Beyond Words: Discourse and Critical Agency in Africa

192 Pages·2007·0.41 MB·English

by  Andrew Apter

beyond Words
Discourse and Critical Agency in Africa
ANDREW APTER
■ A 3^
it 7%
TheUnivcrsilyofChicago Press*
ChicagoandLondon
Contents
AndrewApterisprofessorofhistoryandanthropologyandchairofthe
interdepartmentalprograminAfricanstudiesattheUniversityofCalifornia,Lot
Angeles.HeistbeauthorofBlackCritiaamiKings:TheHctmeneuticsofPowerin
YorubaSocietyand.mostrecently.ThePan-AfricanNation:OilandtheSpectacleof
CultureinNigeria,bothpublishedbytheUniversityofChicagoPress.
ListofIllustrations vii
TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Chicago60637 Preface ix
TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Ltd.,London
■92007byTheUniversityofChicago
Introduction 1
Allrightsreserved.Published2007
PrintedinliteUnitedStatesofAmerica 1 QueFaircf 15
2 ThePoliticsofPanegyric 32
16 1; 14 1] 12 u 10 09 1)8 07 12345
3 RitualsagainstRebellion 50
isus-13:978-0-226-02351-9(cloth)
4 DiscourseandItsDisclosures 66
isbn-ij:978-0-2:6-02352-6(paper)
IS0H-IO:0-226-02351-6(cloth) 5 Griaulc'sLegacy 97
isbh-io:0-226-02352-4(paper)
6 DecolonizingtheText 130
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Apter,AndrewH.(AndrewHerman) Bibliography 140
Beyondwords:discourseandcriticalagencyinAfrica/AndrewApter. Index 165
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
isDK-13:978-0-226-01351-9(cloth:alk.paper)
isbn-io:0-226-02351-6(cloth:alk.paper)
ISBN-13:978-0-226-02352-6{pbk.:alk.paper)
isbk-io:0-226-02352-4(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Ethnology—Africa—History. 2.Ethnology—Africa—Philosophy.
3.Discourseanalysis—Africa. 4.Culture—Semioticmodels. 5.Social
problems—Africa. 6.Africainpopularculture. 7.Africa—Colonization.
8.Arltca—Socialconditions. 9.Africa—Civilization. 1.Title.
GN3O8.3.A35A7&2007
306.096—dc22
2006103502
!$Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofthe
AmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences—PermanenceofPaperfor
PrintedLibraryMaterials,ansi239.48-199!.
Illustrations
Figures
! GenealogicalrelationsbetweenXhosa"houses" 45
2 Thebifunctionaiityofpraise 49
3 AsemanticmodelofSwazipurification 63
4 TheKingdomofAyede 70
5 Thewitchcraftoflineagesegmentationandiission 72
6 Fissiparousconsequencesofcomplimentaryfiliation 76
7 Fratricideandaborteddevolution 92
8 Landclaimsandlineageoptation 95
9 Dogon villagescheme(fromGriauic1965,95) 121
10 HumanheadsbroughttoDr.WilhelmJunkerforhisscientificcollection
(fromJunker1892,161) 147
Tables
1 CompositionofXhosatribalclusters 44
2 RitualremappingofAyede'squarters 79
Preface
Theessays collected in thisvolume represent mylong-standingengagement
withritual-languagegenresinAfrica,connectingasetofspecializedconcerns
within anthropologicaltheoryto thebroaderpoliticsofdiscoursein African
studies. As I look back over my various forays and interventions, with the
inevitable revisionism that hindsightaffords, 1 would liketo thinkthat they
not only return to the classic topoi ofAfricanist ethnography tor material
and inspiration but also point forward to renewed arenas ofsociolinguistic
analysisandcriticalexegesis. Insomeways,the"project" Iam pursuingmay
appearirrelevanttoacontinentplaguedbyregionalconflict,genocide,andthe
AIDSpandemic,producingrefugees,orphans,andchildsoldiersinepidemic
proportions.Forthosestrugglinginthedevastatedareasandconflictzones*it
probablyis irrelevant.Butinthelarger,evenglobal dimensionsofAfricanist
research—as I shall argue—explorations ofcritical agency in Africa oppose
the veryconditions inwhich Africa is pathologized and the mechanisms by
whichthe"DarkContinent"iscontinuallyreinscribed.
It is impossible to acknowledge the many mentors and influences that
haveshaped myinterest in languageanddiscourse, but a numberstand out
as especiallyformative. To myundergraduatecoadvisers Rulon S. Wells and
SheylaBenhabib1owea"pragmaticist"approachtologicandsemioticsaswell
asanintensiveintroductiontocriticalsocialtheory.AtCambridgeUniversity,
whereIshiftedfromphilosophytosocialanthropology, Iworkedthroughthe
traditional"functionalist"canon,allthewhileretainingmyinterestinmodes
ofdevolution,jokingrelationships,andthedialecticsoffissionandofritualsof
rebellion. IalsotookclasseswithStephenLevinson,whoseemergingfocuson
sociolinguisticsandpragmaticswaspropellingformalconcernswithsyntactic
structures intodynamicarenasofsocialinteraction. WhenI returned toYale
PREFACE VRf.VAC.F. XI
for graduate study, this interest in pragmatics was further encouraged by of Knowledge (1988), Mudimbe examined the discursive conventions that
Susan Bean and was tolerated by M. G. Smith—my dissertation adviser— "invented" Africa as an object ofknowledge and that generated a "colonial
whose more "structural" approach to political anthropology subordinated library" ofprojectionsand illusionsthat have persisted even when explicitly
language to the bedrock ofcorporation theory. Although M. G.'s model of disavowed. Central to his exposition is how African philosophy, defined as
power and authority (as a dialectic ofsegmentary politics and hierarchical gnosis, or secret knowledge, represents the limit ofthis ideological horizon.
administration) informed my fieldworkon Yoruba orisha worship (even ifI Attempts by PlacidcTempelsandMarcel Griauleand their followerstopen
abstractedihesubversivedimensionsofpowersuigenerisbeyondhiscomfort etratetheveil and learn thesecretsofdeep knowledge in Africaonlyfurther
zone), it was always with the aim ofreincorporating discourse, not only in mystifiedtheillusionswhich theytriedtoovercome. Mudimbc'scritiquewas
ritual idiomsofpossessionand incantation,butasasanctifiedhermeneutics not limited to Western scholars but extended to African intellectuals who
of power that is context specific and opposed to authority. Yoruba deep continued to writewithinthisethnophilosophicalvein.
knowledgeispowerful,Ihaveargued,whenitnegotiatesandrevisesauthority I was inspired by the power ofMudimbe's deconstructive project, not
structures—highlightingthepoliticsofsymbolicrevision. onlyforitsdazzlingexpositionofcolonialdiscourseinAfricanistscholarship,
My interest in Yoruba ritual as an indigenous form ofcritical practice but because myown researchwassodirectlyimplicated. Hiswasachallenge
developed within its own revisionary process—from dissertation into book I had to confront, since my focus on secrecy and deep-knowledge claims
(Apter1992). I realizenowthatseveralsignaltextswerecatalystsinreadjusting was buried so deeplywithin thecolonial library. My"solution" was to recast
myinterpretivefocus. John L.Comaroffs Talking Politics:OratoryandAu deep knowledge as unstableand indeterminate—less a hidden transcript of
thorityinaTswanaChiefdom"(1975) identifiedcriticalfunctionsofcodecon secret knowledge than a discursive space ofcritical negation, an unmaking
vergenceanddivergenceinnegotiatingpoliticalauthoritywithincompetitive and revisingofofficial truthsand meaningsthatcouldbe mobilized to make
political arenas, outliningan indigenousincumbencymodel that established a political difference. Deep-knowledgeclaims invoked by ritual belonged to
rhetoricalconditionsofpoliticalevaluation.Tswanapraises,heshowed,were indigenous forms of critical practice. They were ritually charged because
indeed critical practices that mobilized shifting coalitions and loyalties on they were politically dangerous, safeguarding possibilities ofcritical agency.
the ground. The second text was Karin Barber's "Yoruba Orik'i and Decon- IfMudimbe was correct in debunkingWestern fantasies ofcrackingAfrican
structiveCriticism" (1984),somethingofaCopernican revolution in literary codes, he was less successful in appreciating how they work on the ground,
theorybecauseitrelocatedtheinsightsofrhetoricalanalysis—particularlythe l-'oreclosed from his position was how ritual-language genres and practices
critiqueofnarrativeandtextualclosure—withintheoralliterarypracticesof could recast participation frameworks, performance contexts, and relations
Yoruba praise-singersand their paradigmaticallyintertextualstrategies. Bar of hierarchy and rank between social actors—how a ritual discourse could
ber showed that deconstructive criticism had homegrown varieties in West build a rival up or bring an incumbent down, or oppose representatives of
Africa, unmaking and remaking the very field ofsocial relations through colonial authority—not what deep knowledge meant but how it worked.
theiroratorical termsofengagement. Ifthis movetoward vernacularcritical Mudimbe's challengecould be met on methodological grounds by recasting
traditions was expanded and amplified in her first monumental ethnogra ethnophilosophyasethnopragmatics.
phy (Barber 1991a), it was theoretically elaborated by Henry Louis Gates Thus, I returnedtonarrowerconcernswith indexicality,deicticreference,
)r., whose TheSignifying Monkey(1988) established a Yoruba genealogy for pronominal shifting, and metapragmatic function, those dimensions oflin
African American textual strategies based on operations of"tropological re guistic performance and practice that shape and transform the interactive
vision" glossed by the social poetics of"signifyin(g)." What Gates posited contextsinwhich theyareembedded.Myexposuretothismoretechnicalter
as a "myth oforigins" I could document ethnographically, focusingon how rainowesmuch10mycolleaguesMichaelSilversteinandBillHanksduringmy
deep-knowledge claims, activated by ritual, revised thesymbolic charters of years at the UniversityofChicago, whoseexplorations of"discursive semio-
politicalauthority. sis"and"referentialpractice"havehelpedmeunderstandhowrituallanguage
The same year that Gates published his theory of"Afro-American" liter worksandhowitsperformativityisframedbyculturalidiomsofritual power.
arycriticism,V. Y. Mudimbcposeda fundamentalchallengeto theAfricanisi While I have drawn on their ideas in developing a reflexive concept ofcrit
academyat large. In 77ii'Invention ofAfrica: Gnosis, Philosophy,andtheOrder ical agency, I am also indebted to the metadiscourse community ai UCLA,
XII PREFACE
particularlyAlessandro Duranti,whoseworkonthegrammarandpoliticsof
agencyhasallowedmetoelaborateitscriticaldimensionsandrelatediscourse
to broader sociopolitical contexts. More recently, valuable discussions with
SherryOrtner havehelped me rethinkthediachronicdimensionsofagency. Introduction
WithinthebroadercommunityofUCLAAfricanists,Ihavebenefitedfrom
arigorousarrayofcriticalperspectives:fromFranchiseLionnetandDominic
Thomas, whose work on discourse and the politics ofAfrican literature is
remappingFrancophonehorizons;fromGhislaineLydonandherpathbreak-
ingresearchonArabictextsandtextualityinAfrica;fromChrisEhretandhis
uncannyexplorationsofearlyAfricanhistoryinsemanticreconstructionsand
linguistic protoforms; and from the linguists Tom Hinnebusch and Russell Howcan wewriteabout"indigenous" Africawithout revivingtheghostsof
Schuh,whosetechnicalinterestsinformalanalysisarematchedbyanextraor the"DarkContinent,"Europe's projectedalterego in theeraofimperialex
dinarycommitmenttoAfrican-languageinstruction.Andfinalthankstothe pansion? HowcanwetranscendwhatMudimbehascalledthecoloniallibra
JamesS.ColemanAfricanStudiesCenteranditsdirector,AllenF.Roberts,for ry—the grand narratives, tribal tropes, distorted images, and "natural" his
sustaining,withsuchenergy,acommitmenttoAfricathatgoesbeyondwords. tories that forged"the foundations ofdiscourse about Africa" (1988,xi) and
that,asMbembe(2001)sovividlydemonstrates,remainfirmlyentrenchedin
thepostcolony?
Researchon Yoruba ritual-languagegenres (chapter4) wassupportedbythe Thestudyofdiscourseandcritical agencyin Beyond Wordsrepresentsan
American Philosophical Societyand theAmericanCouncilofLearnedSoci extendedanswertothischallenge,whichhasbeenposedbyanumberofsub
eties,forwhich Iamgrateful. Earlierversionsofchapters1-6appeared inthe altern scholars in various registers overthe years, perhaps most radicallyby
followingjournals: "Que Faire?ReconsideringInventionsofAfrica," Critical Mafeje's consignment ofAfricanist anthropology to the dustbin ofhistory
Inquiry 19, no. 1 (1992): 87-104; "In Praise ofHigh Office: The Politics of (Mafeje1998).ItisachallengethatanyWesternapproachtoanAfricabeyond
Panegyric inThreeSouthern BantuTribes,"Anthropos78 (1983): 149-68;"In words and images should acknowledge, given the series oftenacious nega
Dispraiseofthe King: Rituals 'Against' Rebellion inSouth-eastAfrica," Man, tions—not-civilized, not-human, not-rational, not-moral, not-white, not-
n.s.,18(1983):521-34;"DiscourseandItsDisclosures:YorubaWomenandthe healthy, and, finally, not even historical—that continue to deform Africa's
SanctityofAbuse," Africa68, no.1(1998):68-97;"Griaule'sLegacy: Rethink placeon themarginsofmodernity(seealso Desai 2001).Tobesure,progress
ing'laParoleClaire'inDogonStudies," Cahiersa"£tudesAfricaines40,no.177, has been made in demystifying Africanist discourse, but thegains havealso
issue1 (2005):95-129;and"Africa, Empire,andAnthropology:APhilological involvedthelossofimportantsocioculturalterritory. From thestandpointof
ExplorationofAnthropology'sHeartofDarkness,"AnnualReviewofAnthro critical theory, the deconstruction ofAfricanist discourse exposed the rhet
pologyi£ (1999): 577-98. Permissiontoreprintthem isgreatlyappreciated. orics of racism, the topologies of tribalism, the evolutionary narratives of
progressandloss,theinvocationsofauthentictradition,forwhattheywere—
inventions ofan imperial imagination—but could say nothing ofwhat lay
beyondthisideologicalhorizon. Iambynomeansopposedtodeconstructive
criticism andendorse the powerofits negative dialectic, but in clearing the
slateforlessinnocentresearch ithasnottoldushowtoproceed.
Onewayofavoidingthiscul-de-sacwaspursued inAfricanistanthropol
ogyby turningthecolonial libraryon itselfas it emerged from thecivilizing
missionsinAfricaandinformedthedevelopmentofcolonialculture.Empha
sizing empire and modernity over "traditional society," the distinction was
recast dialecticallywithin thecolonial encounter itself—not asa precolonial
J INTRODUCTION 1NTROUUCTION
situationdominatedfromwithout,butastwoopposeddomainsthatemerged resource invokedbyAfricansratherthanoneimposed byethnographiccon
historicallywithinthesamesociopoliticalformation(JeanComaroffandJohn vention.Whetherculledfrom"old"monographsintheworkofotherscholars
Comaroff 1991, 212; Mamdani 1996; Ranger 1983). The "traditional" society orderivedfromthe"here"and"now"ofmyownVorubafieldworkinNigeria,
ofthe traditionalAfricanist monograph—theworldof"the Nuer," "theTal- the texts and "text-artifacts" (Silvcrstein 1996,81, 82,87,90) that I explorein
lensi,""theDogon,"or"theSwazi"—wasnolongerviableasanautonomous thesestudies represent critical traditionsoflinguistic playand performance,
object ofknowledge but concealed and congealed the historical conditions combiningpoeticfiguresandallusionswithpragmaticfeaturesandfunctions.
thatproduced,indeedinvented,theculturalterrainofthecolonized,onethat Since one ofthe hallmarks ofAfricanisl ethnography is the marked signifi
wasnaturalizedinto"native"administration,showcasedinworld'sfairs,cod cancethatlanguageholdsthroughoutthecontinent,representedbyelaborate
ified by customs, and contrasted with Western modernity.1 The insights of forms oforatory (Finnegan 1970; Leiris 1992; Schapera 1965; Barber 1991a),
thisnewhistoricalanthropologyareindisputableandilluminatethedynamic specialized roles like thatofthe king's linguist, and indigenous theories that
characterof"tribal"ethnogenesis, thezonesofinteractionbetweenAfricans account forthe powerofspeech (Amuka 2000; Calame-Griaule 1965; Zahan
and Europeans, the poetics and politics ofdomination and resistance, and 1963).mygoalistorccastthe.seideasandinstitutionsascharacteristicformsof
ofcourse the fundamental modernityof"traditional" Africaasa domain of vernacularcriticism. Althoughmy"sample"ofcases is mostlysecondaryand
ethnographic recovery (Amselle 1985, 1998; Piot 1999). In a sense, we have admittedlysmall,drawingonmaterial from westernandsoutheasternAfrica,
learned that traditional Africa is"alwaysalreadymediated" by the European it illustrates a widespread awareness not merely of the role oflanguage in
encounteranditsmodesofsurplusextraction,rangingfromthenakedappro shapingsociopolitical structuresand ritual events but ofan associated form
priationofhumancapitalandtheprimitiveaccumulationofrawmaterialsto ofcritical agency, one that brings its grammatical and sociopolitical forms
themore refinedartsofmoral persuasion;hence,toindulge intheproblem into "intersecting frames" (Irvine 1996,13s) ofstructural alignment.
atic territory oftradition is to risk complicity with its mythic origins. How
then do we establish an Afrocentric ground ofcultural inquiry that neither
reinventsafictitiouspastnoremergesinoppositionto Europeanoverrule? Is To characterize "critical agency" in relation to discourse we can start with a
such a middleground between the Scylla oftradition and the Charybdis of basic distinction between linguistic and sociopolitical agency. Clearly, both
empireeven possibleordesirable? kinds ofagency engage important issues in philosophy, linguistics, and so
Many issues are at stake in answering this question, which inevitably re cialtheorythatcouldbeexplored,buttocarveoutananalyticalspaceforcrit
turnstotheunequalrelationsofmaterial production underlyingtheunequal ical agency 1 will begin with thework ofAhearn (2001) and Duranti (2004).
