Comments on: “A Subaltern Perspective on History” (人下人的历史观): Reading Fang Zhuang Bi’s (方壮壁) Memoir http://s-pores.com/2007/04/subaltern/ new directions in singapore studies Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:41:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: The Pariah http://s-pores.com/2007/04/subaltern/#comment-432 The Pariah Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:31:48 +0000 http://s-pores.com/?p=75#comment-432 In response to my previous posting, I have since learned from Dr Hong Lysa that there is in fact a little known English translation: Fong Chong Pik, Fong Chong Pik: Memoirs of a Malayan Communist Revolutionary (Petaling Jaya, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2008.) I have since found out that this translation is available for reference at the National Library. But if you wanna borrow it, you have to go all the way to Woodlands Library - and there's only one copy. In response to my previous posting, I have since learned from Dr Hong Lysa that there is in fact a little known English translation:

Fong Chong Pik, Fong Chong Pik: Memoirs of a Malayan Communist Revolutionary (Petaling Jaya, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2008.)

I have since found out that this translation is available for reference at the National Library. But if you wanna borrow it, you have to go all the way to Woodlands Library – and there’s only one copy.

]]> By: The Pariah http://s-pores.com/2007/04/subaltern/#comment-430 The Pariah Sun, 17 Jan 2010 04:02:34 +0000 http://s-pores.com/?p=75#comment-430 Given the national inclination towards positivist historiography, it is all the more cogent for NUS to fund the translation of this book into English to widen access - whether by researchers or the public. With Chinese being the 2nd language for most Chinese Singaporeans, I hope NUS will take up this suggestion for translation into English. Given the national inclination towards positivist historiography, it is all the more cogent for NUS to fund the translation of this book into English to widen access – whether by researchers or the public.

With Chinese being the 2nd language for most Chinese Singaporeans, I hope NUS will take up this suggestion for translation into English.

]]> By: Siew Min http://s-pores.com/2007/04/subaltern/#comment-25 Siew Min Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:01:22 +0000 http://s-pores.com/?p=75#comment-25 On the contrary, I do not see power as simply operating in a “repressive” manner. The whole point of the article is to explore the making of Fang’s “subaltern subjectivity” WITHIN dominance. It is too easy to see dominance and opposition as two polar opposites and Fang’s resistance as flowing “naturally” from his personality and politics. What I want to argue, by tracing how Fang has chosen to write about his life was the extent to which the dominant forces. i.e. power was productive of his subaltern subjectivity. This does not mean that Fang was “controlled” to act in certain ways or that his resistance was an illusion. Rather, by looking at just how sensitive Fang was to the ways of the dominant (and he was very sensitive to that, definitely!) we see how thoroughly engaged he was with the workings of power and how his life and himself was actually shaped in this long process of engagement. Fang’s decision to go Left, for example, was a classic example of how powers of repression are productive of particular subjectivities, especially subaltern ones. I tend to be suspicious of questions posed in very general terms and I am therefore very far from claiming that “the general Singapore populace” or “the Singapore masses” are all “subalterns”. Used in this way, the idea of “subalternity” loses its specificity and utility. I also think that your portrayal of the general populace is , well err… “too general” and it does overplay, the extent to which these regimes have been too successful. Even for Indian history, only particular groups were described as “subalterns”, not all of the Indian “masses” (pls see article) and I am arguing that we can usefully study the Singapore Left, not the whole of the “Singapore masses”, as a subaltern group. I understand the differences between India and Singapore and I do not reproduce entirely the ways Indian historians have conventionally used the idea of “the subaltern”. However, even for India’s case, sublaternity is not simply measured by extent to which subalterns are objectively illiterate and need to be represented although the politics of voice and silencing is critical. The latter issue goes beyond being educated or un-educated, literate or not, income group etc… The politics of voice and silencing is what I am trying to highlight wrt Singapore history and the position of the Left. Pls refer to article again for clarification on the idea of the subaltern used. On the contrary, I do not see power as simply operating in a “repressive” manner. The whole point of the article is to explore the making of Fang’s “subaltern subjectivity” WITHIN dominance. It is too easy to see dominance and opposition as two polar opposites and Fang’s resistance as flowing “naturally” from his personality and politics. What I want to argue, by tracing how Fang has chosen to write about his life was the extent to which the dominant forces. i.e. power was productive of his subaltern subjectivity. This does not mean that Fang was “controlled” to act in certain ways or that his resistance was an illusion. Rather, by looking at just how sensitive Fang was to the ways of the dominant (and he was very sensitive to that, definitely!) we see how thoroughly engaged he was with the workings of power and how his life and himself was actually shaped in this long process of engagement. Fang’s decision to go Left, for example, was a classic example of how powers of repression are productive of particular subjectivities, especially subaltern ones.

I tend to be suspicious of questions posed in very general terms and I am therefore very far from claiming that “the general Singapore populace” or “the Singapore masses” are all “subalterns”. Used in this way, the idea of “subalternity” loses its specificity and utility. I also think that your portrayal of the general populace is , well err… “too general” and it does overplay, the extent to which these regimes have been too successful. Even for Indian history, only particular groups were described as “subalterns”, not all of the Indian “masses” (pls see article) and I am arguing that we can usefully study the Singapore Left, not the whole of the “Singapore masses”, as a subaltern group.

I understand the differences between India and Singapore and I do not reproduce entirely the ways Indian historians have conventionally used the idea of “the subaltern”. However, even for India’s case, sublaternity is not simply measured by extent to which subalterns are objectively illiterate and need to be represented although the politics of voice and silencing is critical. The latter issue goes beyond being educated or un-educated, literate or not, income group etc… The politics of voice and silencing is what I am trying to highlight wrt Singapore history and the position of the Left. Pls refer to article again for clarification on the idea of the subaltern used.

]]> By: jette http://s-pores.com/2007/04/subaltern/#comment-24 jette Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:55:38 +0000 http://s-pores.com/?p=75#comment-24 Great piece! I have a minor question about how the conception of power in your article. It seems that you see power as operating in a repressive manner - i.e. how the political elite marginalized and silenced their opponents in their “great men and their great deeds” history. That may be true for their political opponents but for general population in Singapore, they are invested thoroughly with bio-political power through the different socio-economic regimes to produce highly-productive (in the politico-economic sense) self-regulating individual - the economically calculative, disciplined workforce, always seeking to “upgrade” himself, and probably could not care less about history. What do you consider these people as? Are they also the subaltern? Perhaps unlike India, the masses in Singapore are not the silenced, marginalized, illiterate class who are not able to represent themselves. Great piece!
I have a minor question about how the conception of power in your article. It seems that you see power as operating in a repressive manner – i.e. how the political elite marginalized and silenced their opponents in their “great men and their great deeds” history. That may be true for their political opponents but for general population in Singapore, they are invested thoroughly with bio-political power through the different socio-economic regimes to produce highly-productive (in the politico-economic sense) self-regulating individual – the economically calculative, disciplined workforce, always seeking to “upgrade” himself, and probably could not care less about history. What do you consider these people as? Are they also the subaltern? Perhaps unlike India, the masses in Singapore are not the silenced, marginalized, illiterate class who are not able to represent themselves.

]]>