Ortner resistencia

8/7/2019 Ortner resistencia

1/22


2/22

Resistance and the Problemof EthnographicRefusalSHERRY B. ORTNERUniversityof California,BerkeleyThis essay traces the effects of whatI call ethnographic efusal on a series ofstudies surroundinghe subjectof resistance. I arguethatmanyof the mostinfluential studies of resistance are severely limited by the lack of an eth-nographicperspective.Resistance studies in turn are meant to standin for agreatdeal of interdisciplinaryworkbeing done these days withinand acrossthe social sciences, history,literature,culturalstudies, and so forth.Ethnographyof course means many things. Minimally, however, it hasalways meant the attempt o understand nother ife worldusing the self-asmuch of it as possible-as the instrumentof knowing. As is by now widelyknown, ethnographyhas come under a greatdeal of internalcriticism withinanthropologyover the past decadeor so, but this minimaldefinition has notfor the most partbeen challenged.Classically, this kind of understandinghas been closely linked with fieldwork, in which the whole self physically and in every otherway entersthespaceof the world the researcher eeks to understand.Yetimplicitin much ofthe recent discussions of ethnography s somethingI wish to make explicithere:thatthe ethnographic tance(as we maycall it) is as much anintellectual(and moral) positionality, a constructiveand interpretivemode, as it is abodily process in space and time. Thus, in a recent useful discussion of"ethnography nd the historical magination,"Johnand JeanComaroffspendrelativelylittle time on ethnographyn the sense of field workbut a greatdealof time on ways of readinghistorical sourcesethnographically,hatis, partlyas if they had been producedthroughfield work (1992).What, then, is the ethnographic tance,whetherbased in field work or not?

1 An earlier and very different version of this essay was written for "The Historic Turn"Conferenceorganizedby TerrenceMcDonaldfor theProgramn theComparativeStudyof SocialTransformationsCSST) at the Universityof Michigan. The extraordinarilyhigh level of in-sightfulness and helpfulness of critical comments from my colleagues in CSST has by nowbecome almost routine, and I wish to thank them collectively here. In addition, for close anddetailed readings of the text, I wish to thank FrederickCooper, FernandoCoronil, NicholasDirks, ValDaniel, Geoff Eley, Ray Grew,RogerRouse, WilliamSewell, Jr., JulieSkurski,AnnStoler, and the excellent readerswho reviewed the article for this journal. I have incorporatedmany of their suggestionsand know that I have ignoredsome at my peril. Finally, for valuablecomments as well as for the heroicjob of organizingthe conference, I wish especially to thankTerrenceMcDonald.0010-4175/95/1792-03967.50+ .10? 1995SocietyorComparativetudy f Society ndHistory

173


3/22


4/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL 175to be refined(butnot abolished)by questioningboth terms.Onthe one hand,Foucault(for example, 1978) drew attention to less institutionalized,morepervasive,and moreeverydayforms of power;on the otherhand,JamesScott(1985) drew attention o less organized,morepervasive,and more everydayforms of resistance. With Scott's delineationof the notion of "everyday ormsof resistance"(1985), in turn, the question of what is or is not resistancebecame much morecomplicated.2When a poormansteals from a richman, isthis resistance or simply a survival strategy?The question runs throughanentire collection of essays devoted to everydayforms of resistance(Scott andKerkvliet1986), and differentauthorsattempt o answerit in differentways.MichaelAdas, forexample, constructsa typologyof forms of everydayresis-tance, the better to help us place what we are seeing (1986). Brian Feganconcentrateson the questionof intention: f a relativelyconscious intention oresist is notpresent,the act is not one of resistance(1986). Still others(Stoler1986;Cooper1992) suggestthatthecategory tself is notveryhelpfulandthatthe important hing is to attend to a varietyof transformativeprocesses, inwhich things do get changed, regardlessof the intentionsof the actors or ofthe presenceof very mixed intentions.In the long runI might agreewith Stoler andCooper,butfor the moment Ithinkresistance,even at its most ambiguous,is a reasonablyuseful category,if only because it highlightsthe presenceandplay of powerin most forms ofrelationshipandactivity.Moreover,we are notrequiredo decideonce and forall whetherany given act fits into a fixed box calledresistance. As Marxwellknew,the intentionalitiesof actorsevolve throughpraxis,and the meaningsofthe acts change, both for the actorand for the analyst. In fact, the ambiguityof resistanceand the subjectiveambivalenceof the acts for those who engagein them areamongthe thingsI wish to emphasizein this essay. In a relation-ship of power, the dominantoften has somethingto offer, and sometimes agreatdeal (thoughalways of course at the priceof continuing n power).Thesubordinate hus has many groundsfor ambivalenceaboutresistingthe rela-tionship.Moreover,there is nevera single, unitary, ubordinate,f only in thesimple sense that subalterngroups are internallydivided by age, gender,status, and other forms of difference and thatoccupantsof differingsubjectpositions will have different,even opposed, but still legitimate,perspectiveson the situation. (The questionof whethereven a single personis "unitary"will be addressed ater in this article.)Boththepsychologicalambivalenceand the socialcomplexityof resistancehave been noted by several, but not enough, observers.3BrianFegan talksabout being "constantlybaffled by the contradictoryways peasants talkedabout the tenancy systemin general,or abouttheirown relationswithparticu-

2 Scott was of course drawingon a wealth of earlierscholarship.3 The notion of ambivalence has become centralto colonial and post-colonial studies moregenerallyand is worth a paper n itself. See forexampleW. Hanks(1986) and H. Bhabha(1985).


5/22

176 SHERRY B. ORTNERlar landlords"(1986:92). Moreover, the peasantsof Central Luzon whomFegan studied were psychologically uncomfortablewith both acts of resis-tance and acts of collaboration:Manymentalkingo meprivatelybouthestrategemsheyuse to survive,brokeoffto saytheyfound heft rom helandlord,workingor thelandlord s guards,armsdealing,etc. distasteful. ut whatelse coulda personwithchildren o?(1986:93)

In a differentvein, ChristinePelzer White says that "we must add aninventoryof 'everydayformsof peasantcollaboration'to balanceour list of'everyday forms of peasant resistance': both exist, both are important"(1986:56). She goes on to presentexamplesfrompost-revolutionaryVietnamof varying alliances between sectors with different nterests, including"thestate and peasantry against the local elite . . . the peasants and the local eliteagainst the state . . . the state and individuals [mostly women] against [male]household heads"(1986:60).Closely relatedto questionsof the psychologicaland socio-politicalcom-plexity of resistance and non-resistance andto the need for thick ethnogra-phy) is the question of authenticity.Authenticityis anotherhighly prob-lematizedterm,insofaras it seems topresumea naivebelief in culturalpurity,in untouchedcultures whose histories are uncontaminated y those of theirneighborsor of the west. I make no such presumptions;nonetheless, theremustbe a way to talkaboutwhat theComaroffs all "theendogenoushistoric-ity of local worlds"(1992:27), in which the pieces of reality,howevermuchborrowed rom or imposedby others,are woven together hrough he logic ofa group'sown locally andhistoricallyevolvedbricolage. It is this thatI willmeanby authenticityn the discussions thatfollow, as I turn o a considerationof some of the recent literatureon resistance.I should note here that the works to be discussed constitutea very selectedandpartialset, andI makeno claims to cover the entire literature. n this eraof interdisciplinarity,cholarlyexhaustiveness s moreunattainable hanever,but, more important,the works are selected here either because they havebeen very influentialor because they illustratea fairly common problemorboth. In any event, the point of the discussion is to examine a number ofproblemsin the resistance literaturearisingfromthe stance of ethnographicrefusal. The discussion will be organizedin terms of three forms of suchrefusal, which I will call sanitizingpolitics, thinningculture,anddissolvingactors.SANITIZING POLITICSIt may seemodd to startoff by criticizingstudiesof resistance or notcontain-ing enough politics. If thereis one thingthese studiesexamine, it is politics,front and center. Yet the discussion is usuallylimited to the politics of resis-tance, that is, to the relationshipbetweenthe dominantand the subordinate(see also Cooper1992:4).If we areto recognizethat resistorsaredoing more


