Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.
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 support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Studies in Society and History.
http://www.jstor.org
B. ORTNER
173
174
SHERRY
B. ORTNER
AND
DOMINATION
RESISTANCE
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
175
176
SHERRY B. ORTNER
POLITICS
It may seem odd to startoff by criticizingstudiesof resistancefor not containing enough politics. If there is one thing these studies examine, it is politics,
front and center. Yet the discussion is usually limited to the politics of resistance, that is, to the relationshipbetween the dominantand the subordinate
(see also Cooper 1992:4). If we are to recognize thatresistorsare doing more
RESISTANCE
AND
ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
I77
178
SHERRY B. ORTNER
all, was in large part a productof the displacementof exploitationand violence from the chief's own subjects to those of his neighbors.
There seems a virtualtaboo on puttingthese pieces together, as if to give
a full account of the Mayan political order, good and bad, would be to
give some observersthe ammunitionfor saying that the Maya deserved what
they got from the Spanish. But this concern is ungrounded.Nothing about
Mayan politics, however bloody and exploitative, would condone the looting, killing, and culturaldestructionwrought by the Spanish. On the other
hand, a more thorough and critical account of pre-colonial Mayan politics
would presumably generate a different picture of the subsequent shape of
the colonial history of the region, including the subsequentpatternsof resistance and non-resistance.At the very least, it would respect the ambivalent complexity of the Maya world as it existed both at that time and in the
present.4
The most glaring arena of internal political complexity glossed over by
most of these studies is the arena of gender politics.5 This is a particularly
vexed question. Membersof subordinategroupswho want to call attentionto
gender inequities in their own groups are subject to the accusationthat they
are underminingtheir own class or subalternsolidarity,not supportingtheir
men, and playing into the hands of the dominants. "First-world"feminist
scholars who do the same are subject to sharp attacks from "third-world"
feminist scholarson the same grounds(see C. Mohanty1988). It seems elitist
to call attentionto the oppressionof women within their own class or racial
groupor culture, when thatclass or racialgroupor cultureis being oppressed
by anothergroup.
These issues have come into sharpfocus in the debatessurroundingsati, or
widow burning, in colonial India (Spivak 1988; Jain, Misra, and Srivastava
1987; Mani 1987). One of the ways in which the Britishjustified their own
dominance was to point to what they consideredbarbaricpractices, such as
sati, and to claim that they were engaged in a civilizing mission that would
save Indian women from these practices. Gayatri ChakravortySpivak has
ironically characterizedthis situationas one in which "white men are saving
brown women from brown men" (1988:296). Thus, analystswho might want
to investigatethe ways in which sati was partof a largerconfigurationof male
dominancein nineteenth-centuryIndiansociety cannotdo so withoutseeming
to subscribeto the discourse of the colonial administrators.The attemptsto
deal with this particularset of contradictionshave only multipliedthe contradictions.
4 A
parallel to the monolithic portrayalof resistors is the monolithic portrayalof the dominants. This is beginning to be brokendown, as for example in Stoler (1989).
5 The absence of genderconsiderationsin generic resistancestudies, and some implicationsof
this absencehave been addressedparticularlyby O'Hanlon(1989). See also White (1986). But for
valuable ethnographicstudies of gender resistance per se, see Abu-Lughod (1986) and Ong
(1987).
RESISTANCE
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
179
I80
SHERRY B. ORTNER
with larger regional (Nepal state and British Raj) dynamics; Richard Fox's
(1985) study of the evolutionof Sikh identityundercolonialism-all of these
show thatan understandingof political authenticity,of the people's own forms
of inequalityand asymmetry,is not only not incompatiblewith an understanding of resistancebut is in fact indispensableto such an understanding.
THINNING
CULTURE
RESISTANCE
AND
ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
I8I
their acts of resistancegrew. Yet the degree to which the treatmentof religion
in these studies is actually cultural, that is, is actually an effort to illuminate
the conceptual and affective configurationswithin which the peasants are
operating, is generally minimal.9Rather,the peasantis endowed with something called "religiosity,"a kind of diffuse consciousness that is never further
explored as a set of ideas, practices, and feelings built into the religious
universe the peasant inhabits.
Guhaandothersin his grouparejoustingwith some MarxistIndianhistorians
who share with bourgeois modernizationtheoristsa view of religion as backward. The SubalternStudies writers, in contrast,want to respect and validate
peasantreligiosity as an authenticdimensionof subalternculture,out of which
an authenticallyoppositionalpolitics could be andwas constructed.YetGuha's
own notionof peasantreligiositystill bearsthe tracesof Marx'shostilitytoward
religion, defining "religious consciousness . . . as a massive demonstration of
But culturalthinning, as noted above, need not be confined to marginalizing religious factors, nor is it practiced only by non-anthropologists(like
Guha and Scott). In his landmarkwork, Europe and the People without
History (1982), Eric Wolf devotes a scant five pages at the end of the book to
the question of culture, largely in orderto dismiss it. And in his superbstudy
of the Sikh wars against the British (1985), RichardFox similarly,and much
more extensively, argues against the idea that culture informs, shapes, and
underpinsresistance at least as much as it emerges situationallyfrom it.
There are a numberof differentthings going on here. In part, Wolf and Fox
(and perhaps some of the others) are writing from a sixties-style materialist
9 Of course the SubalternStudies school is complex, and a varietyof tendenciesappearwithin
it. Shahid Amin's "Gandhias Mahatma"(1988) is more fully culturalthan many of the other
writings, as is GyanendraPandey's "PeasantRevolt and IndianNationalism"(1988).
I82
SHERRY
B. ORTNER
RESISTANCE
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
I83
(1994:129), where "multiple grammarsoperate through contingently categorized people" (1994:127). The result is a complex but illuminatingpicture
of shifting loyalties, shifting alliances, and above all shifting categories, as
British, native Fijians, and Fiji Indianscontendedfor power, resources, and
legitimacy (see also Kaplan 1990; Kelly and Kaplan 1992; Orlove 1991;
SUBJECTS
The questionof the relationshipof the individualpersonor subjectto domination carries the resistanceproblematicto the level of consciousness, subjectivity, intentionality,and identity.This questionhas taken a particularform in
debates surrounding,once again, the SubalternStudies school of historians.I
should say here that I do not launch so much criticism against the Subaltern
Studies historiansbecause they are, in Guha's term, "terrible."On the contrary,I find myself returningto theirwork because much of it is insightfuland
provocativeand also because it is situatedat thatintersectionof anthropology,
history,and literarystudies thatso many of us find ourselvesoccupying, often
awkwardly,in contemporaryscholarly work.10
In any event, GayatriChakravortySpivak has taken the SubalternStudies
school to task for creatinga monolithiccategoryof subalternwho is presumed
to have a unitaryidentity and consciousness (1988a, 1988b). Given my arguments about the internal complexity of subaltern politics and culture made
above, I would certainly agree with this point. Yet Spivak and others who
I84
SHERRY B. ORTNER
Let me say again that in some ways I am sympatheticwith what they are
trying to do, which is to introducecomplexity, ambiguity,and contradiction
into our view of the subject in ways that I have arguedabove must be done
with politics and culture(and indeed resistance).Yet the particularpoststructuralist move they make toward accomplishingthis goal paradoxicallydestroys the object (the subject) who should be enriched, ratherthan impoverished, by this act of introducingcomplexity.
This final form of ethnographicrefusalmay be illustratedby examiningan
article entitled, "'Shahbano,"' on a famous Indian court case (Pathak and
Rajan 1989). The authors, who acknowledge their debt to Spivak's work,
addressthe case of a MuslimIndianwomancalled Shahbano,who went to civil
court to sue for supportfrom her husbandafter a divorce. Althoughthe court
awarded her the supportwhich she sought, the decision set off a national
controversyof majorproportionsbecausethe court'saward(and indeed Shahbano's decision to bringthe case to a civil courtin the firstplace) controverted
local Islamic divorce law. In the wake of the controversy,Shahbanowrote an
open letter to the courtrejectingthe awardand expressingher solidaritywith
her co-Muslims.
The authors'argumentaboutthe case runsas follows. The court'saward,as
well as the larger legal framework within which it was made, operated
througha discourseof protectionfor personswho are seen to be weak. But "to
be framed by a certain kind of discourse is to be objectified as the 'other,'
representedwithout the characteristicfeatures of the 'subject,' sensibility
and/or volition" (Pathak and Rajan 1989:563). Within the context of such
discursive subjectification,the appropriatenotion of resistanceis simply the
"refusalof subjectification,"(1989:571) the refusal to occupy the category
being foisted upon one. Shahbano'sshifting position on her own case-first
seeking, then rejecting,the award-represented such a refusalof subjectification, the only one open to her, given her situation. "To live with what she
cannot control, the female subalternsubject here responds with a discontinuous and apparentlycontradictorysubjectivity"(1989:572). But "her apparent inconstancy or changeability must be interpretedas her refusal to
occupy the subject position [of being protected]offered to her" (1989:572).
Basically I agree with the authors' argumentthat every moment in the
developing situationshiftedto the foregrounda differentaspectof Shahbano's
multiplex identity as a woman, as poor, as a Muslim. Indeed, it does not
requiresophisticatedtheorizingto recognize thatevery social being has a life
of such multiplicityand thatevery social contextcreatessuch shiftingbetween
foregroundand background.I also agree (althoughthe authorsnever quite put
it this way) that, for certainkinds of compoundedpowerlessness(female and
poor and of minoritystatus),"therefusalof subjectification"may be the only
strategy available to the subject. Yet there are several problems with the
interpretationthat need to be teased out.
RESISTANCE
AND
ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
185
I86
SHERRY
B. ORTNER
psychological perspectivesthat attemptto tap her "'inner' being," or a perspective that assumes "individualizedand individualistic"heroic resistorsand they reject both (1989:570). Instead, their strategy is to focus on the
mechanicalinteractionof a varietyof disembodiedforces: "multipleintersections of power, discursive displacements, discontinuous identities refusing
subjectification, the split legal subject" (1989:577). Thus, despite certain
disclaimers at the end of the article, Shahbanoas subject (or agent? or person?) quite literally disappears. The irrelevanceof her understandingsand
intentions(not to mentionher social universe, her history,and so forth)to this
analytic project is starklybroughthome by the authors'own textual strategy
of refusing to reproduceand interprettwo press interviews that Shahbano
gave, one to a newspaperand anotheron nationaltelevision. The authorssay,
"Wehave not privileged these as sources of her subjectivity"(1989:570). In
fact they have not even presentedthem.
The de(con)structionof the subjectin this way cannotbe the only answerto
the reified and romanticizedsubject of many resistancestudies. On the contrary, the answer to the reified and romanticizedsubject must be an actor
understood as more fully socially and culturally constructed from top to
bottom. The breaks and splits and incoherenciesof consciousness, no less
than the integrationsand coherencies, are equally products of cultural and
historical formation. One could question, indeed, whetherthe splits and so
forth should be viewed as incoherencies or simply as alternativeforms of
coherence; not to do so implies that they are a form of damage. Of course
oppressionis damaging, yet the ability of social beings to weave alternative,
and sometimes brilliantlycreative, forms of coherenceacross the damages is
one of the hearteningaspects of humansubjectivity(see also Cooper's [1992]
critique of Fanon). A similar point may be made with respect to agency.
Agency is not an entity that exists apartfrom culturalconstruction(nor is it a
qualityone has only when one is whole, or when one is an individual).Every
culture, every subculture,every historicalmoment, constructsits own forms
of agency, its own modes of enactingthe process of reflectingon the self and
the world and of acting simultaneouslywithin and upon what one finds there.
To understandwhere Shahbanoor any other figure in a resistance drama is
coming from, one must explore the particularitiesof all these constructions,
as both culturaland historicalproducts,and as personalcreationsbuilding on
those precipitatesof cultureand history.
A brilliant example of this alternativeperspective may be seen in Ashis
Nandy's The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of the Self under Colonialism
RESISTANCE
AND
ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
187
RESISTANCE
Running through all these works, despite in some cases deep theoretical
differencesbetween them, is a kind of bizarrerefusal to know and speak and
1 For anotherstrong work on Gandhi'sculturalgenius, see Fox (1989).
I88
SHERRY B. ORTNER
write of the lived worlds inhabitedby those who resist (or do not, as the case
may be). Of the works discussed at length in this essay, Clendinnengoes to
greaterlengths thanthe othersto portraythe pre-colonialMaya world in some
depth and complexity, yet in the end she chooses to pull her punches and
smooth over what the material has told her. Scott, Guha, and Pathak and
Rajan, on the other hand, quite literally refuse to deal with the materialthat
would allow entry into the political and culturalworlds of those they discuss.
