Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
TALKINGABOUT RESISTANCE:ETHNOGRAPHYAND
THEORYIN RURAL FRANCE
DEBORAHREED-DANAHAY
EmoryUniversity
This article uses ways of talking about the concept of "resistance"to critique the division
between ethnography and theory in anthropology. The French concept of debrouillardise,as
used by Auvergnat farmers, is a way of talking about social manipulation which can express accommodation, resistance, cunning, ways of "making out," and ways of "making
do." Fieldwork incidents in which the ethnographer unwittingly came to be implicated in
behaviors labelled as such helped her to rethink her own perspectives on power. [France,
resistance, fieldwork, ethnography, cunning]
222
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
This definitionis, in fact, so similarto dbbrouillardise that it is difficult to imagine that the
FrenchmenDetienne and Vernant were not reminded of the French concept when studying
metis.1
TALKINGABOUTRESISTANCE
223
224
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
cepts of resistance.
The Lavialloisindulgein the "romanceof resistance"as much as do any contemporaryethnographerswriting about resistance,often bragging
abouttheir own underminingsof the powerful.The
notion of dbbrouillardise,however, speaks to a
more complex system of power (more "Foucaultian") than the theoriesof Willis or Scott. That
forms of powerlie both with agents of dominant
cultureand with themselvesis intrinsicto Laviallois perspectiveson social manipulation.
Debrouillardise
The conceptof dbbrouillardiseis part of the arsenal of both the weak and the strong(to use Scott's
metaphors),but in differentways. The Laviallois
do not label their own actions which resemble
Scott's "everydayresistance"or Certeau's"everyday practices"directlyas resistance.Rather,they
place these withina widercategoryand vocabulary
of action which has to do with skillfully"making
do" or "makingout" in difficultsituations.The vocabularyof dbbrouillardiseincorporatesnotionsof
both accommodationand resistance,and provides
nuancesfor commonplacetheoreticalassumptions
concerning official vs. unofficial ideologies or
discourses.
Debrouillardise(particularlyin its reflexive
verb form-se dbbrouiller)subsumesthe concept
of resisting dominationalong with a variety of
other forms of social manipulationor even partial
accommodation.It is used in Lavialle to express
the ability to be resourceful,clever,or cunningin
difficultsituations.This ability is primarilyassociated with both defensiveposturestoward outside
threats(eithernaturalor human)and copingstrategies in everydaylife. A farmerwill use this term
to speakof how he or she managedin the difficult
birth of a calf, to describeways of "makingdo"
duringthe last war,or to boastof outwittingsomeone of higherstatus.To be able to exhibitthis skill
is highlyvaluedfor both men and women,and it is
felt to be an importantcharacteristicof Auvergnat
regionalidentity(see Reed-Danahay1987, 1991).
Debrouillardisecan implycunning,but is not
synonymouswith it. To be dbbrouillardis positivelyvaluedin Lavialle,whereasa personlabelled
ruse (literally translatedin dictionariesas "cunning") is criticizedand labelleddishonest.For example, a farmer who is rumoredto have added
water to the milk yielded by his cows in orderto
TALKINGABOUTRESISTANCE
This conceptof soSysthmeD (D for dMbrouiller).
cial manipulationis part of Frenchpublicculture,
and goes hand in hand with the statist tendencies
of Frenchlife (Ardagh 1987; Rogers 1991; Wylie
1963, 1975;Zeldin 1982). Le SystemeD is a common label for dealings with the French bureaucracy and, especially,ways to get aroundit. Laurence Wylie calls it the "art of wangling"(1963:
209) and explainsthat it refersto "anydeviousand
usually ill-definedmeans by which an individual
can take initiativein spite of the restrictionsimposedon him by society"(p. 223). Le SysthmeD is
not the provinceof the weak.In fact, this abilityto
workthe system is very much associatedwith the
strong in France. Both the less formal debrouillardiseand the morecodifiedSystemeD pointto a
worldview in whichpowerand resistanceto it are
two sides of the same coin.
Le Systhme D has been widely describedin
the literatureon France,and has vividlycaptured
the imaginationsof Anglo-Americanwriters.John
Ardagh(an Englishjournalist)providesa description that is perhapsmorerevealingof attitudestowardssuch behavioramong Anglo-saxonsthan of
the conceptitself and, therefore,deservesquoting
at length:
Theirlives (the French)are spentdevisingingenious
rulesandthenfindingequallycunningwaysof evading
them.Thustheyareableto cut cornersandcircumvent
someof thebureaucratic
andthisis knownas
absurdities,
'le systemeD', a long-standing
and cardinalfeatureof
Frenchlife. Thatis, everyoneincluding
officialsaccepts
thatredtapecan be tacitlyignoredfromtimeto time,
whenit is donebetweenpalsorovera friendly
especially
An Englishfriendof minewitha summervilla
"verre."
in the Midiappliedforelectricity
to be installed:
he was
told this would take years of delay and form-filling-'But,'addedthevillagemayorwitha shrug,'there's
someoldwiringstackedin the vaultsof the mairie,and
thelocalelectrician
mightfixyouupif youask,butkeep
it quiet'. Le systeme D bringshumanproportioninto in-
humanofficialprocedures-but
it maynotbe thewayto
runa modernnationin an ageof hightechnology
(1987:
621).
