Essay on The ruling class and subordinates

Brief #2

The relationships between the ruling class and subordinates were always subject to attention from the part of researchers. In this regard, James C. Scott focused his attention on the study of the relationships between the ruling class and subordinates in terms of the public and hidden transcripts. To put it more precisely, the author attempted to uncover the difference in the behavior and communication of representatives of the lower-class or subordinated, when they are not under the direct control of representatives of the upper class. In his opening chapters, the author clearly states that subordinated have different models of behavior and communication, when they are under the control of their rulers and when they are within their own class, where they may be sincere and communicate what they actually think and feel.

On developing his idea, the author discusses the public transcript of the communication between masters and dominated and the hidden transcript of this communication. The author stands on the ground that the relationships between representatives of the upper- and lower-class, i.e. masters and subordinated are highly controversial and hypocritical because subordinated are not willing to express their ideas freely directly to the authorities. Instead, they prefer to hide their ideas and emotions developing the hidden transcript, whereas their public transcript is the manifestation of their communication with representatives of the upper-class and respective model of behavior. According to Scott, the public transcript is “the open interaction between subordinates and those who dominate” (Scott, p.2).

In such a context, subordinates and those who dominate interact closely and openly. In contrast, the hidden transcript is the “discourse that takes place ‘offstage’, beyond direct observation of powerholders” (Scott, p.4). therefore, the hidden transcript manifests itself offstage, when representatives of the lower-class are out of control and direct observation from the part of representatives of the upper-class.

Subordinates can pretend to be obedient and admiring their masters or the ruling class but, in actuality, in terms of the hidden transcripts, they may hate their rulers and criticize them severely. Scott argues that “offstage, where subordinates may gather outside the intimidating gaze of power, a sharply dissonant political culture is possible. Slaves in the relative safety of their quarters can speak the words of anger, revenge, self-assertion that they must normally choke back when in the presence of the masters and mistresses” (Scott, 18).

The author identifies different strategies of behavior of masters and dominated depending on the public or hidden transcript. Nevertheless, they always attempt to adapt their behavior to the context in which they are at the moment. Scott points out that the relationships between masters and dominated include “a combination of adaptive strategic behavior and the dialogue implicit in most power relations ensures that public action will provide a constant stream of evidence that appears to support an interpretation of ideological hegemony” (Scott, p. 70).

Scott raises the debate over the interaction and struggle between classes at the new level. The interaction between classes may be not always obvious and representatives of different classes may have different models of behavior depending on their environment. Hence, lower classes may pretend to be obedient and supporting the ruling elite, whereas they may criticize the ruling elite severely in the hidden transcripts, when they are out of the attentive gaze of representatives of the ruling elite.

The author uses empirical sources to back up his findings: “Such were Eliot’s powers of observation and insight into her rural society that many of the key issues of domination and resistance can be teased from her story of Mrs.

Poyser’s encounter with the squire” (Scott, p. 7).

Part 2

One of the core ideas of Scott in his book and its opening chapters is the following one: “Offstage, where subordinates may gather outside the intimidating gaze of power, a sharply dissonant political culture is possible. Slaves in the relative safety of their quarters can speak the words of anger, revenge, self-assertion that they must normally choke back when in the presence of the masters and mistresses” (Scott, 18).

In such a way, the author stresses that representatives of lower-class have two different models of behavior. The one is the model which they use openly and another is the model they use in the hidden transcript. Obviously, Scott is right in his observations but it is worth mentioning the fact that such division of the public and hidden transcripts can be observed in virtually all social relations. For instance, representatives of one and the same class may have different models of behavior and their own hidden transcript, when they communicate with their classmates and when they stay in their families. Moreover, even the communication between spouses or family members may have public and hidden transcripts when spouses have public transcripts in open communication but they may share their hidden transcripts with their friend complaining about their family life for instance. Nevertheless, Scott’s idea is very important to understand social behavior of individuals in different contexts.