Contents

Just like Customary Law, to stay alive, post-colonial theory can’t be removed from the local reality of the people it claims to ‘speak’ for. The struggles over cultural ‘identity’ are shaped by issues of citizenship and economic power as much as by the words people use to describe them. Post-colonial theory over-privileges identity, culture and language and through evacuating more traditional Marxism, it has become a language game. The romanticism of critics like Seabrook highlights how this is very much an argument for the affluent; only those who are already rich and comfortable enough can afford to agonise over the pros and cons of modernity.

As post-colonial theory is such a Western, academic perspective, it is from this side of the debate if the term has any relevance at all, that it should be applied. For highlighting our prejudices, desires and assumptions can yield fresh insights to those in the delicate position of intervention. Whilst it’s vital that any theoretical perspective is rigorously self-questioning, its dangerously easy for any field of debate to become an argument about arguments rather than the lives of the people it should be representing.

Perhaps Spivak’s argument in Can the Subaltern Speak? places too great an emphasis on the ‘speech’ part of any line of communication; the issue is surely, can the subaltern be heard? Therefore the space necessary to be ‘heard’ needs to be created. Again the emphasis should be placed in the same position where the debate first began; it is the non-subaltern’s responsibility to complete the circuit of communication. The Akha have confirmed how eloquently they can ‘speak’ but it is only with compromise and intervention, with the provision of adequate tools that they can be heard. The technological speculation of the last chapter cannot over-shadow the urgency and responsibly of creating and communicating an Akha text and above all, education with a view to political and economic empowerment. For it is only then that access to technology can take place at all.

In the mean time, making use of the tools the Akha do possess is vital. Even in such an information saturated century, the phenomenal mental ‘hard disks’ created by the very exercises of learning Customary Law could bring huge advantages. If the Akha can’t yet communicate effectively at a global or even national level, then at least internal understanding could prevent them being so vulnerable to manipulation in the future — which is where community radio is the most pragmatic medium for today.

The Akha have shown us that it is clearly not the subaltern who is incapable, and the dialectical system of thought so intrinsic to Customary Law, can teach us to turn Spivak’s argument on its head: the question is, can the West listen? Perhaps we are deafened by the sound of our own projectors. Imagine a situation where the Akha had enough of a platform to use Customary Law to critique post-colonial theory. Perhaps post-colonial theory, like the rest of the developed world is so busy communicating that it’s forgotten how to listen.

There should be room in the world for many voices, languages and modes of expression, but the reality seems to be that the world is becoming less, not more interested in the lives of the marginalized. The distinction that Seabrook fails to make clear between ‘globalisation’ and ‘internationalism’ is that, whilst in the former only one ‘voice’ speaks, in the latter there is the space for many ears to listen. It’s a shame that ending on a pessimistic note could eclipse the empowered optimism of people like Miyeh, in her drive to allow the Akha to represent themselves but any pessimism is not on behalf of the Akha, but on the developed world.

The reality is that the affluent are unlikely to redress the balance. Placing even greater urgency on the Akha being able to communicate effectively with at least each other through community radio as a tool for education and healthcare with a view to economic empowerment. At least now the Akha have an insight into their problems, the first step towards reaching any pragmatic solutions. The world may be a global village but it doesn’t seem very interested in it’s neighbours.