Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 1

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly: Representations of Subalternity in Shyam Selvadurais Funny Boy: A Literature Review

PRESENTED TO

The Department of English, University of Kelaniya

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

ENGL 41524: Research Methodology

Rusiru Kalpagee Chitrasena Hu/2007/129

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 2

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly: Representations of Subalternity in Shyam Selvadurais Funny Boy
Rusiru Kalpagee Chitrasena Department of English, University of Kelaniya

ABSTRACT Shyam Selvadurais debut work of fiction, Funny Boy: A Novel in Six Stories (1994) is a remarkable account of a boys coming of age; his life in exile owing to differences in ethnicity and sexual orientation. His sexual awakening and breakthrough in the largely hetero-normative and homophobic Sri Lankan society against the backdrop of the increasing political violence are of central importance in the novel. The present study intends to examine the representation of subalternity in the novel. After defining, theorizing and problematizing subalternity and its representations, I intend to analyse representations of subalternity in the novel in terms of sexuality and ethnicity. The discussion on the sexual and the racial subaltern will be followed by an analysis of how discourses of sexual and racial subalternity runs simultaneously in the novel, reflecting the dual oppression of Arjie who is sexually and racially othered in the largely hetreonormative and Sinhalese majoritarian society. In the next chapter, I will deal with how the subaltern actually speaks/fails to speak in the novel and another chapter will focus on problems of representing subalternity in the novel. For the purposes of the present study, textual analysis is the primary research method. However, in developing a critical vocabulary and a theoretical framework, I owe a great deal to discourses of postcolonial, subaltern, gender, feminist, queer, race, and minority studies. Therefore, reviewing relevant critical and theoretical literature related to issues in the text is

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 3

crucial as a secondary research method not only for contextualizing research but also for discussing, theorising, legitimising and even problematizing the research findings.1 Keywords: Subalternity, Sexuality, Gender, Race, Representation

LITERATURE REVIEW A literature review is generally conceptualised as a critical analysis of a selective and representative body of knowledge mainly through summary, classification, interpretation, comparison and synthesis of already available knowledge on a given topic/field. Literature reviewing is an important process in most research projects, especially in fields where there is a significant body of published literature. It helps the researcher to demonstrate his/her knowledge about a particular field of study including vocabulary, theories, key variables and phenomena, and its methods and history (Randolph, 2009).2 The process of literature searching for this review has been both manual and electronic. In electronic literature searching, the keywords and the key concepts of the study were used as search terms. In conceptualizing and organizing this literature review, I use of a model provided in Cooper (1988).3 My goal is the identification and integration of these central issues and theories that I will focus in my study. In reviewing literature, I intend to maintain a neutral perspective. I have selected a representative body of literature which I consider to be adequate for

Wickramasinghe, M. (2009). Feminist research methodology: making meanings of meaning-making. London: Routledge. 111-113. 2 Randolph, J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation [online]. 14(13), p.1-13. [Accessed 12 March 2012]. Available from: <http://pareonline.net/pdf/v14n13.pdf>.
3

Cooper, H. (1988). Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1(1), pp.104-126. cited in Randolph (2009) Ibid.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 4

developing my thesis, and they are organised conceptually for the sake of clarity and precision. Subalternity is one of the most critical issues covered in the present study for which reason its clarification is vital. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the subaltern as follows:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of inferior status, quality, or importance of a person or body of persons: Subordinate, inferior Hence, of rank, power, authority, action: Of or pertaining to a subordinate or inferior. of immaterial things. (In recent use U.S.) Subaltern officer: an officer in the army of junior rank, i.e. below that of captain. Hence subaltern rank, etc. 6. of a vassal: Holding of one who is himself a vassal. Hence of a feu or right.

The term was first appropriated into political discourses by Antonio Gramsci, who defined subaltern as proletariat subordinated by hegemony excluded from any meaningful role in a regime of power (Gramsci, 1957)4. Subsequently, the term acquired prominence in postcolonial and minority critical discourses particularly with the work of the Indian Subaltern Studies group and Spivaks deconstruction of gender and representation. As Ranjit Guha (1982) explains:
The word subalternstands for the meaning as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that is, of inferior rank. It will be used as a name for the general attitude of subordination in South Asian Society whether this 5 is expressed in terms of class, caste, age, gender and office or in any other way. (vii)

Gramsci (1957). The Modern Prince and Other Writings. 1st. ed. London: Lawrance and Wishart. Guha (ed). (1982). Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 5

Guha offers a wide definition but it does not include sexuality, one of my major concerns in the present study, as a way in which subalternity can be expressed. Spivaks 1988 essay, Can the subaltern speak? is considered an essential reading by anyone involved with research on subalternity/minority studies.6 Here, Spivak concludes that the subaltern cannot speak. She problematizes the theoretical legitimacy of various discourses that seek to give the subaltern a voice, because what most of these groups does instead is representing the subaltern on behalf of the subaltern and speaking for the subaltern. According to Spivak, the subaltern voice will hardly be audible among the multiple echoes of heterogeneity. In plain words, the subaltern is defined by its inherent un-speak-ability and un-represent-ability, and therefore, what can be represented in a counter-hegemonic discourse cannot be subaltern. Spivaks interview with Leon De Kock7 is a general treatise on some of Spivaks complex theorisations and here, in response to a question from De Kock, Spivak defends her premise on the subaltern and subalternity. Spivak objects to the casual use of the term and to its misappropriation by other marginalized groups that are not subaltern: it is not just a classy word for oppressed, for other, for somebody who's not getting a piece of the pie (Spivak in De Kock, 1992). From a postcolonial perspective, everything that has limited access to the cultural imperialism is subaltern--a space of difference (Spivak in De Kock, 1992) and therefore, a person without lines of social mobility (Spivak, 1999) is subaltern. Spivak maintains that the subaltern can and do speak, yet not in a way in which their voices would be
6

The original version of the essay was published in 1988 but since then a couple of revised editions have appeared and I am familiar with the shorter version of the essay published in Aschcroft et al (2003).
7

Spivak, G.C. (1991). Interview with Leon D. Kock. December. The New Nation Writers Conference, Johannesburg. in De Kock (1992). An Interview with Gayathri Chakravorthy Spivak. ARIEL [online]. 23(3), [Accessed 15 March 2012], p.29-47. Available from: <http://ariel.synergiesprairies.ca/ariel/index.php/ariel/article/view/2505/0>.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 6

heard. The hegemonic discourse marginalizes it so that their voices cannot be heard. This is where the difference between the oppressed and the subaltern lies. The oppressed appropriates the discourse of its oppressor to voice its resistance. Yet, for the subaltern, what wants or needs to be said will not be understood because their concerns are not compatible with the hegemonic consciousness. Spivaks criticism here is against those who loosely use the term subaltern to mean any kind of oppression including the Indian subaltern studies group. However, Spivaks words here contradict her views on the term, expressed in another interview two years ago:
I like the word subaltern for one reason. It is truly situational. Subaltern began as a description of a certain rank in the military. The word was used under censorship by Gramsci: he called Marxism monism, and was obliged to call the proletarian subaltern. That word, used under duress, has been transformed into the description of everything that doesnt fall under strict class analysis. I like that, because it has no theoretical rigor.

Spivaks differentiation of the subaltern from the oppressed is an interesting development in the critical debate, yet it could also be a redundant complication that confuses many for which she is well-known. Both the subaltern and the oppressed seem to have a great deal in common in theory and practice, even within the boundaries of Spivaks analysis. The subaltern is generally oppressed and the oppressed is generally subaltern-ized. Bhabha (1996)8 highlights the issue of power in his working definition of subalterns:
oppressed, minority groups whose presence was crucial to the self-definition of the majority group: subaltern social groups were also in a position to subvert the authority of those who had hegemonic power (210).

Bhabha uses the term subaltern to represent marginalized and oppressed people(s) struggling against hegemonic forces, and his definition is wider and more inclusive than those of Guha and Spivak.
8

Bhabha, H. (1996). "Unpacking my library...again". In: Chambers, I, (ed). The Post-colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, New York: Routledge, pp119-211.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 7

Following definitions and explanations can be synthesised for a more effective and inclusive definition of the subaltern for the purposes of my study. Therefore, based on the various sources reviewed here, I conceptualise the subaltern as the marginalised, othered and discriminated for its difference (which could be class, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation) from the hegemonic norm, thereby being deliberately subjugated, erased, devoiced, silenced and misunderstood in dominant discourses for its incompatibility with the hegemonic consciousness. It is generally characterised by alterity, marginalisation and oppression. The present research intends to look at subalternity in terms of sexuality vis--vis homosexuality, and in terms of race vis--vis Tamil minority ethnic identity as represented in the novel. The subaltern position in terms of race and ethnicity is clear given that it is central to the discipline of subaltern studies along with class and gender, yet subalternity in terms of (different) sexual orientation, i.e. homosexuality in a largely hetero-normative society, is still being established within the sphere of subaltern studies. Kapur (2005)9 deals with the failure of the postcolonial and subaltern literary discourses to engage the sexual subaltern subject:
Sexuality remains extraneous to this theoretical project except when it is taken up within the context of law and violence. The challenges that sex and the sexual subaltern subject bring to normative understandings of culture and sexuality, which in turn underlie the legal regulation of sexuality have simply not been addressed. Yet the insight of both postcolonial and subaltern studies scholarship assist in providing a more complex articulation of the subject position of the sexual subaltern, of the relationship between sexuality and culture and analytical tools for understanding the assumptions and paradoxes produced by legal engagements over sexuality.

The validity of the term, sexual subaltern for homosexuals is questioned in Varela, Dhawan and Engel (2011)10, a collection of essays that explore the political in queer theory. Writers
9

Kapur, R. (2005). Erotic justice: law and the new politics of postcolonialism. 1st Edition. ed. London: The Glass House Press .

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 8

deal with the concepts of hegemony and heteronormativity, and these concepts are of central importance to the conceptualisation and discussion of the sexual subaltern. Chapter 4 by Varela and Dhawan considers the taxonomic validity of the term sexual subaltern at the backdrop of the increasing institutionalisation of the queer politics at international level. However, they maintain that:
[i]f subalternity is a condition of not having access to hegemony, and then those who cannot participate in the transformation of heteronormativity may be understood as sexual subalterns.... (Verela and Dhawan, p. 109)

Given the largely hetreonormative society in Sri Lanka, global queer politics has only a limited impact. Therefore, most non-hetreonormative Sri Lankans like Arjie and Shehan in the novel are sexually subaltern, because they have little opportunity to participate in the transformation of heteronormativity. Even if they try, their attempts will not be recognised due to various social, political, ethical and religious reasons. The homosexual has many qualifications to claim subalternity: it is considered different, evil, illegal (except in few jurisdictions), inferior, strange, taboo and it is constantly marginalised, silenced, subjugated and erased from history and the use of the term, sexual subaltern has increased in related academic discourses. Mosse (1996)11 traces the stereotypical construction of the modern hegemonic masculine identity and its countertypes of which homosexuality is an extreme: According to him:
Stereotyping meant that men and women were homogenized, considered not as individuals but as types. The fact that stereotyping depended upon unchanging mental images meant that there was no room for individual variations.... Stereotyping meant giving to each man all the attributes of the group to which he was said to belong. All men were supposed to conform to an ideal masculinity... ...The masculine stereotype was

10

Varela,M., Dhawan, N. and Engel, A. (2011). Hegemony and heteronormativity: revisiting 'the political' in queer politics. 1st. ed. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. 11 Moose, G. (1996). The Image of Man: the Creation of Modern Masculinity. 1st. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 9 strengthened, however, by the existence of a negative stereotype of men who not only failed to measure up to the ideal but who in body and soul were its foil, projecting the exact opposite of true masculinity. (p.6)

Variations that failed to live up to the ideal masculine type became then the countertypes and had to live unrecognised, hiding among the population (71). Mosses analyses of male identity construction are helpful in scrutinizing the Character of Arjie as the sexual other/ sexual subaltern. Mosses study is mainly about western constructions of masculinity, but it remains relevant to Sri Lanka as well, mainly because of the influence of Victorian codes of public morality and ethics on Sri Lankan society due to colonial influence. Butler (1990)12 is a critical study of gender along the lines of a queer perspective and has changed how gender identities are constructed in contemporary critical discourses. Butlers notion of gender performativity shifts the perception of gender as a stable kind of being towards gender as a compelled (and compelling) series of doings. According to Butler, there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; [and that] ... identity is

performatively constituted by the very expressions that are said to be its results (25). She characterizes gender as the effect of repeated acting, one that produces the effect of a static or normal gender while obscuring the contradiction and instability of any single person's gender act. This effect produces what we can consider to be 'true gender... (179). Conscious or unconscious, Selvadurais exposition of Ajies fascination with the transfiguration that his body undergoes in cross-dressing is an excellent exemplification of Butlers theorization of gender as being performative. Race is traditionally considered a way in which subalternity can be expressed. However, in the present study, I intend to look at the representation of the Tamil minority identity in the

12

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. 1st . ed. London: Routledge.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 10

novel vis-a-vis the politics of Sinhalese nationalism/ racism and the history of conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils as portrayed in the text. Chattopadhyaya (1994)13 is a comprehensive historical and socio-political study of the ethnic conflict and the Sinhalese and Tamil race relations in the country, written from a relatively less biased point of view. It is important for the present study in terms of situating the text in the context of the ethnic conflict vis--vis the marginalisation and oppression of Tamils, invention of the Tamil cause, misinterpretations of Tamil nationalism as terrorism, sociocultural constructions of the unbridgeable gap between the two ethnicities so on and so forth.

Manogaran and Pfaffenberger14 (1994) offers various dimensions of Tamil minority ethnic identity and the origins of the militant demands of for a separate homeland. An essay in this collection by Pfaffenberger shows how traditional constructions of Tamil identities that were based on class, caste, occupation, region and family backgrounds were transformed into western sensed ethnocentric identities as a result of the recalcitrant nationalism of the Sinhalese majority and communal violence against Tamils. Although Funny Boy intends to create a counter-hegemonic discourse that intends to give voiced to the sexual and the racial subaltern, the very act of representing the subaltern in the text is fraught with some problems. In the present study, I intend to look at such problems of representation in the novel. Beverley (2004)15 explores issues in cultural theory in terms of the representations of subalternity vis--vis the relationship between power and at the

13

Chattopadhyaya, H. (1994). Ethnic Unrest in Modern Sri Lanka: An Account of Tamil- Sinhalese Race Relations. 1st. ed. Delhi: MD Publications.
14

Manogaran,C. and Pfaffenberger, B. (eds). (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils Ethnicity and Identity. Colorado: Westview Press.
15

Beverley, J. (2004). Subalternity and representation: arguments in cultural theory. 2nd. ed. Durham: Duke University Press.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 11

beginning of his study; he asserts the role of power in subaltern studies and in representation. The study begins with an assertion of the role of power in the representation of subalternity:
Subaltern studies is about power, who has it and who doesnt, who is gaining and who is losing it. Power is related to representation: which representations have cognitive authority or can secure hegemony, which do not have authority or are not hegemonic.

He argues that the task of subaltern studies is not so much to represent the subaltern as a concrete socio-histiorical subject, but to explore and represent the difficulty of representing the subalterns that intends to represent it. Beverley critically engages with Gramscian and Marxist theories as well as with Guhas studies and while he accepts their contribution, he also notices how, despite the strong determination of the subalternists to bring out the cause of subaltern peoples, unconsciously replicate the same hierarchical structures within the hegemonic systems. No matter how well-intended an identity-based politics may be, it can lead to "a genocidal politics of ethnic cleansing"(142). Beverley also considers the relationship between hybridity versus subalternity. Along the lines of Bhabhas theories of hybridity, He problematizes the dualist representations of subalternity where the subaltern becomes what the hegemony "is not." Bhabha uses his theory of hybridity to explain the representation of the subaltern but as far as Beverley is concerned, hybridity too has its specific ideological limits. His concern is: whether it might be possible to create a counter-hegemonic politics of the people out of a cultural politics of difference (158). Beverley (2004) is instrumental in analysing the politics of representation in the text, particularly vis--vis in identifying and analysing problems of representing subalternity. Along these lines, a serious problem of the text is that it operates within an entirely hetreonormative setting. Almost all the characters of the outer world except Arjie and Shehan

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 12

are heterosexual which alienates them even within the (counter)-discourse which the text as a gay novel attempts to construct. This leads to an unnecessarily highlighted compassion of the sexual other with the heteronormative norm which could bring a negative message about Arjie and Shehan and highlight the heterosexuality as the norm on which the social order operates. This was reflected in the critical reception of the text especially in the Sri Lankan context: there are many readers who wish their sons on the verge of puberty did not read the text. This is further highlighted by the novels emphasis on Arjies feelings of guilt after his sexual encounter with Shehan. In fact, this feeling of guilt is highlighted more than the feelings of exile and isolation that Arjie has to suffer owing to societys unwillingness to accept his difference. This echoes the observation of Beverley: despite the strong determination of the subalternists to bring out the cause of subaltern peoples, unconsciously replicate the same hierarchical structures within the hegemonic systems. In this literature review, I have tried to create a theoretical framework for my research by reviewing a representative body of literature written on the major concepts and theories that I work with in my study. The review has been helpful in putting together the secondary data of my research. I have tried to clarify and explain the various aspects of my research question these conceptual clarifications will help me determine my lines of inquiry. However, the concepts and theories summarised and presented here will be discussed and analysed in detail in the main body of my thesis. In the end, my literature review can be summarised as follows. In the absence of a uniform definition, subalternity has multiple meanings in contemporary critical discourses. While some scholars consider it to be synonymous with oppression others like Gayatri Spivak

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 13

criticises the simplistic use of the term and holds that subalternity means inability to have a voice or to represent him/herself. Subalternity in terms of race and ethnicity is generally established in contemporary subaltern studies, while the sexual subaltern is still emerging as a concept and sometimes problematized. Representation of the subaltern is a major concern of Subaltern studies but such representations are sometimes problematic especially when the representatives of the subaltern borrows existing structures from the hegemonic systems and where the counter-hegemonic discourses replicate the same hierarchical structures within the hegemonic systems. Literary representations of the subaltern are sometimes fraught with this weakness.

1. BIBLIOGRAPHY (TENTATIVE)

Research Methodology and Literature Reviewing: Cooper, H. (1988). Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1(1), pp.104-126. Cited in Randolph, J. (2009). Randolph, J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation [online]. 14(13), p.1-13. [Accessed 12 March 2012]. Available from: <http://pareonline.net/pdf/v14n13.pdf>. Wickramasinghe, M. (2009). Feminist research methodology: making meanings of meaning-making. London: Routledge. 111-113.