relationsofintellectual production in African studiesand academia at large Each develops a general concept ofagencyas the capacityforeffectivesocial
(lX'pelchin 2005, 1-24). No amount ofcritical scholarship is likely to make action that, following Giddens (1986, 88, 92, 93), has the "transformative
much ofan impactonthislargerglobalsituation,butitilluminatestheback capacity" to"makeadifference"andisthereforetosomedegreepowerful.For
dropofmy narrowangleofattack—a locuson discourseand critical agency Ahearn (2001,112) "agency refers to thesocioculturally mediated capacityto
in Africa. act,"a concisedefinition thatplacesthe manifold formsofsocioculturalme
Briefly stated, I begin with critical discoursesgenerated in Africa, largely diation—including grammar and discourse—at the forefront of investiga
in ritualcontexts,wherepowersareactivated,ancestorsinvoked,reputations tion.Crucial tothispointofdeparture,however, istheimportanceofsocially
negotiated, and histories recalled, and where sociopolitical relations are re significant action, that which transforms a structure,changes a situation, or
produced ond transformed within idioms ofpurification and renewal. 1 re influences an outcome to makesome sort ofdifference. Duranti (2004, 453)
turn, not tothe modelsofcolonial anthropology—tribal traditionswithset- offers a working definition that delineates the basic properties ofthe socio
piece rituals—but to dynamic arenas ofdiscursive interaction and political cultural field: "Agencyis hereunderstood as thepropertyofthoseentities (i)
negotiation where"tradition" makessense in local languages, as a rhetorical that have somedegreeofcontrol over theirown behavior, (ii) whoseactions
in theworldaffect otherentities'(and sometimes theirown),and (iii) whose
actions are the object ofevaluation (e.g. in terms oftheir responsibility for
1. l-'orJconcisecritiqueolsuchslrui.tiir.il-lciiKliim.ilmodelsinAfricuniststudies,seeI'iol
ii)<jg,in-11.Iw.111extendedcritique,setKuklkkwyi.l-'or.inextendeddefense,neeGoodynws- a given outcome)." Agents can be individual or collective, persons or
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 5
institutions,simple(insomesenseacting"alone")orcomplex(actingwithor on power and "the degree of agency that is attributed to a given entity"
onbehalfofothers);hence,forDurantitheyare"entities."Withsomedegree (Duranti2004,454;hisemphasis)withAhearn'sexpansiveattentiontoform,
ofautonomy,agents are always implicated in websofsocialitybecause their we can sketch a structural framework ofpower and authority to illuminate
actions are evaluated by others, implying forms ofrecognition and reflex- thedialecticsofsociopoliticalagencyinpractice.
ThemodelIhaveinmind,derivedfromM.G.Smith(1956,1975),identifies
ivitythatIwilladdress in duecourse.
Itisdearfromthesedefinitionsthatsociopoliticalagencyisbothcontext power and authority as fundamental principles that are dialectically impli
dependentandhistoricallysituated:first,becauseit"goesagainst"thestruc catedinallsociopoliticalsystemsandrelations.Authorityrelations,represent
turalgrainofthesysteminwhichtheagentisembedded;and,second,because ingtheadministrativelogicofatop-downchainofexecutivecommands,are
(a)thesystemitselfishistoricallyconditioned,and(b) theagent'sactionsare hierarchical andasymmetrical—assuch theyincludeorsubsumethesubor
diachronicandprocessual, like thelogicofpractice towhichagencybelongs dinateunitswhichtheyregulate,definingtheofficialorderaslegitimate,that
(Bourdieu 1990), unfoldingthrough strategiesand tactics toward specific is,sanctionedbycollectivevaluesthatareinsomesensemoral,jural,andeven
goals,withintendedandunintendedconsequences. Butifagencytransforms religious.Politicalrelations,bycontrast,areequivalentandsymmetrical,rep
thesestructuraland historical "fields," what formsdoes it take, and in what resentingthesegmentarylogicofpowercompetitionasactorsandcoalitions
degrees?Ahearn (2001,113-17)warnsagainstmonolithicnotionsofagencyas vieagainsteachothertoinfluencetheregulationofpublicaffairs—themaking
resistance, manifest in struggles against colonial or patriarchal domination, ofdecisionsbeforetheyareexecuted.Inhisoriginalconceptualbreakthrough,
because"oppositional agency" isonlyone formamong many. Thus, shein Smith(1956)liberatedtheprinciplesoffissionandfusion,ofsegmentaryop
vokesOrtner(2001,79),whocomplementstheoppositionalagencyofpower position and hierarchical inclusion, from theAfrican lineagesystems and
with the more quotidian "agency ofintentions—ofprojects, purposes, de "segmentarysocieties" in which theywere embedded byrecognizingtheir
sires,"aswellasMacLeod (1992,534),whoseideaof"complexandambiguous structuralcharacteristicsasspecificmodalitiesofpoliticsandadministration,
agency" confoundsstarkoppositionsbetween collaborationandresistance.2 principlesequallyatworkincomplexpolitieswithspecializedbureaucracies,
To this wecould add what Kratz (2000,137 et passim), following Hobart inpoliticalparties,andevenintheinnercirclesofauthoritarianregimes.Inits
(1990,96),callsthe"complexagency"ofmultipleactors in Okiekmarriages, pure,"abstract"form,poweroperates ultravires,outsidetheauthoritystruc
aswellasthe"secretagency" (Shaw2000)ofhiddenandindirectactioninthe turesthatseektoregulateanddomesticateitslabilepotencies(Smith1975,85).
