Certeau On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday Life 1980

8/13/2019 Certeau On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday Life 1980

1/42

On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday LifeAuthor(s): Michel De Certeau, Fredric Jameson and Carl LovittReviewed work(s):Source: Social Text, No. 3 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 3-43Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466341.

Accessed: 28/02/2013 11:44

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 [email protected].

.

Duke University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:44:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466341?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/466341?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/42

On The OppositionalracticesfEverydayifeMICHELDE CERTEAU

I. READING THE ANONYMOUSThisessay s dedicatedothe rdinary an.Thecommonero.Disseminatedharac-ter.Untoldwanderer.n invoking,t the utset fmynarratives,his bsent eingwhogives hem heir eginningndnecessity,questionmyselfs tothedesire fwhich efigureshe mpossiblebject.Whenwededicate o him ocumentshichormerlyereofferednhomage o divinitiesrto nspirationaluses,what oweask of this raclemergedwith herumor fhistoryhatwill uthorize s tospeak rmake elievable hat

we say?This nonymousero omes rom ay ack.He is themurmurf ocieties. lways eprecedes exts.He doesn't venwaitfor hem.He paysno attentiono them. utinwrittenepresentationse gets along.Littlebylittle e occupies he center f ourscientificcenarios. hecameras avedesertedhe ctorswhodominatedroper amesand social mblemsnorder oturn hemselvesowardhe horus f xtrasmassednthesidelines,hen inallyo fix hemselvesnthecrowd fthepublic. hesociologizationand anthropologizationf research rivilegeheanonymousndtheeveryday hereclose-ups solatemetonymicetails-parts aken or hewhole. lowlyherepresenta-tiveswhopreviouslyymbolizedamilies,roups,ndordersre effaced rom he cenewheretheyreigned uring he timeof the name.Number as arrived,he timeofdemocracy,fthebig ity,fbureaucracies,f ybernetics.t sa supple ndcontinuouscrowd,woven ightlyike fabric ithoutear rseam, multitudefquantifiederoeswho ose their ames ndfaceswhile ecominghemobileanguagefcalculationsndrationalities hich elong o no one.Cipheredurrentsnthe treet.Popular ultures,roverbs,ales, olkwisdom, ave ong eemed obe theplace nwhich uch heromighte soughtnd reidentified.et t snotpossibleo confineheoperativemodelsof a popular ulture o thepast,thecountryside,r to primitivepeoples.They xistnthe trongholdsfthe ontemporaryconomy.his s the asewithripping-offla perruque: wigging"]. hisphenomenonpreads verywhere,ven fmanagementenalizes tor "looks the otherway" n order o knownothingf it.'Accused f tealing,rretrievingaterial or heir wnprofit,fusinghemachinesortheir wn nds,workers ho rip ff"ubtractime romhe actoryratherhan oods,for nly craps reused)with view oworkhatsfree, reative,ndpreciselyithoutThe present ext s an excerpt romMichelde Certeau'sforthcomingook,Pratiques uotidiennes. our unesemiotiquede la culture rdinaire. he first ectionwasabridged rom isarticle, Une culture res rdinaire,"in Esprit 10 (October 1978), pp. 3-26. The author s a member f the Ecole freudiennend teaches in theDepartment f Literature t theUniversityf California-San iego. He haswritten a prisede laparole 1968),L'Absent de I'histoire1973), La Culture u pluriel 1974), and L'Ecriturede I'histoire2nded., 1978).'See MiklosHaraszti,Salaire aux pieces Paris, 1976),pp. 136-145.

3

This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:44:03 AMAll 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.jsp


3/42

4 de Certeauprofit.n theveryplaceswherereigns hemachine heymust erve, hey nveigle or hepleasure ofinventingratuitous roductsntended olely o signifyheir wn know-howbytheirwork nd torespond o thefellowshipfworkerswith gift.With hecomplicityofotherworkerswhothusputa check n thecompetitionomentedetween hem ythefactory), ne effects ome blowswithin he domain of theestablished rder. Far frombeing a regressiontoward handicraft r individual units of production, ipping-offreintroducesnto he ndustrialpace (that s tosay, nto hepresent rder) he"popular"tacticsofothertimesor places.Anynumber fexamples ouldtestifyo thewidespread xistence f suchpracticesnthe most normative nstitutionsf moderntimes. With theappropriatemodifications,equivalentsof ripping-offlourishwithinbureaucratic r commercial dministrationsjust as much as infactories. heyare doubtless oday s extensive s ever and as littlestudied in theirown right),fully s much theobject of deep suspicion, ensure, ndomission. Nor is it only on shop floors and officesthat this happens, but alsoin museums and specialized journals,where such practicesare debased and oftenconsignedto oblivion. Thus the nstitutionsfethnological r folklore esearch endtoretain from uchpractices nd activities he merestphysical r linguisticbjects,whichare then abelled according o their hematics nd theirplaces oforigin,placed underglass, offeredup forexegesis, and asked to disguise,beneath the peasant "values"proposedfor he edificationr thecuriosityfcitydwellers,he egitimationf an orderwhich ts custodians onsider o be immemorialnd "natural." n other ases, from helanguages of such social operations,theyextract ools and products o be ranged nexhibitsof technicalgadgets, spread out inertly long the bordersof an untroubledsystem.Yet it is veryprecisely he effective rderofthingswhich s subverted y ustsuch"popular" tacticsfor heir wnends,withoutny llusions s to their ltimate racticaleffects.Wheredominatingowers xploit heorder fthings, here deological iscourserepresses or ignores it, tactics fool this order and make it the fieldof theirart.Therebythe institutionne is called to serve finds tself nfiltratedya style f socialexchange,a styleoftechnicalnvention,nd a style f moral resistance-that s, byaneconomy fthe"gift" generosities hich re alsoways fasking or omethingnreturn),byan aesthetic f"moves," "trumphs," r "strikes" coups] operationswhich reformsof artistic xpression), ndbyan ethic ftenacityso many housands fways odeny heestablished rder ny egitimacy, hether f aw,meaning, r evenfatality). his swhat"popular" culturereally s, and not some aliencorpus,anatomizedfor hepurposesofexhibit,preparedand "quoted" bya systemwhichreduplicates pontheseobjectsthesame situation thas preparedfor ts iving ubjects.The increasing ompartmentalizationf timeand space, thedisjunctive ogicofthespecializationsof labor,findsno adequate counterbalancen theconjunctive ituals fmass communications. et theempirical actofthis rganizationannotbe transformedinto the law of livinghuman subjects, individualor collective. It can indeed beoutsmartedby serviceswhich, mulating he "gifts" f our masters, ffern exchangeproductsdrawn from he storehouse fthevery nstitutionshich solate and programthose who work n them. This practiceof economicembezzlementnrealitymarks hereturn f a sociopolitical thicwithin heeconomic ystem.t isthereby o doubtrelatedto Mauss' notionof thepotlatch, hatgame of voluntary restationwhichobligesto



4/42


5/42

6 de Certeauinauguratedy the constitutionf "proper" ieldsautonomousities, neutral" r"independent"nstitutions,disinterested"esearchaboratories,tc.) n otherwords,power s thepreconditionfthisknowledge,ndnotonly ts ffectrits ttribute.tpermitsndgovernshe haracteristics.tproduceshemn tself.In contrasto strategieswhose uccessiveigurestir his oo formal chema ndwhose onnection ith particularistoricalonfigurationfrationalityould lsoneedto be madeprecise) calltacticshe alculatedctionwhichsdeterminedy he bsenceof a properplace. Thus no delimitationf exteriorityurnishest a condition fautonomy. acticshasnoplaceexceptn that ftheother.Alsoit must laywithheterrainmposedn t, rganizedy he awof strangeorce.tdoesnothave hemeansofcontainingtselfn tself,n a positionfretreat,f nticipating,fgatheringtself:tis movementin theenemy's ield f vision" s vonBilow said t,andinthespacecontrolledyhim.3t does nothave, herefore,hepossibilityfgivingtself globalprojectnoroftotalizingheadversaryn a distinctpace,visible ndobjectifiable.toperates lowbyblow. tprofitsrom nddepends pon occasions"withoutbase nwhich o stock upplies,o augment proper pace, nd to anticipateorties.What tgains annot e held.Thisnon-spaceoubtlessermits obility,ut equiresmenabil-ity othehazards ftime,norder oseize hepossibilitieshat momentffers.tmustvigilantlytilize hegapswhich heparticularombinationfcircumstancespen nthecontrol f heproprietaryower.tpoaches here.tcreatesurprises.t spossible orttobe wherenooneexpectst. t iswile.In sum t sanart ftheweak.Clausewitzotedtwith espectowile nhis reatiseOn War.Themore power rows,he ess t canallow tselfo mobilize part f tsmeans norder oproduce heeffectsfdeception:t s ineffectangerousoemployconsiderable orces or ppearances'ake, t a timewhen his ind fdemonstrationsgenerallyain ndwhen he eriousnessfbitterecessityendersirectctionourgentthat t doesnotmakeroom or his ame.One distributesisforces,nedoes notriskthemnpretending.ower s bound y tsvisibility.n the ther and, use spossibleforthe weak andoften nly t,as a lastrecourse:Theweaker heforceswhich resubjectedostrategicirection,hemorehey ill evulnerableowile."4 translatet hus:themore tchangesnto actics.Clausewitz lso compares heruseto verbalwit: "Just s a witticismerformssleight-of-handith reexistingdeas nd onceptions,oalsothemilitaryuse erformsa sleight-of-handf nthe ealm f ction."5his uggesthe rivileged aynwhich hesleight-of-handftacticsntroducests urpriseffectsnto n establishedrder. he artofgamesmanship,f"scoring"nyour dversary,s at onewith sense ftiming.tstechniques-andFreudgives s a wholenventoryfthem n hisbookonwit6-boldlyrestructurehe nitial ata norder otransfigurehenormalanguagef a givenpacewithan alien flash,thereby tupefyinghe recipient. racks,glints, lippages,brainstormsithinheestablishedrids fa given ystem:uch rethe tyle fthese

3"Strategy s the science of militarymovements eyondthe field of vision of the enemy;tactics, hat ofmovementswithinhis fieldof vision" von Bulow).4Karl von Clausewitz,De la Guerre Paris, 1955), pp. 212-213.This analysis an be found nmanyothertheoreticians romMachiavellion.5Ibid.,p. 212.6SigmundFreud,Jokes nd TheirRelation o the Unconscious.



