What do you think?
Rate this book
Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts
"A splendid study, surely one of the most important that has appeared on the whole matter of power and resistance."—Natalie Zemon Davis
Confrontations between the powerless and powerful are laden with deception—the powerless feign deference and the powerful subtly assert their mastery. Peasants, serfs, untouchables, slaves, laborers, and prisoners are not free to speak their minds in the presence of power. These subordinate groups instead create a secret discourse that represents a critique of power spoken behind the backs of the dominant. At the same time, the powerful also develop a private dialogue about practices and goals of their rule that cannot be openly avowed.
In this book, renowned social scientist James C. Scott offers a penetrating discussion both of the public roles played by the powerful and powerless and the mocking, vengeful tone they display off stage—what he terms their public and hidden transcripts. Using examples from the literature, history, and politics of cultures around the world, Scott examines the many guises this interaction has taken throughout history and the tensions and contradictions it reflects.
Confrontations between the powerless and powerful are laden with deception—the powerless feign deference and the powerful subtly assert their mastery. Peasants, serfs, untouchables, slaves, laborers, and prisoners are not free to speak their minds in the presence of power. These subordinate groups instead create a secret discourse that represents a critique of power spoken behind the backs of the dominant. At the same time, the powerful also develop a private dialogue about practices and goals of their rule that cannot be openly avowed.
In this book, renowned social scientist James C. Scott offers a penetrating discussion both of the public roles played by the powerful and powerless and the mocking, vengeful tone they display off stage—what he terms their public and hidden transcripts. Using examples from the literature, history, and politics of cultures around the world, Scott examines the many guises this interaction has taken throughout history and the tensions and contradictions it reflects.
269 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
94 people are currently reading
3336 people want to read
About the author
James C. Scott
26 books899 followersJames C. Scott was an American political scientist and anthropologist specializing in comparative politics. He was a comparative scholar of agrarian and non-state societies, subaltern politics, and anarchism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
July 18, 2010
This is a classic - or should be anyway. One of the few books that even in graduate school when I had no time I couldn't help but read slowly, every word, cover-to-cover. It's beautifully written, and better, I think, than Weapons of the Weak - well, this is really taking off above all else from that book's first chapter. He starts off with the question "What does it mean to speak truth to power?" Especially when we all agree now that it's not there is but one truth in the world really. Yet at certain moments - when a tenant farmer's wife tells off the landlord, when someone says what they really think about Pinochet in Chile and isn't taken away - that everyone feels someone has spoken for everyone. Why? Scott suggests a big part of the reason is that under conditions of extreme oppression, pretty much everyone is going around making little speeches in their head that they'd really like to say but don't dare too, not realizing that everyone else is doing it too, and that the speeches are all almost exactly the same. One reason for that, in turn, is that extreme inequalities of power always create a world of make-believe, an official line that everyone feels they must claim to accept in public ("really, slave owners have a paternal concern for their slaves' well-being", that sort of thing) that nobody believes - not the slaves, not the owners; not the peasants, not the lords - but which the higher-ups insist no one challenge as a test of power itself, rather like holding a gun to people's heads and insisting that they tell you that 2+2=5. As a result, it's almost as if everyone is collaborating to falsify the historical record, because if you look at the documents that remain to us from say, feudal Europe or ancient China (etc etc), what you'll get is probably the official line that no one at the time took seriously behind closed doors at all.
Minor criticisms: the phrases "public" and "hidden transcript" - while useful to make the point about history - are not well chosen otherwise. Also, Scott could have been more insistent about making clear this is not a theory of power, but a theory of what happens in cases of extreme and explicit inequality between clearly demarcated groups (the experience of peasants, slaves, serfs, untouchables, victims of overt racism, etc...) This might seem unfair as Scott does say this in the introduction, and has come under a lot of quite unfair criticism anyway (Susan Gal's review essay in Cultural ANthropology comes to mind) by people who accuse him of writing an inadequate theory of power in general - pretending they haven't read the into where he explicitly says that he is not writing a theory of power at all - but at times, some chapters can be read this way, and it might have been helpful to keep hammering home the point. Though it's so ridiculous we academics should have to watch our ass this way against ways we're likely to be misinterpreted.
Minor criticisms: the phrases "public" and "hidden transcript" - while useful to make the point about history - are not well chosen otherwise. Also, Scott could have been more insistent about making clear this is not a theory of power, but a theory of what happens in cases of extreme and explicit inequality between clearly demarcated groups (the experience of peasants, slaves, serfs, untouchables, victims of overt racism, etc...) This might seem unfair as Scott does say this in the introduction, and has come under a lot of quite unfair criticism anyway (Susan Gal's review essay in Cultural ANthropology comes to mind) by people who accuse him of writing an inadequate theory of power in general - pretending they haven't read the into where he explicitly says that he is not writing a theory of power at all - but at times, some chapters can be read this way, and it might have been helpful to keep hammering home the point. Though it's so ridiculous we academics should have to watch our ass this way against ways we're likely to be misinterpreted.
March 23, 2025
The concept: In social environments of inequality, there is the “public transcript” - what subordinate and dominant actors say (and do) in the presence of each other. But there is also the “hidden transcript” - what subordinates say (and do) when they are only in the presence of other subordinates. (There’s a “hidden transcript” for the dominant actors too, but it’s less interesting).
“The capacity of dominant groups to prevail—though never totally—in defining and constituting what counts as the public transcript and what as offstage is, as we shall see, no small measure of power. The unremitting struggle over such boundaries is perhaps the most vital arena for ordinary conflict, for everyday forms of class struggle.”
Overall I enjoyed this book. I don’t think it needed to be a full book, at all, but it’s very readable - the style is very conversational for an academic book! - so I didn’t mind it. It has a lot of interesting food for thought, and also some good advice for historians and social scientists on how to think about & do thorough, original research by making sure that they are never taking the “public transcript” at face value. Needless to say, a lot of this is applicable to research about marginalized/oppressed groups throughout history.
Also, a big source for this book (which was published in 1990) is Arlie Russell Hochschild’s The Managed Heart, which was published in 1983 and seems to be the origin (!) of the concept of emotional labor. Similarly, Scott focuses on the way that power imbalances and oppression are carried out by denying the dignity of the subordinate figures (as opposed to more a classic Marxist materialist view of oppression), which I found really compelling. His focus is on what it’s like when a subordinate (which generally means a slave/peasant/serf, but can also be read much more broader) cannot respond publicly to treatment that denies their dignity: “The frustrations engendered by domination have a double aspect. The first aspect is, of course the humiliations and coercion entailed by the exercise of power. The second is the frustration of having continually to rein in one’s anger and aggression in order to prevent even worse consequences.”
And so “At its most elementary level the hidden transcript represents an acting out of fantasy—and occasionally in secretive practice—of the anger and reciprocal aggression denied by the presence of domination.”
Something I enjoy about Scott’s work - and this is the second book I’ve read by him, after The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia - is that he cites to a wide range of sources, and doesn’t really over-cite. It’s not like he’s writing about X and citing to all the million other researchers who wrote about X. He’s making broad comparisons between different people and circumstances and dynamics, in a way that gives you the constant opportunity to stretch the way you’re thinking about things. That definitely means that there are times when he makes a claim and you kind of raise an eyebrow… but that just makes for more interesting discussion.
As I said, this was published in 1990 - I appreciate the way he wrote about then-contemporary political events (glasnost, Vaclav Havel) and it’s always nice to read nonfiction that doesn’t become horrendously dated in its views or assumptions re. political topics just because a couple decades have passed.
~
Some passages that I thought were of note (by which I mean, I literally noted them down):
“the greater the extrinsic reasons compelling our action—here large threats and large rewards are comparable—the less we have to provide satisfactory reasons to ourselves for our conduct.” The reverse-image of the concept of needing to get “buy-in.”
On in-fighting: “Solidarity among subordinates, if it is achieved at all, is thus achieved, paradoxically, only by means of a degree of conflict. Certain forms of social strife, far from constituting evidence of disunity and weakness, may well be the signs of an active, aggressive social surveillance that preserves unity.”
A description of an interesting experiment, from Berkowitz’s Aggression: “two groups of subjects were insulted by a powerful figure in identical ways. Some of the “victims” were then allowed to give an electric shock to their victimizer, while others were not. Those who struck back then felt less hostile toward their victimizer, and also experienced a decline in blood pressure. Those who were not permitted to strike back, even though they could fully voice their aggressive fantasies indirectly in interpreting a thematic apperception test, experienced no decline in blood pressure.” With the caveat that always exists for this kind of experiment……. Dang!!
Interesting in re. contemporary social media: “The advantage of communication by voice […] is that the communicator retains control over the manner of its dissemination […] Control, then, of oral culture is irretrievably decentralized.”
I just found this true ☹️: “In a sense, one of the burdens of subordinate groups is that their desire for wholeness and authenticity is so at odds with their instinct for safety.”
~
On gatherings:
“None of the practices and discourses of resistance can exist without tacit or acknowledged coordination and communication within the subordinate group. For this to occur, the subordinate group must carve out for itself social spaces insulated from control and surveillance from above. If we are to understand the process by which resistance is developed and codified, the analysis of the creation of these offstage social spaces becomes a vital task. Only by specifying how such social spaces are made and defended is it possible to move from the individual resisting subject—an abstract fiction—to the socialization of resistant practices and discourses.”
“‘And so, in large part, the history of political struggle has been the history of the attempts to control significant sites of assembly and spaces of discourse’” (quoting The Politics and Poetics of Transgression by Stallybrass and White).
And I thought this was an interesting element, on the role of people who travel between different groups, or who can move between different communities easily due to their job/role in society: “The elaboration of hidden transcripts depends not only on the creation of relatively unmonitored physical locations and free time but also on active human agents who create and disseminate them.”
On ‘civility’ etc.: “A single lapse in conformity can be repaired or excused with negligible consequences for the system of domination. A single act of successful public insubordination, however, pierces the smooth surface of apparent consent, which is itself a visible reminder of underlying power relations. Because acts of symbolic defiance have such ominous consequences for power relations, the Romans, as Veyne reminds us, dealt more harshly with indocilité than with mere infractions of the law.”
~
On the elites:
“Power means not *having* to act or, more accurately, the capacity to be more negligent and casual about any single performance.” Too real!
The idea that “a defection among elites has so much more impact on power relations than the same phenomenon (e.g., rate-busters, prison trusties) among subordinates. Normally, the elite renegade cannot be explained in the same terms as the subordinate renegade. It is easier to explain why a slave might want to be an overseer with all its privileges than to explain why a master would openly favor emancipation or abolition.”
~
On the ‘breakthrough’ moment when the veil between the hidden transcript and the public transcript is pierced:
“Both the psychological release and the social meaning of breaking the silence deserve emphasis.”
I liked Scott’s idea of “Epidemics of political courage” - thinking about why, and when, and how people speak out, and who the people are that do. The ways in which that’s structural, or random. One of the ideas that he comes back to is that by definition it’s always one person who breaks, and it’s often experienced as something that’s involuntary, but they are in some way speaking for everyone, and with the same voice. (His running example for this is from Middlemarch - and I love a political scientist who isn’t afraid to cite to some fiction!)
And then, this: “The most repressive regimes are, then, the most liable to the most violent expressions of anger from below if only because they have so successfully eliminated any other form of expression.”
~
And a few for the social scientists:
As I said, a lot of this book is really about how important it is not to read the historical record ~written by the victors etc.~ and assume that its true, or assume that what “subordinate” people say on the record is in any way a reflect of what they truly believe: “A combination of adaptive strategic behavior and the dialogue implicit in most power relations ensures that public action will provide a constant stream of evidence that appears to support an interpretation of ideological hegemony.”
“Other things equal, it is therefore more accurate to consider subordinate classes *less* constrained at the level of thought and ideology, since they can in secluded settings speak with comparative safety, and *more* constrained at the level of political action and struggle, where the daily exercise of power sharply limits the options available to them.”
Scott spends a lot of time addressing the idea that expressing “hidden transcript”-type views is somehow pointless if they aren’t immediately linked to specific, concrete actions of resistance: “The bond between domination and appropriation means that it is impossible to separate the ideas and symbolism of subordination from a process of material exploitation. In exactly the same fashion, it is impossible to separate veiled symbolic resistance to the ideas of domination from the practical struggles to thwart or mitigate exploitation. Resistance, like domination, fights a war on two fronts.”
As a lawyer maybe I’m biased, but I appreciated the time Scott spent on discussing the ways in which the dominant actor’s ability to define the language of the public transcript does and not constrain the subordinate actors in practice: “A dominant ideology of paternalistic lords and faithful retainers does not prevent social conflict but is simply an invitation to a structured argument. We may consider the dominant discourse as a plastic idiom or dialect that is capable of carrying an enormous variety of meanings, including those that are subversive of their use as intended by the dominant.” So, e.g., just because the peasant says “O King, you’re so kind and merciful, God was right in appointing you so I know you’ll do this nice thing for me” it doesn’t mean that the peasant thinks that the king is kind or merciful or appointed by God at all. It seems kind of obvious but I think especially for people doing historical/political/socialogical/economic research, there can be this tendency to take things at face value and I think Scott does a good job laying out why you really shouldn’t.
Or, to say it pithier: “as a seventeenth-century French historian correctly observed, ‘He who speaks of desperation to his sovereign, threatens him.’”
~
I read this in paperback. It was published by Yale UP, and printed in the US by Edwards Brothers Inc. (located in Michigan). I liked the formatting and the placement of the footnotes - the book was designed by James J. Johnson (NOT to be confused with J. Jonah Jameson) and typeset by The Composing Room of Michigan, Inc. (Love a “The” at the beginning of a name!) And the paper in my edition apparently “meets the guidelines for permanent and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources” - fun!
“The capacity of dominant groups to prevail—though never totally—in defining and constituting what counts as the public transcript and what as offstage is, as we shall see, no small measure of power. The unremitting struggle over such boundaries is perhaps the most vital arena for ordinary conflict, for everyday forms of class struggle.”
Overall I enjoyed this book. I don’t think it needed to be a full book, at all, but it’s very readable - the style is very conversational for an academic book! - so I didn’t mind it. It has a lot of interesting food for thought, and also some good advice for historians and social scientists on how to think about & do thorough, original research by making sure that they are never taking the “public transcript” at face value. Needless to say, a lot of this is applicable to research about marginalized/oppressed groups throughout history.
Also, a big source for this book (which was published in 1990) is Arlie Russell Hochschild’s The Managed Heart, which was published in 1983 and seems to be the origin (!) of the concept of emotional labor. Similarly, Scott focuses on the way that power imbalances and oppression are carried out by denying the dignity of the subordinate figures (as opposed to more a classic Marxist materialist view of oppression), which I found really compelling. His focus is on what it’s like when a subordinate (which generally means a slave/peasant/serf, but can also be read much more broader) cannot respond publicly to treatment that denies their dignity: “The frustrations engendered by domination have a double aspect. The first aspect is, of course the humiliations and coercion entailed by the exercise of power. The second is the frustration of having continually to rein in one’s anger and aggression in order to prevent even worse consequences.”
And so “At its most elementary level the hidden transcript represents an acting out of fantasy—and occasionally in secretive practice—of the anger and reciprocal aggression denied by the presence of domination.”
Something I enjoy about Scott’s work - and this is the second book I’ve read by him, after The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia - is that he cites to a wide range of sources, and doesn’t really over-cite. It’s not like he’s writing about X and citing to all the million other researchers who wrote about X. He’s making broad comparisons between different people and circumstances and dynamics, in a way that gives you the constant opportunity to stretch the way you’re thinking about things. That definitely means that there are times when he makes a claim and you kind of raise an eyebrow… but that just makes for more interesting discussion.
As I said, this was published in 1990 - I appreciate the way he wrote about then-contemporary political events (glasnost, Vaclav Havel) and it’s always nice to read nonfiction that doesn’t become horrendously dated in its views or assumptions re. political topics just because a couple decades have passed.
~
Some passages that I thought were of note (by which I mean, I literally noted them down):
“the greater the extrinsic reasons compelling our action—here large threats and large rewards are comparable—the less we have to provide satisfactory reasons to ourselves for our conduct.” The reverse-image of the concept of needing to get “buy-in.”
On in-fighting: “Solidarity among subordinates, if it is achieved at all, is thus achieved, paradoxically, only by means of a degree of conflict. Certain forms of social strife, far from constituting evidence of disunity and weakness, may well be the signs of an active, aggressive social surveillance that preserves unity.”
A description of an interesting experiment, from Berkowitz’s Aggression: “two groups of subjects were insulted by a powerful figure in identical ways. Some of the “victims” were then allowed to give an electric shock to their victimizer, while others were not. Those who struck back then felt less hostile toward their victimizer, and also experienced a decline in blood pressure. Those who were not permitted to strike back, even though they could fully voice their aggressive fantasies indirectly in interpreting a thematic apperception test, experienced no decline in blood pressure.” With the caveat that always exists for this kind of experiment……. Dang!!
Interesting in re. contemporary social media: “The advantage of communication by voice […] is that the communicator retains control over the manner of its dissemination […] Control, then, of oral culture is irretrievably decentralized.”
I just found this true ☹️: “In a sense, one of the burdens of subordinate groups is that their desire for wholeness and authenticity is so at odds with their instinct for safety.”
~
On gatherings:
“None of the practices and discourses of resistance can exist without tacit or acknowledged coordination and communication within the subordinate group. For this to occur, the subordinate group must carve out for itself social spaces insulated from control and surveillance from above. If we are to understand the process by which resistance is developed and codified, the analysis of the creation of these offstage social spaces becomes a vital task. Only by specifying how such social spaces are made and defended is it possible to move from the individual resisting subject—an abstract fiction—to the socialization of resistant practices and discourses.”
“‘And so, in large part, the history of political struggle has been the history of the attempts to control significant sites of assembly and spaces of discourse’” (quoting The Politics and Poetics of Transgression by Stallybrass and White).
And I thought this was an interesting element, on the role of people who travel between different groups, or who can move between different communities easily due to their job/role in society: “The elaboration of hidden transcripts depends not only on the creation of relatively unmonitored physical locations and free time but also on active human agents who create and disseminate them.”
On ‘civility’ etc.: “A single lapse in conformity can be repaired or excused with negligible consequences for the system of domination. A single act of successful public insubordination, however, pierces the smooth surface of apparent consent, which is itself a visible reminder of underlying power relations. Because acts of symbolic defiance have such ominous consequences for power relations, the Romans, as Veyne reminds us, dealt more harshly with indocilité than with mere infractions of the law.”
~
On the elites:
“Power means not *having* to act or, more accurately, the capacity to be more negligent and casual about any single performance.” Too real!
The idea that “a defection among elites has so much more impact on power relations than the same phenomenon (e.g., rate-busters, prison trusties) among subordinates. Normally, the elite renegade cannot be explained in the same terms as the subordinate renegade. It is easier to explain why a slave might want to be an overseer with all its privileges than to explain why a master would openly favor emancipation or abolition.”
~
On the ‘breakthrough’ moment when the veil between the hidden transcript and the public transcript is pierced:
“Both the psychological release and the social meaning of breaking the silence deserve emphasis.”
I liked Scott’s idea of “Epidemics of political courage” - thinking about why, and when, and how people speak out, and who the people are that do. The ways in which that’s structural, or random. One of the ideas that he comes back to is that by definition it’s always one person who breaks, and it’s often experienced as something that’s involuntary, but they are in some way speaking for everyone, and with the same voice. (His running example for this is from Middlemarch - and I love a political scientist who isn’t afraid to cite to some fiction!)
And then, this: “The most repressive regimes are, then, the most liable to the most violent expressions of anger from below if only because they have so successfully eliminated any other form of expression.”
~
And a few for the social scientists:
As I said, a lot of this book is really about how important it is not to read the historical record ~written by the victors etc.~ and assume that its true, or assume that what “subordinate” people say on the record is in any way a reflect of what they truly believe: “A combination of adaptive strategic behavior and the dialogue implicit in most power relations ensures that public action will provide a constant stream of evidence that appears to support an interpretation of ideological hegemony.”
“Other things equal, it is therefore more accurate to consider subordinate classes *less* constrained at the level of thought and ideology, since they can in secluded settings speak with comparative safety, and *more* constrained at the level of political action and struggle, where the daily exercise of power sharply limits the options available to them.”
Scott spends a lot of time addressing the idea that expressing “hidden transcript”-type views is somehow pointless if they aren’t immediately linked to specific, concrete actions of resistance: “The bond between domination and appropriation means that it is impossible to separate the ideas and symbolism of subordination from a process of material exploitation. In exactly the same fashion, it is impossible to separate veiled symbolic resistance to the ideas of domination from the practical struggles to thwart or mitigate exploitation. Resistance, like domination, fights a war on two fronts.”
As a lawyer maybe I’m biased, but I appreciated the time Scott spent on discussing the ways in which the dominant actor’s ability to define the language of the public transcript does and not constrain the subordinate actors in practice: “A dominant ideology of paternalistic lords and faithful retainers does not prevent social conflict but is simply an invitation to a structured argument. We may consider the dominant discourse as a plastic idiom or dialect that is capable of carrying an enormous variety of meanings, including those that are subversive of their use as intended by the dominant.” So, e.g., just because the peasant says “O King, you’re so kind and merciful, God was right in appointing you so I know you’ll do this nice thing for me” it doesn’t mean that the peasant thinks that the king is kind or merciful or appointed by God at all. It seems kind of obvious but I think especially for people doing historical/political/socialogical/economic research, there can be this tendency to take things at face value and I think Scott does a good job laying out why you really shouldn’t.
Or, to say it pithier: “as a seventeenth-century French historian correctly observed, ‘He who speaks of desperation to his sovereign, threatens him.’”
~
I read this in paperback. It was published by Yale UP, and printed in the US by Edwards Brothers Inc. (located in Michigan). I liked the formatting and the placement of the footnotes - the book was designed by James J. Johnson (NOT to be confused with J. Jonah Jameson) and typeset by The Composing Room of Michigan, Inc. (Love a “The” at the beginning of a name!) And the paper in my edition apparently “meets the guidelines for permanent and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources” - fun!
Read
June 7, 2023در ابتدای جنبش زن زندگی آزادی کمتر کسی به نقش ویدا موحد اشاره می کرد. ��ود من کمتر مطلبی در این باره توی اینترنت یا شبکه های اجتماعی میخوندم در شش ماه اول. اما به مرور همه متوجه این جسارت و اهمیت اولین شخصی که "روایتهای نهانی" رو اعلام علنی میکنه و به نوعی مبارزه بدلش میکنه شدیم. این کتاب شاید یکمی هر فصلش تکرار مکررات بکنه و مثالهای خیلی زیادی برای یک مطلب ساده داشته باشه اما به نظرم خوندنش برای هر کسی که مجبوره معنی زندگیش رو در مقاومت فرهنگی-سیاسی نسبت به طبقهی فرادستیش تعریف کنه الزامیه.
February 15, 2023
ومعظم النار من مستصغر الشرر
November 25, 2013
This is a superb book: Scott sets out and for the most part successfully outlines the role of what he calls the hidden transcripts of domination in cultural and political life. His basic assumption is that all systems of domination include a means of resistance – the 'backstage talk' of the oppressed and the subaltern – that the dominant suspect might exist but cannot in any way get access to.
My only real concern is that he tends to crudely characterise the Gramscian notion of hegemony as simple acceptance of that dominance when in many ways it seems to me that what he is outlining is the operation of what Gramsci refers to as a war of position – the constant shifting struggle of domination and resistance where one group – the oppressed, the dominant – make advances in one area of life only to lose a little power or advantage in another, as opposed to what Gramsci also calls the war of movement – direct confrontation.
Scott's major contribution is, I think, two-fold: he shows the ways in which the hidden transcripts work in similar ways in different settings, and he proposes a relationship between the wars of position and movement – the ways the hidden transcript becomes public and serves as a rallying cry. He draws on a wide range of evidence – US slave narratives, historical analyses of medieval France, anti-state action in Soviet-era eastern bloc states – to build a compelling argument that we analysts of cultural politics, of social movements, and of everyday life ignore at our peril. Essential reading.
My only real concern is that he tends to crudely characterise the Gramscian notion of hegemony as simple acceptance of that dominance when in many ways it seems to me that what he is outlining is the operation of what Gramsci refers to as a war of position – the constant shifting struggle of domination and resistance where one group – the oppressed, the dominant – make advances in one area of life only to lose a little power or advantage in another, as opposed to what Gramsci also calls the war of movement – direct confrontation.
Scott's major contribution is, I think, two-fold: he shows the ways in which the hidden transcripts work in similar ways in different settings, and he proposes a relationship between the wars of position and movement – the ways the hidden transcript becomes public and serves as a rallying cry. He draws on a wide range of evidence – US slave narratives, historical analyses of medieval France, anti-state action in Soviet-era eastern bloc states – to build a compelling argument that we analysts of cultural politics, of social movements, and of everyday life ignore at our peril. Essential reading.
June 15, 2021
This book is a great read because it is written by a political scientist who is using anthropological tools to reinterpret history. A lot of James C Scott's research covers what he calls infrapolitics of the subaltern groups and the way they have historically exercised their agency. This book is perhaps the key work in this regard.
A large portion of this book features a solid analysis of domination, oppression, and agency which is distinct from the other mainstream concepts of power (Marx, Foucault, Bourdieu etc.). Scott shows the difference between the public transcript determined by the dominant groups and the 'hidden transcript' of the subordinate groups - peasants, lower castes, slaves, serfs - which is rich and detailed. He also critiques the theory of false consciousness which, according to him, is simplistic and denies the agency of subordinated groups. He then demonstrates through countless examples how the hidden transcript can be traced in popular culture, revolts, carnivals, festivals, folk stories etc. Additionally, he shows the ways in which the subjugated make good use of the public transcript and dominant group's own beliefs against them.
Scott's analysis is much more hopeful and empowering in that it offers a perspective on history that appreciates the consistent struggle the subaltern has waged against their subjugation. They have not been passive or ignorant receivers of oppression as imagined by other, more mainstream, theoreticians of power. This book is a must-read if you want to understand class conflict and the politics of resistance in general. It makes for an interesting read as a result of the fresher perspective (though it was written three decades ago) and a lot of things make a lot of sense during a reread. However, there is a bit of repetition in the book. Also, although he concedes this flaw right away, Scott doesn't directly engage with other theories of power. Still, this book is worth the time.
A large portion of this book features a solid analysis of domination, oppression, and agency which is distinct from the other mainstream concepts of power (Marx, Foucault, Bourdieu etc.). Scott shows the difference between the public transcript determined by the dominant groups and the 'hidden transcript' of the subordinate groups - peasants, lower castes, slaves, serfs - which is rich and detailed. He also critiques the theory of false consciousness which, according to him, is simplistic and denies the agency of subordinated groups. He then demonstrates through countless examples how the hidden transcript can be traced in popular culture, revolts, carnivals, festivals, folk stories etc. Additionally, he shows the ways in which the subjugated make good use of the public transcript and dominant group's own beliefs against them.
Scott's analysis is much more hopeful and empowering in that it offers a perspective on history that appreciates the consistent struggle the subaltern has waged against their subjugation. They have not been passive or ignorant receivers of oppression as imagined by other, more mainstream, theoreticians of power. This book is a must-read if you want to understand class conflict and the politics of resistance in general. It makes for an interesting read as a result of the fresher perspective (though it was written three decades ago) and a lot of things make a lot of sense during a reread. However, there is a bit of repetition in the book. Also, although he concedes this flaw right away, Scott doesn't directly engage with other theories of power. Still, this book is worth the time.
February 5, 2023
دقیقاً پی همچین کتابی بودم برای مطالعهی روابط قدرت و سلطه و همینطور نقد هژمونی. باید حتماً بازم بخونمش.
امتیازش هم چهار و نیم.
امتیازش هم چهار و نیم.
September 19, 2019
تعرفت على هذا الكتاب أثناء قراءة "حيونة الإنسان" لممدوح عدوان.
الكتاب يدرس ويناقش ويحلل الوسائل والأساليب التي تلجأ إليها الشعوب / الفئات / الطبقات المقهورة التي لا تستطيع أن أن تقول ما تشاء وقتما تشاء لمن تشاء!
فتلجأ إلى الشائعات، والنكات، والسخرية، والتورية، والتقية،... إلخ هذه الوسائل التي تصلح أن تتم من وراء ظهر الحاكم والتي يسميها الكاتب "السياسة التحتية" أو "التراث المخفي" أو "الرسائل المغفلة".
وللحكام أيضا كلاما يقولونه في الخفاء من وراء ظهر المحكومين، لا يقولونه إلا في غرفهم المغلقة ولخاصة مقربيهم فقط، وهو يختلف إن لم يتناقض بشكل كامل مع الخطاب الرسمي المذاع على المحكومين!
الكتاب يتعرض لنظرية صمام الأمان التي يتبعها معظم أنظمة الحكم الاستبدادية "العاقلة"؛ وهي التي يسمح فيها الحاكم بهامش من الحرية والحركة ولكن في حدود غير مسموح بتجاوزها. هذا الهامش هو بمثابة صمام الأمان لنظام الحكم ضد الانفجار الذي ينتج عن القمع والمنع الشامل والدائم لأي شكل من أشكال التعبير والاحتجاج.
الكتاب يناقش بشيء من التفصيل متى وكيف يلجأ المحكومون لإعلان خطابهم المخفي، والذي يكون في أشكال متعددة بناء على مستوى ودرجة القمع القائمة في المجتمع، فقد يكون الإعلان على مستوى فردي برفض الإذعان وعدم تنفيذ أوامر وتعليمات الحاكم والرد عليه بلغة عنيفة، وقد يكون على مستوى جماعي أكبر عن طريق القيام بأعمال تخريبية أو حرق منشآت حكومية أو الإضراب عن العمل أو عدم دفع الضرائب المفروضة على المحكومين أو العصيان المدني الشامل أو الثورة!
الكتاب مهم جدا في فكرته وموضوعه لكنه صعب جدا جدا جدا في لغته ومصطلحاته، وهو من الكتب التي تستحق قراءة ثانية أكثر تأملا.
الكتاب يدرس ويناقش ويحلل الوسائل والأساليب التي تلجأ إليها الشعوب / الفئات / الطبقات المقهورة التي لا تستطيع أن أن تقول ما تشاء وقتما تشاء لمن تشاء!
فتلجأ إلى الشائعات، والنكات، والسخرية، والتورية، والتقية،... إلخ هذه الوسائل التي تصلح أن تتم من وراء ظهر الحاكم والتي يسميها الكاتب "السياسة التحتية" أو "التراث المخفي" أو "الرسائل المغفلة".
وللحكام أيضا كلاما يقولونه في الخفاء من وراء ظهر المحكومين، لا يقولونه إلا في غرفهم المغلقة ولخاصة مقربيهم فقط، وهو يختلف إن لم يتناقض بشكل كامل مع الخطاب الرسمي المذاع على المحكومين!
الكتاب يتعرض لنظرية صمام الأمان التي يتبعها معظم أنظمة الحكم الاستبدادية "العاقلة"؛ وهي التي يسمح فيها الحاكم بهامش من الحرية والحركة ولكن في حدود غير مسموح بتجاوزها. هذا الهامش هو بمثابة صمام الأمان لنظام الحكم ضد الانفجار الذي ينتج عن القمع والمنع الشامل والدائم لأي شكل من أشكال التعبير والاحتجاج.
الكتاب يناقش بشيء من التفصيل متى وكيف يلجأ المحكومون لإعلان خطابهم المخفي، والذي يكون في أشكال متعددة بناء على مستوى ودرجة القمع القائمة في المجتمع، فقد يكون الإعلان على مستوى فردي برفض الإذعان وعدم تنفيذ أوامر وتعليمات الحاكم والرد عليه بلغة عنيفة، وقد يكون على مستوى جماعي أكبر عن طريق القيام بأعمال تخريبية أو حرق منشآت حكومية أو الإضراب عن العمل أو عدم دفع الضرائب المفروضة على المحكومين أو العصيان المدني الشامل أو الثورة!
الكتاب مهم جدا في فكرته وموضوعه لكنه صعب جدا جدا جدا في لغته ومصطلحاته، وهو من الكتب التي تستحق قراءة ثانية أكثر تأملا.
February 26, 2011
The author's thesis here is pretty much common sense, but it's the sort of common sense you usually need pointed out to you. Basically, he's just saying that relationships between the powerful and the powerless and full of deception. Both groups act a certain way when together, and act completely differently behind-the-scenes. In other words, people under an oppressive regime will talk one way when in the presence of their authorities, and another when they're talking behind the backs of their authorities. He calls the second sort of discourse a "hidden transcript".
The basic idea is pretty obvious. People talk one way to their boss, and another way about their boss. That's not a novel suggestion. But James Scott applies this to historical readings. We need to remember that we usually get in history is the public transcript, the way people talk openly to and about each other. We rarely get access to the hidden transcript, what people say behind the backs of their authorities.
He draws on numerous historical examples to illustrate his point, from eastern peasant populations to slaves in the antebellum south. The only problem for me was that the book wasn't organized by history (what I was more looking for), but by slightly nuanced points about his overall "hidden transcript" theory. Unfortunately, the nuances were so slight that the book just comes across as repetitive once you're into chapter 6 or 7.
Overall, though, a great book, and definitely worth the read. His writing is surprisingly good, and the historical examples help a lot. Here one of my favorites, a quote from a post-bellum African-America in the south:
The basic idea is pretty obvious. People talk one way to their boss, and another way about their boss. That's not a novel suggestion. But James Scott applies this to historical readings. We need to remember that we usually get in history is the public transcript, the way people talk openly to and about each other. We rarely get access to the hidden transcript, what people say behind the backs of their authorities.
He draws on numerous historical examples to illustrate his point, from eastern peasant populations to slaves in the antebellum south. The only problem for me was that the book wasn't organized by history (what I was more looking for), but by slightly nuanced points about his overall "hidden transcript" theory. Unfortunately, the nuances were so slight that the book just comes across as repetitive once you're into chapter 6 or 7.
Overall, though, a great book, and definitely worth the read. His writing is surprisingly good, and the historical examples help a lot. Here one of my favorites, a quote from a post-bellum African-America in the south:
I've joked with white people, in a nice way. I've had to play dumb sometimes--I knowed not to go too far and let them know what I knowed, because they taken exception of it too quick. I had to humble down and play shut-mouthed in many cases to get along, I've done it all--they didn't know what it was all about, it's just a plain fact....And I could go to 'em a heap of times for a favor and get it....They'd give you a good name if you was obedient to 'em, acted nice when you met 'em an didn't question 'em 'bout what they said they had against you. You begin to cry about your rights and the mistreatin' of you and they'd murder you.
September 15, 2013
فيه إطالة وتكرار للمعاني إلا أنه قيّم ووضح صورة هامة عن السياسات الخفية
April 11, 2015
Книга Джеймса Скотта является прологом к анализу политики в странах, где быть оппозиционером опасно. Там, где рискованно выражать несогласие напрямую, это несогласие находит выход в разговорах между "своими", или публично, но под покровом анонимности или двусмысленности. Говоря словами, Скотта это выражается в "скрытом транскрипте".
Там, где доминирующие оттачивают свою безупречную доминантность, защищая честь от оскорбления, быть может даже на дуэли, люди меньшего статуса оттачивают способность не терять самообладания, устраивают соревнования по взаимным словесным оскорблениям. Одновременно последние лелеют мечты о другом порядке, где справедливость восторжествуют, а "последние станут первыми" (средневекевое искусство с зайцами, съедающими волков).
По мнению Скотта, скрытый транскрипт -- не замена сопротивлению или политике, а их предпосылка. Эти окольные, скрытые от парадной реальности формы коммуникаций не только помогают распространять культуру угнетенных, но и заставляют "своих" придерживаться ее правил.
Там, где доминирующие оттачивают свою безупречную доминантность, защищая честь от оскорбления, быть может даже на дуэли, люди меньшего статуса оттачивают способность не терять самообладания, устраивают соревнования по взаимным словесным оскорблениям. Одновременно последние лелеют мечты о другом порядке, где справедливость восторжествуют, а "последние станут первыми" (средневекевое искусство с зайцами, съедающими волков).
По мнению Скотта, скрытый транскрипт -- не замена сопротивлению или политике, а их предпосылка. Эти окольные, скрытые от парадной реальности формы коммуникаций не только помогают распространять культуру угнетенных, но и заставляют "своих" придерживаться ее правил.
October 7, 2021
A list of reasons for social phenomenon in the domain of language. Frequently quotes slaves as a means to exemplify speech acts of the powerless and references popular movements such as the English Peasants' Revolt.
September 15, 2024
Not exciting. But informative and dense.
February 23, 2020
It does not matter how many times I’ve read it before, I always find something new in this book. It is a classic. One can nuance his argument further, of course, but this is one of the major works for those interested in resistance, hegemony, and social change.
August 31, 2022
هذا الكتاب دراسة مكثفة عن مقاومة الضعفاء من هم اقوى منهم مكانة ، و يحلل الخطاب المستتر للجماعات المحكومه بما يشمل العبيد في القرن الثامن عشر، و يناقش وظائف الخطاب العلني و دوره في ترسيخ السلطة و تبريرها .
لماذا يتم ارتداء قناع في حضور السلطة ويعد ضروريا، ويشير الى ان القوي كما الضعيف لديه اسباب في ارتدائه قناعا في حضور الخاضعين،
يحلل ما يسمى السياسة التحتية للجماعات الخاضعة التي تعني شكل من اشكال المقاومة التي لا تجرؤ على اعلان ماهيتها بوضوح، و دراسة جوهر هذه السياسة التحتية وتطورها واساليب تنكرها وعلاقتها بالخطاب العلني يوضع العديد المسائل المتعلقة بها .
يسلط الضوء على السمات للخطاب المستتر للخاضعين و ما يقابلها الخطاب المستتر للنخب المسيطرة، و جدير بالذكر ان الخطابات المستترة والعلنية تعتبر ميدان صراع دائم بين المسيطر والخاضع .
الاشكال المختلفة للمقاومة والتي من ضمنها القيل والقال التي تعد سيطرة اجتماعية التي يقصد منها الاساءة لسمعة اشخاص معينين والناشر مجهول ، بالإضافة الى نشر الشائعات وهي تعد اخبار غير موثوقة وتتميز بسرعة انتشارها ومدى خطرها للفئة المسيطرة، و كما نلاحظ انه يتم مكافحتها بشدة من قبل الحكومات .
يناقش ما وجد في علم الاجتماع اللغوي باستخدام اللغة وعلاقته بالسلطة والتأثير الذي تمارسه السلطه على الخطاب العلني ، و انعكاس الاشكال اللغوية المصاغة والاجوبة على الخاضع بحضور السلطة المسيطرة و يتمثل ذلك باستخدام الالقاب و اختلاف نبرة الصوت والتلعثم و استخدام صيغ مفرطة التهذيب و الكليشهات الجاهزة
ان وظيفة استخدام النعوت والتورية في الخطاب العلني للسلطة وضع قناع على حقائق السيطرة القبيحة مما يعطيها سمة لطيفة وبالتالي يغطي على الحقائق البشعة مما تتناسب مع مصالحهم، وكثيرا ما تكون ذات سمة سياسية، ، مثل ( فرض السلام للتعبير عن الهجوم المسلح وما يصحبه من احتلال ، وغيرها من أمثلة ) ، و لا تنحصر التوريات في اللغة و انما تشمل السلوكيات والطقوس والاحتفالات العامه،
الاستعراض لطقوس السلطة بالإضافة الى التعبير الفعلي هي استراتيجية تمويهية غير مكلفة يستعيضون بها عن ممارسة القوة، ما دامت لها دور تخويفي، وإن كانت قدراتهم الحقيقية لا تصل إلى ذلك .
هناك اشكال للمقاومة التي تتفادى المواجهة العلنية تتمثل في التهرب الضريبي و سلوك سبيل الغش والسرقة .
كما ان هناك اماكن الخطاب المستتر للرد على الهيمنة و القهر ، تعتبر الفسحات الاجتماعية للتعبير و الرد على الغضب المكتوم ، وتكون هذه الاماكن الاقل عرضة للرقابة يجتمع فيه الذين يتشاطرون الهموم ، و بسبب اهمية هذه الاماكن و دورها الحيوي في عملية توليد الخطاب المستتر، تبذل الرقابة من اعلى جهدا لإزالة مثل هذه المواقع او السيطرة عليها .
يعمد المحكوم بإخفاء اساليبه للخطاب المستتر خوفا من انتقام اصحاب السلطة، اما الاساليب المكشوفة يعمد المحكوم الى تقنيات تخفي هويته، كاالشائعات والعنف المجهول، والاستحواذ الروحي إحدى التقنيات البارزة التي يمكن من خلالها اطلاق العنان للعداء، فهو يشكل احتجاج مكشوف، فتتمكن المرأة وهي ممسوسة ان تبث شكواها من سوء معاملة زوجها، والمحكوم يعترض من ظلم سيده، و يستدل من ان تأثير الالام الروحية تتوافق مع احداث الجور والتوتر، و الاستحواذ الروحي نمط تجعل المحكوم يتنصل من مسؤولياته .
لماذا يتم ارتداء قناع في حضور السلطة ويعد ضروريا، ويشير الى ان القوي كما الضعيف لديه اسباب في ارتدائه قناعا في حضور الخاضعين،
يحلل ما يسمى السياسة التحتية للجماعات الخاضعة التي تعني شكل من اشكال المقاومة التي لا تجرؤ على اعلان ماهيتها بوضوح، و دراسة جوهر هذه السياسة التحتية وتطورها واساليب تنكرها وعلاقتها بالخطاب العلني يوضع العديد المسائل المتعلقة بها .
يسلط الضوء على السمات للخطاب المستتر للخاضعين و ما يقابلها الخطاب المستتر للنخب المسيطرة، و جدير بالذكر ان الخطابات المستترة والعلنية تعتبر ميدان صراع دائم بين المسيطر والخاضع .
الاشكال المختلفة للمقاومة والتي من ضمنها القيل والقال التي تعد سيطرة اجتماعية التي يقصد منها الاساءة لسمعة اشخاص معينين والناشر مجهول ، بالإضافة الى نشر الشائعات وهي تعد اخبار غير موثوقة وتتميز بسرعة انتشارها ومدى خطرها للفئة المسيطرة، و كما نلاحظ انه يتم مكافحتها بشدة من قبل الحكومات .