"deep"Temneartsofsorceryanddivination. Itis ultimatelyrevisionaryand revolutionarybecauseit"opposes"authority,
For Ahearn (2001,122ns), the exploration of"different kinds ofagency" seekingtodismantleitshierarchicrelationsthroughradicalleveling.Powersui
both avoids the pitfalls of reductionism and replaces gradient notions of generisisthusdangerous,polluted,andillegitimate.Sinceitviolatesthestric
relativedegreewithtypologicalconsiderationsofmodalityandform.Helpful turesandstructuresthatchannelitthroughlegitimatemeansandends,power
as this perspective is in expanding the range ofagentive activities, itloses isoftenculturallyframedinidiomsofpollution—transgressingthemoralor
sightnotonlyofthe principleofpowerunderlyingalloftheirvariationsbut der, confounding what should be kept apart, and dividing what should be
alsoofthedegreesofagency,which,ifnotsociologicallyquantifiable,arerec combined and united. Ifin vertical terms power is associated with the peo
ognizedbysocialanalystsandactorsalike.3 BycombiningDuranti'semphasis ple,from"below,"contrathehierarchicalorganizationofauthorityrelations,
in horizontal terms this subversive capacity is nearly universally associated
with"leftness"anddisorder(transformation),opposedtothe"rightness"and
2. SeeOrtnern.d.SeealsoJohnComaroffandJeanComaroff1997foracogentstatementof
normativeorderoftheconservativestatusquo (reproduction).
thegrayzonebetweenovertdominationandresistancethatinformstheirstudyofcolonizationin
nineteenth-centuryBechuanaland,"foundedonanintricatemixofvisibleandinvisibleagency" UnlikeSmith,however,Iamlessinterestedinastructuraltheoryofpolitics
(18).CriticslikePeel(1995)whofaulttheComaroffsforneglectingTswana"narratives"ofagency as such than in the more abstract dialectics ofpower and authority as they
missthepointthatdiscursiveagency,situatedinpubliccontexts,isforthemostpartnonnarrative informthemicropracticesofsocialanddiscursiveagency.Whereasauthority
preciselybecauseitengagesmetapragmaticstrategiesthatarehighlycontextspecific.
anditshierarchicrelationsofadministrationhighlightthestructureofinstitu
3.Suchanawarenessofhowagencyimposesuponothersisbuiltintotheconceptsofthe
tions,offices,andsymboliccodesatalllevelsofcorporateorganization,power
FaceThreateningAct(FTA)developedbyBrownandUvinson(1978)andof"themitigationof
and its segmentary political relations inhere in people and persons. Again,
agency"developedbyDuranti(2004.465-67)asuniversaldimensionsofpolitenessphenomena.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
as the rich anthropological record attests (lackson and Karp 1990), cultural with authority, as in the powerofthestate or ofa rulingclass. Such power
idioms ofpersonhood and selfhood may be complex and variable, whether iscast as hegemonic,as domination opposed by the arts ofresistance (Scott
framed as the autonomous individuals ofbourgeois societyor as individu 1990), but I would argue that vertical domination in this view representsan
atedaspectsoflargersodalities(alineage,caste,orrevolutionaryproletariat), authoritysystem withenough powertokeep resistance—the powerofrivals,
but people and persons, not institutions, have power.4 As we shall sec, the ofthepeople—incheck. Inourview,thepowerofagencyinsuchhierarchical
distinction between incumbentand office, person and position, is central to contexts derives less from thestructure orsystem ofinequalityand more
effectiveagencyas it mediatesand negotiates powerandauthority.5 fromtheimpulsetowardlevelingandsymmetry—apowerthatrearrangeshi
I hope to have established that any kind ofagency must be powerful in erarchyby bringing the very relationshipbetween structureandagencyinto
itscapacityto makea differenceas effectiveaction, regardlessofthe level of focus. Hereweapproach the"critical"dimensionwheretheagentengagesits
"authority"andformofinequalitythatitopposes.Ifinresistancemovements veryconditionsofpossibility,butbeforemovingon tothiscentralconceptwe
and revolutionsagencyemergesin fullglorycontratheestablishedsystemof can illuminate powerand authority indiscourseby revisitingaclassicarticle
domination, notall agencymust be so exalted tobepowerful andopposi- in historicalsociolinguislics.
tional. Butina moreabstractsense,all formsofagency,howevercomplicitor Firstpublishedin i960, BrownandOilman's"The PronounsofPowerand
ambiguous,workagainstthesociopoliticalgraintosomedegree,whetheren Solidarity" brought politics into grammar by focusing on "you." The essay
gagedinthequotidianconcernsof"seriousgames"(Ortnern.d.),inpoaching ranges broadly over time and space, rooting the European development of
"ahipcrniqiic" in theworkplace(deCerleau 1984, 24-28), in the inspiration twosecond-personsingularpronounsofaddress—oneformalandpolite(V),
ofreligious revival (Jean Comaroff1985), in overt political and ideological theotherinformaland familiar•T)—intheLatindistinctionbetween vosand
resistancemovements,orin themisguidedviolenceofalienated psychopaths 111andpursuingwhythesecond-personpluralinsomanylanguagesbecamea
whogoon killingspreesandtaketheirown lives.Thislatterexampleofrun respectfulformofsingularaddress:vominFrench,leiinItalian,ustedinSpan
ning amok is ofcourse extreme, representingone end ofa power-authority ish,even "ye" in English (before"thou"and"ye" wereassimilated to"you").
continuumwheretheagent'spoweriscompletelydestructiveandillegitimate, Wherebroadchangesin use.ireassociated with majorhistorical transforma
but most formsofagency combine powerand authorityand in tact operate tions like the decline offeudalism, the impact ofthe French Revolution,and
byrenegotiatingtheirrelativeproportion,maximizingagentivepowerwithin the spread ofmodern democratic ideologies, specific forms ofpronominal
thecloakoflegitimateauthorityto makethedesireddifference.Thepointat addressarerelated to powerand statusdifferentialsbetween"superiors"and
which anagent violatesthe rulesofthegame may represent the limits ofthe "'inferiors"overabroad rangeofsocialclassesand roles.These includemon-
entity'spower,oritmayindextheagent'spowerto"rewrite"therules.Thus,if archs and subjects, parents and children, nobles and commoners, officers
powercomesfrom"below,"itcanbeexercisedfrom"above"preciselywhenit and soldiers, teachers and students, elders andjuniors, even customers and
transformsauthoritybyrevisingitsstrictures—bychangingprocedural rules waiters,whoseunequalrelationsareiexicallymarkedbythe"powersemantic"
to influence a vote, the term limits on an officeto remain in "power," orcri ofV. Inacomplementaryanddynamicallyevolvingdimension,theT,or"sol
teriaofeligibility for high office or by declaringa stateofemergency. Power idaritysemantic," indicatessymmetrical relationsofequality: membershipin
withoutauthority isdestructive. Authoritywithoutpower is ineffective. the same social class oroccupational group, or position ofequivalent status
Thedialecticofpowerandauthorityderived fromM. G. Smith (1956) ex and rank. Whatever thecultural and historical variationson thisdistinction,
tends beyond the confines ofinstitutional politics to the interactivespheres not to mention its more situated discursive contexts, Brown and Gilman
oflanguage and discourse. Ifthe negative notion ofpower as antistructure identified two significant dimensions in what would later become the study
appears counterintuitive at first, it is because"power' isso often equated ofshifters and indexicals (Silverstein 1976b): vertical relations ofhierarchy,
inequality, and social distance marked by the formal V, and horizontal rela
tions ofequality and social proximity indicated by the informal T. Whereas
4. PoraphilosophicaldiscussionofiIk*historicityofthemodernWestern"sell."seeTaylor
the V form conveys respect, formality,and inequality between interlocutors,
5.SeeihedistinctionmadebySdiiM-loll (nj.Sr)lieiween"participants(thatis,persons)and theT form conveys familiarity,equivalence,and equality. As BrownandGil
partiesIrolesandalignments),"citedin Irvinei'W.1»«. man noted, the "two-dimensional semantic" was not alwavs stable, since a
INTRODUCTION 9
8 INTRODUCTION
transitive verbs acting on objects, including other agents (Duranti 2004,
superiorcould use theT orV formtoasubordinatebutwould receiveonly
460; Aheam 2001,120-21).Theseforms,called"semantic" and"participant"
theV formin return. In thesecaseswe mightsaythe"powersemantic" had
roles,aredesignatedbycategoriessuchasAgent,Actor, Experiencer,Object,
context-dependentreciprocalandnonreciprocal forms(rather thanpropose
Patient/Undergoer, and Instrument that may be variably marked in certain
asemanticshiftfromconflicttoequilibrium),butfornow,theVandTforms
languages,andifIneglectthisdimensionofwhatDuranti(2004,459-65)calls
discussedbyBrown andGilmanhelptoclarifytwo importantrelationships.