6/42

Everyday ractices 7tactical ractices, hich re the quivalentn the ealm f ction fwit nd thewitticismin therealm f anguage.Bereft fanyproper paceof tsown,withoutnyglobalizingision,s blind ndintuitive s one mustbe in immediate and-to-handombat,ruledby temporalchance nd uck, acticsre thus ssentiallyeterminedy he bsence fpower ullysmuch s strategys organized ypower s a precondition.n this ense, hedialecticspecificotacticsmight ellbe lluminatedy he ncientrt f ophistry.sthe ounderofa great strategic"ystem, ristotle asgreatlynterestednthetechniquesf thisparticularnemy,whosemission,s heconsidered,ay n theperversionf the rder fTruth. ndeed,from his rotean, extrous,ndunpredictabledversary,equotesformulationfthedynamicsfsophistryhich anhenceforthtand s an admirabledefinitionftacticsnourpresentense: hepoint, ccordingo the ophistorax, s"toturn heweakest ositionnto he trongestne."7Theparadoxicalonclusionf thisphrase t oncereveals herelationshipfforcest work n theprinciplef ntellectualcreativity hich s ourpresent bjectof study: s stubborns it is subtle, ireless,remobilizedn all occasions, ropagated hroughouthe trongholdsf thedominantorder, ndutterlyliento therules nd methodsmposed y rationalityasedontherightsfself-identicalpace.Strategiesrethereforections hich,ependentn a spaceofpowerorone'sownspatial property"),reabletoprojectheoreticalpaces totalizingystemsnd ypesfdiscourse)whichanarticulatehe nsemblefphysicallaceswhere orcesdistributed.Strategiesombine hese hree ypes fspace-power,theory,ndpraxis-and im tcombinationsf themwhichwillassuremastery; hey herebyoregroundpatialrelations,ratleast ttemptoreduce emporalelationsospatial nesby nanalysiswhich ttributesproper lacetoeachparticularlementndby systemicrganizationof the ypes fmovementharacteristicfeach ype funity.he model f trategyasevidently militaryne before t wasusedtoorganizescience" ndknowledge.Tactics re meanwhileperations hose pecificaluederives rom heirtress ntime as such-on the circumstanceshich punctualnterventionransformsntofavorableituationrconjuncture,n therapidityfmovementshichanchange heveryorganizationf space,on the relations etween he successivemomentsf aparticularacticalmove,on theoverlapor intersectionetween ariousduriesorunequal temporal hythms,tc. In this ense, hedifferenceetween hese woverydistinctypes fpractices one oftwodistinctistoricalptionswith espectoactionandsecurity,ptionswhichvidentlyavemore odo with ituationalonstraintshanwith ree hoice s such: trategiesamble n the esistancehich he stablishmentfplaceor ocus fferso thewear ndtear f ime; acticsn the ontraryut heiraithna skillfultilizationftime, ndoftheopportunitiestofferss well s theplay t canintroducento heveryoundationsfpower. ven f hemethodsmployednthis uerillawarfare feverydayife an never edistinguishednquite o clear-cutway, hefactremains hat hey recharacterizedy patial ndtemporal agers espectively.

7Aristotle,hetoric,I, chapter4,1402a: Maketheweakerrgumenthe tronger"editionudd, 967,Vol. 2, p. 131).The same"discovery"s attributedo TisiasbyPlato Phaedrus,73b-c).See alsoW.K.Guthrie, heSophists Cambridge,971),pp. 178-179. n Cortax's exne,whichAristotlementionsnconnection ith he places fapparentnthymemes,"eeC. PerelmanndL. Olbrechts-Tyteca,rait6eI'argumentationBrussels, 970), p.607-609.



7/42

8 deCerteauThe tacticsr thepolemologyftheweak rpowerless aynow e illuminatedyvarietyftheoreticaleferences.elevant, or xample, re thevarious figures"r"tropes" nalyzed yrhetoricandexhaustivelynventoriedyFreud nhiswork nwitand nhis tudies fthereturnf he epressed:erbal conomyndcondensation,ul-tiplemeaningsndmisunderstanding,isplacementndalliteration,verdeterminationofcontent,tc.)."There s indeednothingstonishingnsuchhomologiesetween heruses fpracticendoperationsf a rhetoric.hetoricaligureslay heiruccessfulrunsuccessful ovesouton a restrictederrain hichs preciselyhat fself-identity,namely, frule-governedyntaxnd ofthe "literal" r "proper"meaningn ustthatsenseevoked bove: that s,a lawfulpaceof dentitynd exclusion efinedgainsttsexternal ther.Rhetoric ffershepossibilityfa manipulationf anguage ependentonthe ppropriateccasion nd imingoseduce, ntrap,r nverthe inguisticositionofthereceiver.9hus,where rammarasthefunctionfpolicinghe proper" se of

terms, hetorical layand transformationmetaphoricrift,llipticalondensation,metonymic iniaturization,tc.)marks he determinateppropriationf anguagensituationsfritual ractual inguisticombat. uch hetoricalrocedures,hendicationsofconsumptionndof play fforces,repart f whole roblematicsfenunciation;andthis swhy, lthoughandperhaps ecause) hey re nprinciplexcluded rom"properly"cientificiscourse,hese mannersf peaking"ffer whole epertoryfmodels ndhypothesesor studyfanalogousmodes f action.n thefinal nalysis,and nany eneralemioticsf acticsssuch, he ormerreonlyomanyariantsf helatter.Obviously,he elaborationfsuch semiotics ould equire rather ifferentemphasishanhasnecessarilyeen hat f he esearch hichresentlyears hat ame,and whichsoriented round herationalityfpropermeaning.n particular,twouldimpose hestudy fquitedifferentrts fthinkingndaction, uch s the ixty-fourhexagramsftheChinese-Ching,'orthemetis"intelligence")fancient reece,"or of theArabichila,2 or ofanynumber f other orms f"logic"nowalientous.I willnot here be concerned o constructuchan alternateemiotics,utrathermerely o suggest certain umber fways n whichwemay hink fresh hedailypractices fconsumers hen hey reofa tacticalype.Dwelling,walking,pelling,reading,hopping,ooking-suchctivitiesresent anyf he haracteristicsf acticalruses ndsurprises:ricksf he weak"withinhe rder stablishedy he strong,"nartofscoring ithinherealm fthe ther, unters' isdom,olymorphousaneuversandmobilities,ubilatory,oetic, ndmilitarynventions.Such ctivitieserhapsorrespondo a timelessrtwhich asnotmerelyurvivedheinstitutionsf successiveociopoliticalrders utreaches ack well before urownhistoriesnd findstrangeolidaritieseyond hevery rontiersfhumanity.ndeed,suchpractices resenturiousnalogies-as thoughn mmemorialntelligence-with

"Freud,op. cit.9See StephenToulmin,The Uses of ArgumentCambridge,1958); C. Perelman nd L. Olbrechts-Tyteca,Traitd, p. cit.; and J.Dubois, et al., Rh6torique 6n6raleParis, 1970).'tSee the I-Ching Chou-1),or Book ofChanges,whose64 hexagramsformed y6 brokenor full ines)represent ll possibleconfigurationsf existentsnthe courseof the mutations f the universe."Marcel D'tienne and Jean-Pierre ernant,Cunning ntelligencen GreekCulture nd Society AtlanticHighlands,N.J.: Humanities,1978).12SeeM. Rodinson,Islam et e capitalismeParis, 1972).



8/42

Everyday ractices 9the simulation,trikes,nd tricks hatcertain ishor certain lants xecutewithprodigious irtuosity.heproceduresf such rt anthus e found s far s life tselfexists, s though hey ranscended otmerelyhestrategiceparationsf historicalinstitutionsut lso thevery reaknauguratedy he nstitutionfconsciousnesstself.Theythus ssurethe formal ontinuitiesnd thepermanencyf a memory ithoutlanguage, rom heocean's depths lltheway o the treetsftoday'smegalopolis.In any ase,onthe caleofcontemporaryistory,twould eem hat hegeneraliza-tion ndthe xpansionf echnocraticationalizationasproduced proliferation,ntheintersticesfthe ystem,f ust uchpractices hichwere ormerlyontrolledy tablelocal unities.More and more,tactics wing utof their rbits. oosed from hosetraditionalommunities hich nce circumscribedheirfunctioning,heybegintowander hroughout space increasinglyomogenizednd extended. onsumersretransformednto mmigrants.hesystemnwhichhey irculates too vast o localizethem,yet oo infinitelypread utfor hem o be abletoescape tandto find place"elsewhere." here snoelsewhere. he"strategic" odel herebysalsotransformed,as though ostby its own success: t depended n a "properplace" distinctromeverythinglse; tnowbecomeseverythinglse." t s conceivablehat ittley ittlehestrategic odelmay xhausttsownpossibilitiesftransformationndcometo consti-tute heverypace as totalitarians the osmos fold)ofcyberneticociety,iven verto theBrownianmovementsfinnumerablend invisibleactics. his wouldmeanproliferationfrandomndunpredictableanipulationsithinn mmenseridworkfconstraintsnd socio-economicrecautions:myriadsf quasi-invisible ovements,playingcross he ver inerexturef homogeneousnd ontinuouspace proper"oeveryone.s this lreadyhepresentr still hefuturefourbigcities?Leaving side hemultimillenaryrcheologyfruses,s well sthepossibilityf heiranthill-swarminguture,hepresenttudy feverydayacticsmustnonethelesseverforgethehorizonrom hichheyomenor, tthe therxtreme,hehorizonheymaysomeday each.The evocationf hese orizons ill t east llow s toresistome f helesshappy ffectsf thefundamentalutoften ne-sidedndobsessiveontemporaryanalysis fthe nstitutionsnd themechanismsfrepressions such.Thattheproble-matic frepressionhouldplay o predominantrole ncontemporaryesearchs nogreat urprise:cientificnd researchnstitutionsre ndeed hemselvesart ftheverysystem hey nalyze;their nalysis onformso thewell-knownenre fthefamilyhistorya criticaldeologyailingochange nythingn ts peration,he ritiqueimplycreatinghe llusionfdistance ithingenus o whichtbelongstself).uch nstitutionstend oadd thedisquietingharmfthose evils rwerewolveshose toriesre told ntheevening ythehearth. et this lucidationfthe pparatusfrepressiony tselfpresents signal efect, amelyot eingble o eethose eterogeneousractices hichitbelievestselfohaverepressed.etthey ave veryhance f urvivinghis articularapparatus, nd in anycase they re also themselvespart f social ife, ll themoreresistantn their ery upplenessndcapacityoadjust operpetualhanges.urveyingthisfleeting etpermanent eality, ne has the mpressionfexploringhenighttimefsocieties, nightonger hantheir ays,a dim surfacen which uccessivenstitutionsreprofiled, virtuallymaritimemmensityn which ocio-economic nd political ppara-tusescome to seem ephemeral nsularities.The imaginaryandscapeof a particular esearch s notinsignificant,venwhere t



