Aysel Ozturk

James Scott's Conceptualization of Resistance and Domination

When the great lord passes the wise peasant bows deeply and silently farts.

Ethiopian Proverb

This Ethiopian proverb summarizes what Scott means with his concept of hidden

transcripts. Scott’s aim is based upon the construction of a new conceptualization of

resistance vis-à-vis domination and relations of power. The exploration of diverse forms of

resistance against domination brings Scott to follow the traces of resistance in the everyday

life of subordinates. Thus, he argues that the everyday life is literally a space of struggle

which is knitted with diverse discourses. Scott’s understanding signals the dynamic character

of everyday life in which the relation between the dominant and the subordinate is

continuously reshaped through various discourses.

While James Scott developed his concept of hidden transcripts, he initially bases its

empirical grounding mainly on his anthropologic studies among peasants. He points out the

diverse forms of resistance of peasants against theirs masters. As the Ethiopian proverb

mentioned above reads, the resistance is not always necessarily visible and also it is not

always directly oriented to the center of the domination. Conversely, some forms of

opposition which escape from the dominants’ notice are quit common. According to Scott,

even if these forms of resistance in everyday life are not seen as a resistance targeting directly

the domination, they contain the possibility to become the source of an open struggle by

1
hiding the real intention of the subordinates. Hence, he argues that the hidden transcripts of

the subordinates must be read as the tactics in the larger struggle against the dominant powers.

Scott is in the quest of the elaboration of a new view concerning domination and

resistance. Although his claim mainly bases upon the forms of resistance that he noticed in his

anthropological studies, he argues that these examples of resistances continue in various

forms in the modern world. Thus, Scott expands the area of resistance as well as domination

while he traces them in the flow of the everyday life. The understanding of the everyday life

as a field of struggle expands not only the limits of resistance, but also those of domination.

From this point of view, Scott argues that there are hidden transcripts for both the

subordinates and the dominants. While some forms resistance which may not seem as

revolutionary and, in other words, do not create directly revolutionary results, could constitute

revolutionary backgrounds against domination and create ways of corroding the pillars of

domination. Likewise some practices that could hardly be read as a part of domination could

also contribute to the resilience of domination. Hence, they may be interpreted as the

conditions in which the subordinate does not want to be seen directly as the actor of resistance

and the dominant does not want to be seen as the operator of a direct domination relation.

However both of them participate to construction of a hidden discourse outside of each

other’s gazes.

As the everyday life is the field of struggle occurring between the dominants and the

subordinates, it creates both encounters and retreats. The retreats provide a production field

for the hidden discourse, whereas the encounters provide an interaction field in which the

actors meet publicly in conformity with a public discourse, yet carrying always the hidden

ones in order to expand their position in the struggle. Within these encounters and retreats, the

2
dominants try to naturalize and normalize their domination, while the subordinates work on

the ways that target the domination without being noticed.

Scott’s work could be considered as a contribution to the ongoing discussion concerning

hegemony and resistance. The points separating Scott from the existing discussion are

concerned with mostly the structure of the possible resistance and the position of the

subordinates against the hegemonic power. Hence, we may say that he contributes to this

discussion by making some sort of a micro sociology of resistance. Before elaborating on the

differences of Scott’s understanding from the conceptualizations of hegemony, we will try to

reveal the ground upon which Scott constructs his concepts of the hidden transcripts and the

public transcript.

While we direct our attention to Scott’s understanding of the discourses, we see that

there are two main noticeable discourses that occur as a result of the relation between the

dominant and the subordinate. One discourse, the public transcript, is employ publicly within

the interaction of the social groups in the encounters; the others, the hidden transcripts, are

offstage discourses that are employed during the retreats. He presents the concept of the

public transcript as corresponding to a scene in which the actors play their roles according to

their well-memorized scripts. At the same time, Scott finds the concept of the hidden

transcript useful to describe the discourses produced in the offstage for both the dominating

and the subordinate groups. The hidden discourse is the place where individuals give up

performing properly to script of the play. The contradictions and tensions between the

dominant and the subordinate are covered by public discourse and Scott seeks to uncover

them and discover the private discourse that works behind them.

The Public Transcript and the Hidden transcript

3
 The public transcript emerges within the public space where the individuals positioned

differently in the relations of power come face to face. These individuals interact with each

other in public area by means of the public transcript. Scott describes the public transcript as:

“A public transcript is his shorthand way of describing the open interaction between the

subordinated and those who dominate” (Scott 1990:2). Hence as we mentioned, it is a field of

encounter in which the different interests intersect and collide. These interests participate to

the structure of the public discourse according to the existing character of the relations of

power.

The public transcript does not present a text agreed upon by all participants and

therefore it does not constitute the whole story. The public transcript must be read in a

multilayered way instead of a discursive document with a single meaning. As the dominant

can desire to be seem as the pole of domination, so can the deference and consent of the weak

be possibly only a tactic. If there is always the possibility of tactical actions coming from the

side of subordinates, the practices in the public transcript become questionable by the terms of

their performance. Scott argues that the interpretation of the public transcript as a

performance, causes the decrease of the authenticity of the dominants and creates suspicions

concerning the power of the dominants.

The performance propounded by the subordinates, covered with expressions of

deference and consent toward the dominant, hides the attempts aimed at reading the real

intentions of the power holder. The dominant also produces a performance of mastery in order

to consolidate its dominance. Hence, even if the public transcript is seen as the most visible

form of the relations of power, there could not be an adequate amount of observations to

understand the relation between the dominant and the subordinate.

4
 Scott argues that the public transcript does not correspond to a field to which the actors

participate equally as a result of the given conditions of the relations of power. The text of the

public transcript is in close conformity with how the dominant group would wish things to

appear (1990:4). Even if the dominant could never control the stage totally due to the extant

suspicions concerning the outward performances, the public transcript is generally structured

over the wishes of the dominants. This tendency of the public transcript determines its

character. As Scott states: “The public transcript is, to put it crudely, the self-portrait of the

dominant elites as they would have seen themselves.” (18:1995). Hence it acts as the field in

which the dominant elites naturalize theirs power and hides what they do not want to show

concerning their dominance.

The reflections of the public transcript are varied from the side of the subordinates.

Scott noticed that there are four type of the reflection of the public transcript among the

subordinate groups. (19:1995) Firstly, the discourse based on the flattering self-image of the

elites, works with the public transcript in order to support the dominants. Besides, this

flattering self-image of the elites can only be sustainable due to its resonance with the

subordinates. Scott signals that this first reflection is mostly a result of the rhetorical

concessions of the dominants in order to assure the perpetuation of their dominance.

Nonetheless he adds that these rhetorical concessions of the dominants could be used as tools

of possible political conflicts by the subordinates to expand the field of struggle.

Secondly, the public transcript may cause to the hidden transcript itself which seeks to

escape the gaze of the dominant. This situation renders a sharply dissonant political culture

among the subordinate groups possible. Thirdly, there may also be another reflection which is

located between the flattering self-image of the elites and the hidden transcript, by using the

fields of the public transcript, thus remaining short of being a totally hidden, exemplified of

5
discourse such as rumor, gossip, songs etc. Those are accepted as a coded version of the

hidden transcript in the public discourse. The folk culture of the subordinated groups can be

seen as a set of coded productions. Finally, the public transcript may find its response within

the subordinates as a rupturing discourse. In this case, the hidden transcript becomes apparent

and transforms the public transcript as well.

Scott’s perspective as a study of power relations shows us that all directly observable

relations between the dominant and the subordinate groups become evident within each

group’s public transcripts. Nevertheless the public transcript is always deceptive due to the

open-ended performances. The thing which is important in order to grasp the character of the

relations of power, the offstage discourse, remains beyond the direct observation. The hidden

transcripts become useful in order to signal the background of the existing relations of power

and involve the offstage speeches, gestures and practice by which it becomes difficult to

define the exact target and the author from the gaze of the dominants.

Scott argues that there are some specificities belonging to the hidden transcripts.

Principally, it could only be understandable around a given social site and a particular set of

actors since every hidden transcript is intrinsic to a bounded group of people which drew its

frontiers with others and involves some specific properties. It could be said that the character

of the hidden transcript depends on the groups which produce it. Besides, the hidden

transcript not only comprises speech acts, but also wide range of practices. For instance, the

slowdown strike is a practice of the hidden transcript for the subordinates, whereas a

clandestine luxury may become such a practice for dominant elites as well. Furthermore, even

if the public transcript aims to cover the contradictions between the dominants and the

subordinates, there are always some struggles between the frontiers of two transcripts. One of

the determinants of the hidden transcript comes from this frontier struggle, whereby the

6
capacity of dominants to determine what can and cannot be counted as the public transcript

and what remains in the offstage is quite important for the structure of the hidden transcript.

While the public transcript has a significant role, the practice of domination is in fact

itself an ipso facto for the creation of the hidden transcript. Scott sees a dialectic relationship

between these two transcripts. While the public transcript has a quite closeness to dominant

discourse, it leaves the practices of subordinates out of the coverage area. As Scott mentions:

“By definition, the hidden transcript represents discourse-gesture, speech, practices - that is

ordinarily excluded from the public transcript of the subordinates by the exercise of power.

The practice of domination, then, creates the hidden transcript.” (1990:27). In this sense, it is

meaningful to read the hidden transcript as a result of the existent relations of powers and to

be considered it around what the dominant discourse includes and excludes in the production

of these relations of power.

We can say that the exclusion and inclusion process do not only determine the structure

of the hidden transcripts but also the structure of the public transcript. The encounters within

the frontiers of the public transcript emphasize the differences between different statuses.

These differences involve some properties such as language, gesture and tone (1990:31).

While the public transcript reproduces the dominants values, it also shows what stays outside

of these values. This reminds us Bourdieu’s concept of habitus as a structured structure.

Bourdieu calls habitus as: “…system of durable, transposable dispositions, structured

structures predisposed to function as structuring structures.” (Bourdieu 1977:72). In this

sense, the habitus is a way in order to organize the world depending to the social atmosphere

and status. The habitus occurs as the result of past practice and, determines the practices of

future as well. It presents the schemes of action to individuals according to their position in

the social and cultural fields. These schemes are embodied within various fields such as

7
linguistic, intellectual and cultural. While we talk about the cultural points that the public

transcript points at, in fact we mention a sort of habitus which is imposed by the dominant

elites in the public discourse to the subordinates. The discourse of the subordinates is

excluded from the public, because they have not such a habitus.

The public transcript as a political field

The public transcript provides the permanence of the relations of power or at least it

works with this aim. Even if the domination is once constructed, it has to be revised in order

to fix the gaps in the hegemony and it has to predict the possible threats that could damage the

structure of domination. Scott mentions that “the relations of domination are, at the same

time, relations of resistance.” (Scott 1990:45) This statement could be read in two different

ways. In the first place, there is and will always be resistance against domination, because

domination generates the causes of resistance because of its nature. On the other hand, the

process of the consolidation of a domination also is a sort of a resistance. The groups being

vested with the domination, struggle in order to not lose it.

As we mentioned previously, the public transcript is a self-portrait of the dominant

elites by which they show themselves as they want to be seen. The self-portrait shows an

image but it hides something within the image as well. The capacity to control the self-portrait

responses to the purpose of the indelibility of hegemony. Hence, the dominants provide this

image by controlling the public stage and their capacity of concealment comes into

prominence as much as what they present by their self-portrait. In this sense, the concealment

could also be interpretable as a strategy of the dominants in order to hide a possible loss of

power. The things which could cause a negative effect in terms of the domination are hidden.

Scott indicates that euphemisms are quite important for the dominants. Thanks to

euphemisms, the negative parts of their domination are masked and they obtain a sanitized

8
image: “… [The euphemisms] are designed to obscure the use of coercion.” (1990:53). By

these means, they contribute to the dominant elite's flattering self-portrait. These euphemisms

can be exemplified by the usage of “police intervention” instead of police attack and “being

captured dead” instead of “being killing/murdered”.

The power holders enable the assurance of their dominance especially by controlling the

public transcript. The existing power relations persist and are reproduced by some tactics of

domination. Foucault also argues that the power relations are based on a rationality which

arises around tactics. (Foucault 1988:95) These tactics connect with each other and participate

to the construction of the relations of power. However, it does not matter who exercises power

according to Foucault (Foucault 1977:202). Foucault mentions that the power relations

expand to all dimensions and there is no outside as they include everything. Nonetheless, he

adds: “Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this

resistance, is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power.” (Foucault 1988:95).

Foucault finds the resistance within the strategic field of power relations. Even if he sees the

possibility of resistance, it is not meaningful to define the powerful and the powerless

according to him.

The Debate on the Concept of “Hegemony”

The social theorists who participate to the discussion concerning the hegemony and the

structure of domination highlight different points. Thereby, the place to which they position

the resistance also changes. The main separation points about hegemony are caused due to the

different conceptualizations about the level in which the hegemony works. As we saw, Scott

notices the possibility of the resistance within the everyday life of the subordinates with the

hidden transcripts which work for the creation of possible fractures. While Gramsci sees the

active consent of subordinate groups as one of the important components of the hegemony,

9
Scott diverges from this view by affirming that even if the subordinates look like as if they

consent to the domination, this image of them generally corresponds to an illusion.

Gramsci approaches to hegemony at the level of consciousness. He says that the direct

dominance is being assured by the apparatus of the state’s coercive power in the political

society from above, in other words from the political society. However he also emphasizes

that there is always the need for the construction of consent in civil society for the

maintenance of the domination. The hegemony functions through these two processes which

have to move harmoniously (Gramsci: 1992). He sees the possibility of the resistance within

the construction a counter-hegemony. It becomes possible with the participation to a

conception of the world at the level of consciousness. He names it as “a common sense” that

will bring close together the subaltern classes vis-a-vis the domination of the ruling classes

(Schaffer 1995: 32). This notion of “a common sense” finds its meaning in the cultural and

political practices rather than the everyday practices. When viewed from this perspective,

Gramsci grasps the resistance against the hegemony at level of the consciousness instead of

the level of everyday practices.

Scott criticizes such a conceptualization of the hegemony as an affirmation that the

subaltern classes could not resist to the hegemony without the creation a counter-hegemony at

the level of the consciousness. If the subaltern classes do not become a part of the direct

opposition to the hegemony, they are seen as totally consenting to the hegemony. Hence this

situation reveals the absence of the resistance as a result of the powerfulness of the hegemony

and the false consciousness of the subaltern classes. Nevertheless, Scott claims that “it is not

the miasma of power and thralldom that requires explanation. We require instead an

understanding of a misreading by subordinate groups that seems to exaggerate their own

power, the possibilities for emancipation, and to underestimate the power arrayed against

10
them.”(Scott 1990:79). Thus, Scott mentions that there is a misreading concerning the

resistance of the subordinates.

Even if a total ideological hegemony and a total consent of the subordinates are not

possible from the view of Scott, he mentions two situations which may create an involuntary

subordination (1990:82). He argues that, on one hand, the strong beliefs among the

subordinates in the prospective elevation of their social positions creates the necessary

conditions of patience and emulation. On the other hand, this kind of involuntary

subordination becomes possible under the intense circumstances of close observation. This

may occur in the situation where the social realm for the creation of the hidden transcript is

abolished. Nonetheless Scott thinks that this situation could only be in question within the

institutions based on the direct observation of individuals. When considered from this point of

view, he finds this situation exceptional, in sharp contrast to Foucault who affirms it as the

base of the relations of power.

The point noticed as the involuntary subordination within the circumstance of patience

and emulation by Scott, is seen in Bourdieu to some extent. Bourdieu mentions the

importance of the cultural capital as a determinant for the occupation of positions within the

hegemony. He argues that the lower middle class emulates the cultural practices of bourgeois.

(Schaffer 1995:38). Besides, the tendency to increase the cultural capital evokes a process that

is called as distinction by Bourdieu. The lower classes or the subordinated classes do not

have enough means to attain the dominant cultural capital; therefore they are left increasingly

out of the distinction process. Bourdieu defines the situation of the subordinates as: “The

dominated, whose interest are bound up with the raising of consciousness, i.e., with the

language, are at the mercy of the discourses that are presented to them…” (Bourdieu

11
1984:461). Bourdieu does not think that the subordinates have spaces for their own discourse

as opposed to Scott and Gramsci.

Scott differs from both Gramsci’s and Bourdieu’s conceptualizations of hegemony. He

points to the very possibility of the resistance in the everyday life of the subordinates. His

perception of resistance is based on the level of action. He refuses the total consent of

subordinates, thereby the hegemonic ideology of the dominants could never be totally

successful by definition.

The Hidden Transcript as a Form of the Resistance

Scott notices that the hidden transcript needs a social site in which it becomes hard to

intervene for the oppression and the surveillance of the dominant, with another words a site

far from the gaze of the dominant. Besides, the individual sharing common experiences within

the relations of power come together in this site. This site provides the speaking of the

individual without the intervention of the dominant, the common experiences give to people

the talking point as well (Scott 1990: 120). The site ensures a ground on which the hidden

transcript could grow up and take root. The common experiences are also influential on the

content, thereby they play an important role within the structure of the hidden transcript.

The term of infraspolitics is used by Scott to refer to modest resistance of subordinates.

He asserts that this term provide both cultural and structural base to visible political

movements to which we could focus our attention more easily (1990:184). This infrapolitics

occurs thanks to the existence of the site which accommodates to hidden transcripts of the

subordinate. According to Scott, even if an infrapolitics is not as visible as the direct

resistance oriented to the domination, it is still the silent counterpart of the public resistance.

12
 Scott claims that the infrapolitics is the source of the counterhegemonic discourses. It

takes a stand against the hegemony but still in a modest way. Its importance arises from the

enforcement of the frontiers of which is permissible by the hegemony. It opens the way of a

revolutionary politics within the circumstance of any lenition in the surveillance and the

sanction. From this point of view, an infrapolitics corresponds to a priori form of the politics.

An infrapolitics benefited from the hidden transcripts of the subordinates, becomes the very

politics in everyday life.

To conclude, Scott renders a new way of understanding resistance to domination

possible by understanding the sources of the resistance in a much more practical level. His

concept of the hidden transcript is quite useful in order to remunerate the modest resistance of

the subordinate. At the same time, he presents us a vision which may expands and develops

the perception of the resistance against the hegemony. Scott could be read as restoration of

honor of the resistance in one sense.

13
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Foucault, Michel, and Robert Hurley. 1988. The history of sexuality. New York: Vintage

Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. “The Body of Condemned” in Discipline and punish: the birth of the

prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

Antonio Gramsci: “The Intellectuals” in Selections from Prison Notebooks, Q. Hoare & G. N.

Smith (Eds.) (1992: International Publishes, New York)

Schaffer, S. (1995). Research & Society. Hegemony and the Habitus: Gramsci, Bourdieu, and

James Scott on the Problem of Resistance. Retrieved from uwo.academia.edu/scottschaffer.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge,

Mass: Harvard University Press.

Scott, James C. 1990. Domination and the arts of resistance hidden transcripts. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

14