6/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL I77

than simply opposing domination,more than simply producinga virtuallymechanicalre-action,then we must go the whole way. They have theirownpolitics-not just between chiefs and commonersor landlordsand peasantsbut within all the local categoriesof friction and tension:men and women,parentsand children,seniors andjuniors;inheritanceconflicts amongbroth-ers;strugglesof succession and wars of conquestbetweenchiefs;strugglesforprimacybetweenreligious sects; and on andon.It is the absence of analysis of these forms of internalconflict in manyresistance studies that gives them an air of romanticism,of which they areoften accused (for example, Abu-Lughod1990). Let me take one example,from a fine book that I admire on many other counts: Inga Clendinnen'sAmbivalentConquests:Maya and Spaniardin Yucatan,1517-1570 (1987).Clendinnenrecognizes that there were Maya chiefs who had significantad-vantagesof materialresources,political power, and social precedence. Shealso recognizesthat, in this sort of polity,chiefs hadmany obligationsin turnto theirsubjects, includingthe redistribution f (some) wealththrough eastsandhospitalityandthe stagingof ritualsfor the collective well-being. Yetthedegree to which she emphasizesthe reciprocityover the asymmetryof therelationshipsystematicallyexcludes from the reader'sview a pictureof someof the serious exploitation and violence of the Mayan political economy.Chiefs engaged in "extravagant nd casual taking"(1987:143), "were allo-catedthe most favoured and for the makingof milpa"(1987:144), and"weregiven the lords'shareof thegametaken n a communalhunt[and] evied fromthe professionalhunters" 1987:144);their landwas workedby warcaptives,and theirdomesticsystemwas maintainedby "female slavesandconcubines"(1987:144). YetClendinnenbalancesthe mentionof each of thoseinstancesofsystematicexploitationwith some mention of how much the chiefs gave inreturn,culminatingin an account of a ritual to protect the villagers fromthreatened alamity:"Inthose experiences,whenthe life of the whole villagewas absorbed in the ritualprocess, men learntthat the differencesbetweenpriest, lord andcommonerwere less importanthantheirshareddependenceon the gods, and the fragilityof the humanorder" 147).Clendinnengoes on to say (1987:47) that"thecost of all this (although t isfar fromclearthat the Maya regarded t as a cost) was war"which was wagedbetweenchiefs of neighboringgroups.In war,"noblecaptiveswere killed forthegods; therest, men, womenandchildren,wereenslaved,and themensoldout of the country" 1987:148). What is wrongwith this picture?In the firstplace, one presumesthat some Maya-the captiveswho were to be executed,andthe men, women, andchildrenwho wereenslaved,not to mentionevery-one else in the society who had to live with the permanentpossibilityof suchviolence-"regarded it as a cost." In the secondplace, Clendinnenneverputstogetherthe pieces of her account to show that the sense of "shareddepen-dence"of chiefs andcommoners,insofaras it was successfullyestablishedat


7/22

178 SHERRY B. ORTNER

all, was in largeparta productof the displacementof exploitationand vio-lence from the chief's own subjectsto those of his neighbors.There seems a virtual taboo on puttingthese pieces together,as if to givea full account of the Mayan political order, good and bad, would be togive some observersthe ammunition or sayingthat the Mayadeserved whatthey got from the Spanish. But this concern is ungrounded.Nothing aboutMayan politics, however bloody and exploitative, would condone the loot-ing, killing, and culturaldestructionwrought by the Spanish. On the otherhand, a more thoroughand critical account of pre-colonial Mayan politicswould presumablygeneratea differentpictureof the subsequentshape ofthe colonial history of the region, includingthe subsequentpatternsof re-sistance and non-resistance. At the very least, it would respect the ambiv-alentcomplexityof the Maya world as it existedboth at that time and in thepresent.4The most glaring arenaof internalpolitical complexity glossed over bymost of these studies is the arenaof genderpolitics.5 This is a particularlyvexed question.Membersof subordinate roupswho want to call attention ogender inequitiesin their own groupsare subjectto the accusationthattheyare undermining heir own class or subalternsolidarity,not supporting heirmen, and playing into the hands of the dominants. "First-world" eministscholars who do the same are subject to sharpattacks from "third-world"feminist scholarson the samegrounds(see C. Mohanty1988). It seems elitistto call attention o the oppressionof women within theirown class or racialgroupor culture,whenthat class or racialgroupor culture s beingoppressedby anothergroup.These issues havecome into sharp ocus in thedebatessurroundingati, orwidow burning,in colonial India(Spivak 1988; Jain, Misra, and Srivastava1987; Mani 1987). One of the ways in which the Britishjustified theirowndominance was to point to what they consideredbarbaricpractices, such assati, and to claim that they were engaged in a civilizing mission thatwouldsave Indian women from these practices. Gayatri ChakravortySpivak hasironicallycharacterizedhis situationas one in which "white men are savingbrownwomen from brown men"(1988:296). Thus, analystswho mightwantto investigatetheways in which sati was partof a largerconfigurationof maledominance n nineteenth-centuryndiansocietycannotdo so withoutseemingto subscribeto the discourseof the colonial administrators.The attemptstodeal with this particular et of contradictionshaveonly multiplied he contra-dictions.4 A parallelto the monolithicportrayalof resistorsis the monolithicportrayalof the domi-nants. This is beginningto be brokendown, as for examplein Stoler (1989).5 The absence of genderconsiderationsn genericresistancestudies, and some implicationsofthis absencehave beenaddressedparticularly y O'Hanlon(1989). See also White(1986). But forvaluable ethnographicstudies of gender resistance per se, see Abu-Lughod(1986) and Ong(1987).