9/42

10 de Certeaulacksrigor.t restores hat sedto be called popularulture"nly o transformhatused toseema matrix-forcefhistorynto mobilenfinityftactics,husmaintainingthestructuref a social"imaginary"hose undamentaluestionsonstantlyakeonnewshapes nd arise new.Bythe ametoken,tforestallsheeffectsf an analysiswhich an necessarilyrasp uchpracticesnly nfunctionf a particularechnicalapparatus,sthe ransformationfor nterferenceithhe atter'snstruments.ere heanalysiss itselfmarginal ith especto tsownobjects fstudy. helandscape hichstages hesephenomenan the maginaryodethushasthefunctionf a global ndtherepeuticectification,defensegainstheir eductiony ateralnspection.t thusensures heirontinuingresence,f nly sghosts. hisreturno anothertage herebyrecalls herelationshipetween he xperiencef uch racticesndwhat nanalysisantell aboutthem: t is the witness-afantasmaticne at best,non-scientific-ofhedisproportionetween aily acticsndtheirtrategiclucidation. hat an bewrittenaboutwhat verybodyoes?Between he wo hings,he mage, host f nexpert utsilent ody, reserveshedifference.III. MICHEL FOUCAULT, OR, TECHNOLOGIES IN DISSEMINATIONWemust eginwith heproblemfthe elationshipf omeproceduresodiscourse.For these rocedureso nothave hefixed ndrepetitivetructurefrituals,ustoms,rtypesf nstinctivenowledgehich o ongerave obearticulatedndiscourserhave otyetfound heirxpression.hemobilityfthis ind fproceduredapts o a varietyfobjectives reffects,utdoesnotdepend nverbal lucidation.heir eparationromdiscoursemustnot be overestimated.n fact, acticswithiniscoursean,as wehaveseen above,be correlated ithnonverbal actical cts. ndeed, he mplicithoughtinvested nthesekinds f action onstitutespeculiar-andmassive-instanceftherelationshipetween racticesndtheory.In DisciplinendPunish, workn which e examinesheorganizationfpenal,academic, nd medical surveillance"t thebeginningf the 19th entury, ichelFoucault ttemptsoapproximatenimpossibleroper oun hroughproliferationfsynonymsnd poetic evocations: apparatus," instrumentations,"techniques,""mechanisms,"machineries,"nd so on.13Thisvery ncertaintyndterminologicalinstabilitys already suggestive.Yet the basic storythe book has to tell-that of an enormous uidproquo r socio-historicaleal-postulates fundamentaldichotomyetweendeologiesndprocedures,nd hartsheirespectivevolutionsndintersections.n fact,what oucault nalyzessa chiasmus: ow heplaceoccupied yhumanitarianndreformistrojectst the ndof he18thenturys then colonized" r"vampirized" ythosedisciplinaryrocedures hich ave ince ncreasinglyrganizedthe ocialrealm tself. hismysterytoryf substitutionf orpses ould avepleasedFreud.As always or oucault,hedrama splayed utbetweenwo orces hose elation-shipto one another s invertedytheruseofhistory.n theonehand, here s theideologyof theEnlightenment, ith tsrevolutionarypproachto the matter fpenal

"3MichelFoucault, Surveiller t punir (Paris, 1975); on Foucault's earlierwork,see M. de Certeau,L'Absent de I'histoireParis, 1974),pp. 115-132.



10/42

Everyday ractices 11justice.Thereformistrojectsfthe18thenturyimessentiallytdoingwaywith he"ordeal"oftheancien egime, ith hat loody itualizationf hand-to-handombatintendedodramatize he ymbolicriumphfroyaltyver heappropriateriminals;suchprojectsnvolved heequalizationfpenalities,heir radationccordingo thecrime, ndtheirducational alueboth or he riminalsnd for ocietytself.In actualfact,however, isciplinaryroceduresvolved n thearmy nd in theschools apidlyome oprevail ver hevast ndcomplexudicial pparatuslaboratedbythe 18th enturynlightenment,ndthe newtechniquesre refinednd appliedwithoutecourseoanyovertdeology:hedevelopmentfa cellular ridwhetherorstudents,oldiers,workers,riminals,r sickpeople)transformspace tselfnto ninstrumenthich anbe usedtodiscipline,oprogram,nd tokeepunder bservationanysocialgroup. n suchprocedures,herefinementftechnologyndattentionominute etail riumphver heory,ndresultntheuniversalizationf single, niformpunishment-prisontself-whichnderminesherevolutionarynstitutionsf theEn-lightenmentrom ithinndeverywhereubstituteshepenitentiaryor enal ustice.Foucault husdistinguishesetween woheterogeneousystems. e describes hesuperiorityonbya political echnologyfthebodyover an elaboratedystemfdoctrine. et he does not tophere: nhisdescriptionfthe nstitutionndtriumphantproliferationfthis articularminornstrumentality"-theenalgrid-healso tries odeterminehescopeof such n opaque power,whichs thepropertyf no individualsubject,which asnoprivilegedocus,no superiorsnd no inferiors,hichsneitherrepressive ordogmaticn itsaction, ndwhoseefficacitys quasi-autonomousndfunctionshroughtscapacityodistribute,lassify,nalyze, ndspatiallyndividuateanygiven bject. Meanwhile,deologyontinuesoproducemerewordsnd deasasusual )Through series f clinical-andsplendidlypanoptical"-tableaux,oucaultthen n his turn ttemptso nameand to classifyhe"methodologicalules," he"functionalonditions,"he techniques"ndthe processes,"hedistinctoperations"and"mechanisms,"principles"nd "elements" hich ould onstituteomethingikea "microphysicsfpower."'4This xhibithus as dualfunction:odiagram particularstratum f nonverbal racticesnd also to found discourse bout thosepractices.How are suchpracticeso be described?n a characteristictrategyf ndirection,Foucault solates hegesture hichrganizesiscursivepace-not,as inMadness ndCivilization,heepistemologicalnd socialgesturefconfiningn outcastn order ocreate he paceofreason tself-but ather minuteesture,verywhereeproduced,bywhich isiblepace spartitionednorder osubjectts nhabitantso surveillancendreport. heprocedures hich epeat, mplify,ndperfecthis esturehenntheir urnorganize hatdiscoursewhich akes theform ftheso-called human ciences" rGeisteswissenschaften.ehave herebydentifiednonverbalesture-agesture hichhas beenprivileged,orhistoricalndsocial easonswhich emainobedescribed,ndwhich hen s articulatedhroughhediscoursefcontemporarycience.Alongsidehenovel erspectivespened pby hisanalysis'5--andtmightlsohave

'4See Foucault,op. cit.,pp. 28, 96-102,106-116, 43-151, 59-161, 85, 189-194, 11-217, 38-251, 74-275,276, etc.: a series of theoretical tableaux" punctuates hebook and profiles historical bject forwhich tinvents n adequate discourse.'-See inparticularGillesDeleuze, "Ecrivain,non:unnouveaucartographe,"nCritique, o. 343 December1975), pp. 1207-1227.



11/42

12 de Certeaubeen prolongednto a whole tylistics,wholemethod or nalyzinghenonverbalkinesics nd rhythmsfthe text f thoughttself-severaluestions elatingo ourpresent rojectmaybe raised:

(1) In hisarcheologyf thehuman ciences-Foucault'sxplicitroject inceTheOrderof Things-and n his search or hat ommon matrix"-the technologyfpower"-whichcouldbe found oorganize oth hepenalcode-the punishmentfhuman eings-andthehuman ciences-theknowledgefhuman eings-Foucaultsled to makea selective hoicefrommong hetotalityfprocedureshich orm hefabric f social ctivityn the 18th nd19th enturies.e beginswith single rolifer-ating ystem,ssentiallyscientificr uridicalechnology,ndthen,hroughkind fsurgicalperation,solates he ancerousrowthromhe ocial ody s awhole,herebyexplainingts ontemporaryynamicyway f ts enesisnthe wo recedingenturies.Drawing n an immensemassofhistoriographicaterialspenal,military,cademic,medical),thismethod isengagesheoptical nd panoptical rocedures hich anincreasinglye found oproliferateithint,therebyoidentifyhe t firstisguisedindices f an apparatus hose tructureraduallyecomesmore recise, omplex,nddeterminateithin hedensityf the ocialfabrics a whole.Thisremarkableistoriographicoperation"aises wodistinctuestionst oneandthesame time:on the one hand,thedecisive ole of technologicalroceduresndapparatusesntheorganizationf a society;n the ther,he xceptionalevelopmentor privilegedtatusof one particularategory mong uchapparatuses.We mustthereforeow sk:(a) Howdoweexplainhe rivilegedevelopmentf hat articulareries onstitutedbyFoucault's anopticalpparatuses?(b) Whathappened o all those ther ypes f series rprocedures hichntheirunremarkedtinerariesailedogive ise itheroa specificiscursiveonfigurationrtoa technologicalystematization?heymight ellbe looked nas an immense eservecontaininghe eedsorthe races falternateevelopmentshich ever ookplace.It is inanycase impossibleoreduce hefunctioningf a whole ocietyoa single,dominantype fprocedure. ecent tudiessuch s that fSergeMoscovicinurbanorganization,'6rPierre egendren themedievaluridicalpparatus'") averevealedother kindsof technologicalpparatuses, hichknowan analogous nterplay ithideology nd prevailfora time,before alling ack into thestorehouse f socialproceduress a whole, t whichoint therpparatuseseplacehemntheir unctionf"informing"whole ystem.On thisview,then, societywouldbe composed y certain racticeswhich,selectively ithdrawnndexternalized,oworganizetsnormativenstitutions,long-side innumerabletherpractices hich, aving emainedminor," o notorganizediscoursetself utmerely ersist,reservinghepremisesr theremnantsf nstitu-tional r scientificypotheseshat ifferrom nesocietyo nother.t s thenwithinhelatter-a multitudinousnd silent reserve" fprocedures-thathepracticesfcon-sumptionhouldbe sought, ractices hich resenthat oublecharacteristicnder-scoredbyFoucault fbeing ble toorganize oth paceand anguagen dominantrsubordinate ays.

'6SergeMoscovici,Essai surI'histoire umaine e la natureParis, 1968).'7PierreLegendre,L'Amour du censeur.Essai surl'ordredogmatiqueParis, 1974).



12/42

Everyday ractices 13(2) It is thefinal ormationr"full" orm-in hisnstancehewhole ontemporarytechnologyf surveillancenddiscipline-whicherves s thepoint fdepartureorFoucault's rcheology:he mpressiveoherencefhisfindingsstherebyxplained. ut

can wereallyssume hat llprocedureshemselvesadthis oherence? priori,o. Theexceptionalndeven ancerousevelopmentfpanopticalroceduresould eem obeindistinguishableromheir istoricole s aweapon gainst eterogeneousracticesnda means ofcontrollinghe atter. hus,their oherences the effect f a particularhistoricuccess, nd not characteristicfall technologicalractices.hus,behind he"monotheism"f thedominantanopticalrocedures,emightuspecthe xistenceand survivalfa "polytheism"fconcealed r disseminatedractices, arginalizedutnot obliteratedythehistoricalriumphfone of their umber.(3) What s the tatus fa particularpparatus hen t has become heorganizingprinciplefa technologyfpower?What s theeffectpon tof theprocess hathasisolated tfromherest, rivileged,xternalized,ndtransformedt nto dominant?Whatnewkind of relation oes itmaintain ith hedispersednsemble f otherprocedureswhen thas at length een nstitutionalizeds their wnpenitentiaryndscientificystem?tmight ellbe that napparatus rivilegednthis ashionould osethatefficacityhich, ccordingo Foucault, t originallywed itsownmute andminuscule echnicaldvances.On emergingrom hat bscuretratum here oucaultlocates hedeterminingechanismsf ociety,tmight ellfindtselfnthepositionfan institutiontselfmperceptiblyolonizedyother,tillmore ilent rocedures.ndeed,it willbe one of thehypothesisfthepresent ssay hat his ystemfdisciplinendsurveillance hichwas formedn the19th enturyn the basis of procedureshatpreexistedt, stodayntheprocess fbeing ampirizedy till therneswhichemainto be described.(4) Canwegostill urther?s not hevery acthat,stheyvolve,he pparatusesfsurveillanceavethemselvesecome heobjectofelucidation,nd a part ftheverylanguageof Enlightenmentationality, signthattheyhave ceased to determinediscursivenstitutions?nsofars it s tselfneffectroducedyunderlyingrganizingapparatuses,iscourse ould end obetrayhosewhich o ongerillhat oleby ts wnarticulationf them.At thatpoint-unlesswe are to suppose hat, yanalyzinghepractices romwhicht s itself erived, isciplinend Punish urmountstsownbasicdistinctionetween ideologies"nd"procedures"-wewouldhavetoaskwhat ppa-ratus rticulateshis iscoursenturn,napparatus hichmust ydefinitionscape helatter's etection.Suchquestions-for hichnly rovisionalnswers anbe found ere-mayt eastservetomeasure he extent fthechanges oucault asbroughtothestudy f thepracticesf verydayife, swell s thenewperspectivesehasopened.By howing,nsingle ase,theheterogeneousndequivocal elations etweenpparatusesnd deolo-gies,he has constitutednew bject fhistoricaltudy:hat one nwhichechnologicalprocedures avespecificffectsfpower, bey ogical ynamismshich respecificothem, ndproducefundamentalmodificationsnthe uridical nd scientificnstitutuions.But we do notyetknowwhatto make ofother, qually nfinitesimalrocedureswhichremainedunprivileged y historynd whichyetcontinue o flourishn the ntersticesftheinstitutionalechnologies. hisis mostparticularlyhecase ofprocedureswhich ackthe essentialpreconditionndicatedbyFoucault,namely, hepossessionof a locus or



13/42

14 deCerteauspecificpaceoftheir wn n whichhepanoptical achineryanfunction.uch quallyoperative, et nitiallyeeminglyowerlessechniquesrevery reciselyhose tactics"discussedbove,ofwhich will uggesthat hey rovide ormallues s to thenatureofeverydayonsumerracticesngeneral.IV. PIERRE BOURDIEU, OR, "KNOWING IGNORANCE"Yet itwould eemthat uch tactics" anonly e analyzed yway f a longdetourthroughnotherociety: re-revolutionaryr19th enturyrance,nFoucault; abyliaorB6arn nthework fPierre ourdieu;ncient reece,nthat fMarcel etiennendJean-Pierreernant,tc. t sas though, arginalizedy hedevelopmentfoccidentalrationality,actics eed to return romnothercene norder otake nthenecessaryvisibilitynd rticulation.hus therands estoreouswhat ur wn ultureas eenfitto exclude romtsowndiscourse. ut are not hese acticsreciselyefined romheoutset s whatwe ourselves averepressedr lost?As inLevi-Strauss'ristesropi-ques,18we must ravel far o discover hosevery hingsnrecognizablenourownmidst.For Kabyliato constitute kindofTrojanHorse of a "theoryfpractice" orBourdieu; or hethree dmirableexts edicated o this egionostand s a multiplepreface o a lengthypistemologicaltatement;or hese hreethnologicalhaptersolead, ikepoems,nto theory hichs their wnprose ommentarynd toserve s thelatter's ascinatingndinfinitelyuotable ndreexaminableasis;for heir eferentialandpoetic lacetovanish rom hefinal itle, nd,disseminatedhroughtsdiscursiveeffects,obe slowlyffaced,ike sunfromhe peculativeandscapetillitby t: uchfeatureslreadyuggest specificositioningfpractice ithinheory.Thisis of courseno accident:ndeed, ll ofBourdieu'swork,which ince1972 sdevotedto "practicalmeaning."20 s with ne exception rganized longthesamelines.-2'Withone variation:hisworkon matrimonialtrategiesnd genealogicaleconomyubstituteshereferenceoB6arnfor hat fKabylia.22woreferentialocirather han ne: canwe decidewhichs themeredoubleoftheother? othprojectordered familiarities"hich renonethelessaunted,heonebyexile, heother yculturalifference.till,twould eem hat hehomeland,6arn,sin-fansr peechless

'IClaude LUvi-Strauss, ristesropiquesParis, 1958); see especially hepageson the"return," meditationon travelwhich s transmutednto n investigationfmemory."'PierreBourdieu,Esquissed'une theuoriee la pratiqueGeneva, 1972).The title f the book isthat fthesecond,or theoretical, art.On Bourdieu,unlikeFoucault,French-languageritiques re notverynumerous:is thisthesimultaneous ffect f the fear nd admiration enerated ya Bdarnais mpire?The "ideological"character fBourdieu'sposition sobjectedtobyR. Boudon (in L Inegalite eschances r inEffetservers tordre social). In a Marxistperspective:Baudelot & Establet (L'Ecole capitlisten France);JacquesBidet("Questions 'aP. Bourdieu," inDialectiquesno. 2); L. Pinto "La Th6oriede la pratique," nLa Penske,April1975),etc. From n epistemologicaloint fview, ee L. Marin, Champs h6oriquetpratiqueymbolique,"nCritique no. 321 (February 1974). W. Paul Vogt presentsBourdieu's theses in "The Inheritance ndReproductionofCulturalCapital," in The ReviewofEducation Summer1978),pp. 219-228."P. Bourdieu, "Les strat6giesmatrimonials ans le systemede reproduction,"n AnnalesE.S.C. (July-October 1972),pp. 1105-1127; Le langageautorisd," nActesde la recherchensciences ociales November,1975), no. 5-6,pp. 183-190;"Le senspratique," bid.,Feb. 1976,no. 1,pp. 43-86.2 "Avenirde classe et causalit6du probable,"Revuefrancaise e sociologie,XV, 1974,pp. 3-42.22"Les strategiesmatrimoniales," p. cit.



14/42

Everyday ractices 15as anyorigin,which eededthereduplicationf theKabyle cene forBourdieu,oanalogous)to find tsown articulation.nlybywayof this bjectificationana realfoundationbut lsoan maginaryne:"oti ont esBearnais 'antan?") e madewithinthehuman ciences or he onceptfthehabitus, hichonstitutesourdieu's ersonalmark ntheory.hespecificityf he riginalxperiences then ffaced ehindts owertoorganize moregeneralizingiscourse.Divided ntwo ectionseachofwhichnables he ther), heOutlinef TheoryfPracticesfirstnd foremostpracticef nterdisciplinarity.t thus rojects metaphor,insofars itoffershepassage rom negenre oanother,romthnologyosociology.Yetthingsre not uite osimplesthis,ndthe ook shard oclassify.s itmeant obework nthekind f nterdisciplinaryonfrontationormerlyponsoredyBourdieu,23nwhich each discipline eeks to analyze nd to render xplicit he presuppositionsbelonging o each specialty? uch confrontationsought mutual pistemologicalelucidation,nd strove o display heirmplicitoundationsnthatbroaddaylightfconsciousness hich sboth he mbitionnd themythf science tself. ere,perhaps,the takes resomewhatifferent,ndtheOutlinef TheoryfPracticeathereems ointerrogatehisnew nsight hich disciplineainswhen t turnsack owardhedark-nessthat urroundst-not inorder oputthat arknessoflight,utrather ecauseit is constitutivend ineradicable.Theorywouldthen ome ntobeingwhenevera science,not contentwithcorrectingts ownrulesof productionr determiningits own imits fvalidity,tartshinkingtsrelationshipo this nevitablexteriority.Whetheror not this is the direction f Bourdieu's current iscourse, t is inany asebeyond isciplinaryoundariesn he paque ealityfpracticeshemselveshat hetheoreticaluestion ppears.Explicitlyalledbyhim strategies,"hepracticestudiedyBourdieunvolve uchthingss the ystemsf nheritancenBearn, hephysicalayout f the nteriorftheKabylehouse, herhythmsndorganizationftheKaybleyear, nd o forth.hese rebut few enuses f a specieswhich ncludes he strategies"ffecundity,nheritance,hygiene, ducation, ocial or economicnvestment,arriage,tc.,as well as thosestrategiesf "reconversion" hich riseduring iscrepanciesetween racticesndsituations.24n eachcase,concreteifferencesllow ome f he ropertiesf "logic fpractice" obe specified.(1) Genealogical ables r"familyrees," urveysndgeometric aps fhabits,helinear ycles fcalendars realltotalizingndhomogeneousroductions,ffectsftheobserver's istance nd "neutralization,"n comparisono thestrategieshemselveswhich orm nto city locks" ither hekinshipelationsctuallyracticedecause fusefulness,r theplaceswhich redistinguishedythe nverse nd successivemove-ments f hebody, rthedurationsf ctionsccomplishedtep y tep t theirwn aceand at rates ncommensurateith achother.25 here he ynoptic ap, ssentiallyninstrumentfsummationnd a masteryyvision,evels nd classes ll thecollected"given," ractice rganizesiscontinuities,uclei fheterogeneousperations.inship,

23Thiss the onfrontationrged yP. Bourdieu, .-C. asseron ndJ.-C.Chamboredon,nLe MetieresociologueParis,1968), p. 112-113.24See "Avenir de classe .. .," pp. 22, 33-34,42, etc.25Esquisse,p.cit., p.211-227;Lesstrategiesatrimoniales,"p.cit., p.1107-1108;Lesens ratique,"op. cit.,pp.51-52; tc.



15/42

16 deCerteauspace,and time re thereforeot he ameontheone hand nd on the ther.(I would dd that his ifferencessituated t thefrontierf tworuses.With hesesyntheticables, he cientistides he perationfretreatndpowerwhichmade hempossible.On their ide,while urnishinghe given" olicitedythe nvestigators,hepractitionersecessarilyonceal hepractical ifferencereated etween hem ytheoperationswhich se themor not),and they hus ollaboraten theproductionfgeneral ableswhich ide their actics romheobserver. heknowledgefpracticeswouldbe theresult fthis oubledeception.)(I would dd that his istinction arks heboundaryetween wodistinctypes fruse.The synthesizingables ndgraphsf the cientist ask hedistantiationnd themastery hichmade them ossiblenthefirstlace.Meanwhile,he ubjects f suchstudies,he thnicpractitioners"hemselves,y hevery ata hey urnish,assovernsilence the role of actualpracticen differentiatingetween uch data: they husthemselvesollaboratentheproductionfglobal ableauxnd chematanorderohidetheir wntactics rom heobservernquestion. nowledgeboutpractices ould henbe a combined esult fthese win eceptions.)(2) "Strategy"nBourdieu's ensemarryingneofyourhildren,or xample)s theequivalentf taking trickn card ame," nddepends reeminentlyn the ualityfthegame, s a result fthe ardsyou re dealt ndthewayyouplay hem.26he actoftaking trick hus epends n thepostulates hich eterminehe play-field,"ntheruleswhichonfer na given and tsmeaningnd ssigno the layer certain umberofpossible lays, ndon that articularkillnmaneuver ithwhich first-classlayerwill increasehis capitalduring hegame.Thiscomplex tructurean,however, eresolvedntovarious ualitativelyistinctunctions:(a) There rea certain umberf mplicitrinciplesthus,nBearn, he uperiorityfhusbands owives, relders oyouths-principleshichnsure ndprotectatrimonynan economy oorin cashflow);yetthefact hat uchprinciplesrenever xplicitlydefined pensupmarginsftolerancend thepossibilityfplayingneprincipleffagainst heother.(b) There are explicit ules for nstance,he adot: "compensationo youngerbrothersor heir enunciationfthe nheritance"),ut hese reaccompaniedy imitswhich everse hemas inthe ournadot,hich equireshe dotto be returnedntheevent f childlessmarriages). verymplementationfsuchrulesmust hereforeakeinto ccount his mnipresentossibilityfreversal hichslinked o circumstances.(c) "Strategies," eanwhile,ricksndstrategems"l'agir stretors"),must navi-gate"these ules, nd"exploitllthepossibilitiesfferedy he raditionsnquestion,"choosinghis ne ratherhan hat, ompensatinghat newith his ne,etc. The softappearance fa rigid ealityllows hemostructuregiven etworkccordingo theirownpriorities. ore mportantly,trategieshiftndslipfrom nefunctionoanother,short-circuitingivisions etween he conomic,he ocial, nd the ymbolic.hus, orinstance, lackof childrenbiological ecundity)ill ompensateor badmarriageabad choice n termsfmoney rstation), hile heretentionfanunmarriedoungerbrothert home sunpaid omesticaboreconomicnvestmentswell srestrictionfbiological ecundity)resentshe dded dvantagef voidingayingim he dot institu-26"Les trategies atrimoniales,"p. cit.,p. 1109; tc.



16/42

EverydayPractices 17tional benefit). Strategiesdo not simply "apply" preexisting ules and principles;theyselect the repertory f theirown operationsfrom ut of the latter.27(3) As they hift rom ne genrcto another, uchpractices an be assimilated o theFreudianconceptof "transference"nd tothe rhetorical ne of"metaphorization,"ndthus imply a specific "logic" of their own. Bourdieu exercizes his own "ruse"in order to outsmartthe labyrinthine evelopmentsof these ruses ofpracticeandto underscore hefollowingssentialprocedures:28(a) polythetismr multifunctionality:he same thinghas differentpplications ndpropertieswhichvary ccording o itsposition n a particularombination;(b) substitutability:.ne thing an alwaysbe replacedbyanother,giventhekinshipwith all theother terms ntheparticularotalitytrepresents;(c) euphemization:t is importanto conceal the fact hat ction tends o disrupt hedichotomiesand antinomies epresented y any given symbolic ystem.The unionofcontrariesn ritualmayserveas themodelfor ucheuphemization.Ultimately, ll suchprocedures, ssentially ransgressionsf thesymbolic rder butcamouflaged ransgressions, etaphorswhich pparently espect heestablishedinguis-ticdistinctionsn thevery ctofviolatinghem),maybe summed p under heprimacyofanalogy.Fromthis tandpoint, ecognizinghe uthorityfrules s thevery pposite fapplying hem-a fundamentalhiasmuswhichwouldhave to be reversed ncontemp-orary ociety nthe sense nwhichweapply awswhoseauthority eno longer ecognize.In anycase, Bourdieusuggests hattheultimate rinciple f all suchpractices s to befound n thatvery"analogicalmode" which cientists uchas Duhem,Bachelard,andCampbell, saw at thevery ourceof theoreticalinnovation.2'

(4) These practices reallgovernednthe ast nalysis ywhat havecalledabove theeconomy oftheproper ocus. In Bourdieu'swork, his conomy ends o be representedin two distinctnd equallyfundamental,utunthematized ays:on theone hand, s themaximization f capital (material nd symbolic oods) which onstitutes givenpatri-mony; and on the other,as the development f the body itself, oth individual ndcollective, the producerof time (through ts fecundity) nd of space (through tsdisplacements).All subsequentruses, nd their uccessor failure, re to be tracedbackto an economywhich eeks to reproduce nd to augment hesedual yetcomplementaryforms f theKabyle "house"3" itself: oods and bodies,land and lineage.A politics f"locus" thusunderlies uchstrategies.Whence two featureswhich o stronglyonnectthosepracticeswiththe"enclosedplace" whereBourdieuconsidered hemtheBearnfamilyrtheKabylehouse)andwiththe typeofobservation o whichhe submits hem:(a) He always presupposesthe twin ink of all practiceswitha particular lace(patrimony) nd a particular ype f collective dministrationthefamilyr thegroup).But suppose one or theotherof thesepreconditionssmissing? his is significantlyhecase, forexample,with ontemporaryechnocraticocieties,bycomparisonwithwhichthe proprietarynd familial nclaves of yesteryearr of othercultureshave become27See Les strat6giesatrimoniales,"p. cit.2"See nparticularLes senspratique," p. cit., sp.pp.54-75.29Lem6tier e sociologue, op. cit.,pp. 290-299.30As is wellknown,he house,"n raditionalocieties,esignatesoth he wellinggoods) nd he amilyitselfthegenealogicalody).



17/42

18 de Certeauveritable topias r lostworlds,etalone robinsonnades.et whenBourdieu omesuponthese amepractices ithin contemporaryetty ourgeoisie,ramong oday'shousewives, e treats hem s "short-termndnear-sightedtrategies,"s "anarchicreactions"which eveal "disparateollectionfhalf-bakeddeas," "culturalabir,""a hodge-podgef decontextualizedotions."3' et the amefundamentalogic s atwork nboth hese ontemporaryracticesndthose fKabylia rB6arn: hedifferenceisthat he ontemporarynesnow peratendependentf he ocuswhichovernedheiruse intraditionalocieties.Whatbecomes roblematicalntheOutlinefa TheoryfPracticesthus ot henotion fpractice hicht dumbratesut atherhat f paceorplacewhichtpresupposes.(b) Yet theres a similarroblem ith heuseofthe ermstrategy"yBourdieu.The term s ustifiedy he dea that racticesonstituteomany esponsesoparticularconjunctures. t the sametime,however, ourdieu nsists hat hese re notreallystrategiest all in the tricterenseof theword: here an,for xample, e no choiceamong arious ossibilitiesandthus o"strategicntention");hereanbenoreadjust-ment on the basis of improvednformationand thusno genuine ssessmentndcalculation s such);there an be noforecastf futureonfigurationsutonly worldpresumedtable, cyclicalepetitionfthepast). nshort,it sbecause hese ubjectsdonot trictlypeakingnowwhat heyredoing,hatwhat hey ohas hepossibilityfmeaningmore han heyreabletoknow.""32ence,Bourdieu'sharacterizationf uchpracticess "knowinggnorance,"33craftinesshat oesnotknow tself.With uch strategies"-governedy heirpecificocus, nconsciouslyntelligent-themosttraditionalorm fethnologyends o make tscomeback. or the atter,indeed, ts nsular bjects f tudy ere haracterizeds ethnicnits oth oherentndunconscious,wofeatures hich re in factnseparable.n order or oherence obepostulated, s thepreconditionf a scientificnowledgend of itsepistemologicalpostion ndmodel, uchknowledge ust e posited t a distance romhe ocietynquestion. heunconsciousnessf hegroup ndertudy asthe ery rice obepaidforitscoherencea price twasthenmadetopay).Society asabletobe constituteds asystemnly f t was unaware f tself: husustifyinghe nevitableorollary,hat heethnologistas needed norder o find utwhat uch society aswithoutnowingt.Today,ethnologistsould carcely ake uch laims r even hinkhem: ow s t thenpossibleforBourdieu o do justthat n the name of thatotherdiscipline hichssociology?Sociology-to thedegree hat tdefinesobjectivetructures"n thebasisof the"regularities"urnishedy statisticswhich re themselves erived rom mpiricalresearch)ndseeseverysituation"r"objective onjuncture"sa "particulartate" fone of hese tructures34-musteek oaccountorhe daptationf practiceo givenstructurer tsdiscrepancy.ow is tthat t sgenerallyheharmonyetweenracticesandstructuresthe atter eingmaterializednto particularonfigurations")hichends

3 "Avenir de classe ....," op. cit., pp. 11-12. Bourdieu in anycase failsto take into account studiesofindividual consumers' trategiesn our own societies. See for xample on A.O. Hirschman, xit,Voice andLoyalty Cambridge,19701)the above article,p. 8, note 11.32Esquisse,pp. 175-177 nd 182; "Avenirde classe ...," pp. 28-29;etc.33Esquisse, p. 202.34Esquisse, pp. 177-179.