Previous Studies on Funny Boy: Jayawickrama, S. (2005). At Home in the Nation? Negotiating Identity in Shyam Selvadurais Funny Boy. The Journal of Commonwealth Literature. 40(2), pp.123-139. Rao,R. (1997). Because Most People Marry Their Own Kind: A Reading of Selvadurai's Funny Boy.. ARIEL [online]. 28(1), [Accessed 15-03-2012], p.117-128. Available from: <http://ariel.synergiesprairies.ca/ariel/index.php/ariel/article/download/2940/2885.>

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 14

Salgado, M. (2007). Writing Sri Lanka: Literature, Resistance and the Politics of Place. 3rd. ed. London: Routledge. Wijesinha, R. (1998). Oddities and Excesses: Sri Lanka Substantiated by the Funny Boy. In: Wijesinha, R., (ed). Breaking Bounds: Essays on Sri Lankan Writing in English, Belihuloya: Sabaragamuwa University Press, pp78-80.

Subalternity: Bhabha, H. (1996). "Unpacking my library...again". In: Chambers, I, (ed). The Postcolonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, New York: Routledge, pp119-211. Gramsci (1957). The Modern Prince and Other Writings. 1st. ed. London: Lawrance and Wishart. Guha (ed). (1982). Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Spivak (1988) Can the Subaltern Speak? In Ashcroft, B., Griffith, G., Tiffin, H. (eds). (1996). the Post-Colonial Studies Reader. London: Routledge. Spivak (1999). A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Towards a History of the Vanishing Present. 1st. ed. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Spivak, G. and Morris, R. (eds). (2000). Can the Subaltern Speak: Reflections on the History of an Idea. New York: Columbia University Press. Spivak, G.C. (1991). Interview with Leon D. Kock. December. The New Nation Writers Conference, Johannesburg. in De Kock (1992). An Interview with Gayathri Chakravorthy Spivak. ARIEL [online]. 23(3), [Accessed 15 March 2012], p.29-47. Available from: <http://ariel.synergiesprairies.ca/ariel/index.php/ariel/article/view/2505/0>.

Sexual Subalternity: Kapur, R. (2005). Erotic justice: law and the new politics of postcolonialism. 1st Edition. ed. London: The Glass House Press. Varela, M., Dhawan, N. and Engel, A. (2011). Hegemony and heteronormativity: revisiting 'the political' in queer politics. 1st. ed. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

On Gender and Norms of Masculinity: Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. 1st. ed. London: Routledge.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 15

Moose, G. (1996). The Image of Man: the Creation of Modern Masculinity. 1st. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Racial Subalternity and Minority Ethnic Identity: Chattopadhyaya, H. (1994). Ethnic Unrest in Modern Sri Lanka: An Account of TamilSinhalese Race Relations. 1st. ed. Delhi: MD Publications. Manogaran, C. and Pfaffenberger, B. (eds). (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils Ethnicity and Identity. Colorado: Westview Press. Morton, S. (2010) Marginality: Representations of Subalternity, Aboriginality and Race in Chew, S. and D. Richards. (Eds). A Concise Companion to Postcolonial Literature. London: Wiley Blackwell

Representation:

Beverley, J. (2004). Subalternity and representation: arguments in cultural theory. 2nd. ed. Durham: Duke University Press. Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: feminism, nature and difference. 1st. ed. London and New York: Routledge

Previous Studies on Funny Boy: Jayawickrama, S. (2005). At Home in the Nation? Negotiating Identity in Shyam Selvadurais Funny Boy. The Journal of Commonwealth Literature. 40(2), pp.123-139. Rao,R. (1997). Because Most People Marry Their Own Kind: A Reading of Selvadurai's Funny Boy.. ARIEL [online]. 28(1), [Accessed 15-03-2012], p.117-128. Available from: <http://ariel.synergiesprairies.ca/ariel/index.php/ariel/article/download/2940/2885.> Salgado, M. (2007). Writing Sri Lanka: Literature, Resistance and the Politics of Place. 3rd. ed. London: Routledge. Wijesinha, R. (1998). Oddities and Excesses: Sri Lanka Substantiated by the Funny Boy. In: Wijesinha, R., (ed). Breaking Bounds: Essays on Sri Lankan Writing in English, Belihuloya: Sabaragamuwa University Press, pp78-80.

Because the sky is so high, the pigs cannot fly | 16