8/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL 179Overall, the lack of an adequatesense of priorandongoing politics amongsubalternsmust inevitablycontribute o an inadequateanalysisof resistanceitself. Manypeopledo notget caughtup in resistancemovements,and this isnot simply an effect of fear (as Scott generally argues [1985, 1990]), naiveenthrallmentto the priests (as Friedrichargues about many of the non-resistingMexicanpeasants[1985]), or narrowself-interest.Nor does it makecollaboratorsof all the non-participants.Moreover,individual acts of resis-tance, as well as large-scale resistance movements, are often themselvesconflicted, internallycontradictory, nd affectivelyambivalent,in largepartdue to these internalpolitical complexities.The impulse to sanitize the internalpolitics of the dominatedmust beunderstood as fundamentallyromantic. As a partialantidote to this wide-spreadtendency, it might be well to reintroduce he work of the so-calledstructuralMarxists n anthropologyand theirdescendants.StructuralMarxism(theBloch 1975 reader s a good place to start; ee also Meillassoux 1981 andTerray1972) took shapeas a responseto this romanticizing endencywithinthe field of anthropologyand as an attemptto understandnon-Westernandpre-capitalist ormsof inequalityon the analogywithMarx'sanalysisof classwithin capitalism. Tacklingsocieties that would have been categorized as

egalitarianprecisely because they lacked class or caste, structuralMarxistswere able to tease out the ways in which such thingsas the apparentbenevo-lent authorityof elders or the apparent ltruismandsolidarityof kin areoftengrounded n systematicpatternsof exploitationandpower.The structuralMarxistprojecttook shapeat roughlythe same time as didfeministanthropology.6 he twotogethermade t difficult ormanyanthropolo-gists, myself included,to look at even the simplestsociety everagainwithoutseeing a politicseverybit as complex, andsometimeseverybit as oppressive,as those of capitalismandcolonialism.7Moreover,as anthropologists f thispersuasionbegantakingthe historicturn,it seemedimpossibleto understandthe histories of these societies, including(but not limited to) theirhistoriesundercolonialism or capitalistpenetration,withoutunderstanding ow thoseexternalforces interactedwith these internalpolitics. Sahlins'account(1981)of thepatterns f accommodation ndresistance nplaybetweenHawaiiansandEuropeans n the eighteenthandnineteenthcenturies;some of Wolf's discus-sions inEuropeand thePeoplewithoutHistory(1982);my own (1989) historyof Sherpa religious transformations,inking indigenouspolitics and culture

6 The beginningsof (Franco-British)tructuralMarxism n anthropologywere also contempo-rarywith the beginningsof British(Marxist)CulturalStudies. The impactof structuralMarxismon anthropology,as well as the fact that the field was still mired n the splitbetweenmaterialismand idealism in thatera, probablyaccounts in good partfor the delay of the impactof CulturalStudies. See Ortner 1984) for a reviewof anthropologicalheoryfromthe nineteensixties to theeighties.7 Some importantearly feminist anthropologywas directlydrawingon structuralMarxism.See especially Collier and Rosaldo (1981).


9/22

I80 SHERRY B. ORTNERwith larger regional (Nepal state and BritishRaj) dynamics;RichardFox's(1985) studyof the evolutionof Sikh identityundercolonialism-all of theseshow thatanunderstandingf political authenticity, f thepeople'sown formsof inequalityandasymmetry,s notonly not incompatiblewith an understand-ing of resistance but is in fact indispensable o such an understanding.THINNING CULTUREJust as subalternsmustbe seenashavinganauthentic,andnotmerelyreactive,politics, so theymust be seen as havinganauthentic,and not merelyreactive,culture.Theculture oncept nanthropology as, likeethnography,omeunderheavyattack n recentyears, partlyfor assumptionsof timelessness,homoge-neity,uncontested haredness,andthe like thatwerehistoricallyembedded n itand in anthropologicalpracticemoregenerally.Yet those assumptionsarenotby anymeans intrinsic o theconcept,which can be (re-)mobilizednpowerfulways withoutthem. Indeeda radicalreconceptualizationf culture,includingboththehistoricization ndpoliticizationof theconcept,hasbeengoingon forat least the lastdecadeor so inanthropology; ndthe attacksupon tstraditionalformareby nowverymuch in thewayof beatinga deadhorse(see Dirks,Eley,and Ortner1994).Inanyevent, like JamesClifford,one of themajor iguresinthe attackon the conceptof culture,I do not see how we can do without it(1988:10). The only alternative o recognizingthat subalternshave a certainprior and ongoing culturalauthenticity,accordingto subalterns,is to viewsubaltern esponses o dominationas ad hoc and ncoherent, pringingnot fromtheirown sensesof order, ustice, meaning,and the like butonly from some setof ideas called into being by the situationof domination tself.Cultural hinning s characteristic f some of the most influentialstudies ofresistancecurrentlyon the scene.8 Some of the problemswith this tendencymay be brought into focus througha considerationof the way in whichreligion is (or is not) handledin some of these studies. I do not mean tosuggest by this that religion is equivalent to all of culture. Nonetheless,religionis alwaysa richrepositoryof culturalbeliefs and values andoften hasclose affinities with resistance movements as well. I will thus look at thetreatmentof religion in a numberof resistancestudiesbefore turningto thequestionof culturemore generally.In one of the foundingtexts of the SubalternStudiesschool of history,forexample, RanajitGuha emphasizes the importanceof recognizing and notdisparaging he religiousbasesof tribalandpeasantrebellions(1988). Indeedthis is one of thecentralthreadsof SubalternStudieswritings,a majorpartofits effortto recognizethe authentic ulturaluniverseof subalterns, rom which

8 The work of the British CulturalStudies scholarsis seemingly a major exception to thispoint. I wouldargueif I hadtime, however,thatfor much of the workin this field, the treatmentof both culture andethnographys also "thin" Willis 1977 is a majorexception).In any event,my focus in this section is on influentialwork that is much more obviously problematicwithrespect to the thicknessof culture.


10/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL I8I

their acts of resistancegrew.Yet the degreeto whichthe treatmentof religionin these studies is actuallycultural,thatis, is actuallyan effort to illuminatethe conceptual and affective configurationswithin which the peasants areoperating,is generallyminimal.9Rather,the peasant s endowed with some-thingcalled "religiosity,"a kindof diffuse consciousness that is neverfurtherexplored as a set of ideas, practices, and feelings built into the religiousuniverse the peasantinhabits.Guhaandothers nhisgroupare oustingwithsome Marxist ndianhistorianswho share with bourgeoismodernizationheoristsa view of religionas back-ward.The SubalternStudieswriters,in contrast,want to respectandvalidatepeasantreligiosityas an authenticdimensionof subaltern ulture,out of whichanauthentically ppositionalpoliticscould be and wasconstructed.YetGuha'sown notionof peasantreligiositystill bears hetracesof Marx'shostilitytowardreligion, defining "religious consciousness . . . as a massive demonstration ofself-estrangement"1988:78). Moreover, nsteadof exploringandinterpretingthisreligiosityof the rebels nanysubstantiveway,hemakesaparticularextualmove to avoid this, relegatingto an appendixextractsof the peasants'ownaccounts of the religiousvisions that inspiredtheirrebellion.A similarcasualnessaboutreligion,whilepayingit lip service, is evidentinJamesScott's Weaponsof the Weak 1985). The point can be seen again notonly in what Scott says and does not say but in the very shape of his text.There is no generaldiscussion of the religiouslandscapeof the villagers, andthe discussion of religious movements in his area, many of which had sig-nificant political dimensions, is confined to a few pages toward the end(1985:332-5). During Scott's field work a number of rumors of religio-politicalpropheciescirculated n his area,as well as a "flyingletter"contain-ing similarprophecies.Like Guha'srebels' testimonies, this letter is repro-duced, unanalyzed, in an appendix.The fact that "rarelya month goes bywithout a newspaperaccountof theprosecutionof a religiousteacheraccusedof propagating false doctrines . . ." is also relegated to a footnote (1985:335).But cultural hinning,as notedabove, need not be confined to marginaliz-ing religious factors, nor is it practicedonly by non-anthropologists likeGuha and Scott). In his landmarkwork, Europe and the People withoutHistory(1982), EricWolfdevotes a scant five pages at the end of the book tothe questionof culture,largelyin orderto dismiss it. And in his superbstudyof the Sikh wars againstthe British(1985), RichardFox similarly,andmuchmore extensively, argues against the idea that cultureinforms, shapes, andunderpinsresistanceat least as much as it emerges situationally rom it.Therearea numberof different hingsgoing on here. Inpart,WolfandFox(and perhapssome of the others)are writingfrom a sixties-style materialist

9 Of course the SubalternStudiesschool is complex, and a varietyof tendenciesappearwithinit. ShahidAmin's "Gandhias Mahatma" 1988) is more fully culturalthan many of the otherwritings, as is GyanendraPandey's"PeasantRevolt and IndianNationalism" 1988).