18/42

EverydayPractices 19to be observed and confirmed? n general,the replyto thisquestionwillpositsomereflex r nstinctiveechanismn thepracticeshemselves,rattributeomeobjectivekill ringenuityo their ractitioners.ourdieu ightlyejects oth uch ptions,ndsubstitutesisown"theory" or hem, eekingoexplain he daptationsfpracticeostructurehroughheformer's enesis.It might f course be suggested hatthe terms ftheproblemhavebeen stacked nadvance. Of thethree lements nquestion-structures, ituations,ndpractices-onlythe ast two which orrespond o one another)havebeenempiricallybserved,while hefirsts a hypothetical odel onstructedfterwardsn thebasisof tatistics.venbefore hematter f"theory" an be engaged, herefore,here re twopreliminarypistemologicalquestions to be addressed: (a) as to the alleged "objectivity" f the "structures"nquestion, an objectivityperpetuatedmainly by the conviction hat the sociologist'sdiscourse is the discourseof the real; and (b) as to the limitsof the practices ndsituationsunderobservation, nd inparticular f their tatistical epresentations,hencomparedwith heglobal systemshat tructural odels are supposedto explain.Theseproblemsare, however, eftunexaminednthe haste to constructheory s such.Underthesecircumstances,hen,Bourdieuneedsa conceptwhichwill djustpracticeto structuret thesame timethat t can accountfordiscrepancies etween he two.Heneeds a supplementaryubric rterm, nddiscoverst, ppropriatelynough, ntheveryprocesswhich s at the heartofhisspecialization s a sociologist feducation,namely,acquisitionas such. Acquisitionprovesto supply henecessarymediation etweenthestructureswhichorganize t in the first lace and thevarious"dispositions" t can besupposed to produce. This "genesis" impliesan internalizationf structureshroughacquisition,and a subsequentexternalization f what has been thusacquired (the so-called habitus) in dailypractice.A temporaldimension s therebyntroducednto theproblem: practices expressingwhathas been "acquired") correspond dequatelytosituations manifesting givenstructure)fand only f,during hisprocessof internal-ization/externalization,he structuren questionhas remained table; if thas not,aninevitablediscrepancy r misalignmentfpracticeswillresult rom heir idelityo theolder state of the structuret the moment f itsinternalization,nd its transformationintothe habitus.On sucha view,structuresanchange nd thusbecome a principlef socialmobility,perhapsindeed theonlysuchprinciple. orwhat s acquiredcannot hangeand has nomovement f tsown,being hemere ocus of the nscriptionf tructure,hemarble ntowhichtheirhistorys carved.Nothinghappens n the area of acquisitionwhich s notsomehow the result of some previous exteriority:s in traditional onceptionsofprimitivend/or easantsocieties,nothingmovesthere, nd there s nohistoryavewhatexternalforces ntroduce.The immobilityf thismemory uaranteeststheory hat hesocioeconomicsystemwillcontinue o be faithfullyeproducedn the variouspractices.In thelongrun,then, t is notacquisition r apprenticeshipvisiblephenomena)whichplay the centralrole in Bourdieu's system,but ratherwhat has been acquired, thehabitus.35 nd the attersthere o serve s theunderpinningf an explanation f ociety

35Theconceptand the termexis (habitus)derive fromMarcelMauss (Sociologieet anthropologieParis,1966],pp. 368-369);meanwhile, nwell-known extswhichBourdieuquotes, Panofsky ad underscored hetheoretical nd practicalmportancef the habitus nmedieval ocietysee M6tier e sociologue,pp. 287-289).In Bourdieu's ownwork,the dea is an old one: see Le Metier e sociologue pp. 11, 52, etc.) on sociological



19/42

20 deCerteauintermsf ts tructures.ettheres a heavyprice opayfor uch "solution,"mostnotablynthefact hat hehypotheticalaseorsupportnquestion,hehabitus,mustremain nverifiablend nvisible.

What nterests ourdieu s thegenesis fpractices,hemodesbywhich hey regenerated. ot,as with oucault, n account fwhat hey roduce, utratheror hesake of whatproduces hem.Fromtheethnologicaltudieswhich xamined uchpracticeso thesociologyhat laborates theoryfpractice,here as thus een afundamentalisplacementfdiscourseowardshehabitus, hoseynonymsexis, thos,modusoperandi, common ense,""secondnature"), efinitions,nd justificationsbegin oproliferate.36he hero f this articulararrativeaschanged,nda passive,nocturnalctor, hehabitus, as been substitutedor hecunningmultiplicityftheearlier"strategies."'37enceforth,s totheir asic gent,he bservablehenomenafgiven ociety illbe attributedo theformer:ndeed n essentialharacter,ince he"enables kind fcircularmovementithinhe heory-fromstructures"emove othehabitusalways nitalics), ndthence o "strategies"hich eadjusto "conjunc-tures," hemselveseassimilatedo theoriginalstructures,"hose ffectsnd deter-minate tates heyre.In reality,owever,his ircle asses rom construct"structure")oa hypotheticalrealitythehabitus),nd from here oan interpretationfempiricallybservedacts(strategiesndconjunctures).hats evenmore trikinghan heheterogeneoustatus fthese ariouslementsnthe heorys the ole t ssignsothe thnologicalfragments,"which resupposed o fill ptheholes.The Other-whetherabyle rBearnais-thussupplies hemissingngredienthatmakes hetheory ork ndhelps t "to explaineverything."ndeed,thisdistantutsider resentsll the features hich efinedhehabitustself:oherence,tability,bsence fself-consciousness,ndterritorialitytheacquired knowledge,habit, etc., constitutinghe equivalentof patrimony).Thus,withinourdieu'sheory,he thnologicalother" rnativesrepresentedy hehabitustself,hat nvisiblepacewhere,s intheKabyle ouse, he tructuresre nver-ted s theyre nternalized,ndwhere hat text" hens nvertedsecond imesit x-ternalizestselfntheformfpractices hichmerelyook ikefreemprovisations.heKabylehouse--thebject fBourdieu's ost rilliantthnologicalnalysis--ishusodgedwithinheorys its ilentnd"ultimatelyetermining"emory,oncealed eneath hemetaphor f thehabitus nd conferringn the latterhypothesisomethingikeareferentialerificationra tangibleealitynddensity.et tsverymetaphorizationytheoryurns his reference"nto hemeresterisimilitude,ndtheKabyle ouse endshabitustsformlone, nd not ts ontent.n any ase,Bourdieus morenterestednshowinghenecessitynd usefulnessf uch hypothesisor heoryhanndemonstrat-ing tsreality. abitus herebyecomes placeofdogma,fby hat erm e understandtheaffirmationf a certainreal"which iscourseequiresnorder o make otalizingclaims. t doubtless hareswithmostdogmas heheuristicunctionfdisplacingndrenewingines f research."schemata," or L'Amourde l'art Paris, 1969,p. 163)on "taste." Thisnotion s inhis work oday urroundedwith n impressive atteryfproperlycholastic erms ndaxioms, nterestingymptomsf a possiblereturnfmedieval orderwithin ontemporaryechnocracy.36See Esquisse, pp. 175, 178-179; Avenir de classe ...," pp. 28-29;etc.37See the celebrationof the hero, in "Avenirde classe ...," pp. 28ff.We maytherefore owstudy he"strategies f the habitus" ibid., p. 30, italicsmine).



20/42

Everyday ractices 21Thesetexts fBourdieu setheirnalyticontento fascinatendtheir heoreticalcontentopolemicize. s I readthem, feel hehold fa passion hat heyxasperatewhile rousingt.They remade f ontrasts.ythe crupulousxaminationfpractices

and oftheirogic-witha rigor hatdoubtless as no equibvalentinceMauss-theyfinallyubsumehe atter nder mysticaleality-the abitus-whose unctiont s toprovide hemechanismftheir eproduction.ubtle escriptionsfB&arnaisrKabyletactics uddenly iveontoabrupt ruths,s thoughuch ucidly ursued omplexityneeded hebrutal ounterpointfa dogmaticeason.Hisstylelsoknows ts ontrasts,perversend abyrinthinen tspursuit, assivelyepetitiven ts ffirmations:peculiarcombinationf n "I know, know"this roliferatingnd ransgressiveuse) nd "stilland all" (theremust e sometotalizing eaning).n order o escapethis ggressiveseduction,will uppose inmy urn) hat omethingssential or he nalysisftacticsmust e at stakenthis ontrast.he blanket haracterizationouridieu'stheory"astsoverthese actics,s thoughoextinguishheir lames ycertifyingheirubsumptionunder ocio-economicationality,rbydeclaringhem nconsciousndthus nsomesense noperatives agents, ught o teach ssomethingbout heir elationshipoalltheory.Bytheir riteriandprocedures,hese acticsmake o autonomoususe of nstitu-tionaland symbolicrganizationhatwerewe to take them eriouslyhescientificrepresentationfsocietywouldbe lost nthem. he postulatesndambitionsf thelatter ouldnotresist; ormalities,eneralities,ivisionsfmaterial,llgivebeforehetransversalnd "metaphorizing"roliferationf thesedifJferenticroactivities.ath-ematics ndexact ciences re nvolvednan interminableefinementf theirpecificlogic n the ttemptofollow herandommicrobian ovementsf non-humanheno-mena. As for he ocial ciences, owever, hose bject s evenmore subtle"ust stheirnstrumentationscruder,herewould emains anultimateption nly odefendtheirmodelsor notherwords,heir ill omastery)y xorcizinguch proliferation.And infact, ollowinghetried nd truemethodsf exorcismtself,hey onsiderhelatter singularor ocal)phenomenon,omethingnconsciousthats tosay, lien n tsvery rinciple)ndas revealing,nwittingly,heknowledgetsudges ave f t lready.When he observer"slocked ecurelynoughntohis udiciarynstitution,nd thus ssufficientlylind, he perations successfulnd thediscoursetproduceseems o holdgood.NothingikethishappensnBourdieu, owever. o be sure, t some relativelyobvious) evel,healso seems o move ut inthedirectionfthe actics,heobjects fstudy) nly o returngain ina confirmationfprofessionalationality):kind ffalsesortie, mere extualstrategy."ut doesthis asty etreatot uggesthat e himselfknows he perhapsmortal) anger uchoverlyntelligentracticesffer oscientificknowledge?hiswould e somedistantlyascalian ombinationfthedisintegrationfreason nda dogmaticaith. ourdieu nows oomuch bout cientificnowledgendthepower n whicht sfounded,ust s he knows hese acticsnly oowell,whose useshereplays ithuchvirtuosityn his wn exts. e must hereforeock llthese uses pbehindthebarsof an unconscious ndnegate, hroughhefetishf thehabitus, nythingreason lacks to be other han he reasonofthe trongest. e will hus-withthedoctrineof the habitus-affirm the contrary f what he knows-a most traditional opulartactic-and thisdefense a homage paid to theauthorityfreason)willthen fford im



21/42

22 deCerteauthe cientificossibilityfobservingacticsncarefullyircumscribedlaces.Ifthis sthe ase butwhowould e n positionosay o?),Bourdieu anteach s asmuch yhisown"dogmatism"s byhis case-histories."he discourse hichoncealswhat he knows ratherhanhidingwhathe does notknow)wouldhavetheprecise"theoretical" alue ofpracticinghatknowledge;t wouldthusbe the result f aconscious elationshipoitsown neradicablexteriority,nd notmerelyhe heater fan elucidation.s itpossible hat uchdiscourseherebytself ejoins hat knowingignorance,"ccusedofbeingknowledgeableithoutnowingt,preciselyecause tknows nly oo wellwhat t neitheraysnor ansay?V. THE ARTS OF THEORY AND THE THEORY OF THE ARTS

When heory,nstead s is so oftenhe aseofbeing iscoursepon ther,reexistentdiscourses, enturesntonon- rpreverbalomainsnwhich here reonly racticeswithoutny ccompanyingiscourse,nique roblemsrise. heresa suddenhift,ndtherockbottomf anguagesmissing.hetheoreticalperationuddenlyindstselftthe imits f tsnormalerrain,ike car t the dgeof cliff-beyond,othingut hesea.Foucault ndBourdieuwork nthe liff henheyttempto nventdiscoursehatcanspeakofnondiscursiveractices. or retheyhefirsto do so:withoutoing acktotheflood,wecanat east ay hat o theoreticalesearchinceKanthasbeen bletodo withoutome overt tatements to itsrelationshipo nonverbal,ondiscursiveactivity,o that mmense remnant"feverythingnhumanxperience hich asnotbeen tamed ndsymbolizedy anguage. nly ne science asbeen ble to avoid hisconfrontation:etting priorionditionsortselfoas to ie nwait or hings ithinhatlimited ield wherethey an be "verbalized." his is experimentalcience,whichanticipatestsobjectswithinhat rid fhypothesisnd modelswhich ill make hemspeak," tsbatteryfquestions,ike omany unters'raps,ransforminghe ilence fthingsnto nswers,nto anguage."A genuinelyheoreticalnquiry,nthecontrary,does notforget,annotforget,hat longside herelationshipf various cientificdiscoursesmong achother,here ersistsheirmutualelationshipoeverythinghichhas had to be excluded romuchdiscoursen order o foundt in the first lace.Theoretical iscourse hus etainsts ink o theproliferationf what oes not yet?)speak, amongwhichmust videntlye numberedhepracticesfeverydayife tself.Theory is thusthememory f thiswordless emnant,heAntigoneofwhat s refusedadmittance o thehalls of science.Theory onstantlyttemptso reintroducehisunfortunateeminderack nto scientificpacewhereechnicalonstraintsavemadeitsomission politically"andsupposedlyna provisoryay)necessary.ut how anitmanage o do so? Byscandal rby trategem?To answer his uestionwe must eturnor moment oFoucault ndBourdieu,whose mportantindingsresignificantlyivergent,nd ndeed irtuallyark he wopolesof thepresent ield fresearch.till, heyhare certainrocess fconstructionand a similar perational chema, nspite ftheir ifferentbjectsofstudy, roblematics,

38Kant lready aid as much nthe Kritik erreinenVernunft:he cientists a "judgewho forceswitnessesoreplyto questionshe has himself ormulated."



22/42

Everyday ractices 23andperspectives.heymay hus e said to constitutewodistinctariantsf "recipe"for theories f practice.As in cooking, recipecan be applied n quitedifferentcircumstancesndfor uitedifferenturposes,nd also has ts ricksnd tsgoodandbad practitioners.et in the samewaythat cooking ecipe s punctuated ithcertainnumberof action imperativesblend, beat, bake . . .), so also the theoreticaloperation an be resumedn twosteps:extract,nd thenreverse-firsthe "ethno-logical" solation fanobject, hen ts ogicalnversion.The first tepdisengages articular ractices rom seamlessweb, in order oconstitutehemnto distinctnd eparate orpus, coherent hole hichs nonethelessaliento theplace in which heorys produced: oucault's anoptical rocedures,rBourdieu'sKabyle r Bearnais strategies." eanwhile,nbothnstances,he enreforFoucault)ortheplace forBourdieu) herebysolateds taken o be themetonymyfthe wholespecies:a part,observable ecause t has beencircumscribed,s usedtorepresenthe undefinable)otalityfpracticesngeneral. o be sure,nFoucault,hisisolation s usedto makesenseout ofthespecificynamicsf a given echnology;certain icoupage s thus eneratedythehistorian'sork.nBourdieu,nanalogousisolations supposedlymposedythedefensefpatrimonyround givenpace, nd soffereds a socioeconomicnd geographicact. et the ame thnologicalndmetonymicdicoupagescommono both nalyses.In the econd tep, heunityhus solated s reversed: hatwasobscure, nspoken,andculturallylien, uddenlyecomes heverylement hichhrowsightnthe heoryand uponwhich he discourses founded. n Foucault, roceduresmbodiedn thesurveillanceystemsf chool, rmy,rhospital,micro-apparatusesithoutnydiscur-sive egitimacy,echniquestterlyoreigno theAufklarung,ave uddenlyecome hevery ationalewhichmakes enseof our own ocietys well s of thehuman ciences.Bothas objectsofstudynd as techniques,hey llowFoucault nd his discourseobecomevirtuallyanopticalntheirurn,ndto seeeverything.nBourdieu,hedistantspaceofsubtle, olymorphous,ndtransgressivetrategiesssimilarlynverted,omingto documentnd articulate theory hich ow sees the samepractices eproducedeverywhere.educed o thehabitus hichheymanifest,hese ssentiallynstinctivendunconscioustrategies ow allow Bourdieu o explain verythingnd to transformeverythingnto onsciousness.hus,n pite f he mphasisyFoucault n the esultsftheprocedureseexamines,ndthataidbyBourdieuathernthe essentialrinciple"ofwhich is trategiesre the ffects,oth erformhe ame peration,hichonsistsntransformingecretand aphasic practicesnto the central xis of their heories,and making hisessentiallyocturnalopulationver nto a mirrorn which heirexplanatoryiscoursean shine orth.Thisvery tactic"marks heir heories s membersf the ame pecies fpracticethey nalyze, ven houghheirmetonymiceductionf heir wn bjects llows hem orepresshe eryperationhat eneratesheirheoriesn he irstlace. oucault,f ourse,already tudies hedeterminationf discourseyproceduresnthe ase of thehumansciences: his own analysis,however,betrays n apparatus analogous to those whosefunctioningtwas able to reveal. We wouldhave to study he differences etweenthepanoptical proceduresFoucault has told us about, and the twingestureof his ownnarrative,which consists n isolatinga foreignbody of procedures nd invertingtsobscure content nto a luminous ext.



23/42

24 deCerteauWe must irstxamine his win esturen moredetail, bove andbeyondhetwotheoretical orkshitherto tudiedhere. In fact, uchprocedures,arfrom eingexceptional,mount o an ancient ecipe or heory hich s no less nterestingor ll

that.We needonlymentionwowell-knownxamples rom heturn fthecentury:Durkheim's Elementary ormsof ReligiousLifeand Freud's Totem nd Taboo. Theyalso, nconstructingheir heoriesfpractice,ituateuch racticesna "primitive"ndclosedspace,a realmwhich sproperlyethnological"ncontrasto ourowncivilizedsocieties: nd in that bscure lacethey iscover hetheoreticalormulationf theiranalysis. hus, t is in thesacrificialracticesftheArunta fAustralia-themost"primitive"f llprimitiveeoples-thaturkheimiscovershe asis f socialheoryndsocialethic ppropriateormodernociety:he restrictionhat acrificemposesn theunlimited ill of the ndividual enders oexistencendmutuallygreed onventionspossible;thus,forDurkheim,enunciationndabnegationnablepluralitynd con-tracts, hichstosay ocietytself:he cceptancef imitss the oundationf he ocialcontract.39orFreud,meanwhile,he ssentialonceptsfpsychoanalysisay e detectedin thepracticesf theprimal orde: ncest, astration,he mergencef Law fromhedeath fthefather.40uchdetours reall themore trikingnthat odirectxperiencevalidates hem.Neither reudnorDurkheimadany ccasion oobservehepracticestheydiscuss, nd had as little irst-handxperiencef the terrain s Marxhad offactories.4 How is itthen hat uchpracticesecome econstitutednto n enigmaticclosuren which heultimateecret ftheoryan be read, s itwere, ackwards?Today,suchpracticesnwhichwesurprisehe ecret f ourownexistencerenolonger istant ndunfamiliar,utgrow vernearerwith ime tself.twould e vain oseek this thnologicalealitynAustralia r at thebeginningfhistory,hent s odgedat thevery eart fourown ystempanoptical rocedures)ron the utskirts,fnot hevery enter, fourcitiesKabyle rB&arnaistrategies),erhapsven loser tillthe"unconscious"tself). et however lose ts ontent,he thnologicalorm ersists. emustthereforeirstnterrogatehisform-a privilegediguref ourmodernity-inwhich ractices oused tgreat istance rom nowledgeonethelessold hekey o tssecrets.It is notexactly fitsownfreewill hat heoreticaleflectioneepspracticet adistance,n order o beforced utside f tselfostudyhis xteriorbjectwhichtthenonlyneedsto nvert o returnt to tsownhouse. tsproceduralteps re n fact epeti-tionsmposedntheoryyhistory:he egionsnwhichhe ondiscursiverocedurest tudiesarefound ere ormedy he ast nd onstitutedy t ntoomanyndianeservationsorenlightenedcience. uchregionsame to functions somethingike frontier,nthecourseof theestablishmentf thevarious cientificisciplinesytheAufklarung;ndgraduallyame to stand s somany resistances"ndunassimilableifferencesithinthe cientificextswhose anons reestablishedromhe18thenturyn.So it s that nthename fprogressnewdifferentiationomes nto eing: hat f he rts fdoing,nthe one hand,formulas orpractical perations,ncreasinglynventoriedn popular

"3EmileDurkheim,Les Formes616mentairese la viereligieuseParis,1968);and see also W.S.F. Pickering,Durkheim on Religion London, 1975).40Freud,Totem nd Taboo.41See FritzRaddatz, KarlMarx,unebiographie olitique Paris, 1978).



24/42

Everyday ractices 25literature;42ttractiveo the observersfman";43and,on the ther and, hat fthescienceswhich new pisteme ringsntobeing.Thisdistinctiono ongeroincides ithhe raditionalppositionetweentheory"and "practice" the "speculation"which eciphershe book of thecosmos, nd itsconcrete applications"),utrather owdesignateswoquitedistinctperations:nediscursive,n andby anguage,he otherackingndiscourse.ndeed,from he 16thcenturyn, the dea ofmethod evolutionizesherelationshipetween nowingnddoing: egaland rhetoricalractices,lowly ransformedntodiscursiveoperations"exercizedndiversifiedields ndthus nto echniquesor ransformingspecific ilieu,graduallympose hefundamentalchemafmethodtself:discoursehichrganizeswayof thinkingnto a form f doing, he rationalizeddministrationf a certainproductionnd an operation esigned or pecificields. uch s "method,"heverysource fcontemporarycientificity.nd na sense,tconstituteshe ystematizationfthat rtwhich lato, n theGorgias,ssignso therealm f ctivity.44et method oworganizests echnicalnowledgeyway fdiscourse.heboundarylineo ongerunsbetween wo hierarchicalypes fknowledge,ne speculative,heother ttachedoparticularities,heone absorbednreadingheorder ftheworldwhile he otherscontentoexplore hedetail fthings ithinheframeworkevised y hefirst;ather,theboundaryow uns etweenracticesrticulatedndiscoursend hosewhichrenot(ornotyet)verbalized.What will be the status f suchforms f nonverbal echnical now-how,uchtechniques ithout ritingsincethe discoursen methods bothwritingnd know-ledge)?The realmof skill s madeup ofmultipleutundisciplinedperativities,proliferationhich oesnot bey he aws fdiscourseut salreadybediento those fproduction,heultimatealue f physiocraticnd ubsequentlyf capitalistconomy.Such activitieshus hallengeheprimacyfscientificritingver heorganizationfproduction;hey lternatelyxasperatend stimulatehe echniciansf anguage;heypropose conquest,nd not conquestf nconsequentialractices,utrather neof"ingenious,"complex,"nd"operative"ypesfknowledge.rom aconto ChristianWolff rJeanBeckmann,herefore,n immense fforts madeto colonize his astreservoir f "arts" and "crafts"which, otyet bleto be articulateds sciences,annonetheless e introducednto anguage ymeansof a "description"nd therebyincreasinglyperfected."With hese wo terms-thatf"description"hich erivesfrom arrativity,ndthat f"perfection"hichspires otechnologicalrogress-thesituationfthe"arts" s fixed: ear,yet utside heboundariesf cience.45TheEncyclopidiesthe ummas well s themanifestofthis rocessf ollation:Reasoned ictionaryfthe ciences, rts ndCrafts.t uxtaposessciences"nd"arts"in thepromise f a futuressimilation:heformerre operatoryanguageswhosegrammarndsyntaxonstituteormalystems,he atterechniquestillwaitingor nenlightenednowledge, etfallinghort f it. In his article nArt,Diderot eeksto

42See the ataloguef the xposition,e livre ans a vie uotidienne,ibliothequeationale,975.43Louis-Francois ouffretounded heSoci't6 des Observateurse Ilhommen 1799.44Gorgias, 465a.45J.GuillermendJ. ebestik"Lescommencementse atechnologie,"nThall's,Vol.XII, 1966, p.1-72)give series f xamplesf hisntermiediarytatus:rts reobjects fDescriptionpp.2, 4,32,37,41,46-47,etc.).



25/42

26 de Certeauclarifyherelationetweenhese wo isparatentities. e have n"art,"he tells s, iftheobject s to be contemplated":distinctionetween erformancendspeculationwhich smoreBaconian han artesian. he amedistinctionsreduplicatedithinart"itself,ependingn whetherhe rt nquestionsmerelyepresentedractuallyut ntopractice: Each arthas itsspeculationnd itspractice: heformer,he noperativeknowledgef tsrules; he atter,hehabitualndunreflectedseofthose amerules."Art s thus form fknowledge hich perates utside nlightenediscoursendisabsent romt. ndeed, uch echnicalnow-howaneven utrunnlightenedcience yitsvery omplexity.hus, peakingfgeometrynthe rts, iderot otes: It s obviousthat cademic eometrys in tselements armore udimentaryndundevelopedhanthegeometryf heworkshops."alculuss,for xample, uite nadequateor roblemsof leverage,friction,extile eformations,lockwork,nd the like. The desirablesolutionwould e the appropriateask" or n ancientexperimentalndmanipulativemathematics,"venthoughhe"language" f the atter as remainedndeveloped,owingto "the dearth f its ownproperwords r terms" nd the "abundance fsynonyms."46By "manipulative"manouvriers]iderot,followingirard, eferso those rtswhich re imited o the adaptation"frawmaterials:utting,rimming,oining,tc.,withoutonferringn them ome"newbeing" bysmelting,omposition,tc.) as theproperlymanufacturing"rts o.47They form" newproducts little s they isposeof a language ftheir wn;they re simplyorms fbricolage. ut as knowledgesreorganizedntonewhierarchiesccordingo the riterionfproductivity,uch rtswina twofold alue: ofreference,wing o their perativity,nd ofopening ew ines fdevelopment,wing o their experimentalndmanipulative"ubtlety.n their eryincommensurabilityith hemore roperlyscientific"anguages,heyome oconsti-tute nabsolute fpracticalctivityinotherwords, formf fficacityhich,etachedfromdiscourse, onethelessmbodiestsproductivistdeal), as wellas a reserve funcatalogued nowledgenworkshopsnd nthe ountryside,Logoshiddenway nhandicraftndalready intingt thefuturef cience. heresthusntroducednto herelationshipf cience o the rts heproblemftimeag:the pistemologicallyuperiorsciences reseparatedy temporalandicapromhese rts rformsf echnicalnow-how which hey resupposed,ntime, oelucidate."Observers" hereforehrongowardsuch ractices hich reboth istant romhesciences ndaheadof them. ontenellerged his s early s 1699: Theworkshopsfour artisans how spiritnd an inventivenessfallkindswhich ashithertoailed oattract otice. eopleneedtoexamine ndtoreflectn nstrumentsndpractices hichare so useful nd so ingeniouslyevised .."I4 These will become hecollectors,describers,nd analysts. till, venthoughheyhererecognize type fknowledgewhich recededhat fthe cientists,heymust onethelessisengagehe ormerromts"improper"anguage, ransformntoa specific iscourse f itsownthese o-called"marvels" feverydayandicraft.ciencewill urnllthese inderellasnto rincesses;

46Encyclop6dieGeneva: Pellet, 1773),Volume3, articleArt,pp. 450-455.47Ibid.,articleCatalogue, byDavid after manuscriptf Girard.See on this ubjectGuillerme& Sebestik,pp. 2-3.48Fontenelle,Preface to Histoire de l'Academieroyalepour 1699,whereSur la description es Arts spublished;quoted inGuillerme& Sebestik,p. 33, note 1.



26/42

Everyday ractices 27andwith his im, he ype f thnologicalperationobeperformedn such racticesshenceforthecured: he atter's ocial solationemands kind f"education"whichwill,by inguisticnversion, ake hem resentablenscientificriting.

It isnoteworthyhat rom he18th o the20th entury,istoriansndethnologistshave,from heir tandpoint,lways onsideredechniquess essentiallyespectable.Theyare content onotewhat perationshe atter erform,ithoutnterpretation-descriptionsenough. heymeanwhileonsider ere legend" hose toriesywhichgiven roup ries oplaceorsymbolizets wn ctivities,et nothertrangexamplefthe disparityetween he treatmentf practicesnd of discourse.Where he firstregistershe"truth" fdoing r ofpracticalctivity,he econd nmaskshe lies" ofspeech. ndeed,the brief escriptionsftheformerontrasttrikinglyith heprolixinterpretationshich avemademythsr egends privilegedbject or heprofession-als of anguage, or lerksong rained, ithheir ermeneuticroceduresassed ownfromurists o professorsnd/orthnologists,ocommentndglossreferentialocu-ments nd"translate"hem nto cientificexts.At length,his evelopmentscomplete,ndthe ield fwordlessracticesasbeenhistoricallyircumscribed.hundredndfiftyearsater, urkheim ill carcelyavetomodifyhe ethnological"escription-but erelyeinforcet-whenhe takes ptheproblem fthe"arts," hats,accordingohim, those hings hich repurepracticewithout heory."Here is theabsolute f "operativity"n all itspurity. urkheimcontinues:Anart s a systemfpracticalctivitiesdjustedoparticularnds, nd heseactivitiesreeither heproductftraditionalxperienceransmittedy ducationrtheresult fthepersonal xperiencef he ndividual."odged nparticularityndbereftfthegeneralizingower f anguage,rt sno lessa "system"ndno lessorganized y"ends"-and these wobasicpostulatesowentitle cience ndethics ospeak ntheplace of artand to holdthat proper" r intrinsiciscoursewhicht lacked. Alsocharacteristics the nterestfthis ioneeringheoristfeducation ndof ociologyfor rtistic roductionndacquisition: The onlywaytoacquire n art s toplaceone's self n contactwith heobjectson which t works nd toperformhis ctivityone's self." Thus Durkheim o longer pposesthe "immediacy"f itsoperationsto some lag or neglectof theorywithrespectto "manipulative"knowledge,as Diderotdid; butthe former etains hierarchyased on education. An art,"Durkheimontinues,cannodoubt eself-consciousrenlightened,o usethis eywordof theAufklcirung,ut uchreflections not ts ssentialngredient,ince t can existwithoutt.Yet there xists oartwhichsfullyeflexive."49Is there science, hen,whichs"fullyeflexive"?nany ase, n a terminologytillakin othat ftheEncyclop6die,hichpoke f contemplation,"heorysassignedhetaskof"reflecting"n thisnew"totality." oregenerally,orDurkheim,ocietys atextwhich nlyhe candecipher; ythe ametoken,heres a knowledgenscribednthese ractices,utnotyet lluminated.ciencewill e themirrornwhicht anberead,and willoffer language o"reflect"hismmediate,recise, etwordlessnduncon-sciousoperativity,lready ntelligentndyet t the ame ime nformed.As Durkheim bserved boutsacrificewhichs "closer o us than tsapparent

49E. Durkheim,Education etsociologie Paris, 1922),pp. 87ff. ee Bourdieu,Esquisse,p. 211,whosees inthis text a "perfect escription" f "learned gnorance."



27/42

28 de Certeaucrudenesswould lead us to believe"50), rt s a kindofknowledgewhich s essential oscienceyet llegiblewithoutt.This is to be sure a dangerous osition or cience tself,sinceit s left nlywith hepowerto articulatewhat t acks n tsownright. husa kindof complimentaritys envisagedbetween science and art,or even a kind of mutualarticulation, s Wolff,following wedenborg nd anticipating avoisier,Desaudray,AugusteComte,and others,willpropose n1740:"a thirdman whowouldunite cienceand art nhimself,nd who wouldmakeupfor heweaknesses fthetheoreticians,ust she would free overs of theartsfrom heerroneous dea thatthe lattermight erfectthemselveswithout ny theory ltogether . . ."5' Thismediatorbetween the manoftheorems" and "the manofexperience""52ould be theengineer.The "thirdman" has haunted nlightenedphilosophical r scientific)iscourse ndstill does, but he did not end up takingthe form nticipated.The place ultimatelyassignedhim and today lowly eduplicated ythat f thet

Documents

Certeau On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday Life 1980