The "flying letters"of Scott's peasants, the testimonies of Guha's peasants'
visions, the press interviews of Shahbanoare texts that can be read in the
richest sense to yield an understandingof both the meanings and the mystifications on which people are operating.Whatmight emerge is somethinglike
what we see in CarloGinzburg'sNight Battles (1985): an extraordinarilyrich
and complicated world of beliefs, practices, and petty politics whose stance
toward the encroachmentof Christianityand the Inquisition in the Middle
Ages is confused and unheroicyet also poignantlystubbornand"authentic"a very Nandy-esquestory.
There are no doubt many reasons for this interpretiverefusal. But one is
surely to be found in the so-called crisis of representationin the human
sciences. When EdwardSaid says in effect that the discourse of Orientalism
rendersit virtuallyimpossible to know anythingreal aboutthe Orient(1979);
when GayatriSpivak tells us that "the subalterncannotspeak"(1988a); when
James Cliffordinforms us that all ethnographiesare "fictions"(1986:7); and
when of course in some sense all of these things are true-then the effect is a
powerful inhibitionon the practiceof ethnographybroadlydefined:the effortful practice, despite all that, of seeking to understandother peoples in other
times and places, especially those people who are not in dominantpositions.
The ethnographicstanceholds thatethnographyis neverimpossible. This is
the case because people not only resist political domination;they resist, or
anyway evade, textual dominationas well. The notion that colonial or academic texts are able completely to distortor exclude the voices and perspectives of those being writtenabout seems to me to endow these texts with far
greaterpower than they have. Many things shape these texts, including, dare
one say it, the point of view of those being writtenabout. Nor does one need
to resortto variousforms of textualexperimentationto allow this to happenit is happeningall the time. Of course thereis variationin the degree to which
differentauthorsand differentformsof writingallow this process to show, and
it is certainlyworthwhileto reflect, as Cliffordand others have done, on the
ways in which this process can be enhanced. But it seems to me grotesqueto
insist on the notion thatthe text is shapedby everythingbut the lived realityof
the people whom the text claims to represent.
Take the case of a moder female suicide discussed in Spivak's famous
essay, the one that concludes with the statementthat "the subalterncannot
speak"(1988a:308). It is perhapsmore difficultfor any voice to breakthrough
RESISTANCE
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
I89
I90
SHERRY B. ORTNER
The point of this essay can be statedvery simply: Resistance studies are thin
because they are ethnographicallythin: thin on the internalpolitics of dominated groups, thin on the cultural richness of those groups, thin on the
subjectivity-the intentions,desires, fears, projects-of the actorsengaged in
these dramas.Ethnographicthinnessin turnderivesfromseveralsources(other
thansheerbad ethnography,of course, which is always a possibility). The first
is the failure of nerve surroundingquestions of the internalpolitics of dominated groups and of the culturalauthenticityof those groups, which I have
raised periodically throughoutthis essay. The second is the set of issues
surroundingthe crisis of representation-the possibility of truthfulportrayals
of others (or Others)and the capacityof the subalternto be heard-which has
just been addressed.Takentogether,the two sets of issues convergeto produce
a kind of ethnographicblack hole.
Filling in the black hole would certainly deepen and enrich resistance
studies, but there is more to it than that. It would, or should, reveal the
ambivalences and ambiguities of resistance itself. These ambivalences and
ambiguities, in turn, emerge from the intricate webs of articulationsand
disarticulationsthat always exist between dominantand dominated. For the
politics of external dominationand the politics within a subordinatedgroup
may link up with, as well as repel, one another;the cultures of dominant
groups and of subalternsmay speak to, even while speaking against, one
another14;and, as Nandyso eloquentlyargues, subordinatedselves may retain
oppositionalauthenticityand agency by drawingon aspects of the dominant
cultureto criticize their own world as well as the situationof domination.In
14
Nandy (1983) and Comaroff(1985) make a point of discussingthe ways in which subalterns
may effectively draw on, and take advantageof, some of the latent oppositionalcategories and
ideologies of Westernculture.
RESISTANCE
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
191
short, one can only appreciate the ways in which resistance can be more than
opposition, can be truly creative and transformative, if one appreciates the
multiplicity of projects in which social beings are always engaged, and the
multiplicity of ways in which those projects feed on and well as collide with
one another.
REFERENCES
I92
SHERRY B. ORTNER
RESISTANCE
AND ETHNOGRAPHIC
REFUSAL
I93