Gayatri Spivak’s seminal question, Can the Subaltern Speak?, challenges us to consider how power silences marginalized voices, distorting or erasing their experiences within dominant frameworks. Her essay reveals the complexities of representation, pointing to the ways in which intellectuals and institutions inadvertently reinforce systems of exclusion while claiming to give voice to the voiceless. But beneath this question lies an even more existential issue, one that extends beyond the realm of speech: should the subaltern be allowed to live?
This essay synthesizes a critical reflection on the intersection of life, death, disposability, and the politics of subalternity. Spivak’s framework invites a powerful inquiry into how the subaltern is not just silenced but also rendered disposable, and we explore the deeper implications of necropolitics—the power to determine who lives and who dies. The subaltern is not only voiceless but often seen as a body that should die in order to preserve the systems of control. Through this exploration, we confront how global systems dehumanize marginalized groups, rendering their very existence a threat to the status quo.
1. Subalternity as Disposability: The Politics of Death
Spivak’s work primarily deals with how the subaltern is silenced within hegemonic structures. But to fully understand the subaltern’s position in today’s global order, we must move beyond silencing to confront the brutality of disposability. In this context, the subaltern is not just anyone who cannot speak; they are anyone whose death is deemed necessary or justified by the logic of power. Their lives are considered expendable, either through direct violence, systemic neglect, or passive erasure.
The recently-disgraced Achille Mbembe’s concept of necropolitics—the power to determine who must die—illustrates how certain populations are marked for erasure. Whether through war, colonialism, or systemic violence, subaltern groups are seen as obstacles to progress, security, or stability. These dynamics play out globally, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the treatment of refugees at borders. In these contexts, the subaltern’s death is framed as inevitable or even necessary, reinforcing a global hierarchy where certain lives are valued, and others are discarded.
This necropolitical lens expands Spivak’s argument to reveal the ultimate consequences of subalternity: it is not just that the subaltern cannot speak, but that they are often considered undeserving of life. This framing forces us to confront the ethical dilemma at the heart of modern governance—who is allowed to live, and who is left to die?
2. The Subaltern as the Non-Person: Dehumanization and Erasure
The disposability of the subaltern is intricately tied to their dehumanization. To justify the violence and neglect inflicted upon subaltern groups, they are stripped of their humanity. The subaltern becomes a non-person, an entity whose existence is either ignored or actively erased from the public consciousness. Whether it is through militarized state violence or economic exploitation, the subaltern is positioned as an object to be controlled, managed, or exterminated.
In Palestine, this erasure is stark. Palestinians are not only denied a voice in the global political arena but are actively dehumanized through the language of “terrorism” and “security.” Their deaths are rationalized, rendered invisible to much of the world. Similarly, migrant populations around the globe are treated as intruders or invaders—bodies to be detained, deported, or discarded. In both cases, the subaltern’s existence is framed as a threat to the status quo, making their deaths justifiable in the eyes of dominant powers.
This process of dehumanization creates a world where certain populations are not mourned. Their deaths are met with indifference or justification, reinforcing the idea that their lives do not matter. The subaltern is pushed further and further to the margins until their very existence becomes an afterthought—a disposable inconvenience to those who wield power.
3. The Myth of the Subaltern Threat: Justifying Death
Central to the subaltern’s disposability is the myth that they pose a threat to social, political, or economic stability. This myth allows power structures to justify the erasure of subaltern lives by portraying these groups as destabilizing forces. Whether in the form of military occupation or border enforcement, dominant narratives portray the subaltern as a problem to be solved through containment, expulsion, or elimination.
In both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the global refugee crisis, the subaltern is framed as an existential threat. Palestinians are demonized as terrorists, making their displacement and death palatable to the global community. Refugees and migrants, fleeing violence and instability, are criminalized as economic burdens or cultural threats, leading to their exclusion and death at borders. This myth of the subaltern’s danger is crucial in sustaining necropolitical governance, where their elimination is seen as necessary for the preservation of order.
By confronting this myth, we begin to unravel the justification for treating subaltern lives as expendable. The subaltern’s death is not a solution to instability but a consequence of the violent systems that marginalize and exploit them. Challenging this myth means questioning the structures that frame the subaltern as an “enemy” or “invader” and recognizing their right to life as a fundamental human demand.
4. Resisting Disposability: The Subaltern’s Fight for Life
Despite overwhelming forces that render them disposable, subaltern groups continue to resist their erasure. Whether through political activism, cultural expression, or everyday acts of survival, the subaltern refuses to be reduced to a non-person. This resistance is an assertion of the subaltern’s right to exist, a reclaiming of humanity in the face of systemic violence.
Palestinians assert their right to life through cultural resistance, political struggle, and the refusal to abandon their land. Migrant communities, facing hostile environments and criminalization, form networks of solidarity and mutual aid, fighting to survive in a world that seeks to erase them. These acts of resistance challenge the necropolitical logic that dictates who deserves to live and die.
Letting the subaltern live is not just about ending violence and disposability—it is about recognizing and amplifying the forms of resistance that subaltern groups have already developed. It requires acknowledging their agency and humanity, moving beyond narratives of victimhood to understand how subalterns actively challenge and reshape the world around them.
5. A Politics of Life: Moving Beyond Necropolitics
If necropolitics dictates who must die, then the path forward lies in embracing a politics of life—a politics that seeks to dismantle the structures that render certain lives disposable. A politics of life challenges the hierarchies of value that determine whose lives are protected and whose are sacrificed. It calls for the creation of systems of care, justice, and solidarity that recognize the inherent dignity of all people, regardless of their position within the global order.
This shift requires rethinking the nation-state system, border policies, and economic structures that rely on the disposability of marginalized groups. A politics of life rejects the arbitrary distinctions between those whose lives are worth saving and those whose deaths are seen as inevitable. It demands that we build a world where no life is considered expendable and where all people are afforded the right to thrive.
The Subaltern’s Right to Life and the Future of Resistance
In a world where the subaltern is often treated as disposable, we must ask ourselves what it would mean to let the subaltern live. This is not merely a question of ending violence but a call to rethink the structures of power that determine whose lives are valued and whose are erased. Letting the subaltern live means recognizing their right to exist—not just as passive recipients of charity or aid but as agents of resistance who challenge the systems of violence that seek to destroy them.
Ultimately, the subaltern’s right to life is about more than survival—it is about dignity, agency, and the creation of a world where no one is considered disposable. To let the subaltern live is to reject the politics of fear and disposability, and to embrace a future grounded in justice, solidarity, and mutual care. This is the task before us: to dismantle the necropolitical logic of death and build a politics of life where all voices, and all lives, are truly valued.