"the encodingofagency" in favorofits pragmatic dimension, what hecalls
First, we can redefine power and solidarity with the V axis representing
"the performanceofagency" (2004,455-59), itis morebynecessitythan de
hierarchical authority and the T axis representing the leveling logic ofseg-
sign since most ofmy data are in English and French translations (except
mentarypowerrelations.TheVformindicatesnotthe"power"ofasuperior
forchapter4below,on Yoruba insultsandcurses,whichIgatheredfromthe
overaninferiorin thisreformulationbuttheauthoritativepositionheorshe
field).Nevertheless,fromAhearn'sessay(2001,122-23)andbuildingonDixon
occupieswithin thestructureofunequalrelations;assuch, thepositionem
(1994)andthe"animacyhierarchy"ofSilverstein(1976a,122),wecanhighlight
phasizesthestatus,office,orroleoverandabovethepersonwhooccupiesit.
the general predominance ofthe agentive "I" over descending pronominal
Wecouldevensaythattheformalityofthehonorificindexestheformalityof
the"system"itself. Second,theTform,bycontrast,ispowerfulbecauseitem and nominal forms:
phasizesfamiliaritybetweenequals-*-membersofthesamesocialgroup,class,
lF)rom the universal grammatical principles underlying all languages, we
orcategorywho are "atease," even "joking," with no needtostandon cere
know that the most salient person in a linguistic interaction isthespeaker,
mony.SuchpowerisnotnecessarilythatofAdeterminingB'sactionsbutofA
'I.'... Thesecondmostsalientpersonistheaddressee,'you."BodiTand'you'
bringingBtothesamelevel,thepowerofegalitcandfraternite,ofcamaraderie
aremoresalient,andthereforemorelikelytobefound intheAgentposition,
andcomradeship. Ineffect, thepowerofthesolidarity"semantic" isthatof
thantheabsentparticipantsintheinteraction,rankedinthefollowingorder:
affectivebondsbetweenpeopleratherthanjuralrelationsbetweenofficesand third person pronouns, propernouns,common nouns referringtohumans,
roles,betweenpersonsoutsideofficesintheiridealform,actingonthesystem. common nouns referringtoanimatenonhumans,andcommonnounsrefer
Recast as the pronouns ofauthorityand power, Brown and Gilman's V and ringtoinanimateobjects.(Aheam2001,123)
Tpronounshelp usclarifythecriticaldimensionsofdiscursiveagency: first,
in terms ofthe formality ofhierarchic authority (V) and the informalityof Thus, grammatical agency in its most formaldimensionsappearsprimarily
grounded in theactofspeakingitself—intheactive, transitivemodesofa
segmentarypower(T);andsecond,in termsofthe"roledistance" (Goffman
1961,143)theyestablishbetweenpersonand"position,"incumbentandoffice, speaking"I,"followedbya"you"whoisaddressed,followedbyathirdperson,
orwhatinclusivelydistinguishesagencyandstructure.6 Itisobviousbutstill andsoon.
worth emphasizing that the power ofthese pronouns (and, as we shall see, Althoughtheagentive"F"appearsuniversallygroundedinaspeakingsub
othershiftersanddeictics)doesnotsimplyreflectgradientauthorityrelations jectthatactsonotherpersonsandthings,itisnotmerelyencodedasasemantic
rolebutfunctions(likeallshifters)indexicallyasa"duplexsign"anchoringthe
butactivelyproducesthem inthespeechactsofaddress.
Wearenowin apositiontoexaminelinguisticordiscursiveagencyasthe grammatical"I"withinthesocialfieldofthespeechactitself.Duranti(2004,
powertonegotiateauthorityrelationsthroughavarietyofgrammatical and 455)callsthisperformativedimensionofsuchI-witnessingagencyits"self-"or
oratorical forms. Admittedly, my understandingofthe strictly grammatical "ego-affirming"level,primaryasanexistentialconditionofthesecond,"act-
formsofagency isextremelylimited, not only in theergative-absolutiveand constituting" level oflinguistic ordiscursive agency. Such an ego-affirming
stative-active languages with which 1 am unfamiliar, but also in the nomi function may appear redundant, but it further establishes three important
native-accusative languages like English in which agents are subjects of conditionsbeyondthatofexistentialquantification.First, itrelatesthesocial
agent to the speakingsubject, regardless ofthe "identity" ofthespeaker. In
ritual-language genres ofspirit possession, for example, a speaker's identity
6.The mistaken identification ofpower with authority (high status) also weakens the
canshift between thatofdevoteeandherdeityto radicallyreframethecom
predictivepowerofBrownand Levinson'swork(1978).whichcannotaccountforthe"power"
municative context (Apter 1992,136-47),but such shifting ofthe selfwould
XgainsoverYbyindexingYssuperiorstatus.Forasimilarpointaboutthe"coerciveeffectof
not be possible without ego-affirmingagency in the "first place." A second
verbalformulae,"seeDuranti1991.9-.drawingonIrvine1974.