225
226
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
and criticize parental behavior of which they disapproved. This use of the term is a form of "everyday
domination" through which the teachers tried to
assert their authority over parents (see ReedDanahay and Anderson-Levitt 1991). The parents
of Lavialle knew, however, that the best way for
them to deal with such comments by teachers was
se dMbrouiller,that is, to avoid open confrontation
and to simply proceed as usual (which may, in
some cases, include continuing to help with
homework!)
I have thus far suggested that it is common for
social actors in positions of subordination, like the
farmers of Lavialle, to value cunning, manipulative
behaviors. I have argued that these behaviors artfully combine both resistance and partial accommodation. However, it is a very different thing for
an anthropologist to hear informants use a term or
to ask them about concepts, than it is to be implicated in behaviors of cunning or resistance through
one's own actions.
TALKINGABOUTRESISTANCE
tion were particularlyevidentin the next example,
which comes from an incident about one-third
throughthe periodof my fieldwork.
227
228
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY
coevalness.
Herzfeld has made important contributions to
the dismantling of the distinction between theory
and ethnography in his analysis of social poetics
among Cretan shepherds (1985; see also 1987). In
The poetics of manhood he argues for a "semiotic
perspective" that
rejects the artificial distinction between symbolic discourse and objectivedata, and instead treats the ethnographictext-which is no less empiricalas a result-as a
constructionresulting from the fusion of the ethnographer'sconceptualframeworkwith that of the local informants. In this approach informants' presuppositions,
whether consciouslyarticulatedor not, acquire pivotal
importance(1985: 46).
The ways in which the ethnographic text is constructed from this fusion is not spelled out by
Herzfeld, but his perspective invites attempts to
clarify this step through more explicit discussions
of fieldwork.
This perspective involves a humbling of our
own claims about the validity of our ideas as well
as a growing respect for the ideas of our informants. It also depends upon a view of our informants as social actors. The degree to which social
actors are truly aware of their objective circumstances is a subject of much debate in contemporary social theory.? A useful middle ground to this
issue is suggested by Sider, who writes that
people act in terms of what they cannot understand,or
understandin radicallydifferentways, and in terms of
relationshipsthey cannot form, or sustain, or leave, as
well as in terms of what "works,"what they think they
clearly understandand probablydo (Sider 1986: 10;
quotedby Vincent 1990: 405).
TALKINGABOUTRESISTANCE
status than her informantsrepresents,and can
drawupon,widerrealmsof power.Nevertheless,in
the field situationitself we are not always"in control" and must adapt our methodsand conceptual
frameworks(see also KennethGeorge,this issue).
The more cunning we are in accomplishingthis,
however,the more power we can, paradoxically,
exert.
My encounterswith the Lavialloishave,moreunderover,led me to suspectthat anthropological
standingsof power and resistanceare culturally
and class-based.That is, notionsof resistanceare
perhapsmost problematicto those of us whoseAnglo-Americanmiddle-classvalues (or "habitus"
[Bourdieu1977]) resemblemost closely those of
the dominantideologyin our own culture.When I
reactedto the brokenphoneboothwith the desire
to call the telephonecompany,I was unquestionably supportinga whole institutionalapparatus
with which I have been socializedto identify. In
this responseI was perhapsmore "mystified"than
my neighborsin Lavialle.For them, everydayresistance is a recognized "way of operating" in
Certeau'sterms,not a "hiddentranscript"as Scott
wouldhave it.
This discussionof concepts of resistancein
Franceraises,beyondthe issue of what constitutes
resistanceand how poweroperates,questionsabout
the relationshipbetweentheoryand ethnographyin
Europeanfieldwork.France is, after all, a place
from which many of the most famousand influen-
229
NOTES
AcknowledgmentsThe fieldworkdescribedhere was fundedby
a National Science FoundationDissertationFellowshipand a
Bourse Chateaubriand.I would like to thank Wendy Weiss,
Michael Herzfeld,and two anonymousreviewersfor comments
on this article.I wouldalso like to thankall fellow participants
in the NEH "Poeticsand Social Life"summerseminarat Indiana University,Bloomington(1990) for the lively discussions
that helpedshape the ideas presentedhere.
'Their own literal translationfor metis in Frenchis, however, la ruse.
2One reviewerasked me to point out that my word play
here is only play becausehis/her dictionaryshowedthat mystificationand mist have differentroots.However,the two terms
sharea similaretymologyaccordingto the OxfordEnglishDictionary CompactEdition, which states that mystify is "often
associatedwith English mist" (1984: 818).
SWhenI referto the Lavialloisas paysans, I do not intend
to mean that they are "peasants."Rather, I am reflectinga
common terminologyfor contemporaryFrench farmers (and
sometimesartisans)used by both ruraland urbanFrenchpeople. Most inhabitantsof Lavialle are farmers, but they are
hardlypeasants.They own and run modernfarms and are not
marginalto the Frencheconomy.Becauseof the very different
historicalsituationsof American farmers and French small-