On the Question of Diasporic Voice and Polyvocality – A Note

Definition: “Polyvocality refers to the presence of multiple voices, perspectives, or viewpoints within a single work, allowing for a rich tapestry of narratives and interpretations. This concept emphasizes the idea that no single voice can encapsulate the entirety of human experience, encouraging dialogue and interaction among diverse characters or narrative strands. It is especially relevant in hybrid forms and cross-genre works where varied genres and styles converge.”

Voice and voicing are terms now in wide circulation in emerging diasporic identity narratives: the importance of registering a variety of perspectives, experiences, claims to truth; of sharing one’s life story, interpretation of history, explanation of this and that cultural phenomenon. Polyvocality is hailed, not unjustly, as a tool for inclusion, for democratic representation.

 
To historicize “voice” in connection to Greek America, this is a most welcoming development. The demand for the inclusion of voices from all walks of life – the poor, feminists, working-class activists, LGBTQ, non-Greek Orthodox, critical intellectuals – was central in the strategy of resisting the hegemony of an identity narrative which was grand in scale but small in scope: monophonic and reductive. It was (and still is) facing little resistance in significant public sectors and among several so-called leaders.

But acknowledging the value of voice, multiplicity offers only a step toward a meaningful exchange of perspectives. Once I experienced the following in a diasporic polyphonic event: voicing nationalist pride, ahistorical explanations of the past, claims on the cultural syncretism of the diasporic self, idealist explanations of mobility and contrasting sociological positions on the topic among a potpourri of contradictory perspectives.

Without a moderator to deliberate, point to false assumptions and unfounded claims, the polyphonic event ended in a cacophonic tenor. People spoke but there was no effort to really listen to and engage with others to reach a sort of intersubjectivity/mutual understanding. It ended up as a multiplicity of monophonic narratives without a chorus to reflect, comment, critique. As far from a Greek performance as one could imagine. Overwhelming praise was everywhere in public (media, speeches official announcements), consternation was abundant in private.

No scholar analyzed the event, no media critically reflected on it.

Hegemonic views remained intact.

Polyphony does not mean that all claims carry equal weight of validity. At work must be the operation of deliberation: criteria for evaluating claims, knowledge to assess the merit of perspectives, critical judgement. More so because voices are deeply ideological and resistant to change. Who decides on these criteria? Polyvocality comes with a rich body of scholarship and, well, multiple perspectives.

How we practice this deliberation is an urgent question. How do we achieve this kind of dialogic and agonistic exchange productively when – and I speak in relation to Greek America – this art and politics of inclusion has been stifled by expansive networks of power?

Yiorgos Anagnostou

March 16, 2026