Изъ Джеймса Скотта, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (1992):
Понятіе hidden transcript:
Every subordinate group creates, out of its ordeal, a “hidden transcript” that represents a critique of power spoken behind the back of the dominant. The powerful, for their part, also develop a hidden transcript representing the practices and claims of their rule that cannot be openly avowed. A comparison of the hidden transcript of the weak with that of the powerful and of both hidden transcripts to the public transcript of power relations offers a substantially new way of understanding resistance to domination.
(с. xxi)
If subordinate discourse in the presence of the dominant is a public transcript, I shall use the term hidden transcript to characterize discourse that takes place “offstage,” beyond direct observation by powerholders. The hidden transcript is thus derivative in the sense that it consists of those offstage speeches, gestures, and practices that confirm, contradict, or inflect what appears in the public transcript. We do not wish to prejudge, by definition, the relation between what is said in the face of power and what is said behind its back. Power relations are not, alas, so straightforward that we can call what is said in power-laden contexts false and what is said offstage true. Nor can we simplistically describe the former as a realm of necessity and the latter as a realm of freedom. What is certainly the case, however, is that the hidden transcript is produced for a different audience and under different constraints of power than the public transcript. By assessing the discrepancy between the hidden transcript and the public transcript we may begin to judge the impact of domination on public discourse.
(сс. 4-5)
Вопросъ:
Here, the attempt is to explain the relative political quiescence of the Western working class despite the continuing provocation of inequities under capitalism and access to the political remedies that might be provided by parliamentary democracy. Why, in other words, does a subordinate class seem to accept or at least to consent to an economic system that is manifestly against its interests when it is not obliged to by the direct application of coercion or the fear of its application?
(с. 71)
– И “плюралистической позиціи” (“the absence of significant protest or radical opposition in relatively open political systems must be taken as a sign of satisfaction or, at least, insufficient dissatisfaction to warrant the time and trouble of political mobilization”, с. 72), и восходящему къ Антоніо Грамши объясненію (гегемонія, опосредованная ложнымъ сознаніемъ) Скоттъ предпочитаетъ собственную идею, что иллюзія торжества гегемоніи производится тѣмъ, что угнетенные классы прибѣгаютъ къ стратегіи потайного транскрипта, уклоняясь по мѣрѣ возможности отъ практическаго бремени эксплуатаціи, однако и не оказывая явнаго сопротивленія.
Примѣръ:
A parallel historical argument could be made about the dissimulation deployed by subordinate groups to conceal practices of resistance. Malay paddy farmers, in the region in which I have conducted fieldwork, have resented paying the official Islamic tithe. It is collected inequitably and corruptly, the proceeds are sent to the provincial capital, and not a single poor person in the village has even received any charity back from the religious authorities. Quietly and massively, the Malay peasantry has managed to nearly dismantle the tithe system so that only 15 percent of what is formally due is actually paid. There have been no tithe riots, demonstrations, protests, only a patient and effective nibbling in a multitude of ways: fraudulent declarations of the amount of land farmed, simple failures to declare land, underpayment, and delivery of paddy spoiled by moisture or contaminated with rocks and mud to increase its weight. For complex political reasons, the details of which need not concern us, neither the religious authorities nor the ruling party wishes to call public attention to this silent, effective defiance. To do so would, among other things, expose the tenuousness of government authority in the countryside and perhaps encourage other acts of insubordination. The low profile adopted by the two antagonists amounts to something of a joint conspiracy to keep the conflict out of the public record. Someone examining the newspapers, speeches, and public documents of the period a few decades hence would find little or no trace of this conflict.
(с. 89)
Поясненіе, затрагивающее символическую сторону дѣла:
The seductiveness of theories of hegemony and false consciousness thus depends in large part on the strategic appearances that elites and subordinates alike ordinarily insert into the public transcript. For subordinates, the need for protective ingratiation ensures that, once they come under scrutiny from above, the Lollard becomes an orthodox believer, the poacher becomes a peaceful respecter of gentry property, and the tithe evader a peasant ready to meet his obligations. The greater the power exercised over them and the closer the surveillance, the more incentive subordinates have to foster the impression of compliance, agreement, deference. By the same token, we know that compliance extracted under such draconian circumstances is less likely to be a valid guide to offstage opinion. Elites also, as we have seen, may have their own compelling reasons to preserve a public facade of unity, willing compliance, and respect. Unless one can penetrate the official transcript of both subordinates and elites, a reading of the social evidence will almost always represent a confirmation of the status quo in hegemonic terms. Just as subordinates are not much deceived by their own performance there is, of course, no more reason for social scientists and historians to take that performance as, necessarily, one given in good faith.
(сс. 89-90)
И еще объ идеологіи:
We have explored, however, something of the imaginative capacity of subordinate groups to reverse or negate dominant ideologies. So common is this pattern that it is plausible to consider it part and parcel of the religiopolitical equipment of historically disadvantaged groups. Other things equal, it is therefore more accurate to consider subordinate classes less constrained at the level of thought and ideology, since they can in secluded settings speak with comparative safety, and more constrained at the level of political action and struggle, where the daily exercise of power sharply limits the options available to them. To put it crudely, it would ordinarily be suicide for serfs to set about to murder their lords and abolish the seigneurial regime; it is, however, plausible for them to imagine and talk about such aspirations providing they are discreet about it.