11/22

I82 SHERRY B. ORTNER

position. Sixties-style materialism in anthropologyat least) was opposed togiving cultureanysortof activerole in the social and historicalprocess, otherthanmystifyingthe real(that s, material)causesof formationsand events. Atthe same time, however,Wolf's andFox's positionsconvergewith later,andnot necessarily materialist,criticisms of the cultureconcept (for example,Clifford and Marcus 1986) as homogenizing, de-historicizing,and reifyingthe boundariesof specific groupsor communities.Coming from a differentdirection,RaymondWilliams (1977) and otherBirminghamCulturalStudiesscholars(forexample,Halland Jefferson1976)wereactuallyrevitalizing he cultureconcept.Williamsspecificallywantedtoovercome thesplitbetween materialismand idealism and to focus on the waysin which structuresof exploitationand dominationare simultaneouslymate-rial and cultural. His approach o this was throughGramsci's notion of he-gemony, which Williamsdefined as something very close to the classic an-thropologicalconceptof culturebut morepoliticized,moresaturatedwith therelationsof power, domination,and inequalitywithin which it takes shape.This was healthy for the cultureconcept and for an anthropology hat hadmoved significantlybeyondtheoppositionsof the sixties. Butit raised the oldspecterof "mystification" nd "false consciousness."If dominationoperatesin part culturally,throughideas and-in William's phrase-"structures offeeling," thenpeople may acceptandbuy into their own domination,and thepossibility of resistancemay be undermined.Moreover,as James Scott ar-gued, analysts who emphasize hegemony in this relativelydeep, culturallyinternalized,sense are likely to fail to uncover those "hidden ranscripts" fresistanceand those non-obvious acts and momentsof resistance hat do takeplace (Scott 1985, 1990).In fact, of course, in any situationof power there is a mixture of culturaldynamics.To some extent, andfor a varietyof good and badreasons,peopleoften do accept the representationswhich underwrite heirown domination.At the same timetheyalso preservealternative"authentic"raditionsof beliefand value which allow them to see through those representations.PaulWillis's now classic book, Learningto Labour(1977) is particularly aluablein addressing his mixtureof hegemonyandauthenticitynvolvedin relation-ships of power.Willis's discussionof the ways in which the subcultureof theworking-class ads embodies both"penetrations"f the dominantculture andlimitations on those penetrations-limitations deriving from the lads' ownsubculturalperspectives on gender-is highly illuminating. Some recentworkby MarthaKaplanand JohnD. Kelly (1994) similarlyunderscores heculturalcomplexity of power and resistance. Drawingon Mikhail Bakhtinand, less explicitly,on MarshallSahlins, KaplanandKelly frame theirstudyof colonial Fiji as a studyof contendingdiscourseswithin a dialogic space.Settingaside, for the most part,the categoryof resistance,they insist on thethicknessof the culturalprocess in play in colonial "zones of transcourse"


12/22


(1994:129), where "multiplegrammarsoperate through contingently cate-gorizedpeople"(1994:127). The result is a complexbut illuminatingpictureof shifting loyalties, shifting alliances, and above all shiftingcategories, asBritish, native Fijians, and Fiji Indianscontendedfor power, resources,andlegitimacy (see also Kaplan 1990; Kelly and Kaplan 1992; Orlove 1991;Turner1991 and n.d.).Indeed,a largealternative raditionof resistance studies shows clearlythatculturalrichness does not undermine he possibilityof seeing and understand-ing resistance.Quitethecontrary:This traditionallowsus to understand etterboth resistanceand its limits. Manyof thegreatclassics of social history-forexample, E. P. Thompson'sTheMaking of theEnglishWorkingClass (1966)and Eugene Genovese's Roll, Jordan, Roll (1976)-are great precisely be-cause they areculturallyrich, providingdeep insightnotonly into the fact ofresistancebut into its forms, moments, and absences. Otheroutstandingex-amples of the genre include Clendinnen's Ambivalent Conquest (despite itsweakness on Maya politics discussedabove);William H. Sewell, Jr.'sWorkand Revolution n France (1980); and JeanComaroff'sBody of Power,Spiritof Resistance(1985).DISSOLVING SUBJECTSThequestionof therelationshipof the individualpersonor subjectto domina-tion carries the resistanceproblematic o the level of consciousness, subjec-tivity, intentionality,andidentity.This questionhas takena particularormindebatessurrounding,once again, the SubalternStudiesschool of historians.Ishould say here thatI do not launchso muchcriticismagainstthe SubalternStudies historiansbecause they are, in Guha'sterm, "terrible."On the con-trary, findmyself returningo theirworkbecausemuch of it is insightfulandprovocativeand also becauseit is situatedat that ntersectionof anthropology,history,andliterary tudies that so manyof us findourselvesoccupying,oftenawkwardly, n contemporary cholarlywork.10In any event, GayatriChakravorty pivakhas taken the SubalternStudiesschool to taskforcreatinga monolithiccategoryof subalternwho is presumedto have a unitary dentityandconsciousness(1988a, 1988b).Given my argu-ments about the internal complexity of subaltern politics and culture madeabove, I would certainly agree with this point. Yet Spivak and others whodeploya certainbrandof poststructuralistprimarilyDerridean)analysisgo tothe opposite extreme, dissolving the subject entirely into a set of "subjecteffects" that have virtuallyno coherence. Since these writers are still con-cerned withsubalternityn some sense, theythemselves windupin incoherentpositions with respectto resistance.

10 The same is true of otherpost-colonialhistoriographiesAfricanstudies,forexample),butIam less familiarwiththeir literatures. ndiananthropologyandhistorytouchupon my own long-termresearch n Nepal.


13/22

I84 SHERRY B. ORTNERLet me say againthat in some ways I am sympatheticwith whatthey aretryingto do, which is to introducecomplexity, ambiguity,and contradictioninto our view of the subjectin ways that I have arguedabove must be donewith politics and culture(andindeedresistance).Yetthe particular oststruc-turalist move they make towardaccomplishingthis goal paradoxicallyde-stroys the object (the subject)who should be enriched,ratherthan impov-erished, by this act of introducingcomplexity.This final form of ethnographic efusalmaybe illustratedby examininganarticle entitled, "'Shahbano,"'on a famous Indian court case (PathakandRajan 1989). The authors,who acknowledgetheir debt to Spivak's work,address he caseof aMuslimIndianwomancalledShahbano,whowentto civilcourt to sue for support rom herhusbandafter a divorce.Althoughthe courtawardedher the supportwhich she sought, the decision set off a nationalcontroversyof majorproportions ecause the court'saward andindeed Shah-bano's decisionto bringthe case to a civil court n thefirstplace)controvertedlocal Islamic divorcelaw. In the wake of the controversy,Shahbanowroteanopen letter to the courtrejectingthe awardandexpressinghersolidaritywithher co-Muslims.The authors'argument bout hecase runsas follows. The court'saward,aswell as the larger legal framework within which it was made, operatedthrougha discourseof protection orpersonswho areseento be weak. But"tobe framedby a certainkind of discourseis to be objectifiedas the 'other,'representedwithout the characteristic eatures of the 'subject,' sensibilityand/or volition"(Pathakand Rajan 1989:563). Within the context of suchdiscursivesubjectification, he appropriate otionof resistanceis simply the"refusalof subjectification," 1989:571) the refusal to occupy the categorybeing foisted uponone. Shahbano'sshiftingpositionon her own case-firstseeking, thenrejecting,theaward-represented such a refusalof subjectifica-

tion, the only one open to her, given her situation. "Tolive with what shecannot control, the female subalternsubjecthere respondswith a discon-tinuous and apparently ontradictory ubjectivity" 1989:572). But "herap-parent inconstancyor changeabilitymust be interpretedas her refusal tooccupy the subject position [of being protected]offeredto her"(1989:572).Basically I agree with the authors'argumentthat every moment in thedevelopingsituationshiftedto theforeground differentaspectof Shahbano'smultiplex identity as a woman, as poor, as a Muslim. Indeed, it does notrequiresophisticated heorizing o recognizethateverysocial being has a lifeof suchmultiplicityandthateverysocial contextcreatessuchshiftingbetweenforegroundandbackground. also agree(although he authorsneverquiteputit this way) that, for certainkindsof compoundedpowerlessness(femaleandpoorand of minoritystatus),"therefusalof subjectification"maybe theonlystrategy available to the subject. Yet there are several problems with theinterpretationhat need to be teased out.


14/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL 185

First,returning o an earlierdiscussion in this essay, thereis an inadequateanalysis of the internalpolitics of the subalterngroup-in this case, of thegenderandethnicpolitics of the Muslimcommunity surroundingShahbano.The authorsmake it clear thatthis is disallowed,for it wouldalign anyonewhomade such an argumentwith the generaldiscourse of protectionandwith thespecificpoliticsof the Hinducourtvis-a-vis theminorityMuslims:Transform-ing Spivak'saphorism itedearlier, he situation s one inwhich "Hindumen aresavingMuslim women from Muslim men"(PathakandRajan1989:566),andanyauthorwhoaddressesMuslimgenderpoliticsmoves intothe sameposition.Yet one cannothelp but feel a nagging suspicionabout the on-the-groundpolitics surroundingShahbano'sopen letterrejectingthe court'saward n thenameof Muslimsolidarity. s the "refusal ooccupythesubjectpositionofferedto her"(1989:572) an adequateaccount of whathappenedhere, or might weimagine some rathermore immediatelylived experienceof intensepersonalpressuresfrom significantsocial others-kin, friends, neighbors, male andfemale-who put pressureon Shahbano n the name of their own agendastorenounce a monetaryaward hat she desperatelyneededand hadbeen seekingfortenyears?Mightone notsaythat"herrefusal ooccupythesubjectpositionofferedto her"-the only kind of agencyor form of resistanceaccordedherbythe authors-is the realeffect in view here, thatis, the (analytic)by-product,ratherhan heform,of heragency?Inmy reading,Shahbanowasattemptingobe an agent, to pursuea coherentagenda, and rathercreativelyat that. Theshiftingqualityof her case is not to be found in hershiftingidentity(whetheressentializedas subaltern onsciousnessor seen as strategic)but in the factthatshe is at the low end of every form of powerin the system and is being quiteactively pushedaroundby other,morepowerful, agents.This readingbringsus to the secondproblemwith the discussion, andhereagainwe mustturn textualanalysis againstthe authors'own text. The wholepointof thepoststructuralistmove is to de-essentialize hesubject,to get awayfromthe ideologicalconstructof "thatunified andfreelychoosing individualwho is the normativemale subjectof Westernbourgeoisliberalism" PathakandRajan1989:572).Andindeedthefreelychoosingindividual s anideologi-cal construct, n multiplesenses-because theperson s culturally andsocial-ly, historically,politically,and so forth)constructed;because few peoplehavethe power to freely choose very much; and so forth. The question here,however, is how to get around his ideologicalconstructandyet retainsomesense of humanagency,the capacityof social beings to interpretandmorallyevaluate theirsituationand to formulateprojectsandtry to enact them.The authorsof "'Shahbano'"realize thatthis is a problem:"Where,in allthese discursivedisplacements,is Shahbano he woman?" PathakandRajan1989:565). But they specificallyrefuse to attendto her as a person, subject,agent, or any other form of intentionalizedbeing with her own hopes, fears,desires, projects. They have only two models for such attending-


15/22


psychological perspectivesthatattemptto tap her "'inner' being," or a per-spective that assumes "individualizedand individualistic"heroic resistors-and they reject both (1989:570). Instead, their strategyis to focus on themechanical nteractionof a varietyof disembodied orces:"multiple ntersec-tions of power, discursive displacements,discontinuous identities refusingsubjectification,the split legal subject"(1989:577). Thus, despite certaindisclaimers at the end of the article, Shahbanoas subject(or agent?or per-son?) quite literally disappears.The irrelevanceof her understandingsandintentions notto mentionhersocial universe,herhistory,andso forth)to thisanalyticprojectis starklybroughthome by the authors'own textualstrategyof refusing to reproduceand interpret wo press interviews that Shahbanogave, one to a newspaperand anotheron national elevision. The authorssay,"Wehave not privilegedthese as sources of her subjectivity" 1989:570). Infact they have not even presentedthem.Thede(con)struction f the subject n thisway cannotbe theonly answertothe reified andromanticizedsubjectof manyresistancestudies. On the con-trary,the answer to the reified and romanticizedsubject must be an actorunderstood as more fully socially and culturallyconstructed from top tobottom. The breaksand splits and incoherenciesof consciousness, no lessthan the integrationsand coherencies, are equally productsof cultural andhistoricalformation. One could question, indeed, whetherthe splits and soforth should be viewed as incoherenciesor simply as alternativeforms ofcoherence;not to do so implies that they are a form of damage. Of courseoppressionis damaging,yet the abilityof social beings to weave alternative,and sometimesbrilliantlycreative,formsof coherenceacross the damagesisone of the hearteningaspectsof humansubjectivity see also Cooper's[1992]critique of Fanon). A similar point may be made with respect to agency.Agency is not an entitythat exists apart rom culturalconstruction noris it aqualityone has only when one is whole, or when one is an individual).Everyculture,every subculture,everyhistoricalmoment,constructs ts own formsof agency, its own modesof enactingtheprocessof reflectingon the self andthe worldand of actingsimultaneouslywithin anduponwhat one findsthere.To understandwhere Shahbanoor any other figure in a resistancedramaiscoming from, one must explorethe particularities f all these constructions,as bothculturalandhistoricalproducts,and as personalcreationsbuildingonthose precipitatesof cultureandhistory.A brilliantexample of this alternativeperspectivemay be seen in AshisNandy's The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of the Self under Colonialism(1983). Nandybeginsby exploring hehomologybetween sexualandpoliticaldominanceas this took shape n thecontextof Britishcolonialismin India. Hethengoes on to considerIndian iteraryeffortsto reactagainstcolonialismthatwere in fact highly hegemonized,works that were "groundedn reinterpretedsacredtextsbutin realitydependenton corevalues [particularly f hypermas-culinity]borrowed romthe colonialworldview andthen egitimizedaccording


16/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL 187to existingconceptsof sacredness"1983:22).But the bookprimarily xaminesindividual iterary,religious, andpolitical figureswho sought"tocreate a newpoliticalawarenesswhichwould combine acriticalawarenessof Hinduismandcolonialism withculturaland individualauthenticity"1983:27).Nandy s par-ticularly nterested n theways in which Gandhiand othermajorvoices of anti-colonialismmobilized(andpartlyreordered) ndiancategoriesof masculinity,femininity,andandrogynyn formulatingbothresistance o colonialismandanalternative vision of society. Again and again he views these oppositionalfigures, even when severelyvictimized in theirpersonal ives (see especiallythe discussion of SriAurobindo),as drawinguponculturalresources o trans-form theirown victimhood and articulatenew models of self and society. lNandythencomes back to the ordinarypersonwho does not writenovels,launchnewreligioussystems, orleadmovementsof nationalresistance.Inthiscontext he seems to come close to thepositionof theauthorsof" 'Shahbano,"'forhe argues(in a morepsychologicallanguage)thatculturalandpsychologi-cal survivalmay require hekind of fragmented ndshiftingself thatShahbanoseemed to display (1983:107). Yet Nandy'sdiscussion has a differenttone.Partly this comes from his earlier explorationof broad culturalpatterns,showingthatthe boundariesbetween suchthingsas self andother,masculineand feminine, and myth and history, are both differentlyconfigured anddifferentlyvaluedin various strandsof Indian hought.The shifting subject nturnis both drawingon and protectingthese alternativeculturalframes, asopposedto makinga seeminglyad hoc responseto an immediatesituationofdomination. And, second, Nandy's subjectsparadoxicallyretain a kind ofcoherentagency in theirvery inconstancy:"these'personality ailures'of theIndiancouldbe another orm of developed vigilance, or sharpenednstinct orfaster reaction to man-made suffering. They come . . . from a certain talent forand faith in life" (1983:110). Thus, Nandy's subjects, whetherprominentpublicfiguresorcommonmen andwomen, retainpowerfulvoices throughouthis book, while Shahbanorepresentationally isappears.Finally, however, it must be emphasized that the question of adequaterepresentationf subjects n theattempt o understandesistance s notpurelyamatter of providing betterportraitsof subjects in and of themselves. Theimportanceof subjects(whether ndividualactorsor social entities)lies not somuch in who theyareand how theyareput togetheras in theprojects hattheyconstructandenact. Forit is in theformulation ndenactmentof thoseprojectsthat they both become and transformwho they are, and thatthey sustainortransform heirsocial and culturaluniverse.TEXTUAL RESISTANCERunning throughall these works, despite in some cases deep theoreticaldifferencesbetweenthem, is a kind of bizarrerefusalto know andspeakand

1 For anotherstrongwork on Gandhi'sculturalgenius, see Fox (1989).


17/22


write of the lived worlds inhabitedby those who resist(ordo not, as the casemay be). Of the worksdiscussed at length in this essay, Clendinnengoes togreater engthsthanthe othersto portray hepre-colonialMayaworld in somedepth and complexity, yet in the end she chooses to pull her punches andsmooth over what the materialhas told her. Scott, Guha, and Pathak andRajan,on the otherhand, quite literallyrefuse to deal with the material hatwould allow entryinto the politicalandculturalworlds of thosethey discuss.The "flying letters"of Scott's peasants, the testimoniesof Guha'speasants'visions, the press interviewsof Shahbanoare texts that can be read in therichest sense to yield an understanding f both the meaningsand the mysti-ficationson whichpeopleareoperating.Whatmightemergeis something ikewhatwe see in CarloGinzburg'sNightBattles (1985): anextraordinarilyichand complicatedworld of beliefs, practices,andpetty politics whose stancetoward the encroachmentof Christianityand the Inquisitionin the MiddleAges is confusedandunheroicyet alsopoignantlystubborn nd"authentic"-a very Nandy-esquestory.There are no doubt many reasonsfor this interpretive efusal. But one issurely to be found in the so-called crisis of representationn the humansciences. When EdwardSaid says in effect thatthe discourseof Orientalismrenders t virtually mpossibleto know anythingrealaboutthe Orient(1979);when GayatriSpivaktells us that"the subaltern annotspeak" 1988a);whenJames Cliffordinformsus thatall ethnographiesare "fictions"(1986:7); andwhen of coursein some sense all of these thingsare true-then the effect is apowerfulinhibitionon thepracticeof ethnography roadlydefined:theeffort-ful practice,despiteall that, of seeking to understand therpeoples in othertimes andplaces, especially those people who arenot in dominantpositions.Theethnographictanceholdsthatethnographys neverimpossible.This isthe case because people not only resist political domination; hey resist, oranyway evade, textualdominationas well. The notion thatcolonial or aca-demic texts areable completelyto distortor exclude the voices andperspec-tives of those being writtenaboutseems to me to endow these texts with fargreaterpowerthantheyhave. Manythings shapethese texts, including,dareone say it, the pointof view of those being writtenabout.Nor does one needto resortto variousformsof textualexperimentationo allow this to happen-it is happeningall the time. Of coursethere s variation n thedegreeto whichdifferentauthorsanddifferent orms of writingallow thisprocessto show,andit is certainlyworthwhileto reflect, as Cliffordandothershave done, on theways in which this processcanbe enhanced.But it seems to me grotesquetoinsiston thenotionthatthe text is shapedby everythingbut the livedrealityofthe people whom the text claims to represent.Takethe case of a moder female suicide discussed in Spivak's famousessay, the one that concludes with the statementthat "the subalterncannotspeak" 1988a:308).It is perhapsmoredifficult oranyvoice to break hrough


18/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL I89Spivak's theorizing than throughthe most typifying ethnography;yet eventhis deadyoungwoman, who spoketo no one aboutherintentionsand left nonote before her death, forces Spivak to at least try to articulate,in quite a"realist"and"objectivist"ashion, the truthof the suicide fromthe woman'spoint of view:Thesuicidewas a puzzle ince,asBhuvaneswariasmenstruatingt thetime, t wasclearlynot a case of illicitpregnancy. earlya decade ater, t wasdiscoveredhatshe was a member f one of the manygroupsnvolved n the armed truggleorIndianndependence.he hadfinallybeenentrustedwith a politicalassassination.Unable o confront he taskandyet awareof thepractical eedfortrust,she killedherself.Bhuvaneswariad known hather deathwouldbe diagnosed s the outcomeofillegitimate assion.She had thereforewaitedfor the onset of menstruation. .Bhuvaneswarihaduri'suicide s anunemphatic,dhoc, subalternewritingf thesocialtext of sati-suicide1988a:307-8).With thisdiscussion, it seems to me, Spivakunderminesher own position(seealso Coronil1992). Combininga bitof homelyinterpretationf thetextof thewoman's body (the fact that she was menstruating)with a bit of objectivehistory(thewoman'sparticipationn a radicalpoliticalgroup), Spivakarrivesat whatany good ethnography rovides:anunderstandingothof themeaningand the politics of the meaningof an event.Anotherangle on the problemof ethnographic efusalmaybe gainedfromconsideringthe implicationsof the fictionmetaphor.Reverberatingwith ordi-narylanguage, the fiction metaphor mplies (thoughthis is not exactly whatCliffordmeant)thatethnographies refalse, madeup, andmoregenerallyareproductsof a literary magination hathas no obligation o engagewithreality.Yetthe obligationto engage with realityseems to me preciselythe differencebetween the novelist's task and the ethnographer'sor the historian's).Theanthropologistand the historianare chargedwith representing he lives ofpeoplewho are ivingoronce lived, andaswe attempto pushthesepeopleintothe molds of ourtexts, theypushback.The finaltext is aproductof ourpushingandtheirpushingback,and no text, howeverdominant, acksthetracesof thiscounterforce.

Indeed, if the line between fiction and ethnography s being blurred,theblurringhas had at least as much impacton fiction as on ethnography.Thenovelist's standarddisclaimer-"any resemblance o persons iving or deadiscoincidental"-is less and less invoked12or less and less accepted. The re-sponse to SalmanRushdie'sSatanic Verses(1989) shows in particularlydra-maticform thatthenovelist can no longerpretend hat,in contrast o ethnogra-phyorhistory, here s nobodyontheotherside of his orhertext northatfictioncan escape resistance.'3

12 See for example the quite differentdisclaimer in Don deLillo's fictionalizationof theKennedyassassination,Libra (1989).13 I am indebted to Nick Dirks for pushingme on this point.


19/22


Finally,absolutefictionalityandabsolutesilencingareimpossiblenot onlybecause those being writtenabout force themselvesinto the author'saccountbut also because there is always a multiplicityof accounts. The point seemssimple, yet it seemsto get lost inthe discussions ustconsidered.Itis strange nthis era of the theoreticaldeathof the author o find theorists ike SpivakandCliffordactingas if texts werewholly self-contained,as if everytext one wrotehad to embody(orcouldconceivably embody)in itself all the voices out there,oras if everytextone readhadboundariesbeyondwhich one were notallowedto look. On thecontrary,nbothwritingandreadingone entersacorpusof textsin which, in reality,a single representation r misrepresentationr omissionnevergoes unchallenged.Our ob, in bothreadingandwriting,is preciselytorefuseto be limitedby a singletext orby any existingdefinitionof what shouldcount as the corpus, and to play the texts (which may include, but never belimitedto, our own field notes)off againstone another n anendlessprocessofcoaxing up images of the real.CONCLUSIONSThe pointof this essay can be statedvery simply:Resistance studiesarethinbecause they areethnographicallyhin:thinon the internalpolitics of domi-nated groups, thin on the cultural richness of those groups, thin on thesubjectivity-the intentions,desires, fears,projects-of theactorsengagedinthese dramas.Ethnographichinness nturnderivesfromseveralsources(otherthansheer badethnography, f course,whichis alwaysa possibility).Thefirstis the failureof nerve surrounding uestionsof the internalpolitics of domi-natedgroupsand of the culturalauthenticityof those groups, which I haveraised periodically throughoutthis essay. The second is the set of issuessurroundinghe crisis of representation-the possibilityof truthfulportrayalsof others(orOthers)andthecapacityof the subaltern o be heard-which hasjustbeen addressed.Taken ogether, he two sets of issuesconvergeto producea kind of ethnographicblack hole.Filling in the black hole would certainly deepen and enrich resistancestudies, but there is more to it than that. It would, or should, reveal theambivalencesand ambiguitiesof resistance itself. These ambivalences andambiguities, in turn, emerge from the intricate webs of articulations anddisarticulations hatalways exist between dominantand dominated.For thepolitics of externaldominationand the politics within a subordinatedgroupmay link up with, as well as repel, one another;the culturesof dominantgroups and of subalternsmay speak to, even while speaking against, oneanother14;nd,as Nandyso eloquentlyargues,subordinated elves mayretainoppositional authenticityand agency by drawingon aspectsof the dominantculture to criticize theirown world as well as the situationof domination.In

14 Nandy(1983) andComaroff 1985) make a pointof discussingtheways in whichsubalternsmay effectively drawon, andtake advantageof, some of the latentoppositionalcategoriesandideologies of Westernculture.


20/22

RESISTANCE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC REFUSAL 191short, one can only appreciate the ways in which resistance can be more thanopposition, can be truly creative and transformative, if one appreciates themultiplicity of projects in which social beings are always engaged, and themultiplicity of ways in which those projects feed on and well as collide withone another.

REFERENCESAbu-Lughod,Lila. 1986. VeiledSentiments:Honor and Poetryin a BedouinSociety.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.. 1990. "The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformationsof PowerthroughBedouinWomen."AmericanEthnologist, 17:1, 41-55.Amin, Shahid. 1988. "Gandhias Mahatma,"n Selected SubalternStudies, R. Guhaand G. C. Spivak, eds., 288-350. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Bhabha,Homi K. 1985. "Signs Taken for Wonders:Questionsof AmbivalenceandAuthorityundera Tree outside Delhi." CriticalInquiry,12:1, 144-65.Bloch, Maurice. 1975. MarxistAnalysesand Social Anthropology.New York:Wiley.Bourdieu,Pierre. 1977. Outlineof a Theoryof Practice, R. Nice, trans.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Clendinnen, Inga. 1987. AmbivalentConquests:Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan,1517-1570. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Clifford, James. 1986. "Introduction: artialTruths," n JamesClifford and GeorgeMarcus,eds., WritingCulture:ThePoetics and Politics of Ethnography.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.. 1988. The Predicamentof Culture:TwentiethCenturyEthnography,Litera-ture, and Art. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.Clifford, James; and George E. Marcus. 1986. WritingCulture:The Poetics andPolitics of Ethnography.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Collier, Jane;andMichelle Z. Rosaldo. 1981. "Politics andGender n 'Simple' Soci-eties," in S. Ortnerand H. Whitehead,eds., SexualMeanings:The CulturalCon-structionof Genderand Sexuality.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.Comaroff,Jean. 1985. Bodyof Power,SpiritofResistance:TheCultureandHistoryofa SouthAfricanPeople. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Comaroff,John;and JeanComaroff.1992. Ethnographyand theHistoricalImagina-tion. Boulder,Col.: WestviewPress.Cooper,Frederick.1992. "TheDialectics of Decolonization:Nationalismand LaborMovements in Post-WarAfrica."Paperprepared or the Power Conference,Pro-gram n theComparativeStudyof SocialTransformations.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichigan.Coronil, Fernando. 1994. "Listening to the Subaltern:The Poetics of SubalternStates."Poetics Today,15:4.deLillo, Don. 1989. Libra. New York:PenguinBooks.Dirks, Nicholas B.; Geoff Eley; andSherryB. Ortner. 1994. "Introduction,"n theirCulturelPowerlHistory:AReader n Contemporary ocial Theory,3-46. Princeton:

PrincetonUniversityPress.Fanon,Frantz. 1967 [1952]. BlackSkin, WhiteMasks. C. L. Markmann, rans.NewYork:Grove Press.Fegan, Brian. 1986. "Tenants'Non-Violent Resistance to LandownerClaims in aCentralLuzon Village." Journalof PeasantStudies, 13:2, 87-106.Foucault,Michel. 1978. TheHistoryofSexuality,R. Hurley, rans.New York:Pantheon.Fox, RichardG. 1985. Lions of thePunjab:Culture n theMaking.Berkeley:Univer-sity of CaliforniaPress.


21/22

I92 SHERRY B. ORTNER. 1989. GhandhianUtopia:Experimentswith Culture.Boston: Beacon Press.Friedrich,Paul. 1970. AgrarianRevoltin a MexicanVillage. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.Genovese, Eugene D. 1976. Roll, Jordan,Roll: The World he Slaves Made. NewYork:VintageBooks.Ginzburg, Carlo. 1985. The Night Battles: Witchcraftand Agrarian Cults in theSixteenthand SeventeenthCenturies,J. andA. Tedeschi,trans.New York:PenguinBooks.Guha,Ranajit.1988. "The Prose of Counter-Insurgency,"n Selected SubalternStud-ies, R. Guhaand G. C. Spivak,eds., 45-88. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Hall, Stuart;andTonyJefferson,eds. 1976. Resistance hroughRituals: Youth ubcul-tures in Post-WarBritain. London: Hutchinson.Hanks,WilliamF. 1986. "Authenticity nd Ambivalence n the Text:A ColonialMayaCase." AmericanEthnologist, 13:4, 721-44.Jain, Sharada;NirjaMisra;andKavitaSrivastava. 1987. "DeoralaEpisode:Women'sProtest in Rajasthan."Economic and Political Weekly,XXII:45 (November 7),1891-4.Kaplan,Martha. 1990. "Meaning,Agency and ColonialHistory:Navosavakaduandthe Tukamovementin Fiji."AmericanEthnologist, 17:1, 3-22.Kaplan, Martha;and John Kelly. 1994. "RethinkingResistance:Dialogics of 'Dis-affection' in ColonialFiji."AmericanEthnologist,21:1, 123-51.Mani, Lata. 1987. "ContentiousTraditions:The Debate on Sati in Colonial India."CulturalCritique,7(Fall), 119-56.Marcus, George. 1986. "ContemporaryProblems of Ethnography n the ModemWorld System," in WritingCulture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,J. CliffordandG. Marcus,eds. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.Meillassoux,Claude.1981.Maidens, Meal, andMoney:CapitalismandtheDomesticCommunity.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.Mohanty,Chandra.1988. "UnderWesternEyes: FeministScholarshipand ColonialDiscourse."FeministReview,30 (Autumn),61-88.Nandy,Ashis. 1983. TheIntimateEnemy:Loss and Recoveryof the Self under Colo-nialism. Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.O'Hanlon, Rosalind. 1989. "Culturesof Rule, Communitiesof Resistance:Gender,Discourse andTraditionn Recent South AsianHistoriographies." ocial Analysis,

25 (September),94-114.Ong, Aihwa. 1987. Spirits of Resistanceand CapitalistDiscipline:FactoryWomen nMalaysia. Albany,NY: StateUniversityof New York Press.Orlove, Benjamin S. 1991. "MappingReeds and Reading Maps: The Politics ofRepresentationn Lake Titicaca."AmericanEthnologist, 18:1, 3-38.Ortner,SherryB. 1984. "Theoryin Anthropologysince the Sixties." ComparativeStudies in Societyand History,26:1, 126-66.. 1989. High Religion:A Culturaland PoliticalHistoryof SherpaBuddhism.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Pandey,Gyanendra.1988. "PeasantRevolt and IndianNationalism,"n SelectedSub-altern Studies, R. Guha and G. C. Spivak, eds., 233-87. New York: OxfordUniversityPress.Pathak,Zakia;andRajeswariSunderRajan.1989. "'Shahbano.'"Signs, 14:3,558-82.Rushdie, Salman. 1989. The Satanic Verses.New York:Viking Press.Sahlins,MarshallD. 1981. HistoricalMetaphorsandMythicalRealities:Structurenthe Early History of the SandwichIslands Kingdoms.Ann Arbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.


22/22


Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism.New York:VintageBooks.Scott, James C. 1985. Weaponsof the Weak:EverydayFormsof Peasant Resistance.New Haven: YaleUniversityPress.. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven:Yale UniversityPress.Scott, JamesC.; and Benedict J. Tria Kerkvliet. 1986. Special issue on "EverydayForms of PeasantResistancein South-EastAsia." Journalof PeasantStudies, 13:2(January).Sewell, WilliamH., Jr. 1980. Work nd Revolution n France: TheLanguage of Laborfrom the OldRegimeto 1848. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Spivak, GayatriChakravorty. 988a. "Can he SubalternSpeak?," n Marxismand theInterpretation f Cultures,C. Nelson andL. Grossberg,eds. 271-316. Urbana,Ill.:Universityof Illinois Press.. 1988b. "SubalternStudies:DeconstructingHistoriography,"n Selected Sub-alternStudies,R. Guha and G. C. Spivak,eds. 3-34. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Stoler,Ann. 1986. "Plantation olitics and Proteston Sumatra'sEastCoast. JournalofPeasantStudies, 13:2, 124-43..1989. "RethinkingColonial Categories:EuropeanCommunities and theBoundariesof Rule." ComparativeStudies in Society and History,31:1, 134-61.Terray,Emmanuel. 1972. Marxismand "Primitive" ocieties, M. Klopper, rans. NewYork:MonthlyReview Press.Thompson,E. P. 1966. TheMakingof theEnglish WorkingClass. New York:VintageBooks.Turner,Terence. 1991. "Representing,Resisting, Rethinking:Historical Transforma-tions of Kayapo Cultureand AnthropologicalConsciousness," in Post-ColonialSituations: TheHistory of Anthropology,vol. 7, George Stocking, ed., 285-313.Madison, WI: Universityof Wisconsin Press.. n.d. "The MebengokreKayapo: History, Social Consciousness and SocialChangefrom AutonomousCommunities o Inter-EthnicSystem." Manuscript.White, ChristinePelzer. 1986. "EverydayResistance,Socialist Revolutionand RuralDevelopment:The Vietnamese Case." Journalof PeasantStudies, 13:2, 49-63.Williams,Raymond. 1977. Marxismand Literature.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Willis, Paul. 1977. Learningto Labour:How WorkingClass Kids Get WorkingClassJobs. New York:ColombiaUniversityPress.Wolf, Eric R. 1982. Europeand the People withoutHistory.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alejandro-gortazar-belvis
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Ortner resistencia

Documents