Volume 19, 2007 - Brown University

132 Morgan Palmer
addition, both the historian and the teacher must “unravel” or deconstruct a text
in order to place it in a new literary and historical context. Thus, Spivak plans to
reinterpret Mahasweta Devi’s work by deconstructing it and by examining
closely the relationship of the subaltern to the text.
Indeed, Spivak gives herself the authority to reconstruct texts according to
her own scholarly views. She asserts that, “[t]he teacher of literature, because of
her institutional subject-position, can and must “reconstellate” the text to draw
out its use. She can and must wrench it out of its proper context and put it within
alien arguments” (Spivak, 1988: 241). Thus Spivak defines her own subjectposition
as “institutional,” or as that of a scholar affiliated with an academic
community. Furthermore, she says that her subject-position not only allows her,
but obligates her to reinterpret literature. Spivak’s repetition of the verbs “can”
and “must” underscores her strong assertion of critical authority. She believes
not only that she has the power to advance her own interpretations of “Stanadayini,”
but also that it is her duty to do so. In addition, her use of the word “reconstellate”
is significant. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb
constellate comes from the Latin word constellare, and the word for star (stella)
is at its root. Constellate means to set up a series of stars into a group, and it can
also relate to the construction of a network of ideas. Thus by re-constellating the
text, Spivak rearranges it in accordance with her own interpretation, which is
“alien” to that of the author. She believes that in order to view the text critically,
she must not stick to Mahasweta Devi’s interpretation, but should exercise her
own scholarly authority in order to re-interpret it.
Similarly, Matthew Arnold defines his subject-position as a scholar of
Ancient Greek, and consequently validates his criticisms of other translations.
First, he proposes that a good translation of Homer should create the general
effect of the original (Arnold, 1883: 143). Then, he explains how to measure the
success of a translation.
No one can tell him [the translator] how Homer affected the Greeks; but there
are those who can tell him how Homer affects them. These are scholars; who
possess, at the same time with knowledge of Greek, adequate poetical taste
and feeling. No translation will seem to them of much worth compared to the
original; but they alone can say whether the translation produces more or less
the same effect upon them as the original. (Arnold, 1883: 143-144)
Arnold assigns great importance to the subject-position of the scholar who can
read both Greek and English. According to Arnold, Greek scholars are the only
people who can judge the quality of a translation, and the translator should
respect their authority. By saying that the Greek scholar is the only person fit to
asses the quality of a translation, Arnold adds to his own credibility. His definition
of his own subject-position as someone who can read Ancient Greek is
similar to Spivak’s comments about the authority of the critic. Both feel that
their subject-positions as scholars allow them to critique the writing and literary
interpretations of others.