Taken as a whole and in the abstract this…category…was
heterogeneous in its composition and thanks to the uneven character of
regional economic and social developments, different from area to area.
The same class or element which was dominant in one area…could be
among the dominated in another. This could and did create many
ambiguities and contradictions in attitudes and alliances, especially
among the lowest strata of the rural gentry, impoverished landlords, rich
peasants and upper middle class peasants all of whom belonged, ideally
speaking, to the category of people or subaltern classes.
Today it seems almost unfashionable to speak of subalternity. Opportunities for self representation across new media platforms such as YouTube has reconstructed a historiography of the subaltern in which a traditional mediation by a middle class elite has become less relevant: ‘Indigenous as well as western voices are now free to negotiate and contest such representations on what has become a worldwide cultural stage’ (O’Hanlon & Washbrook, 2012: 211).