يناقش ما وجد في علم الاجتماع اللغوي باستخدام اللغة وعلاقته بالسلطة والتأثير الذي تمارسه السلطه على الخطاب العلني ، و انعكاس الاشكال اللغوية المصاغة والاجوبة على الخاضع بحضور السلطة المسيطرة و يتمثل ذلك باستخدام الالقاب و اختلاف نبرة الصوت والتلعثم و استخدام صيغ مفرطة التهذيب و الكليشهات الجاهزة
ان وظيفة استخدام النعوت والتورية في الخطاب العلني للسلطة وضع قناع على حقائق السيطرة القبيحة مما يعطيها سمة لطيفة وبالتالي يغطي على الحقائق البشعة مما تتناسب مع مصالحهم، وكثيرا ما تكون ذات سمة سياسية، ، مثل ( فرض السلام للتعبير عن الهجوم المسلح وما يصحبه من احتلال ، وغيرها من أمثلة ) ، و لا تنحصر التوريات في اللغة و انما تشمل السلوكيات والطقوس والاحتفالات العامه،
الاستعراض لطقوس السلطة بالإضافة الى التعبير الفعلي هي استراتيجية تمويهية غير مكلفة يستعيضون بها عن ممارسة القوة، ما دامت لها دور تخويفي، وإن كانت قدراتهم الحقيقية لا تصل إلى ذلك .
هناك اشكال للمقاومة التي تتفادى المواجهة العلنية تتمثل في التهرب الضريبي و سلوك سبيل الغش والسرقة .
كما ان هناك اماكن الخطاب المستتر للرد على الهيمنة و القهر ، تعتبر الفسحات الاجتماعية للتعبير و الرد على الغضب المكتوم ، وتكون هذه الاماكن الاقل عرضة للرقابة يجتمع فيه الذين يتشاطرون الهموم ، و بسبب اهمية هذه الاماكن و دورها الحيوي في عملية توليد الخطاب المستتر، تبذل الرقابة من اعلى جهدا لإزالة مثل هذه المواقع او السيطرة عليها .
يعمد المحكوم بإخفاء اساليبه للخطاب المستتر خوفا من انتقام اصحاب السلطة، اما الاساليب المكشوفة يعمد المحكوم الى تقنيات تخفي هويته، كاالشائعات والعنف المجهول، والاستحواذ الروحي إحدى التقنيات البارزة التي يمكن من خلالها اطلاق العنان للعداء، فهو يشكل احتجاج مكشوف، فتتمكن المرأة وهي ممسوسة ان تبث شكواها من سوء معاملة زوجها، والمحكوم يعترض من ظلم سيده، و يستدل من ان تأثير الالام الروحية تتوافق مع احداث الجور والتوتر، و الاستحواذ الروحي نمط تجعل المحكوم يتنصل من مسؤولياته .
August 25, 2010
It is a worthwhile read, but often a bit dry. It's a lot like reading for a philosophy class. The ideas are inspiring, but are presented in a redundant manner.
February 9, 2020
Dans ce livre, Scott s'emploie à définir les éléments du langage qui relèvent de la domination, c'est à dire le texte public, associé à une performance publique, où le langage et les éléments associés (comportements, traditions, cérémonies) sont construites autour de normes dominantes et de rapport de domination, et le texte privé, associé à un contexte dominé-dominé ou dominant-dominant. Je trouve ce concept génial.
Tout au long du livre, Scott va développer ces notions et les mettre dans le contexte de la lutte des classes. Ainsi, le texte public devient le témoignage de l'état de domination des dominants, c'est à dire que la facilité avec laquelle les dominés arrivent à rompre le "respect" envers les dominants. De même, l'essor du texte privé devient un enjeu de la lutte des classes, que ce soit au sein des dominés eux mêmes à travers la contre-culture ou les dialectes spécifiques et les coutumes associés (les joutes afro-américaines de type "ta mère est si..." Porte en fait le nom de dozens et ont une fonction d'apprentissage de la gestion de la colère pour ces populations là, initialement) mais aussi de son essor en confrontation avec le texte public, avec, par exemple, les dominés qui expriment leur haine contre les dominants sans peur des conséquences.
Plus que leur développement, Scott explique aussi les mécanismes qui permettent aux dominés de protéger leur texte privé des dominants, via la dissimulation, l'inversion du stigmate ou l'exploitation du cliché. Par exemple, les esclaves faisaient exprès de faire du mauvais travail pour être infantilisés par les dominants et leur faire baisser la garde. Il est intéressant sur ce point de voir que cette tendance s'est inversée, au contraire, désormais, les dominés ont parfaitement intégré le devoir de productivité pour le compte des dominants.
Scott définit aussi le but des dominants comme visant à naturaliser leur hégémonie pour la rendre inéluctable, là où les dominés évitent cela grâce au développement du texte privé. Pour moi, c'est la pierre angulaire du récit car c'est exactement ce que j'essaie de démontrer, sous un autre aspect, dans mon propre essai, donc je vais pouvoir enrichir ma réflexion et c'est très stimulant.
Est-ce que je recommande la lecture de ce texte ? Oh que oui, il est long (404 pages) mais tellement important, tellement bien écrit, tellement stimulant sur tous les niveaux. Il coûte néanmoins 22€ donc ce n'est pas forcément accessible à toutes les bourses, à vous de voir.
Tout au long du livre, Scott va développer ces notions et les mettre dans le contexte de la lutte des classes. Ainsi, le texte public devient le témoignage de l'état de domination des dominants, c'est à dire que la facilité avec laquelle les dominés arrivent à rompre le "respect" envers les dominants. De même, l'essor du texte privé devient un enjeu de la lutte des classes, que ce soit au sein des dominés eux mêmes à travers la contre-culture ou les dialectes spécifiques et les coutumes associés (les joutes afro-américaines de type "ta mère est si..." Porte en fait le nom de dozens et ont une fonction d'apprentissage de la gestion de la colère pour ces populations là, initialement) mais aussi de son essor en confrontation avec le texte public, avec, par exemple, les dominés qui expriment leur haine contre les dominants sans peur des conséquences.
Plus que leur développement, Scott explique aussi les mécanismes qui permettent aux dominés de protéger leur texte privé des dominants, via la dissimulation, l'inversion du stigmate ou l'exploitation du cliché. Par exemple, les esclaves faisaient exprès de faire du mauvais travail pour être infantilisés par les dominants et leur faire baisser la garde. Il est intéressant sur ce point de voir que cette tendance s'est inversée, au contraire, désormais, les dominés ont parfaitement intégré le devoir de productivité pour le compte des dominants.
Scott définit aussi le but des dominants comme visant à naturaliser leur hégémonie pour la rendre inéluctable, là où les dominés évitent cela grâce au développement du texte privé. Pour moi, c'est la pierre angulaire du récit car c'est exactement ce que j'essaie de démontrer, sous un autre aspect, dans mon propre essai, donc je vais pouvoir enrichir ma réflexion et c'est très stimulant.
Est-ce que je recommande la lecture de ce texte ? Oh que oui, il est long (404 pages) mais tellement important, tellement bien écrit, tellement stimulant sur tous les niveaux. Il coûte néanmoins 22€ donc ce n'est pas forcément accessible à toutes les bourses, à vous de voir.
June 27, 2019
Domination and the Arts of Resistance
James C Scott in his penetrating examination of domination and it historic precedents in Domination and the Arts of Resistance published in 1990 has captured my attention for these past days. He carefully examines the ways that the abuse of power has been more or less successfully dealt with down through the ages. Even though his work seems to reflect a past era, it appears to me timeless. It also highlights how the overthrow of oppression often ushers in the new oppressor, who under the guise of liberator captures the good will of the newly freed only to erect the new form of oppression. It reminds me of a well-meaning friend who heroically attempts to solve a friend’s problem, only to discover that solving the problem was not really the issue. Staying the center of attention was really the issue of the “friend”. While diligently applying talent, time and treasure to solve the current problem, the person needing the attention was just as diligently creating new problems to be solved, sometime even at the expense of pain for themselves, because the real issue was their need for attention at any cost. Once that was seen, the well-meaning person/citizen withdraws from the futile attempts thereby freeing energy and resources to develop real problem solving responses. I feel that a close reading of this book might be a liberating experience today. In these times of cell phones, internet, texting and who knows what else will be available in the future, we, once freed from our illusions of domination might actually meet the real needs of our time. “Mother nature” will have the ultimate say. “She” isn’t influenced by the old “they who have the gold make the rules’ standard. No amount of gold will provide the necessary conditions for my great grandchildren to live humane lives if clean air and water are unavailable. So I now wear diaper pins to remind myself that every choice I make they will have to live (or not be able to live) with. I plan to have extras in my pocket to give to those who ask why the pin. At 82, it is my form of resistance so aptly outlined in this penetrating work of James C. Scott. Get your library to find it for you. It might provoke a lot of interesting reflections for you too.
James C Scott in his penetrating examination of domination and it historic precedents in Domination and the Arts of Resistance published in 1990 has captured my attention for these past days. He carefully examines the ways that the abuse of power has been more or less successfully dealt with down through the ages. Even though his work seems to reflect a past era, it appears to me timeless. It also highlights how the overthrow of oppression often ushers in the new oppressor, who under the guise of liberator captures the good will of the newly freed only to erect the new form of oppression. It reminds me of a well-meaning friend who heroically attempts to solve a friend’s problem, only to discover that solving the problem was not really the issue. Staying the center of attention was really the issue of the “friend”. While diligently applying talent, time and treasure to solve the current problem, the person needing the attention was just as diligently creating new problems to be solved, sometime even at the expense of pain for themselves, because the real issue was their need for attention at any cost. Once that was seen, the well-meaning person/citizen withdraws from the futile attempts thereby freeing energy and resources to develop real problem solving responses. I feel that a close reading of this book might be a liberating experience today. In these times of cell phones, internet, texting and who knows what else will be available in the future, we, once freed from our illusions of domination might actually meet the real needs of our time. “Mother nature” will have the ultimate say. “She” isn’t influenced by the old “they who have the gold make the rules’ standard. No amount of gold will provide the necessary conditions for my great grandchildren to live humane lives if clean air and water are unavailable. So I now wear diaper pins to remind myself that every choice I make they will have to live (or not be able to live) with. I plan to have extras in my pocket to give to those who ask why the pin. At 82, it is my form of resistance so aptly outlined in this penetrating work of James C. Scott. Get your library to find it for you. It might provoke a lot of interesting reflections for you too.
August 28, 2023
实际上，我对于本书的简要评论，也可以分为公开剧本和潜隐剧本两部分。
Ⅰ. 公开剧本
公开剧本又可以细分为两部分，一部分针对作者，另一部分针对译者。
1. 作者：詹姆斯·C. 斯科特
关于本书的主题：公开剧本和潜隐剧本之间的对抗和互动关系，詹姆斯·C. 斯科特其实在他的《弱者的武器》中的第七章里已经有所提及。本书只是对这一主题的扩充和深化。
但给我个人的感觉却是，在“扩充”上，詹姆斯·C. 斯科特做得不错，但在“深化”上则进展不大。换句话说，我觉得本书细致有余，但洞察不足。然而，在洞察不足的前提下，如此细致的梳理似乎也就显得意义有限了。因此，在阅读的过程里，当詹姆斯·C. 斯科特在反复陈述一些自身并不难理解且我早已明了的内容时，就难免会催生出一种不停地自我重复和原地打转的感受了。
总之，在洞察不足的前提下，我觉得类似在《弱者的武器》的第七章中精炼地点到即止，就已经足够了。
2. 译者：王佳鹏
一言蔽之：这个翻译差不多是不合格的。它勉强能看，但看得叫人极为恼火。
很多很多属于硬造生词，比如非要把 affirmation 翻译成“肯认”。更显著的例子就是把本书副标题中的 hidden 翻译成“潜隐”。这么个翻法，我觉得未尝不可，却也几无必要。这似乎是这位译者的一项顽固本能，在全书中的案例不胜枚举。
有些不但是硬造生词，而且硬得莫名其妙，比如把 great chain of judgement 翻译成“评价巨链”，就颇叫人迷惑了。
还有个别地方基本就是个笑话，比如把 paying respect 翻译成“支付尊敬”。这已经几乎称不上是人话了。
另一个出现得极其频繁的问题就是，译者对许多术语的极其机械化的处理方式。仿佛他不在这些术语末尾加上一个“××性”或“××化”的后缀，就下不了笔。
至于严格的对位翻译所导致的根本不符合中文表达习惯的英文句式，那就更不用提了。这早已是一种如今翻译的通病。
所以简单来讲，译者王佳鹏的中文水准，只能用“破烂”一词来形容。
最后再说句题外话。译者把二战期间的华沙犹太人“隔都”翻译成“贫民窟”，把南北战争的“南部邦联”翻译成“南部联邦”，虽然于主旨都无伤大雅，不过也确实反映出了译者对于自身专业之外的历史常识了解不多。
Ⅱ. 潜隐剧本
关于本评论的潜隐剧本部分，身为一位中国读者的我，觉得只要引用书中的一段话便足够了。按照詹姆斯·C. 斯科特自己的定义，这大概可以被归于“伪装的精致形式”这一分类，也就是说，它具有充分的间接迂回和隐喻的性质。因为我除了引用一本合法出版物的一部分内容外，可什么话也没说出口。
这段话出自书中的第八章，这也是我心目中，全书相对最具洞察力的一章：
（看看这短短一段话里，出现了多少个“性”字！）
于是，这里似乎也出现了另一个悖论：一个坦然承认自己是潜隐剧本的文本，还能够被定义为潜隐剧本吗？
讲不清。或许丢给詹姆斯·C. 斯科特他自己去操心就行了吧。
Ⅰ. 公开剧本
公开剧本又可以细分为两部分，一部分针对作者，另一部分针对译者。
1. 作者：詹姆斯·C. 斯科特
关于本书的主题：公开剧本和潜隐剧本之间的对抗和互动关系，詹姆斯·C. 斯科特其实在他的《弱者的武器》中的第七章里已经有所提及。本书只是对这一主题的扩充和深化。
但给我个人的感觉却是，在“扩充”上，詹姆斯·C. 斯科特做得不错，但在“深化”上则进展不大。换句话说，我觉得本书细致有余，但洞察不足。然而，在洞察不足的前提下，如此细致的梳理似乎也就显得意义有限了。因此，在阅读的过程里，当詹姆斯·C. 斯科特在反复陈述一些自身并不难理解且我早已明了的内容时，就难免会催生出一种不停地自我重复和原地打转的感受了。
总之，在洞察不足的前提下，我觉得类似在《弱者的武器》的第七章中精炼地点到即止，就已经足够了。
2. 译者：王佳鹏
一言蔽之：这个翻译差不多是不合格的。它勉强能看，但看得叫人极为恼火。
很多很多属于硬造生词，比如非要把 affirmation 翻译成“肯认”。更显著的例子就是把本书副标题中的 hidden 翻译成“潜隐”。这么个翻法，我觉得未尝不可，却也几无必要。这似乎是这位译者的一项顽固本能，在全书中的案例不胜枚举。
有些不但是硬造生词，而且硬得莫名其妙，比如把 great chain of judgement 翻译成“评价巨链”，就颇叫人迷惑了。
还有个别地方基本就是个笑话，比如把 paying respect 翻译成“支付尊敬”。这已经几乎称不上是人话了。
另一个出现得极其频繁的问题就是，译者对许多术语的极其机械化的处理方式。仿佛他不在这些术语末尾加上一个“××性”或“××化”的后缀，就下不了笔。
至于严格的对位翻译所导致的根本不符合中文表达习惯的英文句式，那就更不用提了。这早已是一种如今翻译的通病。
所以简单来讲，译者王佳鹏的中文水准，只能用“破烂”一词来形容。
最后再说句题外话。译者把二战期间的华沙犹太人“隔都”翻译成“贫民窟”，把南北战争的“南部邦联”翻译成“南部联邦”，虽然于主旨都无伤大雅，不过也确实反映出了译者对于自身专业之外的历史常识了解不多。
Ⅱ. 潜隐剧本
关于本评论的潜隐剧本部分，身为一位中国读者的我，觉得只要引用书中的一段话便足够了。按照詹姆斯·C. 斯科特自己的定义，这大概可以被归于“伪装的精致形式”这一分类，也就是说，它具有充分的间接迂回和隐喻的性质。因为我除了引用一本合法出版物的一部分内容外，可什么话也没说出口。
这段话出自书中的第八章，这也是我心目中，全书相对最具洞察力的一章：
"原子化效应……其结果之一便是，爆发性的公开反抗领域几乎就是从属者之间彼此可以进行沟通的唯一社会场所……这可能会降低大规模抵抗行动的可能，但它们悖论性地导致了另一种可能：如果这种抵抗确实发生，它将采取的是那些相对而言没有任何结构性的报复行动。那些从未获得机会去构建某种集体性文化后台的从属者，一旦登上历史舞台，只能选择即兴发挥……于是，最具压制性的政权或体制，最可能会导致下层阶级最具暴力性的愤怒释放，这仅仅是因为它��是如此成功地消除了任何其他形式的表达。"
（看看这短短一段话里，出现了多少个“性”字！）
于是，这里似乎也出现了另一个悖论：一个坦然承认自己是潜隐剧本的文本，还能够被定义为潜隐剧本吗？
讲不清。或许丢给詹姆斯·C. 斯科特他自己去操心就行了吧。
July 17, 2024
Scott's text is revelatory of detail and framework for the concept of the hidden transcript, which was new to me under that name, but in retrospect somehow 'obviously' had to co-exist with any form of systemic social oppression. The 'obviously' makes Scott's book compelling. Looking back over the many months it took me, nothing much stands out about the particularities of his argument—most of what he said somehow made sense over and over again, in different (historical) contexts, including my own. I wasn't reading to be critical; I was reading for political and social understanding (for conceptual tools).
