 1). The subaltern does not need a voice; rather, the
subaltern needs a space to speak. The importance here is that “speaking”
involves a conversation between speaker and listener. The subaltern does not
need a voice because the subaltern already has a voice. What the subaltern needs
in order to be understood and/ or supported, is to be held on a level of
“dialogue” with the center, with mass culture. Dialogue entails a space
where all parties are communicating—a space where all parties are on the same
speaking level. I will now proceed to give an example of how the subaltern
cannot speak if there is an imbalance in “dialogue.”
Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. The island was
acquired as a United States possession in 1898, along with Puerto Rico, Cuba,
and the Philippines. A product of the Spanish-American war, Guam, along with its
colonial government, was transferred from one colonizing nation to the
next—from Spain to the United States. From 1898 to 1951, the United States
Navy ruled Guam. Although a territory, Guamanians were not granted United States
citizenship. It was not until the 1950s that Guam was able to attain some sort
of self-government, away from naval practices that only served to degrade
Chamorro society. Despite Guam’s status change to self-governance, islanders
have not been able to practice any real form of self-governance since Spain
invaded in 1521. The United States has imposed federal laws that conflict with
the Chamorro culture and lifestyle. Immigration was never a power of Guam’s
government; the federal government controls it. Although Guam has a
congressional representative, this representative cannot vote in Congress on
laws that affect the island.
Explicit
rule over Guam by the United States military has left the Chamorros powerless to
decide the fate of their own homeland. As an indigenous people, Chamorros have
the right to practice their culture without interference from colonial
governments. For decades, the Chamorro people on Guam have been fighting to
exercise the right to self-determination, with no response by the United States
to abide to this right. Unfortunately, the right of indigenous peoples to
self-determination is never truly respected by colonial governments because it
interferes with colonial policies that promote the subjugation of many and the
domination of few. In this case, the periphery is defined by the center. And, in
terms of the subaltern, a dialogue does not exist. As a territory of the United
States, and therefore a possession, Guam does not engage in a dialogue with the
United States government; there is no space for the territory and the colonial
government to dialogue on the issue of self-governance. In other words, the
subaltern cannot speak. The margins cannot truly re-deploy subversion if there
is no dialogue between the margins and mass culture.
Click here to return to Tinige' Eskuela
Na'kerida-mu este ya para u kinenne' hao tatte asta i Main Page