The Heisenberg Subaltern
DNC, Surveillance, Expectation, and the Prejudice of Representation
In her seminal essay Can the Subaltern Speak?, Gayatri Spivak explores the limitations and violence inherent in the representation of marginalized voices—those silenced or spoken for within dominant discourse. Building on Spivak's critique, I’d like to introduce an analogy drawn from quantum physics: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This principle, which states that one cannot measure both the position and momentum of a particle without disturbing it, offers a compelling lens through which to consider the dynamics of representing the subaltern. The act of observing marginalized voices—placing them within a system of classification and representation—alters their very nature, making it impossible to capture them authentically.
In this framework, representation itself becomes an invasive act of surveillance. When marginalized individuals, such as Indigenous speakers, are placed on panels or given platforms to "speak," they are already subject to an external gaze that confines them to predefined roles. The very act of being observed and expected to "speak truth to power" alters the content and impact of their voice, much like how quantum particles are altered by observation. This analogy provides a new way to understand how marginalized voices are controlled, distorted, and ultimately silenced, even when they appear to be speaking.
Surveillance in Representation: The Predefined Subaltern
When a marginalized person, like an Indigenous speaker, is invited to a panel, there is an expectation that they will offer a counter-narrative or challenge the dominant discourse. This expectation pre-constructs their role, making it impossible for them to speak on their own terms. The act of placing them on the panel is framed as a progressive move toward diversity, but in reality, it is often a containment strategy. The subaltern is expected to challenge, to resist, to call for liberation—yet by doing so, their voice becomes predictable, and the audience is already primed to dismiss what they have to say.
This dynamic reflects the problem Spivak highlights: when marginalized voices are included in dominant spaces, they are not given true autonomy. Instead, they are instrumentalized—used to serve the dominant group's need for dissent while ensuring that the marginalized voice remains under control. Just as a particle’s position and momentum cannot both be measured accurately, marginalized voices cannot speak freely when they are subject to the surveillance of dominant power structures.
Expectation as Prejudice: The Indigenous Speaker and the Trap of Tokenism
This expectation creates a prejudiced form of reception. Consider the example of an Indigenous speaker placed on a panel. The audience assumes this person will advocate for Indigenous rights or call for the liberation of marginalized communities. This assumption is prejudice in its purest form: the speaker is not heard for who they are or what they want to say, but through the filter of what the audience expects.
The audience thinks, "Of course, they would call for the liberation of all people," and in doing so, trivializes the speaker’s message. This strips their speech of its power because it fulfills an expectation rather than challenging the status quo. Even when the subaltern speaks, the structures of power are not designed to truly hear them. The result is that marginalized voices are rendered both present and invisible—they are seen, but not heard.
DNC Palestinian Protest: A Real-World Example
The protests that took place outside the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago offer a timely, real-world example of how marginalized voices can be both amplified and constrained by expectation. Palestinian protesters, supported by hundreds of organizations, demanded an end to U.S. aid to Israel, drawing attention to the occupation and what they termed genocide in Gaza. Despite being given space to protest, they were initially sidelined and denied permits, relegated to areas far from the convention, only to successfully sue for the right to be within earshot of the DNC.
This protest demonstrates how marginalized groups, like Palestinian activists, are placed into predefined roles—expected to perform their resistance in a specific, controlled manner. Their call for liberation, though vital, is already anticipated, and thus its radical potential is diluted. Much like the subaltern voice on the panel, their speech becomes both predictable and easy for the dominant group to dismiss or manage. The DNC’s panel on Palestinian human rights, which took place inside the convention, symbolically acknowledged the issue but did not grant the protesters the platform they demanded—a reflection of how structures of power co-opt dissent while maintaining control.
Breaking the Bind: Overcoming the Prejudice of Representation
To move beyond this cycle of surveillance, expectation, and dismissal, we need to rethink how we approach representation and listening. Below are several strategies for breaking the bind:
Decentralizing Representation: Traditional spaces for representation, such as panels and conferences, often serve to reinforce the power of the dominant group. To truly empower marginalized voices, we must create self-determined spaces where marginalized people set the terms of their own engagement. This could involve decentralized, community-led platforms that allow for genuine autonomy and control.
Example: Online forums, podcasts, or independent publications run by marginalized communities offer spaces where they can speak on their own terms, without the constraints of dominant expectations.
Encouraging Dialogue Over Tokenism: Instead of placing marginalized individuals in token roles, we should create spaces for genuine dialogue. This involves moving beyond expecting marginalized people to represent an entire group and instead encouraging open-ended discussions where their perspectives are heard as individuals.
Example: Roundtable discussions or community-led dialogues where every participant is both a speaker and a listener, removing the hierarchical structure that often defines panels.
Training Audiences to Unlearn Expectations: One of the main issues is not just how marginalized voices are represented but how they are received. Audiences need to be trained to practice active, non-judgmental listening and to confront their biases about who gets to speak and what they are expected to say.
Example: Workshops or educational programs that teach audiences to recognize their own biases and listen without preconceived notions could shift the way marginalized voices are heard.
Expanding What It Means to 'Speak': We need to move beyond the idea that verbal articulation is the only way for marginalized people to express themselves. Non-verbal forms of communication—through art, protest, or even silence—can be powerful ways to resist dominant structures of representation.
Example: Indigenous land reclamation movements, where the act of occupying land is itself a form of speaking back to colonial systems, demonstrate that non-verbal forms of resistance can be just as, if not more, powerful than speech.
Embracing Multiplicity: Marginalized groups should not be expected to present a unified perspective. We must embrace the complexity and multiplicity of their experiences, allowing for contradictory, messy, and nuanced narratives to emerge.
Example: Panels featuring multiple speakers from the same marginalized group, who hold differing or even conflicting viewpoints, help break the assumption that there is one "correct" story for the marginalized to tell.
Redefining Liberation as a Collective Project: Liberation should not be framed as the sole responsibility of marginalized groups. It is a shared struggle that requires participation from all sides. Dominant groups must actively participate in dismantling the systems that oppress marginalized voices.
Example: Restorative justice programs and community-led decision-making processes offer models for how liberation can be a collective effort.
Reclaiming the Right to Silence: Sometimes, the most radical act is to refuse to speak. If marginalized voices are only given space to speak within the constraints of dominant expectations, then silence can be a powerful form of resistance.
Example: Movements that deliberately withdraw from dialogue with oppressive systems, such as Indigenous groups refusing to negotiate with colonial governments, show that silence can be a strategy for maintaining autonomy.
Hearing the Subaltern on Their Own Terms
Breaking this bind of representation requires more than just giving marginalized people a seat at the table. It requires a radical transformation of the structures that govern how we listen, who we expect to speak, and what we expect them to say.
Only by dismantling the prejudices of representation and creating spaces for genuine dialogue can we begin to hear marginalized voices—truly hear them—on their own terms.