I. Overview of James Scott's Weapons of the Weak (1985)

A. Engels, Chayanov, Sahlins: ignore relations outside of household
B. Scott: household depends on two things

1. political and economic context of production
2. relations with social community

C. Political scientist
D. Key question: why don't peasants revolt?
E. Moral Economy of Sedaka (pseudonym)
F. Capitalism disrupts moral economy
F. Everyday resistance, weapons of the weak
G. Measure resistance by intentions, not outcome

 

II. The Moral Economy of Sedaka

A. Moral Economy of the Peasant (1976)
B. Peasant societies: villages, reciprocity, mutual dependence
C. Rich and poor, but community's interests are linked ==> cooperation

1. landlord needs labor
2. feasts
3. gifts
4. general assistance

D. Non-economic ties soften class antagonism

1. kinship
2. neighborhood
3. religion

E. Capitalism disrupts moral economy, people idealize the past
F. Moral economy = idealized model to interpret world, shapes behavior

 

III. Economic Development: The Green Revolution on the Muda Plain

A. Scott's research, 1978-1980
B. Malaysian government's policy of rapid economic development

1. population shift from ag to industry
2. inexpensive industrial exports fuel economic development
3. keep wages low, keep agricultural prices low
4. Green Revolution to promote agricultural productivity

a. Sedaka is part of Muda Plain, Malaysia's "Rice Bowl"
b. dam, irrigation projects
c. fertilizer
d. new strains of high-yield rice
e. machinery, ag technology
f. double-cropping

C. Immediate Impact of Green Revolution

1. Production increases 250%
2. Benefits wealthy more than poor

D. In 1979, Scott observes:

1. More consumer goods
2. Increased supply of goods
3. Decline in out-migration, peasants work year-round (67)
4. 61.8% of population owns less than 2.83 acres, below the "poverty line" (69)
5. Land prices rise by 500%
6. Small farms are getting smaller, poor need wage labor
7. Fewer tenant farmers
8. Polarization between subsistence farmers and large commercial operations (71)
9. Land tenancy shifted from paddy to up-front cash payments
10. Mechanization led to 50% loss in wages
11. Landlords get outside labor, no longer provide services for workers (120)
12. Wealthy control access to government aid programs

 

IV. Scott's Model of Economic Development

A. Capitalism intrudes on old order
B. Ideology lags behind economics ==> possibility for resistance

 

V. Strategies of Resistance

A. Sedakan losers

1. Poor made poorer by economic development
2. Everyday resistance, concrete and symbolic

a. actions: obstruct combines, threaten to boycott transplanting for farmers who mechanize, minimize their effort by beating rice sheaves only a few times, and engage in petty theft of paddy and property, killing livestock
b. delay tactics, keep wealthy embedded in moral world of peasants
c. not openly acknowledged, no armed resistance
d. words: accuse rich of being stingy, unconcerned for peasant welfare, immoral, untrue to Islamic ideals

B. Sedakan winners: justify actions in terms of moral economy
C. Scott: everyday resistance is class struggle, done covertly
D. Deference challenges and reinforces class structure
E. Peasants as weak, but not passive

 

VI. Intent, Action, and Outcome: Scott's Critique of Hegemony

A. Marx: superstructure serves interests of dominant classes
B. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)

1. Hegemony, ideological dominance
2. Poor buy into the system, false consciousness

C. Scott: hegemony is part of public transcript
D. Private transcript: poor voice fact that they don't accept subordination
E. Scott's arguments against Marx and Gramsci

1. Subordinate classes see and critique the prevailing ideology
2. Acceptance of the inevitability of a socio-economic order and their own dependence prompts peasants to pursue subtler strategies of resistance
3. Ideology creates the terms for its own resistance by publicly justifying its power in ways which can be contested
4. What makes revolution revolutionary is its means (violence), not its goals
5. Dominant ideologies are broken by new forces, such as capitalism, not by lower classes

F. Invisibility and failure of everyday resistance reflects peasants' material limitations, dependence, not lack of desire to resist

 

 

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu