of Dipesh Chakraborty and Gayatri Spivak

a comparison between the historiographic ideas of Dipesh Chakraborty and Gayatri Spivak

For a very long time, I have had difficulty understanding premise of Dipesh Chakraborty's 'Provincialising Europe.' I have reached out to my academician friends to explain, and they have really tried well - however, conversations evaporate and learnings do not settle in the mind. Some time ago therefore, I reached out to ChatGPT for those questions, and it really laid out the stakes well. I wanted to understand quite straightforwardly: what is the key argument of Dipesh Chakraborty in Provincialising Europe. 

In quite direct and simple language, it answered that the key argument of Provincialising Europe by DC is the pursuit of how we can understand modernity, history and political life without treating Europe as the automatic center or universal model for all societies. Chakraborty challenges that idea that concepts such as "capitalism", "democracy", "modernity", "citizenship", "secularism" developed in Europe from specific European histories and are often presented as universal. These (should not) automatically explain societies in Asia, Africa or Latin America. Post colonial societies live in both at once. They are modern but not in purely European ways. Further, his concern is that Europe dominates how we think about time, history, and modern life.

Following this explanation, ChatGPT prompted me if I was interested in understanding how his proposition differs from Said, Spivak or Fanon. 

and I jumped into that provocation. I really like how it laid out the difference:

The difference between Dipesh Chakrabarty and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak lies mainly in what they think the core problem of Western theory is—and how it can be addressed.

Put simply:

Chakrabarty asks: How can we rethink history and modernity beyond Europe?

Spivak asks: Who gets to speak, and who is silenced, even in critical theory?

It says that Spivak's concern comes from the realisation that all theory (whether western, or not) is embedded in power. is that "even progressive thinkers often silence the most marginalised people" She asks us to be suspicious of all theory, and skeptically suggests that intellectuals often reproduce heirarchy unintentionally. Thus, if Chakrabarty suggests "localisation" of theory indirectly, Spivak does not trust easy "localisation" of theory, because she asserts that even postcolonial scholars may dominate subaltern voices. For example, how do the lives of workers and peasants challenge our theories when they do not fit western categories? Further she says that the "subaltern" is often spoken about, but rarely allowed to speak for themselves. When they do speak, elites translate and distort them, leading to structural silencing. 

Thus, Chakraborty is saying - Don't reject western theory, rather "provincialise" it. Meaning, as Gautam Bhan said in one of his talks, "particularise" it in its region and dont assume it as a universal standard for everywhere. 

On the other hand, Spivak says that critical scholars too, often silence the oppressed, so we must question our right to speak for others.