The subaltern resists all adequate representation, so historians work at an acknowledged limit.

Evidence

It acknowledges that the arena of the subaltern’s persistent emergence into hegemony must always and by definition remain heterogeneous to the efforts of the disciplinary historian. The historian must persist in his efforts in this awareness that the subaltern is necessarily the absolute limit of the place where history is narrativized into logic. It is a hard lesson to learn, but not to learn it is merely to nominate elegant solutions to be correct theoretical practice. When has history ever contradicted that practice norms theory, as subaltern practice norms official historiography in this case? — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 1774

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Supports the reader’s framing that no representation of the subaltern can succeed — relevant to whether any ironic/essentialist performance can be ‘proper.’
• XREF: connects to: The subaltern subject is the knowing limit of all historical narration — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of…, 1774; Historians should strive for fairness despite the impossibility of full objectivity

Broader Connections

• The subaltern subject is the knowing limit of all historical narration #corroborates (0.95) — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 1774
• Historians should strive for fairness despite the impossibility of full objectivity #expands (0.75)