The figure of woman is left unexamined by Subaltern Studies

Evidence

In a certain reading, the figure of woman is pervasively instrumental in the shifting of the function of discursive systems, as in insurgent mobilization. Questions of the mechanics of this instrumentality are seldom raised by our group. “Femininity” is as important a discursive field for the predominantly male insurgents as “religion.” … Considering that in the British nineteenth century the female access to “possessive individualism” was one of the most important social forces, what does it mean to imply that “femininity” has the same discursive sense and force for all the heterogeneous groups meticulously documented by Gyanendra Pandey? Analogous research into the figure of the “worker” is performed by Chakrabarty. No such luck for the “female.” — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 1818

Categorization

• XREF: Heterogeneity-across-groups thesis — ‘femininity’ does not carry one discursive sense across castes/classes — undercuts stable identity categories, relevant to essentialism critique. — connects to: Subaltern consciousness claims fail if female subaltern consciousness is ignored. — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of…, 1833

Broader Connections

• Subaltern consciousness claims fail if female subaltern consciousness is ignored. #qualifies (0.90) — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 1833