Frederic Jameson and his Saucy Third World Literature

Last semester I was introduced to Frederic Jameson's critique of First and Third World literature.  I'm going to apply it now, but I'm going off of my notes from E304 and not the actual critique from which I'm drawing this information.  But it's all Jameson so...here we go!

According to Jameson, Third World literature is in an early stage of development.  The ideal reader is the subaltern because those of the hegemonic culture will fail to understand it.  Third World literature usually tends to function as a national allegory which is why those of the First World fail to understand it.  Which is making think of First and Third World literature as terministic screens in and of themselves.  If the terministic screen is that which "directs attention" (44) of discourse then the differences between the language of Jameson's "intellectual" literature and the language of the third world subaltern literature serves as the filter by which we read these texts.

When thinking in terms of Spivak, this becomes relevant as a way of understanding what she means when she claims, "The subaltern cannot speak" (807).  If Jameson's theory of the subaltern as the "ideal reader" of subaltern literature is true then there's a disconnect.  Those of the first world will never understand that perspective, which is how their voice gets lost.  I don't think it's that the subaltern "cannot speak," I think it's that we fail to understand.

I know that's the "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" theory, but I think the tree made a sound.  The subaltern is making a sound.  They're just not heard.