View
241
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
1/19
Four Types of Symbolic Conflict
Author(s): Simon HarrisonSource: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp.255-272Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034688.
Accessed: 11/03/2014 12:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3034688?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3034688?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
2/19
FOUR TYPES OF SYMBOLIC CONFLICT
SIMON HARRISON
UniversityfUlster
The aim
of
his rticles toderive theoryfpoliticalymbolism
rom n analysisf ymbolic
conflict.y symboliconflict mean hat imension fpolitical
onflict hich ocuses n the
manipulationf ymbols. rawingn a range fethnographicxamples,argue hat ymbolicconflicts a type fcompetitionorwhatBourdieu alls ymbolicapital, nd that t can take
four
rototypical
orms:
t
an
oncern
ither
he
aluationfpolitical
ymbols,heir roduction,
their roprietorship,r their urvivals emblems f political ffiliations.
hese correspondo
the our entral ropertiesf politicalymbol, hich re he our
ways nwhich uch symbol
can be
manipulated
o as to
appropriateymbolicapital.
Introduction
The aimofthis rticles to outline frameworkor nderstanding
hepolitical
uses
of symbolism. take
t
forgranted hat olitical
ctionhas an inherent
expressive imension nd involves he deploymentf symbols see Kertzer
1988). But the political pplicationsf symbolismre
perhaps evealedmost
clearly
f
we
examine ituations f conflict. ompetitionorpower,wealth,
prestige,egitimacyr other olitical esources eems lways o be accompa-
niedbyconflictver mportantymbols, y trugglesocontrol r manipulate
such symbols
n
some vitalway. shall call behaviour
f this ort ymbolic
conflict.
I
focus n a particularlass fpoliticalymbols:
amely,
hose ssociated ith
persistingroups
nd
signifyingnduring roup dentities.
ut hope thereby
toreach onclusionsoncerningolitical ymbolismsa whole. willassume,
after
urkheim, hatgroups scribe heir ymbolic ttributes
ith
a
special
prestiger sanctity.ollowing opytoff1986: 73), shall
all a group's
istin-
guishingrray
f
sacralized
bjects
nd
properties
ts ymbolicnventory.
My
argument
s
that
ymbolic onflict
s a form
f
competition
or
what
Bourdieu 1990: 112-21)
alls
ymbolicapital,
nd that t
can
take
our
roto-
typical
orms.
his is
because
there re
only
four
ways
n
which
a
political
symbol, r complex
f
symbols,an be used.
Each of these
s
simply strategy
for
manipulatingoliticalymbolism
o as
to
affecthe
distribution
f
ymbolic
capital.n the courseof their se, political ymbols anundergo our orre-
sponding
orts
f
change.
An
argument
f this
ort, eeking
o
dentify
ross-cultural
egularities
n the
ways
hat
ymbols fgroup dentityreused n political
onflict,
ust raw or
support n a ratherwide and diverse angeof ethnographic
vidence.
n
J. Roy. nthrop.nst. N.S.) 1, 255-272
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
3/19
256
SIMON
HARRISON
anthropology
e rightly
tress he mportance
f context
or proper nder-
standing
f our data.
But certain inds f arguments
imply
annot e made
unlessone iswilling o extractthnographicaterialsrom heir ull ocio-
cultural ettings, rusting
hat their ntelligibility
an survive
degreeof
decontextualization.
Valuation ontests
Inthefirstype f ymbolic
onflict,
he ssue tstake s the
rankingf
ymbols
of the competing roups'
dentities;heir
anking,hat s to say, ccording
o
somecriterionfworth
uch sprestige,egitimacy
r sacredness.
ll thatmay
thereforehange s a result fthe contests therelative ositions f these
symbols
long omescaleof value.
The verbal
ontests f honour nd
formal
'reviling-matches'aged
by rival
escent roupsmong he
pre-Islamic rabs
are
n example. wogroupswould
choose ome
ssue nwhich o contend
or
superiority,
uch as thenobility
f their ncestors.
heywould then
tage
quasi-judicialratorical
ontest n this ubject,
with he outcome ecidedby
anadjudicatorHuizinga
1970:87-9).
What
hetwo sides
were
contesting
as therelative
ank r
esteem
f their
focal
ymbols
f dentity
in
this
ase,
heir ncestors.
hese sorts f compe-
titions, oncernedwith negotiatingr manipulatinghe statusof group
symbols,
will callvaluation ontests.
Two tactics,ne positive
nd the
othernegative,re possible
n a valuation
contest.
he
negative
actic s directed t the
symbols
f theoppositionnd
consists
imply
n
attempts
o diminish heir tatus.
his
was a
pronounced
featuref
theArab
eviling-matches,
n which he
opposing
ides eem o
have
competed
mainly
n
mutual
ilification
nd nvectiveHuizinga1970:
87-9).
The positive
actic
s directedtone's own symbols
nd
featuresrominently
in the aints'
iestasn Malta,
nwhichpolitical actionsupporting
ival aints
tryo outdo achothern the cale ndostentationftheir estivalsBoissevain
1963).
Here,
he
mphasis
s
on
promoting
hereputation
nd
prestige
fone's
own faction'saint
y extravagant
isplays
f
devotion,
ather han
eeking
n
someway o
dishonour ival
aints.
We
see
both
tactics ombined
n the festivalsf the
fighting
ompanies'
among
he
Fante fGhana Adler&
Barnard
992).
There
are
up
to
seven
f
these
militaryompanies
n a
town,
nd their elations
re
ntensely
ased
on
rivalry.
ach
hasa
hierarchy
fofficersnd ts wnuniforms,
lags,
anners
nd
othermilitaryegalia.
ts
flag
s
the
central ocus
f
tshonour.
he
company
ownsthedesign ftheflag,nd ealously efendsts xclusive ightoparade
it.
Atfestivals,ompany
members
isplay
he
flag
n
their ouses
nd
on the
company
hrine,
nd
carry
t
n
processions,
nd
specially-trained
fficers
er-
form
spectacular
ances
with it. Most
flags
make referencesn
their
iconography
o
Fante
proverbs,
n
such
a
way
as
to
glorify
he
company
nd
disparage
tsrivals.
he
flag
f
the
ion
company,
or
nstance,mplicitly
aunts
the
eopard
ompany
with he
proverb:
A dead lion
is
greater
han
living
leopard'
Adler
&
Barnard 992:
7-14).
The
leopard
ompany's lag
retorts
with conic eferenceso
the
proverb:
If
you
shoot
t a
leopard
nd do
not
kill
it, t sbetterot o have hot t all' Adler Barnard 992:70).Thesefestivals
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
4/19
SIMON
HARRISON 257
are,
in
effect, xchangesof visual
boasts, nsults, hallengesand provocations
throughwhich rival ompanies compete for tatus.
Similar kinds of antagonism,n a somewhatdifferentmedium, occur be-
tween clans of the Iatmul n New Guinea
over
the
distinction nd importance
of theirtotems. Bateson (1958) refers
o
a
longstanding ispute between the
totemicmoietiesof the Iatmul
over
the nature
of
Night.
One
moiety
laimed
the
Night
as its
totem,
nd maintained
complex
set of
cosmological
beliefs
explaining ts existence.But the Sun
moiety
dismissed this and claimed that
Night
was
simply
the absence
of
their
own
totem,
the
Day,
and
was
a
mere
negativity.
here
were
similar
disputes
over the nature f
ripples
nd
waves on
water.
Some clans
personified
hese
phenomena
as
totemicancestors
nd
re-
garded them as their totems.The clan owning the East Wind disagreed,
claiming hatwaves
were
caused by theirwind-ancestress ith
her
mosquito-
fan,
while
other clans
had
yet further heories
n
which
they figured s
the
cause of waves. Totemism
mong
the
atmul
was
an
arena of
permanent
tatus
rivalry,
n
which everyclan sought to
diminish
the
importance f others
and
inflate ts own (see Bateson 1958:
229-31).
There are analogiesbetweenthesetotemic
disputes
nd the
politico-aesthetic
arguments ver tastes
n
music which recurred
n
Francethroughout
he seven-
teenth
nd
eighteenth enturies Duhamel
1987).
The most famous
of
these
was theQuerelle des Bouffons, r War' oftheComedians, a disputeover the
relativemeritsof French and Italian music provoked
n
August 1752 by
the
arrival
n
Paris
of
an Italian
opera company.
For almost the next two
years t
polarized
Parisian
society, nding
only
when the
king
ordered the Italians'
dismissal
n March
1754. The reason
why
this
nitially
esthetic
dispute
esca-
lated into an
affair f
state was that it became entangled with underlying
political
conflicts.To
conservatives,
rench music
-
ornate, stylized,poly-
phonic
-
seemed to
embody principles
f
order
and
hierarchy
hich
were
the
foundation,
ot
only
of
good music,but
of a
well-regulated ociety.
o
progres-
sivessuch as Rousseau, thismusic was archaic nd elitist: talianopera,on the
otherhand
-
tuneful, ccessible
and naturalistic
seemed
to
embody egalitar-
ian and democratic alues. Aesthetics
ecame a code throughwhich opposed
political
nterests
ought implicitly
o
express
themselves nd
challenge
each
other
Cooper 1973;
Duhamel
1987).
Ethnic and
nationalist ivalries ffer
many examples
of
valuation contests.
am
thinking
n
particular f
that
well-known phenomenon by which
differ-
ences of
culture, sometimes
seeminglyminor,
are
seized upon and
made
a
focusofcontentionn thecourseofethnic onflicts. ne variety f nter-ethnic
valuation
contest s a
process thatSchwimmer
1972)
calls
symbolic ompeti-
tion': the
maintenance
f
distinctive
ituals y disadvantaged thnicminorities
in
which
they ssert, ymbolically,hesuperiority f theirown culture, alues
or
way
of
life
to
those of the dominant
majority.
Finally,
aluationcontestspervade ll
thatone normally hinks f as political
theatre;
hat
s, political factionalism
manifested
n
expressive vents
such
as
parades,marches,
allies nd
demonstrations. ositive actics f political heatre
encompass
all
forms f
group self-aggrandizementhrough riumphal isplays
of collective symbols. The negativetactics nclude the burning of flags, he
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
5/19
258
SIMON
HARRISON
desecrationf tombs,
r other orts
f verbal r physical
ttacks n thepres-
tige, anctity
r legitimacy
f thesymbols f
a rivalgroup
c? Firth 973:
355-67).
Proprietary
ontests
The second
ype f
ymboliconflictcallproprietary
ontests.
hese
relate
o
the fact hat roups
ften
laim,
s
do Fante
fightingompanies, roprietary
rights
n their istinguishingymbols,
nd treat
ttemptsy other roups
o
copythem s hostile
cts.
A
proprietary
ontest
s a
dispute
verthese
ights
and, t ts implest,akes heformfa struggleor hemonopolyr controlf
some importantollective
ymbol
r symbolsHarrison
992; Kertzer
988:
43;
Mills 1970:
86-7).
Examples
fproprietary
ontestsre the otemic ebates
of
the
atmul
nd Manambu
peoples
n New
Guinea,
n which rival lans
dispute
he ownership
f
prestigious
otemic
ncestors nd
struggle
or
the
rights o
bear their
personalnames Bateson
1958; Harrison1989;
1990).
Bateson 1958: 230)
refers o
one such dispute
oncerning
he ownership f
the un;or,
more
precisely,
heownership,nd
the
rights
othename, f
one
of
several
ncestorsersonifying
he un.
A Europeancase is thecurrent isputebetweenGreeceand the former
Yugoslav
epublic
fMacedonia
ver
he
use ofthe
name
ofMacedonia
nd of
certainther ymbols
ssociated
ith he ncient ingdom
f thatname.One
such symbol
s
thefigure
fAlexander
he
Great,
nd another he
emblem f
the
sixteen-pointed
un,
or
Star
Vergina,
hich
ppears
provocatively,
rom
the Greek
point
of view
-
on the
Republic's
lag Danforth 993).
In
both
these
ases,
Melanesian nd
European, roups
re
truggling
or
ntangible
ut
highly alued
bjects
f
cultural roperty.
A
precondition
f
a proprietaryontest
s a consensus mong
herivals s
to
theprestigealueof thesymbolicropertyorwhich hey recompeting.n
Northern
reland,
Loyalistpro-British
rotestant)aramilitaryroup
alled
the
Ulster
Defence
Association
U.D.A.)
has
n
recent
ears
egun
o
adopt
number
f
ymbols reviously
onsideredhe
property
f
rish
Republicanism.
Chief
mong
hese s the
egendary
rishhero
Cuchulain
who, ccording
o
an
eighth-centuryycle
of Ulster
tales, ingle-handedly
efended
Ulster
from
foreign
rmies. he
figure
f Cuchulain ecame
n
important
mblem
f rish
nationalism,
nd his statue tands
n
the
General
ostOffice
n Dublin com-
memorating
heEaster
Rising
f
1916,
whichhad ts
headquarters
here.
Yethis magenow featuresn U.D.A.wallmuralsnBelfasts an emblem f
Ulster
Loyalist
dentity.
he
attempts
o
appropriate
his
figure
re
part
f
a
larger
laim by
the U.D.A. thatUlsterProtestants
re descended
rom he
autochthonous
nhabitants
f
Ireland.
According
o thisversion
f
history,
Cuchulain
elonged
o this
ace,
whichwas driven ut
of
reland
y
an inva-
sion
of
the
Gaels,
he ncestorsf themodern
rish.
Ulster
Protestantsre,
t
is implied,
more rish han
he
rish
hemselves.
heir ettlement
f Ulster
n
the eventeenth
entury
as
an
act
of
homecoming,ot
of
colonization;
twas
the
return
f reland's
riginal
nhabitantso
reclaim
heir
ightful
nheritance
(seeKiberd 989:278,287-9, 20-1;McAuley McCormack 990).
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
6/19
SIMON
HARRISON
259
In appropriatinghefiguref
Cuchulain,
nd
other
rish
nationalist
ymbol-
ism,
nto
heir
istoriography
nd
conography,
he
U.D.A.
clearly
harewith
theirrishRepublican pponentsn identicalenseof this igure'smportance
as a legitimizingymbol. he same s
true
f theclaim
by
theBlack
Christian
Nationalist ovement
n
theUnited tates hat hrist
nd the
Ancientsrael-
iteswereblack Firth 973:
406-11).
Andwhen
ertain
lack ntellectuals
laim
Beethoven nd someother amous
ersons hought reviously
o
have been
white o be
black Coles
1991), eekingmplicitly
o
appropriate
hese
restig-
ious cultural
cons nto heir wn ethnic
roup, hey bviously
hare hewider
society's
stimationfthe
ymbolic
alueof these
igures.
In this
espect,
proprietary
ontest
s
thereverse f
valuation ontest.
n
a
valuation ontest he ontestantsisputeherelative orth rprestigeftheir
collective
ymbols,
ot
the
ownership
f these
ymbols.
n a
proprietary
on-
test,
he contestants
gree
on the
prestige
f
the
symbols
ut
dispute
heir
ownership.
valuation ontest an result
n
shifts
n
the
comparativerestige
valueof
group ymbols; proprietary
ontest an result
n
shifts
n
their ocial
distribution.
Although roprietary
ontests
equire
consensus
mong
he
competitors,
the ontestshemselves
an
be violent. ne
thinks,
or
nstance,
f
the
raiding
among
he
tribes
f
the
Kwakiutl,
nd
other
eoples
f
the
American orth-
westCoast, imed tacquiringheownershipfrituals,ongs nd dances n
the Wintereremonial
Goldman
975).
The
central
ndmost
restigious
ole
in
this itual
omplexwas
that f theMan Eater pirit, hich ransformedhe
dancer
nto a
ritual
annibal.
his dance was a
prerogative
f men
of
the
highest ank,
nd
could be
acquired
n
only
two
ways:
either
y marriage
alliancewith
chiefly
amily,
r
bykilling
holder fthe
prerogative
n
another
tribe
nd
taking
is masks
nd other eremonial
rappings.
he
powers
f
the
role
were greater
f
the role
was acquiredby homicide.Boas (1921: 1017)
recounts ow the
men
of
one Kwakiutlribe ttackednother
illage
t
night,
burned tandkilled number f itsmen includingts chief see Goldman
1975: 176). They ook waywith hem omeheads s trophies,s
wellas a box
of
Winter eremonial
egalia nd a woman as a slave.The
attacker'shief
thereby
ssumed
ll
the
dead chief's
ntitlements
n
the Winter
eremonial,
including
is
Man
Eater pirit. hat
winter, e danced
s
this
pirit, aving
made
the slave nstruct im
n
the
manner f
dancing
nd
thesongs.
At
the
climax f the
dance,
he
lave
was killed
nd
he
ate
her, aking
fresh ame o
mark
he full
ssumption
f his
newpowers Goldman1975: 20,
110, 176,
244).
A
proprietaryontestmay
imply e a competitionor hediffuse restige
attachedo
possessingome
mportanttatus ymbol. ut often he
ssue eems
more
pecific.
he
symbol,r
complex f symbols,t stakemaybe
a kind f
title
eed to
some pecial
uthority
r
prerogative.t may, or
nstance,
e
used
to
legitimize
he
ownership
f
territory.
he
dispute ver henameof Mace-
donia,
nd
the
case of
Cuchulain nd the U.D.A., are examples f this.The
people
f
Tanna
n
Vanuatu
rovide Melanesianllustration.ere,
achcom-
munity wned its own
stock of personalnames,and thesenames were
regarded s the group's itledeeds to its and. t seems thatwhen a group
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
7/19
260
SIMON
HARRISON
captured erritoryn war,
driving he
original wners way, t
tookover the
losers'hereditary
ames
Lindstrom985:37). To
legitimizeheir
onquest t
was necessaryor hevictors o become'the originalwners, ppropriating
their ocial dentities.
Some proprietary
isputes
reover he ontrol f
the egitimizingymbolism
of political
ffice.
n
example
omes fromKuhrt's 1987) discussion
f the
conquest
fBabylon y hePersians
nder yrus n
539 BC. Farfrom eeking
to
destroy
is defeatednemies' tate eligion, yrus
osteredndencouraged
it, speciallyhe ult f
the ity's atron eity
Marduk,
learly hereby
eeking
legitimacy
orhimself
nd his dynastys Babylon's
ew rulers.n fact, hese
rituals eem o have ufficiently
mpressedyrus hat
e appropriated
omeof
them or hePersian ingship,ncorporatingabylonianites nto hePersians'
very ifferent
ystem fstate eremonial.
s Cannadine1987:
8) puts t,the
Persian rmiesmayhave
onquered he
Babylonians,ut heBabylonian
ituals
conquered
he
Persians.
gain,
hewinner
n
war nstalls imself
n
the ym-
bolic
appurtenances
f
the
losers.He seeks to
assume somethingf their
identities,
heir restigend legitimacy,
herebyonverting
ightnto right.
The seizure f power
an be made egitimatey
turning neself,
s it were,
into heperson romwhom
one seized t.
I havedefined valuation ontest
s aimed t re-orderingset
of
symbols
alongsome scaleofvalueor prestige,nda proprietaryontest s aimedat
re-orderingheir isposition
mong roups.Neither
rocess hanges
he ym-
bols themselves
n
any
way, nd both
could in principle ccur
within n
entirely
losed
nd
static
niverse
f
symbolism,
f
such
a
phenomenon
ere
possible.
he third
nd
fourth
ypes
f
symbolic
onflict shall
describe
re
different
n
thisrespect,
ecause
they
re aimed
at
modifying
he
symbolic
repertoires
fgroups.
The first tep
n
understanding
heseprocesses
f
change
s
to determine
how the
symbolicnventories
f
groups
re
generated
n
the
first
lace.
This
bringsmetothe hirdype f ymboliconflict,hekey eaturefwhichs that
it
nvolves hecreation
f
symbolism.
shall all
processes
f this
ort nnova-
tion
ontests,lthough,
s
I shall
xplain,
he
ctual
egree
f nnovationends
to
be
slight.
Innovation
ontests
An
example
f an
innovationontest
omes
from
urope
during
he
thirty
r
forty ears
efore
hefirst
orldwar.Hobsbawm
1983)
shows hat
hese
ears
were period f ntense reativityn the invention'ftraditionshroughout
Europe
nd that his
eriod
aw
n
particular
n efflorescence
f
many
ation-
alist
ymbolismsHobsbawm
983:
263).
Most
of whatwe now
regard
s
the
typicalymbolic
ppurtenances
f nation tatehood
flags,nthems,
niforms
and so forth
seem
to
have
originated
n France nd
Britain,
nd werethen
adopted
y many
ther
tates
uring
his
period Hobsbawm
983:
266, 282).
Cannadine
1983)
discusses
he
elaboration
hich
tate
eremonial,specially
royal
itual,
nderwent
hroughout
urope
and
he relates
hese
processes
o
the ntense
nternational
ivalries
nd
tensions
f
the time.
t was at least
n
part heheightenedompetitionornational restigend powerthatdrove
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
8/19
SIMON HARRISON
261
these nnovations,
na
phenomenon
hich
he
calls
competitive
nventiveness
(Cannadine 983:
139,145,161-2).
Theseprocessesf nnovationeem ometo occur long wodistinguishable
dimensions. n
theone
hand,
he ame
ymbolic
orm
may
be
competitively
elaborated
n some
way:
n
example
fthis s therise n the cale
nd
complex-
ity
f
European
oronationeremonies
uring
he ate
nineteenth
entury.
he
otherdimension
s
the
competitive
reation
f new
categories
f
symbolic
forms.
n
example
f
this s thecreation
f
thecustom
f
royal jubilees'
r
anniversary
elebrations,
nvented
y
the
British
n
1887,
n
innovation hich
seems o
have mpressed
ther tates ecause
hey
ater
dopted
t
Hobsbawm
1983: 281-2). Along
one
dimension,
ne has the
production
f
successively
moreelaborate ersions fthe same' symbolic bject; longtheother,he
proliferationf
new'
symbolic bjects.
n
this
way,
n
innovationontest
s
a
process
f
escalation
n
the
quantity
nd
complexity
f
the
competing roups'
diacritical
ymbols.
Innovation ontests
re
essentiallyschizmogenic' rocesses f
competitive
differentiation
see
Bateson
958).
This
type
f
tatus
ivalry
s
perhaps articu-
larly ikely
o
occur
when
groups
re
seeking
o establish r
accentuate
heir
distinctivenessrom ach other.
n
extreme orm
f
these
processes
f
group
differentiation
s schism
r
fission.
n
nternalonflict
plits group
n
two,
r
a faction ithinome arger roup eeks ndependence.oestablish separate
identity
n
thisway,
seceding roupmustgenerate distinctetofsymbolic
representations
f that
dentity.
hese
processes
ccur n the
production
f
relig-
ious
art
mong
he
Arapesh eople
of lahita n
Papua
New
Guinea.
For
theirnitiation
eremonies,lahitamen built cult-house ith n inte-
riorwall madeof
hundreds fpaintings.
ll
mentookpart n
themanufacture
ofthis
rt, houghhey
worked nder hedirectionfmaster
rtists,
ho were
the
political nd ritual
eaders
n
this
ociety.
ach
painting
as believed
o
contain
ts
painter's
pirit
nd at
the ame ime
epresented
is descent
roup's
particularamed refractionfNggwal, hevillage's utelarypirit.n their
arrangementlong
he
gallery all, hepaintingsisplayed
hevillage's escent
groups
n
their
egmentaryelations,nd theorder f
seniorityf adultmen
within
hese
roups.
New
motifs,
r new
combinationsf
motifs,
ere often
nvented r
im-
ported
from
ther
communities.
ut
whether
particularnnovation as
accepted epended
n the
pproval
f the
master rtists. ften, n innovation
had
importantolitical
mplications
nd
indicated bid
by its creator o be
recognizeds a leader; bid,for nstance,o break way rom is own clan or
subclan o
establish new
descent roup fhis own.
Typically,
his nvolved
claiming orhis faction he
possession f a distinctefractionf Nggwal, nd
ofthe
right o
portray
his
pirit
n
painting. o succeed, e required he ssent
of
the
stablished
illage
eaders.
hese
master
rtists
ouched heir
erdict
n
the
anguage
f art
riticism.f
theyudged his nnovation
cceptable y the
standards
findigenous esthetics,hey mplicitlyave
their pproval o the
new
politicaltatus
uo (see Tuzin1978).
Ilahita s
a typically
ractious elanesian
ommunity.
here re strong ival-
riesbothbetween tscomponent escent roups ndwithin hem, nd new
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
9/19
262
SIMON
HARRISON
groups
egularly
merge hrough
ission.
Whenthey
do emerge,
hey
bring
new ancestral
pirits
ntoexistence
ith hem,
nd
new artmotifs
o
signify
these eings.
It is
true hat hese
eligiousepresentations
xist
o
differentiate
roups,
o
make
each group
ingular
nd unique.
But thedifferences
etween
he
em-
blems
fthe
differentlans
re
mall, ven
houghhese
minor ariations
ay
have heutmost
mportance
o the ctors
hemselves.
he
point
sthat he
ct
of producing
hese epresentations
s not
only
n assertion
f an
identity
epa-
rate
rom ther
lans;
t s
alsoan assertion
f
equality ith
hese
ther lans,
and
a
newly-created
ymbol
must herefore
esemble
hecorresponding
ym-
bols of rival
roups nd
belong o
the amegenre,
s
wellas differ
romhem.
This recalls hefadamongtheEuropeannationsn theMiddleAgesfor
tracing
heir
rigins
ack
o the acking
fTroy,laiming
o
havebeen
founded,
like ncient
ome,by
a Trojan
ero.
n this
way,
he
British ere
upposed
o
have stemmed
rom figurealled
Brutus,
he
French rom
Francion,
he
Turks rom
Turcus,nd
so
forthBurke
1969:8,
71-4).
The status
ivalry
driving
he
production
f these
national
rigin-myths
s obvious:first,
ne
state laims
Trojan
ncestor,
hen nother abricates
virtuallydentical
rojan
founderqual
n
prestige
nddiffering
nly
n
his
name
nd particular
xploits.
We
see similar
rocesses
n the tatus ivalries
etween
hemedieval
niversi-
ties,whichseem to havepreoccupiedhemselves ithassertionsfhaving
been
nstituted
y
ancient ings:
Oxford
laimedKing
Alfred s its
founder,
Cambridge
laimed
King
Arthur r
his
forebears,
hile
Paris
aid
claim to
Charlemagne
Burke
969:
74-5).
In
short,
he
processes
call nnovation
ontests
re
processes
f
competitive
emulation
ust
as much
s invention.
he
reason
s that he
groups
oncerned
are
making
laims o
equality
s
well
as to
superiority,
nd are
engaged
n
a
process
f mutual
dentification
ith ach
other
s well
as
competitive
iffer-
entiation
rom
ach
other.
An nnovationontest ay eneraterichlyiverserofusionfgroupdentity-
markers.
ut
this s
a
diversity
ithin
highlypecific
enre
f
symbolism
common o
all
the
participating
roups.
system
f
diacritical
ymbols
f
this
sort,
s
Radcliffe-Brown
1951)
and
Levi-Strauss
1973)
showed
or
otemism,
is
wholly
elational.
t is a
pure
system
f resemblances
nd contrasts.
he
inherently
elational
uality
f
social
dentity,
nd
particularly
f cultural
r
ethnic
dentity,
as
often een
noted:
very
uch
dentity
eedsan other
r
others
gainst
hich
o
counterpose
tself
Letmereturn omy arlier iscussionftheEuropeannation tates or n
example
f
a
particular
enre
f
dentity-symbolism.
n
ideal-typical
odern
nation tate
might
nclude
mong
ts
nventory
f
ymbols
ts
wn
flag,
nthem
and military
niforms;
istinctive
tate
holidays,
ommemorations
nd
cere-
monials;
cenotaph
r tomb
f theUnknown
oldier
Anderson
991:
9);
a
patron
aint
r
some
other ort
f
figureBritannia,
ermania,
arianne,
ohn
Bull,
UncleSam,
Deutsche
Michel
nd
so
forth) ersonifying
he
tate
r
its
people
Hobsbawm
1983:
272,
276,278);
a national
ostume; quasi-totemic
animal
r
plant
mblem
shamrock,
histle,
ulldog,
ald
eagle
nd
so on.
A
standardanguage s, of course,typically central ymbol f nationhood
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
10/19
SIMON HARRISON
263
(Anderson 991: 67-82).Eventhe eemingly
ostnon-symbolic
ttributes
f
a nation tate itsown
state irline Firth 973:347) orbanking ystem
can
functions importantymbols f nationaldentityndprestige,n thesame
way
hat
national
picpoem
or a state
eligionmight
t one timehave
done.
My point
s that here s a
conventional
ymbolic
orm f the
nation
tate.
The conventionlearly
hanges verhistory,ndhas subvarieties.ome states
also seem
muchricher
han
thers
n
these
ymbolic
ssets. ut there
s,
at
any
particular
ime, more or less agreedminimal
omplex
f
symbols
hat
political
ntity hould have
n
order o
be
understood
s
a
nation tate
r,
indeed,
ven to be
understood
s a
political
movement
aving spirations
o
nation tatehood. he diverse ymbolicnventoriesf
all
theparticular
tates
appearsthemany efractionsfthis bstractorm,n much he ameway hat
the
ancestralpirits
f
lahita
lans
weretherefractions
f
the
village
utelary,
or
the
foundation
yths
f themedieval niversitiesere ll versions
f
one
myth,
r
the
Trojan rogenitors
f
European
ations ere
ll
derivations
f
the
same
figure.
Expansionaryontests
Myfourthnd final ype fsymiboliconflict call nexpansionaryontest.n
this,
group ries odisplacetscompetitors'
ymbols
f
dentity
ith
ts
own
symbols.
n
otherwords,within omegivenfield f social relations
wo or
more
group dentitiesrecompetingor
urvival. featuref anexpansionary
contest
s
that
t canresult n thedisappearancef the
defeated
ide's
dentity
symbols.
ecausethe
symbolicnventoriesf
groups
an be
partly
r
wholly
destroyed
n
these
ontests,hey
re the
opposite
f innovation
ontests,
n
which
hese
nventories
re
generated.
n
short,
oth orts f
contest
lter he
universes
f
symbolism
n
which hey ccur.
After
n
innovationontest
r an
expansionaryontest,hetotal ssemblagefgroup ymbols aschanged e-
cause ome
ymbols avebeen
created
r
ost.
To
speak f ymbols
eing reated r destroyeds,ofcourse, shorthand
ay
of
referringo certain
hanges
n
their olitical unctions.
When
speak
of
a
symbol
eing reated,mean hat t becomes
oupled
o a
particularroup
n
such a
way
as to
signify
hatgroup's
dentity.
t
may,
n
somesense,have
previouslyxisted ithin
he ultural epertoire,utnot s part f
anygroup's
symbolicnventory.
imilarly,
o speak fa
symbol eing estroyed eans hat
it s no longer sed to
representhe dentity
f anygroupwithin particular
socialuniverse.tmay,nsome ense, ontinuehereaftero existnthegeneral
culture, ut tno longer
orms art f nygroup's ymbolic
nventory.oth he
creation
nd
the
disappearancef ymbols,r,
more
ccurately,
ftheir olitical
functions,
re
relativeo
some pecifiedocial
universe.
In
an
expansionaryontest, arfrom
eeking o appropriatehesymbolic
attributes
f other
roups
s in a proprietaryontest, he goal is
to suppress
them nd
replace
hem
with ne's own. Let
me give n example.
n
1964the
President
f Haiti,Fransois uvalier, hanged
he Haitianflag, n
event e-
scribed
y Nicholls 1979: 234) as one of the
most xtraordinarypisodes f
Duvalier's ule.Duvalier adbeentryingo mpose henewflag incehe came
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
11/19
264
SIMON HARRISON
to office
n 1957,but t took
him a further
evenyears obecomepowerful
enough
o do so.
The roots f thisdispute o backto 1804when Dessalines,eader f the
strugglegainst rance,
roclaimed
ndependencend took the title f
Em-
peror.
He adopted
n
Imperial
lag f twovertical ands,
ne black
nd one
red,
with heblackplacednearest
he mast.
He was assassinatedn 1806
and
Haiti split
ntotwo
states. ne was led by a
blackgeneral
who becameKing
Henry
in
1811, nd
thismonarchy
etainedhe mperial
lag.The
other,
republic,
dopted flag fblue and
redhorizontal
tripes.
Afterhe death f
King Henry
n 1820 and the reunification
f Haiti,the
republicanlagwas adopted
s the
national lag. ut t had
become ssociated
withmulattoominancefthepoliticalystem.he Imperiallag fDessalines,
on
the
otherhand,
was associated ithblacks nd with heir
olitical
spira-
tions,
nd
they ought
o have t
reinstated.o began long-term
trugglever
thenational
lag, disputewhich
lared p intermittently
or henext
entury
and a half s
part
f
the
ockeying
or
ower
etween he wo
political actions.
To
Duvalier nd
other lack eaders,
heflag f Dessalines,
ounderf nde-
pendent
Haiti,was the sole authentic
nd legitimate
ational lag.
The story
grewup thatDessalines
had createdt by taking
captured
rench ricolour
and
tearing
ff
hewhite
band, n
act obviously ymbolic
f
driving
ut
the
white renchppressors.e hadthen hangedheblueband o black, o stand
for heblack
people
of thenation.
he position f theblack
bandnext
o the
mast ymbolized
he
closeness f the blacks
o the land
and their ight o
dominate.
When
Duvalier
finallyucceeded
n restoringhe mperial
lag
n
1964, t
was meant odemonstrate
othhis ownpersonal
ominance
nd the
coming o power f
thenewelite
whichhe representedsee
Nicholls
1979:33,
78, 213,
234-5).
It
was
in much
the
same
spirit
hat heBolsheviks
enamed
t
Petersburg,
Leningrad,r theFrench
evolutionaries
avenew
names o
the
months f the
year, rtheEnglish rotestantsn theReformationook heCatholic urnish-
ings
ut of
the hurches
nd
refitted
he nteriors
n thePuritan
tyle.
n
effect,
one
is
putting
ne's
mark r
stamp
nsomething
o make tone'sown.
Alternativelyne
is
trying,gainst
hese
orts
f acts, o preserve
ne's
mark
or
stamp
n
something
n order
o keep
t.
An
example
fthis
s the
ttempty
the isolationistulers
f seventeenth-centuryapan
o rid their
ountry
f
Westernnfluences.
he
measures
hey
ook
ncluded
anning oreignooks,
giving
ptheuse
of firearms
n
warfare,utlawing
hristianity
fter 616
nd
closing he ountryomissionariesnd other oreignersn 1636 Brown1955:
42-7;
Perrin 979).
In a similar
way,
ome varieties
f
contemporary
ritish
racist iscourse
ortray
inority
ultures
n Britain
s
foreign dulterations,
invasivehreats
o
Britishdentity;
hepresence
f
mosques
nd other
manifes-
tations
f
these ultures epresents
menace
o the
ntegrity
nd
continuity
f
British ulture
Solomos
1991).
A
Kwakiutl
hief
might
ontemplatecquiring
ituals
nd ceremonial
rivi-
leges
from
many
ifferentthnic roups,magining
ach
new
acquisition
s
a
valued ddition o his
personal
dentity
nd a furthernlargement
f
his status
(Goldman1975: 181). Some cultures,n otherwords, eem to regardtas
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
12/19
SIMON HARRISON
265
perfectlyormal,
n
fact
desirable,
or
people's
socioculturaldentities
o
be
polythetic.
o
the Kwakiutl,
uch
plurality
f
identity
eems
to have
been a
mark articularlyfhigh ocial tatus. he assumption nderlyingn expan-
sionary
ontest
s
quitedifferent:
amely,
hat
ociopoliticaldentity
s
singular,
exclusive
nd absolute.
No
group
r
person
an be
affiliated
o two different
symbolically-constituteddentities
t
the
same time.The issue is
therefore
which
f twoor
more
ompeting
ets f
collective
ymbols particularroup
isto
have llegianceo or
dentify
ith.
n
this
espect,
n
expansionary
ontest
is
thereverse f a
proprietaryontest. he issue
n a
proprietary
ontest s
which
f
two alternative
ocial
groups particulardentity-symbol
houldbe
associated ith. n
an
expansionaryontest,
he ssue
s
which f two alterna-
tive dentity-symbolsparticularocialgroup houldbe associatedwith. n
other
words,
he
firsts a
conflict
ver
the
assignment
f
symbols
o
groups,
and
the
econd s a
conflictver he
ssignment
f
groups
o
symbols.
The
underlyingssue
n
an
expansionary
ontest,heresourceorwhich
he
players re
implicitlyompeting,
eems
usually
o be
people'spolitical
lle-
giances. herulers f
eventeenth-centuryapan iewedChristianity
s a focus
of
political
issent
n
their
ountry,
subversive
hreat
o
stability
nd to their
own
power
Brown
955:
42-7).
t
s
for he
ame
reason
hat
fter revolution
thenew
regime sually
eeks,
s
Weiner
1992: 8) points ut,
o obliteratehe
symbols f theold,forfear hat hesemight erve s a focusfor ounter-
revolution. he outlawing
f the Mass and the othermeasures
akento
suppress atholicism uring he
nglish
eformationllustratehe amepoint.
All
citizens
ererequired y awnotonly oabjure
atholicism,ut o
take
n
oathof
allegiance
o
theking s head
of theChurch nd
so
acknowledge
is
exclusive
ights
o
their eligiousndpoliticaloyalties
Hughes
1957:
154-88).
The common
ssumption
n
all
thesecases
is
that ttachmentso symbols
express
olitical llegiances.
Some
expansionary
ontests
nvolve
ttempts
o
remove ot
only
he
oppos-
inggroup's ymbolicxpressionsf dentity,ut lso ts ctual opulation.he
forms
f British
acist
deologyo which referred
arlier ften rgue n this
way;
hat
s,
that
eople
of
non-British'
thnic
rigin
houldbe
repatriatedo
their wn
countries
Solomos 1991).
In
other
ases, the goal is
simply o
eliminate
group's dentity,
ot ts population. he mostextreme
orm his
can take s
cultural
enocide,
r
ethnocide'. ut
n
either
ase,
he
aim s
the
same: o
bring
bout
uniformityf
symbolically-constituteddentityithin
given
fieldof
social
relations,n internal
omogeneityssumedto
reflect
unanimityfpoliticaloyalty.
For
the aim
of
suppressinghe symbols f some rivalgroup's
dentitys
never,
f
course,
o
leave hat
roup n some sensedevoid f an
identity.he
aim s
to
integrate
r absorb
hegroup y
supplantingts symbols f
dentity
with
one's own. For
instance,he Soviet tate ried epeatedlyo
abolish ts
peoples'
religions: hristianity,uddhism,slam, he tribalshamanic' radi-
tions nd
the
rest.
ut
the
purpose
was not
merely
o destroy.t included he
positive
imof
replacinghe
ld,disapprovedituals ith ew,secular',
fficially-
sanctioned
ocialist
ites
esigned
o
express
oyaltyo the state Binns1980;
Cheater 986:271-8;Lane1981; 1984).
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
13/19
266 SIMON
HARRISON
Strategies
n
combination
The four ypes f symbolic onflict havedescribedre,of course,merely
idealtypes.
use these bstractionsecause feel hey rehelpful
euristically
and
have
tried, or larity,o
find thnographic
xampleshat orrespond
s
closely s possible
othesedealizations.ut
n
reality,
twouldbemore ccu-
rate o speak f trategies
f
valuation,
nnovation,
ppropriationnd
expansion,
than
fcontestss such.Forthese
rocesses
renot omuch ubstantive
inds
of conflict
s
aspects
f
most,
r perhaps ll,
political ction.n other
words, n
most
ircumstances
hese trategiesf ymbolic
ction re
used n combination
and can onlybe separated
nalytically.
For instance,heexamples fexpansionaryontests discussed arlier n-
tailed ttempts
o devalue r delegitimize
he
symbols f the opposition,
nd
thereforenvolved heuse of
valuation trategies.
ut we stillneed
to distin-
guish xpansionary
ndvaluation
trategiesecause he
goal n an expansionary
strategy
s not
simply
o devalue he opposition's
ymbols
f identity,ut to
make
heopposition
dopt ne's
own
symbols.
imilarly,he nnovationon-
tests cited
nvolved rocesses
f invidious
omparison:
hat s, again, hey
entailed he
use
of valuation
trategies.
ut
it is
still
necessary
o
distinguish
processes
f nnovation
ndvaluationnalytically,
ecause
t s possible o ma-
nipulateherelativealueof ymbols ithouthanginghem t all n any ther
way.
Very roadly, e
have seen thatvaluation
trategies
endto be chosenby
actors
imply
eeking uperiority
f
status,
nd
nnovationtrategiesy those
seeking
n
addition
o
establish
nindependentdentity.
e
have lso seen
that
proprietary
trategies
reusuallyimed t egitimizing
laims o
territory,
ffice
or some other ntitlement,
nd
expansionary
trategies
tgaining
umanre-
sources f political
llegiancend control.
f
one could determine
herelative
importance
f thesegoals to
some political ctor, t
would
in
principle
e
possible opredicthe ctor's ehaviournd, nparticular,hekinds fchanges
the
ctormight
eek o make
o
symbols.
One
reason
why
he
trategies
re
only
eparable
nalytically
s that
hey
re
often elative o
some
particularroup
or
set
of
social
relations,
nd
may
thereforeppeardifferently
o different
ocial alters.
he use
by
the Ulster
DefenceAssociation
f
Irish
Republican ymbolism
alls
nto
this
ategory.
have
described
he
ctions
f
the
U.D.A. as
appropriations,
s
indeed
hey
re
when
viewed
n
relation
o their
rish
Republicanpponents.
ut
they
ake
n
a
differentignificance
henviewed
n
the
context
f the
nternal
olitics
f
theLoyalistommunitytselfHere,theU.D.A. is ustone of several oyalist
factions
ompeting
mong
hemselves
or
nfluence
McAuley
McCormack
1990),
nd
ts
doption
f rishnationalist
ymbols
s
an innovation
trategyy
which
t
has marked
tself ff
deologically
rom
ther
ival ectionsf
Loyal-
ism.1 The U.DA.
has two aims
in
appropriating
ymbols
from
Irish
Nationalism
nd is
acting imultaneously
gainst
wo
distinctetsof
political
competitors.
A
second
reason
why
he
strategies
an
only
be
distinguished
nalytically
s
that
many ymbolic
onflictsnvolve
ttempts
o
manipulate
ot
ust
one
sym-
bol,but hierarchyrcomplex f ymbols ith ifferenttrategieseing sed
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
14/19
SIMON
HARRISON
267
in relationo differentlements f he omplex. etus take he otemic
ebates
of
the atmul
nd
Manambu.We
have
een
that hese re
proprietary
ontests
over he wnershipftotemicncestorsndtheir ames. uta debate equires
each side
to
put
forward
supporting yth
nd thereforenvolves valuation
contest oncerningwoconflicting yths,
ith
ach sidetrying
o
invalidate
themyth
f the
opposition
nd
have tsown one
recognized
s authentic.he
valuation onflictver hesemyths
s
nested
nside
heproprietaryontestver
the ncestral ame, ndwhoever
ins
hedispute
ver
he
myths
ins
posses-
sionof thename Harrison 990).
Sometimes, he symbols hemselves
re nested
n this
way.
The Mohave
Indians fCalifornia ad a doctrineccording
o which
ll magical owers nd
ritual nowledge erecontainednsongs.The songswere rrangednabout
thirty amedsong cycles, ach referring
o a
corresponding yth.
bout a
third fthe ycles elonged o shamans ndwere
onnected ith he
uring
f
illnessesKroeber 925:756).
An
ndividualften ang
his
songs ifferently
rom ne
occasion
o
the
next,
so
that
very ecitationnvolved degree
f
mprovisationKroeber
925:
757).
Therewere lso discrepanciesetween ifferentndividuals'enditions
f
the
'same'
myth,ong
or shamanic itual
Devereux
957:
1041).
The
thirty
asic
song-cycles ere thereforeubject
o
constantmodification
n
a
continual,
f
highly onstrained,nnovation f new variants. hese disagreementserea
major
ource
f
conflictetween
hamans,
ach
claiming
is
own
version
o
be
the
only
uthentic
ne.
Disputes
verwhichof them
possessed
he
genuine
variant f some song or myth ften scalated nto sorcery euds, nd
rival
shamansharbouringifferentersions f the same' song or myth ived
n
constant ear
f
each other's
orceryDevereux
957:
1040-1).
Let us
say
that wo rival hamans
ossess
different
ersions f
the Raven
song-cycle,
nd
that
ach
s
trying
o
prove
his own version o
be
the
correct
one. The
Raven
ycle
tselfs
therefore
ctually hierarchy,
r
nested
ymbolic
object, onsistingftwovariants aven1and Raven . ConsideringheRaven
cycle
as
one
object,
he
shamans' onflict
s
a
proprietaryispute
ver its
ownership.
ut
considering
t
as two
objects,
he
dispute
s
a
valuation
ontest
in
which ach haman eeks o prove isown song-cycleenuine nddiscredit
his
opponent's.
The
Mohave
distinguishedraudulent
rom
enuine eligious nowledge
y
its
perceivedfficacyWallace 947:253-4).
The
shaman
whose
ongs ppeared
to work'best
would
therefore
end
o
gain
he
upper
hand
n
these
disputes.
Likea totemic ebate, his s a valuation ontest ested nside proprietary
contest,
nd
whichever haman ucceeds
n
havinghis variant
eemed the
more
fficaciousnd authentics
thereby
eemed he ole
egitimateossessor
of the
Raven'
ycle.
A
Europeanexample
of the same
phenomenon s
the
dispute
over
the
Eucharist
n
the
Protestanteformation.he degree owhich heReformers'
version f
theritual
ltered
he
medieval
riginal
r
conservedt
seems o have
reflectedhe balancebetween he Reformers'wingoals of
establishingn
identityistinct rom hemedieval hurch nd establishinglegitimacyased
on continuityith thepast.We know that ach side regarded heother's
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
15/19
268
SIMON HARRISON
variant
f
the
ritual s illegitimate
nd sought
o eradicatet and impose
ts
own.
The participants
egarded
hese
s utterlyifferent
nd opposed ets
of
ritual racticesnddoctrines hose rreconcilabilityouldonly ndwithone
eliminating
heother.
hey eem,
nother
words,
ohave
viewed
heironflict
as what have
alled
n expansionary
ontest.
But,
objectively,
he
differences
etween
he
medieval
nd Reformers'
er-
sions f the
Eucharist
ere
mall.
n fact,
casecould
be
madefor onsidering
them
s the
same'ritual
nd
the onflicts
a proprietary
ontest,struggle
or
thecontrol
f this
hared
ulturalbject
seeHarrison
992).
But, gain,
he
Eucharists
best
regarded
s a class
orfamily
fsymbolic
bjectshaving
oth
resemblances
nd differences.
ith
regardo the
differences
that s,
those
aspects f themedieval itualwhich hey ltered theReformersursued n
expansionary
trategy.ut
in relation
o
thecommonalities
those
aspects
which
he
Reformers
onserved
their trategy
asproprietary.
Symbolic
apital
I
have
aid
that he
four trategies
f
symbolic
onflict
reabstractions.
ut I
should ike t this
oint
otry o
abstract
ven
furthernd
to distil
hefeatures
common
o
all four. shall
ryo show
that ll the trategies
anbe
reduced o
one underlyinghenomenon,fwe make certainssumption:amely,hat
group's
diacritical
ymbols
epresent
unds
f
whatBourdieu
alls
symbolic
capital.
To
Bourdieu,
ymbolic
apital
s
at
east
n part
disguised,
ystified
orm f
economic apital.
The economic apital
f a
Kabyle
descent
group,
or
n-
stance,
s its
and,manpower
nd
other
material esources.
ts
symbolic
apital
is
its
reputation
r
prestige.
group
an accumulate
ymbolic
apital y
behav-
ing honourably
n
its
dealings
with
outsiders;
or
nstance,
n the
forceful
pursuit
f
blood
feuds. ut
this
ymbolic
apital
s also
partly
reflection
f
the
group's conomic apital ndmay n turn e 'cashed n' forvarious orts f
economiccredit
nd assistance,
nd so
be converted
nto
material
wealth
(Bourdieu
990:
112-21).
Let us imagine
he
otal
ssemblage
fdiacriticalymbols
elonging
o some
set of
interacting
roups
s corresponding
o
a total
pool
of
symbolic
apital
available
o these
roups.
hat
s
to
say,
ach ndividual
ymbol
r
complex
f
symbols
epresents
certain
raction
f this
pool
of
capital.
The fraction
t
stands
or
might
e
called
ts
symbolic
alue.
Clearly,
ts
symbolic
alue
is
entirely
elative
nd
depends
n
the
value
of
every
ther
ymbol.2
Let us furtheruppose hat he imofpoliticalctorssnot nsomesense o
accumulate
bsolute
unds
f
ymbolic
apital.
heir
oncern
s
rather
ith
he
relativeistribution
f
symbolic
apital
etween hem.
Whatmatters
o them
re
the
dfferences
etween
ne
group
r
actor nd
another
n
their
ntangible
ssets
of
egitimacy,
restige,
nfluence
nd
political
redit.
ince
one actor an
pos-
sessmore
f
these
esources
han nother
ctor
nly
o
exactly
he ame
degree
that
he other
possesses
ess than
him,
the
differences
n the distribution
f
symbolic
apital
within
ny
hosen
universe
f social
relations
ill
always
dd
up
to
zero.
This
s
true
ven f
ocieties
ndergoing
hemost adical
ocial
nd
politicalransformations,nwhich he bsolutemagnitudesfsymbolicapital
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
16/19
SIMON HARRISON
269
may
n
some sense
be
rapidly hanging.
n
short, characteristicf symbolic
conflicts that t takes heform f a zero-sum ame
n
whichratios nd not
quantitiesfsymbolic apitalreat ssue, nd nwhich nygain o onegroup
or
actor
an
only
be made
t
the
xpense
f
omeother
r
others
cf.
Bourdieu
1990:121). Given his remiss,etus try
o
deducehow
a
groupmight eek o
increasets hare
f
this
esource.
First f all, the exactproportionf symbolic apital ny given ymbol
r
symbols
enote
an be contested. his s
precisely
hat
happens
n
a valuation
contest: wo groups truggleo bring bout a revaluationf some of their
respectiveymbols,lteringheratios fsymbolicapitalwhich hey
ignify.
valuation
ontest s thereforene
way
of
appropriatingymbolic apital.
t
seems o me themost lementary,ecause tconsistsimplyndirectlyhang-
ing hevalueof symbols.
A
secondway
n
which group ouldchange he
balance
f ymbolicapital
in
its favourwould
be
to monopolize
r
appropriate
he
symbols f other
groups, herebyapturinghe ymbolic alue
which
hey epresent.
his strat-
egy
s the
basis
f
proprietary
ontest.
third
ossibilityould
be
for
group
to
generate r
elaborate
ts
own fundof
symbols
nd
thereby
stablish r
enlarge
tsown share
f the
total
ool
of
symbolic apital.
his is
the
trategy
in an innovation ontest. he final
possibility
ould
be
to
extinguish
he
sociopoliticaldentitiesfsomeother roup rgroups, herebyissolvingheir
funds
f
symbolicapital.
his s
the
trategy
n an
expansionary
ontest.
In short, hefour trategiesf symbolicction have dentifiedorrespond
exactly
o
the
only
our
ogically ossibleways
n which
groupmight nlarge
its share
of symbolic apital y manipulating
he
system f symbols epre-
senting
t.
t
seems
o
me
that he
onlyway
of
explaining
his
oincidences
to
suppose
hat
hefour
trategies
re
spects
f
single henomenon
nd
that he
underlyingesource
hich
ctors
re
mplicitlyompeting
or n all
four
ases
is symbolicapital.
Conclusion
Normally,
ne
assumes
hat he ssential eaturef
symbols
s that
hey onvey
meaning. hey re igns atherhan alues cf Levi-Strauss969:496)and the
central
uestions heypose
concern
heir
nterpretation.
tudies
f
political
symbolism
ften how
uch
ymbols
o
possess omplex
nd
richly
multivalent
significations.evertheless,
have
ried s
much s
possible
o bracket
ut the
semantic imensionfsymbolsn this rticle ndtoavoidmaking nyrefer-
ence
to
their
meaning part
rom ne
very imple ssumption:
amely,
hat
they ignify
atios
f
symbolicapital.
My reason
or
oing
his s
to
show
how
the
processes discuss
n this rticle
-
broadly,
he
manipulation
f
cultural
epresentations
can
be
analysed
s
forms
f
economic
ction. define
politicalymbol
s
anything hich
s used
to
representymbolic apital
nd
which s
therefore
politicallyignificant
r
strategic
sset.
More
accurately,
hefunction
f
a
political ymbol
s to bind
quantity
f
symbolic
alue to the
politicaldentity
f
somegroup rperson.
Politicalymbolsre to symbolic apitalwhatmoney s to economic apital.
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
17/19
270
SIMON HARRISON
One
canalways ecognize olitical
ymbols,ecause
heyhave the
following
four
haracteristics.
First,hey reproperty.n individualr grouphaving ropertyightsn a
politicalymbol
r
symbols
s
defined
herebyo
be
an
entityossessing
ym-
bolic apital,
r, n otherwords,
political
ctor. econd, he ymbols
re tatus
markers,scribed
with
qualities
roadly
escribable
s sacredness r prestige
value.
Third,
heir ossession
s a source f egitimacy
ndmay onfer pecific
rightsnd
prerogatives
uch sthe wnership
f territoryr the
ntitlement
o a
political
ffice.
nd
fourth,
or hendividual,he ymbols
re
focus
f motional
attachment,
dentificationnd
oyalty,
nvested
ith
heir wners'
ense f self
These four
haracteristicsrenothing
ther han
he
four
ways
n
which
t s
possible o manipulateuch ymbolso as toappropriateymbolicapital.
Valuation
ontests erethe
first inds f conflict discussed
n
this
rticle.
But nnovation
ontests aveontological
riority,
ecause t
s
in these
hat he
symbolic
nventories
f
groups
regenerated.
etme therefore
earrange
hese
four ypes
f
conflict
nto
their
atural rder.
We
can
see that here
re
four
basic orts
f
change
which
political
ymbol
an
undergo:
t can
come nto
existence;
t can rise
nd fall
n
symbolicalue;
t can
migrateetween roups
or,more
ccurately,
hedistribution
f
rights
n
tcanchange;
nd tcangoout
of
existence.
his might
e
regarded
s itscharacteristicifecycle
r
biography',
in thesamesense thatKopytoff1986) suggestshat ne may speakof the
biographies
f
any
ther oods.
n
effect,
hefour
trategies
f
symbolic
ction
I
have dentified
epresentrocesses
nalogous o
the production,
aluation,
distribution
nd destruction
f
these
ymbolic
ssets.
ll
the ultural
rocesses
I
havecalled ymbolic
onflict
re
analysable
ntocombinations
f
ust
these
fourmodes
f action.
NOTES
Forhelpful ommentsn earlier ersions fthis rticle, thank ominicBryan,Hastings
Donnan,
Andrew anders,
arveyWhitehouse,
n anonymous
efereeorJRAI
nd
members
of anthropology
eminars
t theAustralian ationalUniversity,
he
University
f Melbourne
and theUniversity
f Sydney.
1
thank
ominic
Bryan
or ointing
his
ut
to me.
2
The inspiration
or
his
mage s,
of
course,
he tructural
inguistics
f de Saussure
1974).
REFERENCES
Adler,
& N. Barnard 992.
Asafo frican
lags
f
he
ante. ondon:
Thames& Hudson.
Anderson, . 1991. maginedommunities:eflectionsn the riginnd pread fnationalism;evised
edition.
ondon:Verso.
Bateson, . 1958.
Naven;
nd edition.
tanford: niv.Press.
Binns, .A.P1980.
he
changingace fpower:
evolutionnd
ccommodation
n
the evelopment
ofthe
Soviet
eremonialystem
I.
Man
N.S.)
15, 170-87.
Boas,F. 1921. Ethnology
f
heKwakiutl.5th
AnnualReport,
ureau
of
American thnology,
1913-1914.Washington,
C.
Boissevain,.
1963. aints
ndfireworks:eligion
nd oliticsnrural
alta. ondon:Athlone
ress.
Bourdieu, 1990.
The ogic
f ractice;ranslated
yR. Nice.
Cambridge:olity
ress.
Brown,
.M. 1955.Nationalism
nJapan:
n introductoryistorical
nalysis.
erkeley,os Angeles:
Univ. fCaliforniaress.
Burke, 1969.TheRenaissanceense f he ast. ondon: dwardArnold.
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
18/19
SIMON HARRISON
271
Cannadine,
.
1983.
The
context,erformance
nd
meaning
f ritual: heBritish
monarchy
nd
the InventionfTradition',. 1820-1977.n The nventionf raditioneds)
E.
Hobsbawm T.
Ranger. ambridge: niv.
Press.
1987. ntroduction:ivine ites fkings.nRitualsf oyalty:oweranderemonialn raditional
societieseds)
D.
Cannadine
S.
Price.Cambridge:
niv.Press.
Cheater, .P 1986.
ocial
nthropology:
n
alternativentroduction.ondon:Unwin
Hyman.
Coles,J.1991.Beethoven
hitewashlaim.The
Guardian,3June,
991:1.
Cooper,
M.
1973.
Opera
nFrance.
n
The
New
Oxford
istory
fMusic,
ol.
:
theAgefEnlightenment,
1745-1790eds) E. Wellesz F. Sternfeld.ondon:Oxford
niv.Press.
Danforth,.M. 1993.Competinglaims
o Macedonian
dentity:
heMacedonian
uestion
nd
thebreakup fYugoslavia. nthrop.oday(4): 3-10.
Devereux, . 1957.Dream earningnd ndividualitual ifferences
n
Mohave
hamanism.m.
Anthrop.9, 1036-45.
Duhamel, . 1987.La querelle es bouffons.'Histoire04,26-31.
Firth, . 1973.
ytnbots:
ublicnd rivate.ondon:Allen& Unwin.
Goldman,
. 1975.
Themouth
f
eaven:n ntroductionoKwakiutl
eligioushought.
ew York:
Wiley.
Harrison,J. 1989.Magical ndmaterial olitiesnMelanesia.Man N.S.), 24, 1-20.
1990. tealingeople's ames: istorynd olitics
n
a Sepik
iverosmology.ambridge: niv.
Press.
1992.Ritual s intellectualroperty.an N.S.) 27,225-44.
Hobsbawm, . 1983.Mass-producingraditions:urope 1870-1914.
n
The nventionf
radition
(eds) E. Hobsbawm
T.
Ranger. ambridge: niv.
Press.
Hughes,
.
1957.The
Reformation.
ondon:
Burns Oates.
Huizinga, . 1970.Homo udens: studyf
he
lay lementn
ulture.
ondon:
Paladin.
Kertzer,.I. 1988.Ritual,oliticsnd ower. ew Haven,London: aleUniv.Press.
Kiberd, . 1989.
rish
iterature
nd rish
history.
n The
Oxford
llustrated
istoryf
reland
ed.)
R.F. Foster. xford: niv.
Press.
Kopytoff,. 1986.The cultural iographyf things: ommoditization
s process. n
7he
ocial
ife
of hings:ommodities
ncultural
erspectiveed.) A. Appadurai.
ambridge: niv.Press.
Kroeber, .L. 1925.Handbookf
he
ndiansf
Caltfornia.
Smithson.
nstn. ur.Am.Ethnol. ull.
78). Washington:
overnment
rinting
ffice.
Kuhrt, . 1987.Usurpation,onquest ndceremonial:rom abylon
o Persia. n
Rituats
f oyalty:
power
nd
eremonialn raditional
ocieties
eds)
D.
Cannadine S. Price.
ambridge:
niv.
ress.
Lane,C. 1981.Theritesf ulers.ambridge: niv.Press.
1984.Legitimacynd powernthe ovietUnion throughocialist itual. rit.J.olit. ci.
14,207-14.
Levi-Strauss,
.
1969.The lementarytructuresfkinship;
ranslated
yJ.H. Bell,J.R.
von
Sturmer
& R.
Needham. ondon: yre& Spottiswoode.
1973.Totemism.
armondsworth:
enguin.
Lindstrom,
.
1985.Personal
ames nd
social eproductionn Tanna, anuatu.J.olynes.oc.94,
27-45.
McAuley, .W
&
J.
McCormack
990.
The hound
f Ulster
nd the
re-writing
f rish
history.
Atud.rl.
15,
149-64.
Mills,C.W
1970.The
ociologicalmagination.armondsworth:
enguin.
Nicholls,
.
1979.
rom essalinesoDuvalier:
ace,olour
nd
national
ndependencenHaiti.
ondon:
Macmillan.
Perrin,
. 1979.
Giving p
the
un:Japan's
eversiono
he
word,543-1879.
oston:David
Godine.
Radcliffe-Brown,
.R. 1951.The
comparative
ethod n social
nthropology.J.
.
Anthrop.
nst.
81,
15-22.
Saussure,
. de
1974.
Course
n
eneralinguistics;
ranslated
yW
Blaskin. ondon: ontana ollins.
Schwimmer,
.G. 1972.
ymbolicompetition.nthropologia
4,
117-55.
Solomos, .
1991.
Contemporary
orms f racial
deology
n
British
ociety.age
RaceRelations
Abstracts6,
1-15.
Tuzin,
.F. 1978.
Politics, ower
nd divine
rtistry
n lahita.
nthrop.. 51,
61-7.
Wallace,WJ.
1947.
The dream n Mohave
ife.J.
m.Folkl.
0,
252-8.
Weiner,
.B.
1992.
nalienable
ossessions:
he
aradox fkeeping-while-giving.erkeley:
niv. of
Californiaress.
This content downloaded from 134.76.61.231 on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:48:36 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Symbolic Conflict
19/19
272
SIMON HARRISON
Quatre prototypes u
conflit
ymbolique
R6sutn
Le butde cet rticle std'arriverune th6orie e la symbolique olitique partir e l'analyse
du
conflit
ymbolique.
n entend
ar
conflit
ymbolique
a
dimension u conflit olitique
qui
se
rapporte
la
manipulation
es symboles.
n
montre, partir 'un certain ombre
d'exemples thnographiques,
ue
le
conflit
ymbolique epr6sente
n
type
e
competition
semblable celui
que
Bourdieu ualifie
e
capital ymbolique'.
uatreformes rototypes
sont distingu6es.
e conflit ymbolique eut porter
oit
sur l'6valuation es symboles
politiques,
oit
sur
leur
production,
eur
propri6t6,
u leur surviecomme embl6mes
d'afflliation
olitique.
es
quatre
ormes
orrespondentquatre
ropri6t6s
ondamentales
du symbolepolitique,repr6sentantuatre
faqons
de
manipuler
n
symbolepour
s'en
approprier
e
capital ymbolique.
Departmentf
ociology,
niversityf
Ulster,
oleraineT52
ISA
Recommended