Writing History of Subordinates' Resistance:A comparative review of James Scott and the Subaltern Studies Collective

对与常规政治相对的“对抗性政治”的研究分为以西方世界为对象的社会运动研究和以第三世界为对象的革命/抵抗研究。斯科特与底层研究学派同属后一种,均关注第三世界底层,从葛兰西承继颇多,以“书写未被书写的反抗史”为学术使命,拒绝"底层无政治"的偏见,分别以“公开政治vs.底层政治”、“公民社会vs.政治社会”两分法划出与精英政治不同的独特"底层政治",同时提升了政治的复杂性与底层的复杂性。在研究意识形态支配时,二者都回应葛兰西关于底层被“霸权”、没有独立统一的意识形态的论断,强调底层意识的独立性;在对底层抵抗行为的研究上,都意在克服关于底层的理论中“成长史”和“悲剧史”两种偏颇。但两派理论的区别在于,前者视底层为有统一意识形态而无公开行动,后者视底层为有公开行动而无统一意识形态,即对两种偏颇采取了不同的克服方向。 

In the postwar world, studies of contentious politics have diverged into two approaches: social movement studies and revolution/resistance studies, which include James Scott’s studies and the Subaltern Studies. They both concern about subordinate classes in the third world. Through dichotomies of the “public politics-infra politics” and the“ civil society-political society” , respectively, they both identify a unique sphere where the subordinate resist on their own terms, venturing into politics without necessarily penetrating public civil society traditionally held by bourgeois class. Since then, serious counter-arguments are presented to refute the apoliticalness of subordinatesresistance and to enrich the complexity of the subordinate alongside with the complexity of politics. Regarding “writing the otherwise unwritten history of subordinatesresistance” as their academic mission, they further exploit Gramsci’s concept of “ hegemony”, albeit in different ways. James Scott considers the subordinate class members as political actors with a unified ideology and no public action, while Subaltern Studies Collective argues that the Subaltern can have public actions without a unified ideology. They take different directions to overcome the existing biases in subordinates’ history writing (i.e., evolution versus tragedies).

 徐小涵

欢迎阅读《社会学研究》！您是该文第2968位读者！