z-logo
Premium
What's (written) history for?: On James C. Scott's Zomia , especially Chapter 6½
Author(s) -
MICHAUD JEAN
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
anthropology today
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.419
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 1467-8322
pISSN - 0268-540X
DOI - 10.1111/1467-8322.12322
Subject(s) - orality , egalitarianism , argument (complex analysis) , reading (process) , literacy , history , sociology , literature , flexibility (engineering) , state (computer science) , oral tradition , aesthetics , anthropology , classics , philosophy , law , art , linguistics , political science , politics , pedagogy , biochemistry , chemistry , statistics , mathematics , algorithm , computer science
What could still trigger a worthwhile anthropological debate now that eight years have passed since the publication of James C. Scott's The art of not being governed in 2009? In this article, the author proposes a reading involving perhaps the most controversial chapter of Scott's book: Chapter 6½ – ‘Orality, writing, and texts’. Scott means to say that the absence of literacy in a society could result from a preference rather than a deficiency. He describes a project that refuses state formation, putting to use the advantages of flexibility and adaptation that an oral tradition has over a written tradition. Drawing on the case of the Hmong, the author proposes that Scott's argument might have been made more solid had he relied less on a geographical and historically rooted definition of Zomia, and more on a discussion of cultural elements such as egalitarianism and orality.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom