Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capitalism. Vivek Chibber
Oxford University Press, 1997), 82–108; Dipesh Chakrabarty, “Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography,” Nepantla: Views from South 1:1 (2000), 9–32. See also David Ludden, “A Brief History of Subalternity,” in Ludden, ed., Reading Subaltern Studies (London: Anthem Press, 2002), 1–39, and the introduction to Vinayak Chaturvedi’s collection Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial (London: Verso, 2000).
9 This group included Sumit Sarkar, Partha Chatterjee, David Hardiman, Gyanendra Pandey, and Dipesh Chakrabarty.
10 See Partha Chatterjee, “A Brief History of Subaltern Studies,” in Chatterjee, Empire and Nation (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 289–301; Chakrabarty, “Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography,” 14.
11 See Ranajit Guha, “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India,” in Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies I: Writings on South Asian History & Society (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982), 1–8.
12 For examples, see Suneet Chopra, “Missing Correct Perspective,” Social Scientist 10:8 (Aug. 1982), 55–63; Sangeeta Singh et al., “Subaltern Studies II: A Review Article,” Social Scientist 12:10 (Oct. 1984), 3–51.
13 For examples of such responses, see Partha Chatterjee, “More on Modes of Power,” in Ranajit Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies II (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983).
14 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography,” in Ranajit Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies IV (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985), 330–63.
15 Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? (London: Zed Press, 1986); Dipesh Chakrabarty, Rethinking Working-Class History: Bengal 1890–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).
16 Two examples of this turn are Gyan Prakash, Bonded Histories: Genealogies of Labor Servitude in Colonial India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); and Ajay Skaria, Hybrid Histories: Forests. Frontiers, and Wildness in Western India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999).
17 It is interesting that South African historiography was moving in a direction largely parallel with that of India in the 1980s, with a strong turn to history from below and a kind of Gramscian Marxism. Key to this development were the works of Charles van Onselen, Belinda Bozzoli, Shula Marks, Dan O’Meara and others. The intellectual history is very ably charted by Martin J. Murray in “The Triumph of Marxist Approaches in South African Social and Labour History,” The Journal of Asian and African Studies 23:1–2 (1988), 79–101. But these works never received the same attention in broader circles as did their Indian counterparts.
18 Ronald Inden, “Orientalist Constructions of South Asia,” Modern Asian Studies 20:3 (1986), 445. Emphasis added. Better late than never, one might say …
19 See the symposium in the American Historical Review 99:4 (Dec. 1994), with essays by Gyan Prakash, Florencia Mallon, and Frederick Cooper.
20 Gyan Prakash, After Colonialism: Imperial Histories and Postcolonial Displacements (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); David Ludden, Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalisation of South Asia (Delhi : Permanent Black, 2001); Vinayak Chaturvedi, ed., Mapping Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial (London: Verso, 2000).
21 Representative essays from this genre are collected in Ileana Rodríguez, ed., The Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001).
22 This was Neplanta: Views from the South. Apparently the journal was only in print from 2000 to 2003.
23 Chakrabarty, “Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography,” republished as “A Small History of Subaltern Studies,” in Dipesh Chakrabarty, Habitations of Modernity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 3–19.
24 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 15.
25 Ranajit Guha refers to the universalization of capital, sometimes as a “tendency”, other times as a “drive.” See Guha, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 16, 19, 65, 102.
26 Guha, quoted in Chakrabarty, “Small History,” 13.
27 Ibid., 12.
28 Ibid., 13.
29 Ibid., 9–11. See especially p. 11 for Chakrabarty’s characterization of Hobsbawm.
30 Ibid., 13.
31 Ibid., 14.
32 Guha, quoted at ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe, 15.
36 Chakrabarty, Rethinking Working-Class History, 3–5.
37 Partha Chatterjee, “The Nation and Its Peasants,” in Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 163.
38 Ibid., 164.
39 Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe, 7.
40 Ibid., 23.
41 Ibid., 242–3.
42 Ibid., 8, 249–51.
43 Gyanendra Pandey, “In Defense of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu-Muslim Riots in India Today,” Representations 37 (Winter 1992), 27–55
44 Chief among these were Rosalind O’Hanlon, “Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies and Histories of Resistance in Colonial South Asia,” Modern Asian Studies 22:1 (1988), 189–224; C. A. Bayly, “Rallying around the Subaltern,” Journal of Peasant Studies 16:1 (1988), 110–20; Tom Brass, “Moral Economists, Subalterns, New Social Movements, and the (Re-) Emergence of a (Post-) Modernized (Middle) Peasant,” Journal of Peasant Studies 18:2 (1991), 173–205; David Washbrook and Rosalind O’Hanlon, “After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism and Politics in the Third World,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:1 (1992), 141–67; Arif Dirlik, “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism,” Critical Inquiry 20:2 (1994), 328–56; Sumit Sarkar, “The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies,” in Sarkar, Writing Social History, 82–108. Vinay Bahl, “Relevance (or Irrelevance) of Subaltern Studies,” Economic and Political Weekly 32:23 (June 7–13, 1997), 1333–44.
45 See the largely positive appraisals by Jacques Pouchepadass, “Pluralizing Reason,” History and Theory 41:3 (Oct. 2002), 381–91; and Carola Dietze, “Toward a History on Equal Terms: A Discussion of Provincializing Europe,” History and Theory 47:1 (2008), 69–84; for a somewhat more skeptical response, see Barbara Weinstein, “History without a Cause? Grand Narratives, World History and the Postcolonial Dilemma,” International Review of Social History 50 (2005), 71–93.
46 See especially Sumit Sarkar, “Orientalism Revisited: Saidian Frameworks in the Writing of Modern Indian History,” Oxford Literary Review 16:1–2 (1994), 205–24; Rajnarayan Chandavarkar, “ ‘The Making of the Working Class’: E. P. Thompson and Indian History,” History Workshop 43 (Spring 1997), 177–96; Achin Vanaik, The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity, and Secularization (London: Verso, 1997); O’Hanlon and Washbrook, “After Orientalism.” For an incisive critique of Subaltern Studies’ place within postcolonial theory more generally, see Aijaz Ahmad, “Postcolonial Theory and the ‘Post’ Condition”, The Socialist Register, 1997, Vol. 33, 353–81.
47 Brass, “Moral Economists, Subalterns.”
48 See Ramachandra Guha, “Subaltern and Bhadralok Studies,” Economic and Political Weekly (Aug. 19, 1995), 2056–58; Sarkar “Decline of the Subaltern.”
49