Is the Indian-born cultural theorist Gayatri Spivak's "subaltern" theory a valid approach to the US Rust Belt dominant narrative?

This question grows from the study of symbolic conversion theory and the work of Gayatri Spivak on inequality and voice. especially her landmark essay "Can the Subaltern speak?"

Ernest Bormann called words and phrases applied to people, events, and places not present "fantasy themes." These themes tend to cluster into positive groups around one's own region or group and negative clusters around "the other."

When a group of people or a region is named with what Bormann would describe as negative "fantasy themes" by outside media, are they colonized by economic and media to the extent that they have been effectively silenced? The very fact that the US Rust Belt region and its inhabitants have no voice in the US media then be cited as evidence that they are incapable of articulating a narrative for themselves and may be described with external narratives with no necessity of dialogue.

So is this rhetorical situation the beginning of a true caste system?

The dirty jobs are not only held in disdain by traditional elites but also progressive ecology-minded media. Thus, the dominant narrative follows that omission is acceptable and that there is no need to hear from this region, the rhetorical construct called The Rust Belt.

Spivak usually is cited for Western colonial issues but can this sort of silence be analyzed rhetorically by her methods?

More Gloria Lee Mcmillan's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions