how is the “subaltern” constructed? when can we name “the subaltern”

So here we go again … What are the conditions of naming – if we name someone as “subaltern” – are we not already locating and rewriting the subaltern? And I guess in a sense that is what Spivak is implying – and yet in her article on Diasporas old and new – does she fall back into her own trap? 
I have been re- reading Latour’s “We Have never been Modern”  parallel-y with a re-reading of Spivak’s Diasporas old and new
(am working on a pce where I am re-visiting (critiqueing) notions of “new ness” re technology and re diaspora – in other words what’s at stake in continually re-inventing certain technologies as “new” Technologies  and certain travelling groups as “Diasporas”…)
I am wondering about the assumptions that are being made with regard to what we are calling “the Subaltern” ….