Perhaps a quicker rereading of the book would clarify the precise vectors of Scott's argument: for example, his doubting of safety-valve theories that say protest, carnival, or other boisterous, supposedly non-political ways of playing at insubordination or at flaunting of rules serves to relieve tension in the oppressed, tension that might otherwise become political and cause social unrest.
I've come to consider this book to be an important, detailed analysis of the formation and perpetuation of infrapolitical discourse as well as of its rare, subdued interactions with those in power. It'd do good for more people to have read it. Highly recommended.
Perhaps a quicker rereading of the book would clarify the precise vectors of Scott's argument: for example, his doubting of safety-valve theories that say protest, carnival, or other boisterous, supposedly non-political ways of playing at insubordination or at flaunting of rules serves to relieve tension in the oppressed, tension that might otherwise become political and cause social unrest.
I've come to consider this book to be an important, detailed analysis of the formation and perpetuation of infrapolitical discourse as well as of its rare, subdued interactions with those in power. It'd do good for more people to have read it. Highly recommended.
September 27, 2023
Reading this alongside Invisible Man was a trip. Both books seem to have something to say about each other, about what role all the breakroom/barroom grumbling plays, when and why it is hidden and about when it spills over into real rebellion. James C. Scott is very good at taking all the sociology back to ground level and out of the clouds without getting stuck on individual psychology. This is a good remedy for steam-metaphors like 'the carnival atmosphere of this or that' is blowing off steam or reducing pressure... Scott argues that these enactments of the hidden transcripts are rehearsals for the electrifying moment when everyone's masks shatter. So there is a point to all those symbolic demonstrations, soli-parties and Barbie: the movie!
December 30, 2024
While his previous book Weapons of the Weak focuses on the experiences of Malay peasants from which Scott builds out his theory, Domination departs from a single setting to extrapolate the phenomenon of hidden resistance across time and cultures. In so doing, Scott makes an irrefutably compelling case that hidden transcripts of subordinate groups and their infrapolitics of resistance presuppose acts of public resistance that so often shocks non-subordinate groups lacking access to the hidden transcripts. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Scott's principal contribution of this book – fleshed out through deep-dives into key components of hidden transcripts and how they manifest – is in how to think about what is missing in understanding the underlying dynamics behind both insubordination (individual) and insurrection (collective).
March 11, 2025
(7/10) Lectura agradecida, propia de un autor anarquista cuya valía ha quedado demostrada con creces en la notable obra "Contra el Estado" y, especialmente, en el que considero su mejor ensayo "The art of not being governed".
Sin embargo, para aquellos familiarizados con las tesis de, digamos, Bourdieu, Foucault, Batjin o Burke (por citar a algunos), este ensayo puede saber a poco. De hecho, ha sido nuestro caso. Pese a que reconocemos su utilidad y sus aportaciones, el opúsculo se paladea con un tono algo grisáceo y académico -más del gusto universitario-, y más bien nos ha parecido una síntesis de una gran variedad de tesis previas. Aun así, por su carácter introductorio y su perspectiva, le concedemos un notable.
Sin embargo, para aquellos familiarizados con las tesis de, digamos, Bourdieu, Foucault, Batjin o Burke (por citar a algunos), este ensayo puede saber a poco. De hecho, ha sido nuestro caso. Pese a que reconocemos su utilidad y sus aportaciones, el opúsculo se paladea con un tono algo grisáceo y académico -más del gusto universitario-, y más bien nos ha parecido una síntesis de una gran variedad de tesis previas. Aun así, por su carácter introductorio y su perspectiva, le concedemos un notable.
August 29, 2017
In some ways, this is a dated text. Examples are unsystematically presented and literary studies is blended with political science, anthropology, and psychology. Both elements create an argument that requires a little bit of patience and some generosity of reading; both elements also make this a lively, fascinating book that, in addition to its excellent theoretical framework, reads like a charmer. Scott's Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed is the most frequently cited of his books, but here he makes a strong case in the build-up to that book for understanding discursive and "infra-" politics as objects of study in their own right.
Drawing on Michel Foucault, Peter Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin, George Eliot and Barrington Moore Jr., among many others, Scott builds an argument about the "public transcripts" that dominate social and political discourse, as well as about the "hidden transcripts" that occupy the substratum of public discourse. It is really interesting to see how arguments about cultural politics were framed in the early nineties, before the so-called culture wars, and I'm impressed with the multidisciplinarity of Scott's thinking here. Some of it, especially the Bakhtin stuff on carnivals, isn't as exciting, but overall there's a lot here to think about especially for political science readers who may find themselves taken aback by some of Scott's reasoning and arguments.
Drawing on Michel Foucault, Peter Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin, George Eliot and Barrington Moore Jr., among many others, Scott builds an argument about the "public transcripts" that dominate social and political discourse, as well as about the "hidden transcripts" that occupy the substratum of public discourse. It is really interesting to see how arguments about cultural politics were framed in the early nineties, before the so-called culture wars, and I'm impressed with the multidisciplinarity of Scott's thinking here. Some of it, especially the Bakhtin stuff on carnivals, isn't as exciting, but overall there's a lot here to think about especially for political science readers who may find themselves taken aback by some of Scott's reasoning and arguments.
October 24, 2025
Scott's 'Domination' is a modern classic from which anyone could learn to read the 'transcripts' which both sides of an unequal relationship use to maintain status. Theoretical, but also practical.
I loved this book on Domination and the Arts of Resistance, and how as Humans we express our hatred of the authorities who rule over us. Most of the big shots ignore this resistance because they don't care and they don't understand how it all works. This is a great book on the psychological benefits of being out of step with oppressive authority no matter where it is.
I loved this book on Domination and the Arts of Resistance, and how as Humans we express our hatred of the authorities who rule over us. Most of the big shots ignore this resistance because they don't care and they don't understand how it all works. This is a great book on the psychological benefits of being out of step with oppressive authority no matter where it is.
December 2, 2023
This was a bit more of a struggle to read than Scott's other works I've come across so far (more academic, denser, etc). But like everything else he writes, this is pure brilliance — pulling together lots of disparate data points and research spanning countries / millennia to make a coherent set of points that will forever change the way I see the world.
And even though it's *more* of a struggle to read than his other works, it's still a pleasure.
And even though it's *more* of a struggle to read than his other works, it's still a pleasure.
July 7, 2025
I love all of Scott's work, but this book and Weapons of the Weak are probably my least favorite books from all his writings. Not that the topic isn't interesting nor that he doesn't explain it well, rather its very repetitive. These two books could've made a much better and more comprehensive book with a little bit of clever editing and composition. As they stand, I can only recommend reading one of them as they kinda step on each others feet.
April 2, 2024
I can see why this is a pathbreaking work of historical sociology. I found myself feeling, though, like it was missing an analysis of scapegoating of out or minority groups made a target of the “hidden transcripts,” rather than the true oppressor/ dominating class. What role do conspiracy theories of non-elites play in their response to the pressures of public expectations?
June 27, 2021
翻译的文字读起来比较痛苦，但没读过原版，暂不确定是不是本身的words就比较难，有机会看了原版再做评价。
有权者和无权者的合作与对抗无时无刻都在发生，他们都有自己的公开剧本和潜隐剧本，作者认为最大的斗争发生在两者模糊的界限之中。观察国内社交媒体上官媒与大众之间的互动，尤其在重大社会事件发生的紧急时刻及其后一段时间内，这种微妙的引导与疏导，每次都精准的将舆论“牵”到一个合适的地方然后“拴”起来。更为精妙的是，都认为自己赢了。
有权者和无权者的合作与对抗无时无刻都在发生，他们都有自己的公开剧本和潜隐剧本，作者认为最大的斗争发生在两者模糊的界限之中。观察国内社交媒体上官媒与大众之间的互动，尤其在重大社会事件发生的紧急时刻及其后一段时间内，这种微妙的引导与疏导，每次都精准的将舆论“牵”到一个合适的地方然后“拴”起来。更为精妙的是，都认为自己赢了。
September 14, 2021

Symploké
@rquicar
·
23s
La propuesta teórica de los discursos públicos y ocultos de James C. Scott es interesantísima. Critica tanto las teorías gramscianas como las funcionalistas al tiempo que expone un nuevo concepto de participación política (infrapolítica). Quiero más de este autor.
Symploké
@rquicar
·
23s
La propuesta teórica de los discursos públicos y ocultos de James C. Scott es interesantísima. Critica tanto las teorías gramscianas como las funcionalistas al tiempo que expone un nuevo concepto de participación política (infrapolítica). Quiero más de este autor.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews