Symbolic Conflict

7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict

1/19

Four Types of Symbolic Conflict

Author(s): Simon HarrisonSource: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp.255-272Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034688.

Accessed: 11/03/2014 12:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3034688?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3034688?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/19

FOUR TYPES OF SYMBOLIC CONFLICT

SIMON HARRISON

UniversityfUlster

The aim

of

his rticles toderive theoryfpoliticalymbolism

rom n analysisf ymbolic

conflict.y symboliconflict mean hat imension fpolitical

onflict hich ocuses n the

manipulationf ymbols. rawingn a range fethnographicxamples,argue hat ymbolicconflicts a type fcompetitionorwhatBourdieu alls ymbolicapital, nd that t can take

four

rototypical

orms:

t

an

oncern

ither

he

aluationfpolitical

ymbols,heir roduction,

their roprietorship,r their urvivals emblems f political ffiliations.

hese correspondo

the our entral ropertiesf politicalymbol, hich re he our

ways nwhich uch symbol

can be

manipulated

o as to

appropriateymbolicapital.

Introduction

The aimofthis rticles to outline frameworkor nderstanding

hepolitical

uses

of symbolism. take

t

forgranted hat olitical

ctionhas an inherent

expressive imension nd involves he deploymentf symbols see Kertzer

1988). But the political pplicationsf symbolismre

perhaps evealedmost

clearly

f

we

examine ituations f conflict. ompetitionorpower,wealth,

prestige,egitimacyr other olitical esources eems lways o be accompa-

niedbyconflictver mportantymbols, y trugglesocontrol r manipulate

such symbols

n

some vitalway. shall call behaviour

f this ort ymbolic

conflict.

I

focus n a particularlass fpoliticalymbols:

amely,

hose ssociated ith

persistingroups

nd

signifyingnduring roup dentities.

ut hope thereby

toreach onclusionsoncerningolitical ymbolismsa whole. willassume,

after

urkheim, hatgroups scribe heir ymbolic ttributes

ith

a

special

prestiger sanctity.ollowing opytoff1986: 73), shall

all a group's

istin-

guishingrray

f

sacralized

bjects

nd

properties

ts ymbolicnventory.

My

argument

s

that

ymbolic onflict

s a form

f

competition

or

what

Bourdieu 1990: 112-21)

alls

ymbolicapital,

nd that t

can

take

our

roto-

typical

orms.

his is

because

there re

only

four

ways

n

which

a

political

symbol, r complex

f

symbols,an be used.

Each of these

s

simply strategy

for

manipulatingoliticalymbolism

o as

to

affecthe

distribution

f

ymbolic

capital.n the courseof their se, political ymbols anundergo our orre-

sponding

orts

f

change.

An

argument

f this

ort, eeking

o

dentify

ross-cultural

egularities

n the

ways

hat

ymbols fgroup dentityreused n political

onflict,

ust raw or

support n a ratherwide and diverse angeof ethnographic

vidence.

n

J. Roy. nthrop.nst. N.S.) 1, 255-272

This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/19

256

SIMON

HARRISON

anthropology

e rightly

tress he mportance

f context

or proper nder-

standing

f our data.

But certain inds f arguments

imply

annot e made

unlessone iswilling o extractthnographicaterialsrom heir ull ocio-

cultural ettings, rusting

hat their ntelligibility

an survive

degreeof

decontextualization.

Valuation ontests

Inthefirstype f ymbolic

onflict,

he ssue tstake s the

rankingf

ymbols

of the competing roups'

dentities;heir

anking,hat s to say, ccording

o

somecriterionfworth

uch sprestige,egitimacy

r sacredness.

ll thatmay

thereforehange s a result fthe contests therelative ositions f these

symbols

long omescaleof value.

The verbal

ontests f honour nd

formal

'reviling-matches'aged

by rival

escent roupsmong he

pre-Islamic rabs

are

n example. wogroupswould

choose ome

ssue nwhich o contend

or

superiority,

uch as thenobility

f their ncestors.

heywould then

tage

quasi-judicialratorical

ontest n this ubject,

with he outcome ecidedby

anadjudicatorHuizinga

1970:87-9).

What

hetwo sides

were

contesting

as therelative

ank r

esteem

f their

focal

ymbols

f dentity

in

this

ase,

heir ncestors.

hese sorts f compe-

titions, oncernedwith negotiatingr manipulatinghe statusof group

symbols,

will callvaluation ontests.

Two tactics,ne positive

nd the

othernegative,re possible

n a valuation

contest.

he

negative

actic s directed t the

symbols

f theoppositionnd

consists

imply

n

attempts

o diminish heir tatus.

his

was a

pronounced

featuref

theArab

eviling-matches,

n which he

opposing

ides eem o

have

competed

mainly

n

mutual

ilification

nd nvectiveHuizinga1970:

87-9).

The positive

actic

s directedtone's own symbols

nd

featuresrominently

in the aints'

iestasn Malta,

nwhichpolitical actionsupporting

ival aints

tryo outdo achothern the cale ndostentationftheir estivalsBoissevain

1963).

Here,

he

mphasis

s

on

promoting

hereputation

nd

prestige

fone's

own faction'saint

y extravagant

isplays

f

devotion,

ather han

eeking

n

someway o

dishonour ival

aints.

We

see

both

tactics ombined

n the festivalsf the

fighting

ompanies'

among

he

Fante fGhana Adler&

Barnard

992).

There

are

up

to

seven

f

these

militaryompanies

n a

town,

nd their elations

re

ntensely

ased

on

rivalry.

ach

hasa

hierarchy

fofficersnd ts wnuniforms,

lags,

anners

nd

othermilitaryegalia.

ts

flag

s

the

central ocus

f

tshonour.

he

company

ownsthedesign ftheflag,nd ealously efendsts xclusive ightoparade

it.

Atfestivals,ompany

members

isplay

he

flag

n

their ouses

nd

on the

company

hrine,

nd

carry

t

n

processions,

nd

specially-trained

fficers

er-

form

spectacular

ances

with it. Most

flags

make referencesn

their

iconography

o

Fante

proverbs,

n

such

a

way

as

to

glorify

he

company

nd

disparage

tsrivals.

he

flag

f

the

ion

company,

or

nstance,mplicitly

aunts

the

eopard

ompany

with he

proverb:

A dead lion

is

greater

han

living

leopard'

Adler

&

Barnard 992:

7-14).

The

leopard

ompany's lag

retorts

with conic eferenceso

the

proverb:

If

you

shoot

t a

leopard

nd do

not

kill

it, t sbetterot o have hot t all' Adler Barnard 992:70).Thesefestivals



4/19

SIMON

HARRISON 257

are,

in

effect, xchangesof visual

boasts, nsults, hallengesand provocations

throughwhich rival ompanies compete for tatus.

Similar kinds of antagonism,n a somewhatdifferentmedium, occur be-

tween clans of the Iatmul n New Guinea

over

the

distinction nd importance

of theirtotems. Bateson (1958) refers

o

a

longstanding ispute between the

totemicmoietiesof the Iatmul

over

the nature

of

Night.

One

moiety

laimed

the

Night

as its

totem,

nd maintained

complex

set of

cosmological

beliefs

explaining ts existence.But the Sun

moiety

dismissed this and claimed that

Night

was

simply

the absence

of

their

own

totem,

the

Day,

and

was

a

mere

negativity.

here

were

similar

disputes

over the nature f

ripples

nd

waves on

water.

Some clans

personified

hese

phenomena

as

totemicancestors

nd

re-

garded them as their totems.The clan owning the East Wind disagreed,

claiming hatwaves

were

caused by theirwind-ancestress ith

her

mosquito-

fan,

while

other clans

had

yet further heories

n

which

they figured s

the

cause of waves. Totemism

mong

the

atmul

was

an

arena of

permanent

tatus

rivalry,

n

which everyclan sought to

diminish

the

importance f others

and

inflate ts own (see Bateson 1958:

229-31).

There are analogiesbetweenthesetotemic

disputes

nd the

politico-aesthetic

arguments ver tastes

n

music which recurred

n

Francethroughout

he seven-

teenth

nd

eighteenth enturies Duhamel

1987).

The most famous

of

these

was theQuerelle des Bouffons, r War' oftheComedians, a disputeover the

relativemeritsof French and Italian music provoked

n

August 1752 by

the

arrival

n

Paris

of

an Italian

opera company.

For almost the next two

years t

polarized

Parisian

society, nding

only

when the

king

ordered the Italians'

dismissal

n March

1754. The reason

why

this

nitially

esthetic

dispute

esca-

lated into an

affair f

state was that it became entangled with underlying

political

conflicts.To

conservatives,

rench music

-

ornate, stylized,poly-

phonic

-

seemed to

embody principles

f

order

and

hierarchy

hich

were

the

foundation,

ot

only

of

good music,but

of a

well-regulated ociety.

o

progres-

sivessuch as Rousseau, thismusic was archaic nd elitist: talianopera,on the

otherhand

-

tuneful, ccessible

and naturalistic

seemed

to

embody egalitar-

ian and democratic alues. Aesthetics

ecame a code throughwhich opposed

political

nterests

ought implicitly

o

express

themselves nd

challenge

each

other

Cooper 1973;

Duhamel

1987).

Ethnic and

nationalist ivalries ffer

many examples

of

valuation contests.

am

thinking

n

particular f

that

well-known phenomenon by which

differ-

ences of

culture, sometimes

seeminglyminor,

are

seized upon and

made

a

focusofcontentionn thecourseofethnic onflicts. ne variety f nter-ethnic

valuation

contest s a

process thatSchwimmer

1972)

calls

symbolic ompeti-

tion': the

maintenance

f

distinctive

ituals y disadvantaged thnicminorities

in

which

they ssert, ymbolically,hesuperiority f theirown culture, alues

or

way

of

life

to

those of the dominant

majority.

Finally,

aluationcontestspervade ll

thatone normally hinks f as political

theatre;

hat

s, political factionalism

manifested

n

expressive vents

such

as

parades,marches,

allies nd

demonstrations. ositive actics f political heatre

encompass

all

forms f

group self-aggrandizementhrough riumphal isplays

of collective symbols. The negativetactics nclude the burning of flags, he



5/19

258

SIMON

HARRISON

desecrationf tombs,

r other orts

f verbal r physical

ttacks n thepres-

tige, anctity

r legitimacy

f thesymbols f

a rivalgroup

c? Firth 973:

355-67).

Proprietary

ontests

The second

ype f

ymboliconflictcallproprietary

ontests.

hese

relate

o

the fact hat roups

ften

laim,

s

do Fante

fightingompanies, roprietary

rights

n their istinguishingymbols,

nd treat

ttemptsy other roups

o

copythem s hostile

cts.

A

proprietary

ontest

s a

dispute

verthese

ights

and, t ts implest,akes heformfa struggleor hemonopolyr controlf

some importantollective

ymbol

r symbolsHarrison

992; Kertzer

988:

43;

Mills 1970:

86-7).

Examples

fproprietary

ontestsre the otemic ebates

of

the

atmul

nd Manambu

peoples

n New

Guinea,

n which rival lans

dispute

he ownership

f

prestigious

otemic

ncestors nd

struggle

or

the

rights o

bear their

personalnames Bateson

1958; Harrison1989;

1990).

Bateson 1958: 230)

refers o

one such dispute

oncerning

he ownership f

the un;or,

more

precisely,

heownership,nd

the

rights

othename, f

one

of

several

ncestorsersonifying

he un.

A Europeancase is thecurrent isputebetweenGreeceand the former

Yugoslav

epublic

fMacedonia

ver

he

use ofthe

name

ofMacedonia

nd of

certainther ymbols

ssociated

ith he ncient ingdom

f thatname.One

such symbol

s

thefigure

fAlexander

he

Great,

nd another he

emblem f

the

sixteen-pointed

un,

or

Star

Vergina,

hich

ppears

provocatively,

rom

the Greek

point

of view

-

on the

Republic's

lag Danforth 993).

In

both

these

ases,

Melanesian nd

European, roups

re

truggling

or

ntangible

ut

highly alued

bjects

f

cultural roperty.

A

precondition

f

a proprietaryontest

s a consensus mong

herivals s

to

theprestigealueof thesymbolicropertyorwhich hey recompeting.n

Northern

reland,

Loyalistpro-British

rotestant)aramilitaryroup

alled

the

Ulster

Defence

Association

U.D.A.)

has

n

recent

ears

egun

o

adopt

number

f

ymbols reviously

onsideredhe

property

f

rish

Republicanism.

Chief

mong

hese s the

egendary

rishhero

Cuchulain

who, ccording

o

an

eighth-centuryycle

of Ulster

tales, ingle-handedly

efended

Ulster

from

foreign

rmies. he

figure

f Cuchulain ecame

n

important

mblem

f rish

nationalism,

nd his statue tands

n

the

General

ostOffice

n Dublin com-

memorating

heEaster

Rising

f

1916,

whichhad ts

headquarters

here.

Yethis magenow featuresn U.D.A.wallmuralsnBelfasts an emblem f

Ulster

Loyalist

dentity.

he

attempts

o

appropriate

his

figure

re

part

f

a

larger

laim by

the U.D.A. thatUlsterProtestants

re descended

rom he

autochthonous

nhabitants

f

Ireland.

According

o thisversion

f

history,

Cuchulain

elonged

o this

ace,

whichwas driven ut

of

reland

y

an inva-

sion

of

the

Gaels,

he ncestorsf themodern

rish.

Ulster

Protestantsre,

t

is implied,

more rish han

he

rish

hemselves.

heir ettlement

f Ulster

n

the eventeenth

entury

as

an

act

of

homecoming,ot

of

colonization;

twas

the

return

f reland's

riginal

nhabitantso

reclaim

heir

ightful

nheritance

(seeKiberd 989:278,287-9, 20-1;McAuley McCormack 990).



6/19

SIMON

HARRISON

259

In appropriatinghefiguref

Cuchulain,

nd

other

rish

nationalist

ymbol-

ism,

nto

heir

istoriography

nd

conography,

he

U.D.A.

clearly

harewith

theirrishRepublican pponentsn identicalenseof this igure'smportance

as a legitimizingymbol. he same s

true

f theclaim

by

theBlack

Christian

Nationalist ovement

n

theUnited tates hat hrist

nd the

Ancientsrael-

iteswereblack Firth 973:

406-11).

Andwhen

ertain

lack ntellectuals

laim

Beethoven nd someother amous

ersons hought reviously

o

have been

white o be

black Coles

1991), eekingmplicitly

o

appropriate

hese

restig-

ious cultural

cons nto heir wn ethnic

roup, hey bviously

hare hewider

society's

stimationfthe

ymbolic

alueof these

igures.

In this

espect,

proprietary

ontest

s

thereverse f

valuation ontest.

n

a

valuation ontest he ontestantsisputeherelative orth rprestigeftheir

collective

ymbols,

ot

the

ownership

f these

ymbols.

n a

proprietary

on-

test,

he contestants

gree

on the

prestige

f

the

symbols

ut

dispute

heir

ownership.

valuation ontest an result

n

shifts

n

the

comparativerestige

valueof

group ymbols; proprietary

ontest an result

n

shifts

n

their ocial

distribution.

Although roprietary

ontests

equire

consensus

mong

he

competitors,

the ontestshemselves

an

be violent. ne

thinks,

or

nstance,

f

the

raiding

among

he

tribes

f

the

Kwakiutl,

nd

other

eoples

f

the

American orth-

westCoast, imed tacquiringheownershipfrituals,ongs nd dances n

the Wintereremonial

Goldman

975).

The

central

ndmost

restigious

ole

in

this itual

omplexwas

that f theMan Eater pirit, hich ransformedhe

dancer

nto a

ritual

annibal.

his dance was a

prerogative

f men

of

the

highest ank,

nd

could be

acquired

n

only

two

ways:

either

y marriage

alliancewith

chiefly

amily,

r

bykilling

holder fthe

prerogative

n

another

tribe

nd

taking

is masks

nd other eremonial

rappings.

he

powers

f

the

role

were greater

f

the role

was acquiredby homicide.Boas (1921: 1017)

recounts ow the

men

of

one Kwakiutlribe ttackednother

illage

t

night,

burned tandkilled number f itsmen includingts chief see Goldman

1975: 176). They ook waywith hem omeheads s trophies,s

wellas a box

of

Winter eremonial

egalia nd a woman as a slave.The

attacker'shief

thereby

ssumed

ll

the

dead chief's

ntitlements

n

the Winter

eremonial,

including

is

Man

Eater pirit. hat

winter, e danced

s

this

pirit, aving

made

the slave nstruct im

n

the

manner f

dancing

nd

thesongs.

At

the

climax f the

dance,

he

lave

was killed

nd

he

ate

her, aking

fresh ame o

mark

he full

ssumption

f his

newpowers Goldman1975: 20,

110, 176,

244).

A

proprietaryontestmay

imply e a competitionor hediffuse restige

attachedo

possessingome

mportanttatus ymbol. ut often he

ssue eems

more

pecific.

he

symbol,r

complex f symbols,t stakemaybe

a kind f

title

eed to

some pecial

uthority

r

prerogative.t may, or

nstance,

e

used

to

legitimize

he

ownership

f

territory.

he

dispute ver henameof Mace-

donia,

nd

the

case of

Cuchulain nd the U.D.A., are examples f this.The

people

f

Tanna

n

Vanuatu

rovide Melanesianllustration.ere,

achcom-

munity wned its own

stock of personalnames,and thesenames were

regarded s the group's itledeeds to its and. t seems thatwhen a group



7/19

260

SIMON

HARRISON

captured erritoryn war,

driving he

original wners way, t

tookover the

losers'hereditary

ames

Lindstrom985:37). To

legitimizeheir

onquest t

was necessaryor hevictors o become'the originalwners, ppropriating

their ocial dentities.

Some proprietary

isputes

reover he ontrol f

the egitimizingymbolism

of political

ffice.

n

example

omes fromKuhrt's 1987) discussion

f the

conquest

fBabylon y hePersians

nder yrus n

539 BC. Farfrom eeking

to

destroy

is defeatednemies' tate eligion, yrus

osteredndencouraged

it, speciallyhe ult f

the ity's atron eity

Marduk,

learly hereby

eeking

legitimacy

orhimself

nd his dynastys Babylon's

ew rulers.n fact, hese

rituals eem o have ufficiently

mpressedyrus hat

e appropriated

omeof

them or hePersian ingship,ncorporatingabylonianites nto hePersians'

very ifferent

ystem fstate eremonial.

s Cannadine1987:

8) puts t,the

Persian rmiesmayhave

onquered he

Babylonians,ut heBabylonian

ituals

conquered

he

Persians.

gain,

hewinner

n

war nstalls imself

n

the ym-

bolic

appurtenances

f

the

losers.He seeks to

assume somethingf their

identities,

heir restigend legitimacy,

herebyonverting

ightnto right.

The seizure f power

an be made egitimatey

turning neself,

s it were,

into heperson romwhom

one seized t.

I havedefined valuation ontest

s aimed t re-orderingset

of

symbols

alongsome scaleofvalueor prestige,nda proprietaryontest s aimedat

re-orderingheir isposition

mong roups.Neither

rocess hanges

he ym-

bols themselves

n

any

way, nd both

could in principle ccur

within n

entirely

losed

nd

static

niverse

f

symbolism,

f

such

a

phenomenon

ere

possible.

he third

nd

fourth

ypes

f

symbolic

onflict shall

describe

re

different

n

thisrespect,

ecause

they

re aimed

at

modifying

he

symbolic

repertoires

fgroups.

The first tep

n

understanding

heseprocesses

f

change

s

to determine

how the

symbolicnventories

f

groups

re

generated

n

the

first

lace.

This

bringsmetothe hirdype f ymboliconflict,hekey eaturefwhichs that

it

nvolves hecreation

f

symbolism.

shall all

processes

f this

ort nnova-

tion

ontests,lthough,

s

I shall

xplain,

he

ctual

egree

f nnovationends

to

be

slight.

Innovation

ontests

An

example

f an

innovationontest

omes

from

urope

during

he

thirty

r

forty ears

efore

hefirst

orldwar.Hobsbawm

1983)

shows hat

hese

ears

were period f ntense reativityn the invention'ftraditionshroughout

Europe

nd that his

eriod

aw

n

particular

n efflorescence

f

many

ation-

alist

ymbolismsHobsbawm

983:

263).

Most

of whatwe now

regard

s

the

typicalymbolic

ppurtenances

f nation tatehood

flags,nthems,

niforms

and so forth

seem

to

have

originated

n France nd

Britain,

nd werethen

adopted

y many

ther

tates

uring

his

period Hobsbawm

983:

266, 282).

Cannadine

1983)

discusses

he

elaboration

hich

tate

eremonial,specially

royal

itual,

nderwent

hroughout

urope

and

he relates

hese

processes

o

the ntense

nternational

ivalries

nd

tensions

f

the time.

t was at least

n

part heheightenedompetitionornational restigend powerthatdrove



8/19

SIMON HARRISON

261

these nnovations,

na

phenomenon

hich

he

calls

competitive

nventiveness

(Cannadine 983:

139,145,161-2).

Theseprocessesf nnovationeem ometo occur long wodistinguishable

dimensions. n

theone

hand,

he ame

ymbolic

orm

may

be

competitively

elaborated

n some

way:

n

example

fthis s therise n the cale

nd

complex-

ity

f

European

oronationeremonies

uring

he ate

nineteenth

entury.

he

otherdimension

s

the

competitive

reation

f new

categories

f

symbolic

forms.

n

example

f

this s thecreation

f

thecustom

f

royal jubilees'

r

anniversary

elebrations,

nvented

y

the

British

n

1887,

n

innovation hich

seems o

have mpressed

ther tates ecause

hey

ater

dopted

t

Hobsbawm

1983: 281-2). Along

one

dimension,

ne has the

production

f

successively

moreelaborate ersions fthe same' symbolic bject; longtheother,he

proliferationf

new'

symbolic bjects.

n

this

way,

n

innovationontest

s

a

process

f

escalation

n

the

quantity

nd

complexity

f

the

competing roups'

diacritical

ymbols.

Innovation ontests

re

essentiallyschizmogenic' rocesses f

competitive

differentiation

see

Bateson

958).

This

type

f

tatus

ivalry

s

perhaps articu-

larly ikely

o

occur

when

groups

re

seeking

o establish r

accentuate

heir

distinctivenessrom ach other.

n

extreme orm

f

these

processes

f

group

differentiation

s schism

r

fission.

n

nternalonflict

plits group

n

two,

r

a faction ithinome arger roup eeks ndependence.oestablish separate

identity

n

thisway,

seceding roupmustgenerate distinctetofsymbolic

representations

f that

dentity.

hese

processes

ccur n the

production

f

relig-

ious

art

mong

he

Arapesh eople

of lahita n

Papua

New

Guinea.

For

theirnitiation

eremonies,lahitamen built cult-house ith n inte-

riorwall madeof

hundreds fpaintings.

ll

mentookpart n

themanufacture

ofthis

rt, houghhey

worked nder hedirectionfmaster

rtists,

ho were

the

political nd ritual

eaders

n

this

ociety.

ach

painting

as believed

o

contain

ts

painter's

pirit

nd at

the ame ime

epresented

is descent

roup's

particularamed refractionfNggwal, hevillage's utelarypirit.n their

arrangementlong

he

gallery all, hepaintingsisplayed

hevillage's escent

groups

n

their

egmentaryelations,nd theorder f

seniorityf adultmen

within

hese

roups.

New

motifs,

r new

combinationsf

motifs,

ere often

nvented r

im-

ported

from

ther

communities.

ut

whether

particularnnovation as

accepted epended

n the

pproval

f the

master rtists. ften, n innovation

had

importantolitical

mplications

nd

indicated bid

by its creator o be

recognizeds a leader; bid,for nstance,o break way rom is own clan or

subclan o

establish new

descent roup fhis own.

Typically,

his nvolved

claiming orhis faction he

possession f a distinctefractionf Nggwal, nd

ofthe

right o

portray

his

pirit

n

painting. o succeed, e required he ssent

of

the

stablished

illage

eaders.

hese

master

rtists

ouched heir

erdict

n

the

anguage

f art

riticism.f

theyudged his nnovation

cceptable y the

standards

findigenous esthetics,hey mplicitlyave

their pproval o the

new

politicaltatus

uo (see Tuzin1978).

Ilahita s

a typically

ractious elanesian

ommunity.

here re strong ival-

riesbothbetween tscomponent escent roups ndwithin hem, nd new



9/19

262

SIMON

HARRISON

groups

egularly

merge hrough

ission.

Whenthey

do emerge,

hey

bring

new ancestral

pirits

ntoexistence

ith hem,

nd

new artmotifs

o

signify

these eings.

It is

true hat hese

eligiousepresentations

xist

o

differentiate

roups,

o

make

each group

ingular

nd unique.

But thedifferences

etween

he

em-

blems

fthe

differentlans

re

mall, ven

houghhese

minor ariations

ay

have heutmost

mportance

o the ctors

hemselves.

he

point

sthat he

ct

of producing

hese epresentations

s not

only

n assertion

f an

identity

epa-

rate

rom ther

lans;

t s

alsoan assertion

f

equality ith

hese

ther lans,

and

a

newly-created

ymbol

must herefore

esemble

hecorresponding

ym-

bols of rival

roups nd

belong o

the amegenre,

s

wellas differ

romhem.

This recalls hefadamongtheEuropeannationsn theMiddleAgesfor

tracing

heir

rigins

ack

o the acking

fTroy,laiming

o

havebeen

founded,

like ncient

ome,by

a Trojan

ero.

n this

way,

he

British ere

upposed

o

have stemmed

rom figurealled

Brutus,

he

French rom

Francion,

he

Turks rom

Turcus,nd

so

forthBurke

1969:8,

71-4).

The status

ivalry

driving

he

production

f these

national

rigin-myths

s obvious:first,

ne

state laims

Trojan

ncestor,

hen nother abricates

virtuallydentical

rojan

founderqual

n

prestige

nddiffering

nly

n

his

name

nd particular

xploits.

We

see similar

rocesses

n the tatus ivalries

etween

hemedieval

niversi-

ties,whichseem to havepreoccupiedhemselves ithassertionsfhaving

been

nstituted

y

ancient ings:

Oxford

laimedKing

Alfred s its

founder,

Cambridge

laimed

King

Arthur r

his

forebears,

hile

Paris

aid

claim to

Charlemagne

Burke

969:

74-5).

In

short,

he

processes

call nnovation

ontests

re

processes

f

competitive

emulation

ust

as much

s invention.

he

reason

s that he

groups

oncerned

are

making

laims o

equality

s

well

as to

superiority,

nd are

engaged

n

a

process

f mutual

dentification

ith ach

other

s well

as

competitive

iffer-

entiation

rom

ach

other.

An nnovationontest ay eneraterichlyiverserofusionfgroupdentity-

markers.

ut

this s

a

diversity

ithin

highlypecific

enre

f

symbolism

common o

all

the

participating

roups.

system

f

diacritical

ymbols

f

this

sort,

s

Radcliffe-Brown

1951)

and

Levi-Strauss

1973)

showed

or

otemism,

is

wholly

elational.

t is a

pure

system

f resemblances

nd contrasts.

he

inherently

elational

uality

f

social

dentity,

nd

particularly

f cultural

r

ethnic

dentity,

as

often een

noted:

very

uch

dentity

eedsan other

r

others

gainst

hich

o

counterpose

tself

Letmereturn omy arlier iscussionftheEuropeannation tates or n

example

f

a

particular

enre

f

dentity-symbolism.

n

ideal-typical

odern

nation tate

might

nclude

mong

ts

nventory

f

ymbols

ts

wn

flag,

nthem

and military

niforms;

istinctive

tate

holidays,

ommemorations

nd

cere-

monials;

cenotaph

r tomb

f theUnknown

oldier

Anderson

991:

9);

a

patron

aint

r

some

other ort

f

figureBritannia,

ermania,

arianne,

ohn

Bull,

UncleSam,

Deutsche

Michel

nd

so

forth) ersonifying

he

tate

r

its

people

Hobsbawm

1983:

272,

276,278);

a national

ostume; quasi-totemic

animal

r

plant

mblem

shamrock,

histle,

ulldog,

ald

eagle

nd

so on.

A

standardanguage s, of course,typically central ymbol f nationhood



10/19

SIMON HARRISON

263

(Anderson 991: 67-82).Eventhe eemingly

ostnon-symbolic

ttributes

f

a nation tate itsown

state irline Firth 973:347) orbanking ystem

can

functions importantymbols f nationaldentityndprestige,n thesame

way

hat

national

picpoem

or a state

eligionmight

t one timehave

done.

My point

s that here s a

conventional

ymbolic

orm f the

nation

tate.

The conventionlearly

hanges verhistory,ndhas subvarieties.ome states

also seem

muchricher

han

thers

n

these

ymbolic

ssets. ut there

s,

at

any

particular

ime, more or less agreedminimal

omplex

f

symbols

hat

political

ntity hould have

n

order o

be

understood

s

a

nation tate

r,

indeed,

ven to be

understood

s a

political

movement

aving spirations

o

nation tatehood. he diverse ymbolicnventoriesf

all

theparticular

tates

appearsthemany efractionsfthis bstractorm,n much he ameway hat

the

ancestralpirits

f

lahita

lans

weretherefractions

f

the

village

utelary,

or

the

foundation

yths

f themedieval niversitiesere ll versions

f

one

myth,

r

the

Trojan rogenitors

f

European

ations ere

ll

derivations

f

the

same

figure.

Expansionaryontests

Myfourthnd final ype fsymiboliconflict call nexpansionaryontest.n

this,

group ries odisplacetscompetitors'

ymbols

f

dentity

ith

ts

own

symbols.

n

otherwords,within omegivenfield f social relations

wo or

more

group dentitiesrecompetingor

urvival. featuref anexpansionary

contest

s

that

t canresult n thedisappearancef the

defeated

ide's

dentity

symbols.

ecausethe

symbolicnventoriesf

groups

an be

partly

r

wholly

destroyed

n

these

ontests,hey

re the

opposite

f innovation

ontests,

n

which

hese

nventories

re

generated.

n

short,

oth orts f

contest

lter he

universes

f

symbolism

n

which hey ccur.

After

n

innovationontest

r an

expansionaryontest,hetotal ssemblagefgroup ymbols aschanged e-

cause ome

ymbols avebeen

created

r

ost.

To

speak f ymbols

eing reated r destroyeds,ofcourse, shorthand

ay

of

referringo certain

hanges

n

their olitical unctions.

When

speak

of

a

symbol

eing reated,mean hat t becomes

oupled

o a

particularroup

n

such a

way

as to

signify

hatgroup's

dentity.

t

may,

n

somesense,have

previouslyxisted ithin

he ultural epertoire,utnot s part f

anygroup's

symbolicnventory.

imilarly,

o speak fa

symbol eing estroyed eans hat

it s no longer sed to

representhe dentity

f anygroupwithin particular

socialuniverse.tmay,nsome ense, ontinuehereaftero existnthegeneral

culture, ut tno longer

orms art f nygroup's ymbolic

nventory.oth he

creation

nd

the

disappearancef ymbols,r,

more

ccurately,

ftheir olitical

functions,

re

relativeo

some pecifiedocial

universe.

In

an

expansionaryontest, arfrom

eeking o appropriatehesymbolic

attributes

f other

roups

s in a proprietaryontest, he goal is

to suppress

them nd

replace

hem

with ne's own. Let

me give n example.

n

1964the

President

f Haiti,Fransois uvalier, hanged

he Haitianflag, n

event e-

scribed

y Nicholls 1979: 234) as one of the

most xtraordinarypisodes f

Duvalier's ule.Duvalier adbeentryingo mpose henewflag incehe came



11/19

264

SIMON HARRISON

to office

n 1957,but t took

him a further

evenyears obecomepowerful

enough

o do so.

The roots f thisdispute o backto 1804when Dessalines,eader f the

strugglegainst rance,

roclaimed

ndependencend took the title f

Em-

peror.

He adopted

n

Imperial

lag f twovertical ands,

ne black

nd one

red,

with heblackplacednearest

he mast.

He was assassinatedn 1806

and

Haiti split

ntotwo

states. ne was led by a

blackgeneral

who becameKing

Henry

in

1811, nd

thismonarchy

etainedhe mperial

lag.The

other,

republic,

dopted flag fblue and

redhorizontal

tripes.

Afterhe death f

King Henry

n 1820 and the reunification

f Haiti,the

republicanlagwas adopted

s the

national lag. ut t had

become ssociated

withmulattoominancefthepoliticalystem.he Imperiallag fDessalines,

on

the

otherhand,

was associated ithblacks nd with heir

olitical

spira-

tions,

nd

they ought

o have t

reinstated.o began long-term

trugglever

thenational

lag, disputewhich

lared p intermittently

or henext

entury

and a half s

part

f

the

ockeying

or

ower

etween he wo

political actions.

To

Duvalier nd

other lack eaders,

heflag f Dessalines,

ounderf nde-

pendent

Haiti,was the sole authentic

nd legitimate

ational lag.

The story

grewup thatDessalines

had createdt by taking

captured

rench ricolour

and

tearing

ff

hewhite

band, n

act obviously ymbolic

f

driving

ut

the

white renchppressors.e hadthen hangedheblueband o black, o stand

for heblack

people

of thenation.

he position f theblack

bandnext

o the

mast ymbolized

he

closeness f the blacks

o the land

and their ight o

dominate.

When

Duvalier

finallyucceeded

n restoringhe mperial

lag

n

1964, t

was meant odemonstrate

othhis ownpersonal

ominance

nd the

coming o power f

thenewelite

whichhe representedsee

Nicholls

1979:33,

78, 213,

234-5).

It

was

in much

the

same

spirit

hat heBolsheviks

enamed

t

Petersburg,

Leningrad,r theFrench

evolutionaries

avenew

names o

the

months f the

year, rtheEnglish rotestantsn theReformationook heCatholic urnish-

ings

ut of

the hurches

nd

refitted

he nteriors

n thePuritan

tyle.

n

effect,

one

is

putting

ne's

mark r

stamp

nsomething

o make tone'sown.

Alternativelyne

is

trying,gainst

hese

orts

f acts, o preserve

ne's

mark

or

stamp

n

something

n order

o keep

t.

An

example

fthis

s the

ttempty

the isolationistulers

f seventeenth-centuryapan

o rid their

ountry

f

Westernnfluences.

he

measures

hey

ook

ncluded

anning oreignooks,

giving

ptheuse

of firearms

n

warfare,utlawing

hristianity

fter 616

nd

closing he ountryomissionariesnd other oreignersn 1636 Brown1955:

42-7;

Perrin 979).

In a similar

way,

ome varieties

f

contemporary

ritish

racist iscourse

ortray

inority

ultures

n Britain

s

foreign dulterations,

invasivehreats

o

Britishdentity;

hepresence

f

mosques

nd other

manifes-

tations

f

these ultures epresents

menace

o the

ntegrity

nd

continuity

f

British ulture

Solomos

1991).

A

Kwakiutl

hief

might

ontemplatecquiring

ituals

nd ceremonial

rivi-

leges

from

many

ifferentthnic roups,magining

ach

new

acquisition

s

a

valued ddition o his

personal

dentity

nd a furthernlargement

f

his status

(Goldman1975: 181). Some cultures,n otherwords, eem to regardtas



12/19

SIMON HARRISON

265

perfectlyormal,

n

fact

desirable,

or

people's

socioculturaldentities

o

be

polythetic.

o

the Kwakiutl,

uch

plurality

f

identity

eems

to have

been a

mark articularlyfhigh ocial tatus. he assumption nderlyingn expan-

sionary

ontest

s

quitedifferent:

amely,

hat

ociopoliticaldentity

s

singular,

exclusive

nd absolute.

No

group

r

person

an be

affiliated

o two different

symbolically-constituteddentities

t

the

same time.The issue is

therefore

which

f twoor

more

ompeting

ets f

collective

ymbols particularroup

isto

have llegianceo or

dentify

ith.

n

this

espect,

n

expansionary

ontest

is

thereverse f a

proprietaryontest. he issue

n a

proprietary

ontest s

which

f

two alternative

ocial

groups particulardentity-symbol

houldbe

associated ith. n

an

expansionaryontest,

he ssue

s

which f two alterna-

tive dentity-symbolsparticularocialgroup houldbe associatedwith. n

other

words,

he

firsts a

conflict

ver

the

assignment

f

symbols

o

groups,

and

the

econd s a

conflictver he

ssignment

f

groups

o

symbols.

The

underlyingssue

n

an

expansionary

ontest,heresourceorwhich

he

players re

implicitlyompeting,

eems

usually

o be

people'spolitical

lle-

giances. herulers f

eventeenth-centuryapan iewedChristianity

s a focus

of

political

issent

n

their

ountry,

subversive

hreat

o

stability

nd to their

own

power

Brown

955:

42-7).

t

s

for he

ame

reason

hat

fter revolution

thenew

regime sually

eeks,

s

Weiner

1992: 8) points ut,

o obliteratehe

symbols f theold,forfear hat hesemight erve s a focusfor ounter-

revolution. he outlawing

f the Mass and the othermeasures

akento

suppress atholicism uring he

nglish

eformationllustratehe amepoint.

All

citizens

ererequired y awnotonly oabjure

atholicism,ut o

take

n

oathof

allegiance

o

theking s head

of theChurch nd

so

acknowledge

is

exclusive

ights

o

their eligiousndpoliticaloyalties

Hughes

1957:

154-88).

The common

ssumption

n

all

thesecases

is

that ttachmentso symbols

express

olitical llegiances.

Some

expansionary

ontests

nvolve

ttempts

o

remove ot

only

he

oppos-

inggroup's ymbolicxpressionsf dentity,ut lso ts ctual opulation.he

forms

f British

acist

deologyo which referred

arlier ften rgue n this

way;

hat

s,

that

eople

of

non-British'

thnic

rigin

houldbe

repatriatedo

their wn

countries

Solomos 1991).

In

other

ases, the goal is

simply o

eliminate

group's dentity,

ot ts population. he mostextreme

orm his

can take s

cultural

enocide,

r

ethnocide'. ut

n

either

ase,

he

aim s

the

same: o

bring

bout

uniformityf

symbolically-constituteddentityithin

given

fieldof

social

relations,n internal

omogeneityssumedto

reflect

unanimityfpoliticaloyalty.

For

the aim

of

suppressinghe symbols f some rivalgroup's

dentitys

never,

f

course,

o

leave hat

roup n some sensedevoid f an

identity.he

aim s

to

integrate

r absorb

hegroup y

supplantingts symbols f

dentity

with

one's own. For

instance,he Soviet tate ried epeatedlyo

abolish ts

peoples'

religions: hristianity,uddhism,slam, he tribalshamanic' radi-

tions nd

the

rest.

ut

the

purpose

was not

merely

o destroy.t included he

positive

imof

replacinghe

ld,disapprovedituals ith ew,secular',

fficially-

sanctioned

ocialist

ites

esigned

o

express

oyaltyo the state Binns1980;

Cheater 986:271-8;Lane1981; 1984).



13/19

266 SIMON

HARRISON

Strategies

n

combination

The four ypes f symbolic onflict havedescribedre,of course,merely

idealtypes.

use these bstractionsecause feel hey rehelpful

euristically

and

have

tried, or larity,o

find thnographic

xampleshat orrespond

s

closely s possible

othesedealizations.ut

n

reality,

twouldbemore ccu-

rate o speak f trategies

f

valuation,

nnovation,

ppropriationnd

expansion,

than

fcontestss such.Forthese

rocesses

renot omuch ubstantive

inds

of conflict

s

aspects

f

most,

r perhaps ll,

political ction.n other

words, n

most

ircumstances

hese trategiesf ymbolic

ction re

used n combination

and can onlybe separated

nalytically.

For instance,heexamples fexpansionaryontests discussed arlier n-

tailed ttempts

o devalue r delegitimize

he

symbols f the opposition,

nd

thereforenvolved heuse of

valuation trategies.

ut we stillneed

to distin-

guish xpansionary

ndvaluation

trategiesecause he

goal n an expansionary

strategy

s not

simply

o devalue he opposition's

ymbols

f identity,ut to

make

heopposition

dopt ne's

own

symbols.

imilarly,he nnovationon-

tests cited

nvolved rocesses

f invidious

omparison:

hat s, again, hey

entailed he

use

of valuation

trategies.

ut

it is

still

necessary

o

distinguish

processes

f nnovation

ndvaluationnalytically,

ecause

t s possible o ma-

nipulateherelativealueof ymbols ithouthanginghem t all n any ther

way.

Very roadly, e

have seen thatvaluation

trategies

endto be chosenby

actors

imply

eeking uperiority

f

status,

nd

nnovationtrategiesy those

seeking

n

addition

o

establish

nindependentdentity.

e

have lso seen

that

proprietary

trategies

reusuallyimed t egitimizing

laims o

territory,

ffice

or some other ntitlement,

nd

expansionary

trategies

tgaining

umanre-

sources f political

llegiancend control.

f

one could determine

herelative

importance

f thesegoals to

some political ctor, t

would

in

principle

e

possible opredicthe ctor's ehaviournd, nparticular,hekinds fchanges

the

ctormight

eek o make

o

symbols.

One

reason

why

he

trategies

re

only

eparable

nalytically

s that

hey

re

often elative o

some

particularroup

or

set

of

social

relations,

nd

may

thereforeppeardifferently

o different

ocial alters.

he use

by

the Ulster

DefenceAssociation

f

Irish

Republican ymbolism

alls

nto

this

ategory.

have

described

he

ctions

f

the

U.D.A. as

appropriations,

s

indeed

hey

re

when

viewed

n

relation

o their

rish

Republicanpponents.

ut

they

ake

n

a

differentignificance

henviewed

n

the

context

f the

nternal

olitics

f

theLoyalistommunitytselfHere,theU.D.A. is ustone of several oyalist

factions

ompeting

mong

hemselves

or

nfluence

McAuley

McCormack

1990),

nd

ts

doption

f rishnationalist

ymbols

s

an innovation

trategyy

which

t

has marked

tself ff

deologically

rom

ther

ival ectionsf

Loyal-

ism.1 The U.DA.

has two aims

in

appropriating

ymbols

from

Irish

Nationalism

nd is

acting imultaneously

gainst

wo

distinctetsof

political

competitors.

A

second

reason

why

he

strategies

an

only

be

distinguished

nalytically

s

that

many ymbolic

onflictsnvolve

ttempts

o

manipulate

ot

ust

one

sym-

bol,but hierarchyrcomplex f ymbols ith ifferenttrategieseing sed



14/19

SIMON

HARRISON

267

in relationo differentlements f he omplex. etus take he otemic

ebates

of

the atmul

nd

Manambu.We

have

een

that hese re

proprietary

ontests

over he wnershipftotemicncestorsndtheir ames. uta debate equires

each side

to

put

forward

supporting yth

nd thereforenvolves valuation

contest oncerningwoconflicting yths,

ith

ach sidetrying

o

invalidate

themyth

f the

opposition

nd

have tsown one

recognized

s authentic.he

valuation onflictver hesemyths

s

nested

nside

heproprietaryontestver

the ncestral ame, ndwhoever

ins

hedispute

ver

he

myths

ins

posses-

sionof thename Harrison 990).

Sometimes, he symbols hemselves

re nested

n this

way.

The Mohave

Indians fCalifornia ad a doctrineccording

o which

ll magical owers nd

ritual nowledge erecontainednsongs.The songswere rrangednabout

thirty amedsong cycles, ach referring

o a

corresponding yth.

bout a

third fthe ycles elonged o shamans ndwere

onnected ith he

uring

f

illnessesKroeber 925:756).

An

ndividualften ang

his

songs ifferently

rom ne

occasion

o

the

next,

so

that

very ecitationnvolved degree

f

mprovisationKroeber

925:

757).

Therewere lso discrepanciesetween ifferentndividuals'enditions

f

the

'same'

myth,ong

or shamanic itual

Devereux

957:

1041).

The

thirty

asic

song-cycles ere thereforeubject

o

constantmodification

n

a

continual,

f

highly onstrained,nnovation f new variants. hese disagreementserea

major

ource

f

conflictetween

hamans,

ach

claiming

is

own

version

o

be

the

only

uthentic

ne.

Disputes

verwhichof them

possessed

he

genuine

variant f some song or myth ften scalated nto sorcery euds, nd

rival

shamansharbouringifferentersions f the same' song or myth ived

n

constant ear

f

each other's

orceryDevereux

957:

1040-1).

Let us

say

that wo rival hamans

ossess

different

ersions f

the Raven

song-cycle,

nd

that

ach

s

trying

o

prove

his own version o

be

the

correct

one. The

Raven

ycle

tselfs

therefore

ctually hierarchy,

r

nested

ymbolic

object, onsistingftwovariants aven1and Raven . ConsideringheRaven

cycle

as

one

object,

he

shamans' onflict

s

a

proprietaryispute

ver its

ownership.

ut

considering

t

as two

objects,

he

dispute

s

a

valuation

ontest

in

which ach haman eeks o prove isown song-cycleenuine nddiscredit

his

opponent's.

The

Mohave

distinguishedraudulent

rom

enuine eligious nowledge

y

its

perceivedfficacyWallace 947:253-4).

The

shaman

whose

ongs ppeared

to work'best

would

therefore

end

o

gain

he

upper

hand

n

these

disputes.

Likea totemic ebate, his s a valuation ontest ested nside proprietary

contest,

nd

whichever haman ucceeds

n

havinghis variant

eemed the

more

fficaciousnd authentics

thereby

eemed he ole

egitimateossessor

of the

Raven'

ycle.

A

Europeanexample

of the same

phenomenon s

the

dispute

over

the

Eucharist

n

the

Protestanteformation.he degree owhich heReformers'

version f

theritual

ltered

he

medieval

riginal

r

conservedt

seems o have

reflectedhe balancebetween he Reformers'wingoals of

establishingn

identityistinct rom hemedieval hurch nd establishinglegitimacyased

on continuityith thepast.We know that ach side regarded heother's



15/19

268

SIMON HARRISON

variant

f

the

ritual s illegitimate

nd sought

o eradicatet and impose

ts

own.

The participants

egarded

hese

s utterlyifferent

nd opposed ets

of

ritual racticesnddoctrines hose rreconcilabilityouldonly ndwithone

eliminating

heother.

hey eem,

nother

words,

ohave

viewed

heironflict

as what have

alled

n expansionary

ontest.

But,

objectively,

he

differences

etween

he

medieval

nd Reformers'

er-

sions f the

Eucharist

ere

mall.

n fact,

casecould

be

madefor onsidering

them

s the

same'ritual

nd

the onflicts

a proprietary

ontest,struggle

or

thecontrol

f this

hared

ulturalbject

seeHarrison

992).

But, gain,

he

Eucharists

best

regarded

s a class

orfamily

fsymbolic

bjectshaving

oth

resemblances

nd differences.

ith

regardo the

differences

that s,

those

aspects f themedieval itualwhich hey ltered theReformersursued n

expansionary

trategy.ut

in relation

o

thecommonalities

those

aspects

which

he

Reformers

onserved

their trategy

asproprietary.

Symbolic

apital

I

have

aid

that he

four trategies

f

symbolic

onflict

reabstractions.

ut I

should ike t this

oint

otry o

abstract

ven

furthernd

to distil

hefeatures

common

o

all four. shall

ryo show

that ll the trategies

anbe

reduced o

one underlyinghenomenon,fwe make certainssumption:amely,hat

group's

diacritical

ymbols

epresent

unds

f

whatBourdieu

alls

symbolic

capital.

To

Bourdieu,

ymbolic

apital

s

at

east

n part

disguised,

ystified

orm f

economic apital.

The economic apital

f a

Kabyle

descent

group,

or

n-

stance,

s its

and,manpower

nd

other

material esources.

ts

symbolic

apital

is

its

reputation

r

prestige.

group

an accumulate

ymbolic

apital y

behav-

ing honourably

n

its

dealings

with

outsiders;

or

nstance,

n the

forceful

pursuit

f

blood

feuds. ut

this

ymbolic

apital

s also

partly

reflection

f

the

group's conomic apital ndmay n turn e 'cashed n' forvarious orts f

economiccredit

nd assistance,

nd so

be converted

nto

material

wealth

(Bourdieu

990:

112-21).

Let us imagine

he

otal

ssemblage

fdiacriticalymbols

elonging

o some

set of

interacting

roups

s corresponding

o

a total

pool

of

symbolic

apital

available

o these

roups.

hat

s

to

say,

ach ndividual

ymbol

r

complex

f

symbols

epresents

certain

raction

f this

pool

of

capital.

The fraction

t

stands

or

might

e

called

ts

symbolic

alue.

Clearly,

ts

symbolic

alue

is

entirely

elative

nd

depends

n

the

value

of

every

ther

ymbol.2

Let us furtheruppose hat he imofpoliticalctorssnot nsomesense o

accumulate

bsolute

unds

f

ymbolic

apital.

heir

oncern

s

rather

ith

he

relativeistribution

f

symbolic

apital

etween hem.

Whatmatters

o them

re

the

dfferences

etween

ne

group

r

actor nd

another

n

their

ntangible

ssets

of

egitimacy,

restige,

nfluence

nd

political

redit.

ince

one actor an

pos-

sessmore

f

these

esources

han nother

ctor

nly

o

exactly

he ame

degree

that

he other

possesses

ess than

him,

the

differences

n the distribution

f

symbolic

apital

within

ny

hosen

universe

f social

relations

ill

always

dd

up

to

zero.

This

s

true

ven f

ocieties

ndergoing

hemost adical

ocial

nd

politicalransformations,nwhich he bsolutemagnitudesfsymbolicapital



16/19

SIMON HARRISON

269

may

n

some sense

be

rapidly hanging.

n

short, characteristicf symbolic

conflicts that t takes heform f a zero-sum ame

n

whichratios nd not

quantitiesfsymbolic apitalreat ssue, nd nwhich nygain o onegroup

or

actor

an

only

be made

t

the

xpense

f

omeother

r

others

cf.

Bourdieu

1990:121). Given his remiss,etus try

o

deducehow

a

groupmight eek o

increasets hare

f

this

esource.

First f all, the exactproportionf symbolic apital ny given ymbol

r

symbols

enote

an be contested. his s

precisely

hat

happens

n

a valuation

contest: wo groups truggleo bring bout a revaluationf some of their

respectiveymbols,lteringheratios fsymbolicapitalwhich hey

ignify.

valuation

ontest s thereforene

way

of

appropriatingymbolic apital.

t

seems o me themost lementary,ecause tconsistsimplyndirectlyhang-

ing hevalueof symbols.

A

secondway

n

which group ouldchange he

balance

f ymbolicapital

in

its favourwould

be

to monopolize

r

appropriate

he

symbols f other

groups, herebyapturinghe ymbolic alue

which

hey epresent.

his strat-

egy

s the

basis

f

proprietary

ontest.

third

ossibilityould

be

for

group

to

generate r

elaborate

ts

own fundof

symbols

nd

thereby

stablish r

enlarge

tsown share

f the

total

ool

of

symbolic apital.

his is

the

trategy

in an innovation ontest. he final

possibility

ould

be

to

extinguish

he

sociopoliticaldentitiesfsomeother roup rgroups, herebyissolvingheir

funds

f

symbolicapital.

his s

the

trategy

n an

expansionary

ontest.

In short, hefour trategiesf symbolicction have dentifiedorrespond

exactly

o

the

only

our

ogically ossibleways

n which

groupmight nlarge

its share

of symbolic apital y manipulating

he

system f symbols epre-

senting

t.

t

seems

o

me

that he

onlyway

of

explaining

his

oincidences

to

suppose

hat

hefour

trategies

re

spects

f

single henomenon

nd

that he

underlyingesource

hich

ctors

re

mplicitlyompeting

or n all

four

ases

is symbolicapital.

Conclusion

Normally,

ne

assumes

hat he ssential eaturef

symbols

s that

hey onvey

meaning. hey re igns atherhan alues cf Levi-Strauss969:496)and the

central

uestions heypose

concern

heir

nterpretation.

tudies

f

political

symbolism

ften how

uch

ymbols

o

possess omplex

nd

richly

multivalent

significations.evertheless,

have

ried s

much s

possible

o bracket

ut the

semantic imensionfsymbolsn this rticle ndtoavoidmaking nyrefer-

ence

to

their

meaning part

rom ne

very imple ssumption:

amely,

hat

they ignify

atios

f

symbolicapital.

My reason

or

oing

his s

to

show

how

the

processes discuss

n this rticle

-

broadly,

he

manipulation

f

cultural

epresentations

can

be

analysed

s

forms

f

economic

ction. define

politicalymbol

s

anything hich

s used

to

representymbolic apital

nd

which s

therefore

politicallyignificant

r

strategic

sset.

More

accurately,

hefunction

f

a

political ymbol

s to bind

quantity

f

symbolic

alue to the

politicaldentity

f

somegroup rperson.

Politicalymbolsre to symbolic apitalwhatmoney s to economic apital.



17/19

270

SIMON HARRISON

One

canalways ecognize olitical

ymbols,ecause

heyhave the

following

four

haracteristics.

First,hey reproperty.n individualr grouphaving ropertyightsn a

politicalymbol

r

symbols

s

defined

herebyo

be

an

entityossessing

ym-

bolic apital,

r, n otherwords,

political

ctor. econd, he ymbols

re tatus

markers,scribed

with

qualities

roadly

escribable

s sacredness r prestige

value.

Third,

heir ossession

s a source f egitimacy

ndmay onfer pecific

rightsnd

prerogatives

uch sthe wnership

f territoryr the

ntitlement

o a

political

ffice.

nd

fourth,

or hendividual,he ymbols

re

focus

f motional

attachment,

dentificationnd

oyalty,

nvested

ith

heir wners'

ense f self

These four

haracteristicsrenothing

ther han

he

four

ways

n

which

t s

possible o manipulateuch ymbolso as toappropriateymbolicapital.

Valuation

ontests erethe

first inds f conflict discussed

n

this

rticle.

But nnovation

ontests aveontological

riority,

ecause t

s

in these

hat he

symbolic

nventories

f

groups

regenerated.

etme therefore

earrange

hese

four ypes

f

conflict

nto

their

atural rder.

We

can

see that here

re

four

basic orts

f

change

which

political

ymbol

an

undergo:

t can

come nto

existence;

t can rise

nd fall

n

symbolicalue;

t can

migrateetween roups

or,more

ccurately,

hedistribution

f

rights

n

tcanchange;

nd tcangoout

of

existence.

his might

e

regarded

s itscharacteristicifecycle

r

biography',

in thesamesense thatKopytoff1986) suggestshat ne may speakof the

biographies

f

any

ther oods.

n

effect,

hefour

trategies

f

symbolic

ction

I

have dentified

epresentrocesses

nalogous o

the production,

aluation,

distribution

nd destruction

f

these

ymbolic

ssets.

ll

the ultural

rocesses

I

havecalled ymbolic

onflict

re

analysable

ntocombinations

f

ust

these

fourmodes

f action.

NOTES

Forhelpful ommentsn earlier ersions fthis rticle, thank ominicBryan,Hastings

Donnan,

Andrew anders,

arveyWhitehouse,

n anonymous

efereeorJRAI

nd

members

of anthropology

eminars

t theAustralian ationalUniversity,

he

University

f Melbourne

and theUniversity

f Sydney.

1

thank

ominic

Bryan

or ointing

his

ut

to me.

2

The inspiration

or

his

mage s,

of

course,

he tructural

inguistics

f de Saussure

1974).

REFERENCES

Adler,

& N. Barnard 992.

Asafo frican

lags

f

he

ante. ondon:

Thames& Hudson.

Anderson, . 1991. maginedommunities:eflectionsn the riginnd pread fnationalism;evised

edition.

ondon:Verso.

Bateson, . 1958.

Naven;

nd edition.

tanford: niv.Press.

Binns, .A.P1980.

he

changingace fpower:

evolutionnd

ccommodation

n

the evelopment

ofthe

Soviet

eremonialystem

I.

Man

N.S.)

15, 170-87.

Boas,F. 1921. Ethnology

f

heKwakiutl.5th

AnnualReport,

ureau

of

American thnology,

1913-1914.Washington,

C.

Boissevain,.

1963. aints

ndfireworks:eligion

nd oliticsnrural

alta. ondon:Athlone

ress.

Bourdieu, 1990.

The ogic

f ractice;ranslated

yR. Nice.

Cambridge:olity

ress.

Brown,

.M. 1955.Nationalism

nJapan:

n introductoryistorical

nalysis.

erkeley,os Angeles:

Univ. fCaliforniaress.

Burke, 1969.TheRenaissanceense f he ast. ondon: dwardArnold.



18/19

SIMON HARRISON

271

Cannadine,

.

1983.

The

context,erformance

nd

meaning

f ritual: heBritish

monarchy

nd

the InventionfTradition',. 1820-1977.n The nventionf raditioneds)

E.

Hobsbawm T.

Ranger. ambridge: niv.

Press.

1987. ntroduction:ivine ites fkings.nRitualsf oyalty:oweranderemonialn raditional

societieseds)

D.

Cannadine

S.

Price.Cambridge:

niv.Press.

Cheater, .P 1986.

ocial

nthropology:

n

alternativentroduction.ondon:Unwin

Hyman.

Coles,J.1991.Beethoven

hitewashlaim.The

Guardian,3June,

991:1.

Cooper,

M.

1973.

Opera

nFrance.

n

The

New

Oxford

istory

fMusic,

ol.

:

theAgefEnlightenment,

1745-1790eds) E. Wellesz F. Sternfeld.ondon:Oxford

niv.Press.

Danforth,.M. 1993.Competinglaims

o Macedonian

dentity:

heMacedonian

uestion

nd

thebreakup fYugoslavia. nthrop.oday(4): 3-10.

Devereux, . 1957.Dream earningnd ndividualitual ifferences

n

Mohave

hamanism.m.

Anthrop.9, 1036-45.

Duhamel, . 1987.La querelle es bouffons.'Histoire04,26-31.

Firth, . 1973.

ytnbots:

ublicnd rivate.ondon:Allen& Unwin.

Goldman,

. 1975.

Themouth

f

eaven:n ntroductionoKwakiutl

eligioushought.

ew York:

Wiley.

Harrison,J. 1989.Magical ndmaterial olitiesnMelanesia.Man N.S.), 24, 1-20.

1990. tealingeople's ames: istorynd olitics

n

a Sepik

iverosmology.ambridge: niv.

Press.

1992.Ritual s intellectualroperty.an N.S.) 27,225-44.

Hobsbawm, . 1983.Mass-producingraditions:urope 1870-1914.

n

The nventionf

radition

(eds) E. Hobsbawm

T.

Ranger. ambridge: niv.

Press.

Hughes,

.

1957.The

Reformation.

ondon:

Burns Oates.

Huizinga, . 1970.Homo udens: studyf

he

lay lementn

ulture.

ondon:

Paladin.

Kertzer,.I. 1988.Ritual,oliticsnd ower. ew Haven,London: aleUniv.Press.

Kiberd, . 1989.

rish

iterature

nd rish

history.

n The

Oxford

llustrated

istoryf

reland

ed.)

R.F. Foster. xford: niv.

Press.

Kopytoff,. 1986.The cultural iographyf things: ommoditization

s process. n

7he

ocial

ife

of hings:ommodities

ncultural

erspectiveed.) A. Appadurai.

ambridge: niv.Press.

Kroeber, .L. 1925.Handbookf

he

ndiansf

Caltfornia.

Smithson.

nstn. ur.Am.Ethnol. ull.

78). Washington:

overnment

rinting

ffice.

Kuhrt, . 1987.Usurpation,onquest ndceremonial:rom abylon

o Persia. n

Rituats

f oyalty:

power

nd

eremonialn raditional

ocieties

eds)

D.

Cannadine S. Price.

ambridge:

niv.

ress.

Lane,C. 1981.Theritesf ulers.ambridge: niv.Press.

1984.Legitimacynd powernthe ovietUnion throughocialist itual. rit.J.olit. ci.

14,207-14.

Levi-Strauss,

.

1969.The lementarytructuresfkinship;

ranslated

yJ.H. Bell,J.R.

von

Sturmer

& R.

Needham. ondon: yre& Spottiswoode.

1973.Totemism.

armondsworth:

enguin.

Lindstrom,

.

1985.Personal

ames nd

social eproductionn Tanna, anuatu.J.olynes.oc.94,

27-45.

McAuley, .W

&

J.

McCormack

990.

The hound

f Ulster

nd the

re-writing

f rish

history.

Atud.rl.

15,

149-64.

Mills,C.W

1970.The

ociologicalmagination.armondsworth:

enguin.

Nicholls,

.

1979.

rom essalinesoDuvalier:

ace,olour

nd

national

ndependencenHaiti.

ondon:

Macmillan.

Perrin,

. 1979.

Giving p

the

un:Japan's

eversiono

he

word,543-1879.

oston:David

Godine.

Radcliffe-Brown,

.R. 1951.The

comparative

ethod n social

nthropology.J.

.

Anthrop.

nst.

81,

15-22.

Saussure,

. de

1974.

Course

n

eneralinguistics;

ranslated

yW

Blaskin. ondon: ontana ollins.

Schwimmer,

.G. 1972.

ymbolicompetition.nthropologia

4,

117-55.

Solomos, .

1991.

Contemporary

orms f racial

deology

n

British

ociety.age

RaceRelations

Abstracts6,

1-15.

Tuzin,

.F. 1978.

Politics, ower

nd divine

rtistry

n lahita.

nthrop.. 51,

61-7.

Wallace,WJ.

1947.

The dream n Mohave

ife.J.

m.Folkl.

0,

252-8.

Weiner,

.B.

1992.

nalienable

ossessions:

he

aradox fkeeping-while-giving.erkeley:

niv. of

Californiaress.



19/19

272

SIMON HARRISON

Quatre prototypes u

conflit

ymbolique

R6sutn

Le butde cet rticle std'arriverune th6orie e la symbolique olitique partir e l'analyse

du

conflit

ymbolique.

n entend

ar

conflit

ymbolique

a

dimension u conflit olitique

qui

se

rapporte

la

manipulation

es symboles.

n

montre, partir 'un certain ombre

d'exemples thnographiques,

ue

le

conflit

ymbolique epr6sente

n

type

e

competition

semblable celui

que

Bourdieu ualifie

e

capital ymbolique'.

uatreformes rototypes

sont distingu6es.

e conflit ymbolique eut porter

oit

sur l'6valuation es symboles

politiques,

oit

sur

leur

production,

eur

propri6t6,

u leur surviecomme embl6mes

d'afflliation

olitique.

es

quatre

ormes

orrespondentquatre

ropri6t6s

ondamentales

du symbolepolitique,repr6sentantuatre

faqons

de

manipuler

n

symbolepour

s'en

approprier

e

capital ymbolique.

Departmentf

ociology,

niversityf

Ulster,

oleraineT52

ISA

Date post:	16-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-beer7ela7d
View:	235 times
Download:	0 times

Symbolic Conflict

Documents