Purpose: The classic essay, "Can the Subaltern Speak?" by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak takes leftist western intellectuals to task for essentializing subaltern subjectivity. I say this as someone who is guilty of this very thing and is struggling with this very question in my work as qualitative researcher. While Spivak concludes the essay with a resounding, "No," she does provide us with a blueprint for conduction effective qualitative analysis using Derridean deconstruction. But after the deconstruction is done, how might I think about intellectual uncertainty and regret? Reflecting on a study of domestic workers I disbanded, in this paper I examine these questions and further query the limits of intellectual representation. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: This essay uses ethnography as an approach. Findings: Through an engagement of the seminal essay, "Can the Subaltern Speak," I argue that in the ethnographic relationship, researchers will be sure to come up against their own limitations, but that does not mean they should refrain from the work. Rather, being open to seeing our errors, and working through uncertainty and regret, reveals something vitally important about the participants of our study and about ourselves. Originality/value: This essay adds to the academic discussion on the ethics of researching subaltern subjects, and expands on Antonio Gramsci's concept of contradictory consciousness.