Technological Transcripts: Behind the Scenes

Technology has made it easier for people to spread their innermost thoughts, but it still

does not allow the ideas of people to be heard and incorporated into democracy. James C.

Scott’s essay, “Behind the Official Story,” illustrates the “acts” that people with power,

dominates, and those without power, subordinates, put on in public and the reality these groups

of people demonstrate outside of the public’s eye. These “acts” are what Scott calls transcripts

(522). While Scott describes the different actions among these two groups, another author

suggests a way to close the gaps between the two groups. In Hazel Henderson’s essay,

“Perfecting Democracy’s Tools,” she discusses how technology will make it possible for

democracy to relay information and truly be run by the beliefs of its citizens as opposed to a

group of elitists (371). This paper will argue that hidden and public transcripts still exist within a

democracy; however, technology changes how these transcripts are presented and causes

difficulty in distinguishing between which transcripts are actually hidden and which are public.

The ways that the borders between these transcripts are portrayed can be seen through the way

power creates transcripts, media, social status, and standard “roles” set by tradition in the world.

Transcripts affect the way the world works, and can be looked at from different angles.

Both Scott and Henderson have different perspectives on how public transcripts affect the

way people act. Scott defines public transcripts “as a shorthand way of describing the open

interaction between subordinates and those who dominate” (522). What he means by this is that

when dominates and subordinates are communicating with each other, the groups are not

expressing their true feelings. Instead they are forced to act as to which they are expected, such

as a servant and his or her master, without bringing in the beliefs each person expresses outside

of the other’s eye. Henderson, however, looks at these public transcripts from another angle

1
when technology becomes involved, and explains that “We must restructure [potential feedback

technologies’] manipulative, top-down, ‘big-brother’ aspects, which currently reinforce

hierarchical institutions in both public and private sectors, as well as today’s mindless

mediocracy politics” (Henderson, 371). She is explaining how in today’s democracy, even with

the use of technology, there is still a gap between subordinates and dominates. There will always

be someone with more power than someone else. Due to this issue of power, people will always

have someone who controls how the thoughts of others are regulated. People will never be able

to have their voice heard, or if they do, it will not make a difference which is why public

transcripts exist. Groups are forced to act a certain way when another group is present, which is

why hidden transcripts come into play outside of confrontation.

The two authors also have different views on the effect of hidden transcripts and how

they affect the world. Scott describes this idea of true values that remain unexpressed in the

presence of different groups as hidden transcripts. Hidden transcripts can be the true beliefs that

belong to a specific group or an individual (Scott, 524). This idea is that people usually will not

express these feelings because of the consequences that could occur, and because there will still

be someone who will try to make sure these feelings do not make a difference. On the other

hand, Henderson believes that people’s thoughts can make a difference and create a democracy

truly based on the people. She explains that there are two reasons to change the use of

technology from dominate functions to subordinate functions. The first reason is to inform

people in a community of the current threats and opportunities so that they are knowledgeable

and able to respond to these issues. The other reason is so that the people can share their

responses with every group involved in making decisions (Henderson, 371). This shows how

technology will make it possible for people to reveal their hidden transcripts in order to change

2
how the world is run without the threat of power interfering. She believes that the individual or

subordinate group can make a difference and not have to fear consequences. This theory crosses

the borders between the two types of transcripts because the stereotypical public transcripts will

fade and the hidden transcripts will be made public. One of the most prominent resources for

changing the faces of transcripts is the media.

The media is the most influential part of democracy and causes the most issues when

trying to decipher which transcripts are actually public and which are hidden. Scott describes

how hidden transcripts can be revealed when he quotes George Eliot’s character, Mrs. Poyser,

which demonstrates

Eliot’s power of observation and insight into her rural society that many of the

key issues of domination and resistance can be teased from her story of Mrs.

Poyser’s encounter with the squire. At the height of her peroration, for example,

Mrs. Poyser insists that they will not be treated as animals despite his power over

them (526).

This example shows how people, if pushed hard enough, can reveal their deepest hidden

transcripts. Though these transcripts were not revealed through the media they were still

transformed into public transcripts. This begins to break the borders between the hidden and

public transcripts, but they still exist because the squire’s hidden transcripts have not been

brought to light. Exposing hidden transcripts can be seen in democracy when Henderson

describes Perot’s idea of a democracy of the people, but then “his March 1993 ‘electronic town

meeting’ turned out to be a half-hour infomercial (i.e., a paid political or commercial program)”

(377). She shows how someone with power can claim that the power will be returned to the

public, but then reveals to the nation their hidden transcripts of their wish to retain the power.