(с. 91)
Также Скоттъ отмѣчаетъ, что публичныя утвержденія преданности доминирующей идеологіи не препятствуютъ насильственнымъ формамъ сопротивленія, а нерѣдко и предшествуютъ имъ и служатъ имъ опорой. Примѣръ:
Use of the ideology of the dominant stratum does not by any means prevent violent clashes of interest; it may in fact be fairly viewed as a common justification for violence. Peasant petitions to the daimyo [feudal barons] in Tokugawa Japan were frequently a prelude to riots and insurrections. Despite capital penalties for petitioning, village leaders did occasionally take this dramatic step and, when they did, their petitions were invariably cast in deferential terms, appealing for the “mercy of the lord” in reducing taxes and invoking a tradition of “benevolent social aid from their superiors.” Such wording – even as a prelude to an insurrection – is often taken as a privileged glimpse into the true peasant world view of “benevolent lords and honorable peasants,” when, in fact, we are observing a dialogue with power that may have a greater or lesser strategic dimension. One thing, however, is clear. By making appeals that remain within the official discourse of deference, the peasantry may somewhat lessen the mortal risks incurred by the desperate act of petitioning. In the midst of a collective provocation heavy with implicit threat, peasants attempt to cede the symbolic high ground to official values and imply that their quiescence and loyalty will be assured if only the lord abides by their understanding of the hierarchical social contract. Everyone involved knows, certainly, that the petition carries a threat, as virtually all such petitions do, but the document begins by invoking the hierarchical verities that the peasantry professes to accept as given.
(с. 95)
Интересное замѣчаніе о діалектикѣ ложнаго сознанія и радикализма:
The remarkable fact may be that it is when a would-be hegemonic ideology does manage to convince members of subordinate groups to take it to heart that a potentially radical chain of events is set into motion. That is, contrary to the usual wisdom and to Gramsci’s analysis, radicalism may be less likely to arise among disadvantaged groups (the vast majority, it appears) who fail to take the dominant ideology seriously than among those who, in Marxist terms, might be considered falsely conscious. In a perceptive study of working-class secondary school students in England, Paul Willis discovered a strong counterculture that produced a cynical distance from dominant platitudes but not radicalism. Paradoxically, it was the “conformists,” who appeared, in form at least, to accept the values of the school (the hegemonic instrument par excellence in modern society), who posed the threat. Because they operated as if they accepted the implicit promise of the dominant ideology (If you work hard, obey authority, do well in school, and keep your nose clean you will advance by merit and have satisfying work) they made sacrifices of self-discipline and control and developed expectations that were usually betrayed. Employers preferred not to hire them because they were pushy and hard to deal with as compared with the more typical working-class youth, who were realistic, expected little, and put in a day of work without too much grumbling. The system may have most to fear from those subordinates among whom the institutions of hegemony have been most successful. The disillusioned mission boy (Caliban) is always a graver threat to an established religion than the pagans who were never taken in by its promises. The anger born of a sense of betrayal implies an earlier faith.
(сс. 106-7)
Складывается впечатлѣніе, что въ опредѣленныхъ и нерѣдкихъ, надо признать, случаяхъ отъ интеллигенціи / класса интеллектуаловъ слѣдуетъ ожидать больше конформности по отношенію къ доминирующей идеологіи и большей укорененности ложнаго сознанія, нежели отъ болѣе угнетенныхъ классовъ (въ предѣлѣ – рабовъ, крѣпостныхъ, неприкасаемыхъ, но можно остановиться и на рабочемъ классѣ, “мелкихъ лавочникахъ”, реднекахъ), такъ какъ быть проводниками гегемоніи – общественная функція интеллектуаловъ. Послѣдніе пріобретаютъ большій градусъ свободы отъ насаждаемой государствомъ идеологіи въ томъ случаѣ, когда они, грубо говоря, находятся въ этомъ качествѣ на службѣ – необязательно, разумѣется, въ видѣ буквальнаго найма – не собственныхъ правителей, а параполитическихъ образованій наподобіе глобальныхъ фондовъ или иностранныхъ спецслужбъ – либо элитъ изъ метрополіи (если рѣчь о колоніальныхъ интеллигенціяхъ типа россійской, которая довольно массово подписывается на стандартный полиархическій пакетъ – идеологическій, цѣнностный и стратегическій). Въ этомъ разрѣзѣ примѣчательны соціальныя сѣти наподобіе фейсбука, такъ какъ одно изъ главныхъ условій бытованія потайного транскрипта, какъ указываетъ Скоттъ, – это свобода отъ надзора (surveillance), а тутъ онъ осуществляется не только властями, но и силами самихъ пользователей, въ томъ числѣ въ видѣ peer pressure.