3
The media has then caused deterioration of the lines between the two types of transcripts. Both

transcripts remain, but now it is difficult to distinguish hidden transcripts from public ones.

Distinguishing hidden transcripts from public transcripts is important when involving different

social statuses.

Social status not only creates the two transcripts, but also makes changes within those

transcripts. Scott demonstrates a change within a transcript when writes about a black cook,

Aggy, and a white governess, Mary Livermore. Aggy’s daughter was beaten by her master, and

when her master left the room Aggy stepped out of her role as a quiet cook to show her true hate

for her master. Scott quotes Aggy’s presentation of her hidden transcript to Mary, and responds,

One can imagine what might have happened to Aggy if she had delivered this

speech directly to the master. Apparently her trust in Mary Livermore’s

friendship and sympathy was such that a statement of her rage could be ventured

with comparative safety. Alternatively, perhaps she could no longer choke back

her anger. Aggy’s hidden transcript is at complete odds with her public transcript

of quiet obedience (Scott, 525).

This quote shows how even though Aggy revealed her hidden transcript, it did not become a

public transcript because the person she portrayed her public transcript to Mary, who was not her

master. The transcript changed because it is now hidden within two people instead of individual.

Whether or not this revelation changed any of Mary’s hidden transcripts or if she shared a similar

transcript it still changed the original transcript within Aggy. This idea of a change in transcript

can be seen when Henderson writes,

Opening up existing and new channels of communication in commercial and

noncommercial mass media is the key to assuring that citizens are sufficiently

4
 enlightened to vote wisely. Already U.S. citizens and those of other OECD

countries are the most broadly educated populations in world history—and mass

communications can raise this level even further (378).

She is saying that new communication will further “enlighten” people to vote wisely even though

the voters are already knowledgeable. Her idea creates the assumption that there will be no bias

within this communication. Despite Henderson’s claim, the people with a higher social status

are attempting to change people’s hidden transcripts and possibly their public transcripts if the

people are willing to show that they have changed their mind. Though people try to fight what

the controlling groups say, most people are susceptible to having new beliefs imposed upon

them. Social status gives people a particular character to play within society.

A major reason that people act as they do in a public setting is because of the “roles” that

are traditionally given to particular groups of people. Scott describes the generalization of these

roles when he writes, “With rare, but significant, exceptions the public performance of the

subordinate will, out of prudence, fear, and the desire to curry favor, be shaped to appeal to the

expectations of the powerful” (522). This generalization describes how people will play their

part in a society because it is the way tradition expects them to play it. People do not step out of

these roles because of the consequences. For example, if a president was found doing something

wrong, people would rebel and take charge to get him or her removed from office. That act

would be out of character for someone with power and would throw off the standard roles within

that society. Henderson demonstrates people staying within their roles when she writes,

These two vital forms of feed back [(votes and prices)] are failing to deliver

enough timely information on the effects of policies and multiple restructurings to

adequately guide and correct decisions. Votes every two or four years are too

5
 slow and cannot refine voters’ feedbacks on multiple issues, while prices cannot

guide markets without incorporating the fuller social and environmental costs of

products and services (370).

This demonstrates how people remain in their places below the power when it comes to the

democratic system. They do not take charge to try to change the way the system is run because

the system has been around for a long time. Democracy is a tradition, despite the fact that it is

not truly run by the people. If people begin to take charge and the roles between subordinates

and dominates change, then the gap between the two groups would close. There would be an

equal playing field for everyone so that people can avoid the use of public transcripts and say

what is on their minds without the fear of consequences.

Scott and Henderson both show how public and hidden transcripts exist among everyone

in the world because of the variation of social status. Scott demonstrates that public and hidden

transcripts usually appear separately, but occasionally the hidden transcripts can be brought into

the public eye. Henderson also examines this proposal but in terms of technology and politics.

She shows how people’s true opinions are not always shown. Both authors examine the

difficulty of eliminating transcripts, but show that transcripts can be changed if approached

correctly. Scott and Henderson show that eliminating social status and traditional roles is the key

component for closing the gap between subordinates and dominates. It is only when people step

out of their roles to take a stand that a true democracy is possible, but until then, everyone will

remain an actor on the stage of life.