Challenge to Authority: Bakhtin and Ethnographic Description Author(s): Wendy A. Weiss Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Nov.

, 1990), pp. 414-430 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656186 Accessed: 25/08/2010 19:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Challenge to Authority: Bakhtin and Ethnographic Description

Wendy A. Weiss
WheatonCollege

Anthropologistshave begun readingBakhtinsince a series of careful translations of his work have been published. The Dialogical Imagination, The Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, and Speech Genres and Other Late Essays have

promptedefforts to, once again, rethinksome of the basic assumptionsand postulatesinfluencingour work. Most notable among them are the unity of cultural of systems, the incontestability culturalnormsandotherculturalconceptions, and the paradoxicalpassivity of the actor who is mindful of the norms that are supinto posed to guide his action. These assumptionshave been incorporated the canit is argued,have perhapslimitedour ability ons of ethnographic descriptionand, to explain or even acknowledgealienationfrom culturalconceptionsof the self, resistanceto them, and the variety of challenges to culturaltraditionincluding irony, parody, and secretive subversionthat are often played out in front of our noses. Bakhtin's work' provides a means for criticizing some of these assumptions, and so challenges the traditional theory. Some authorityin anthropological of the concepts he has introducedhave been discussed elsewhere (Clifford 1983; we MarcusandCushman1982) in treatisescriticizingthe traditions have retained. This article will expand upon some of the points made in earlier discussions, drawingout the basic propositionsin Bakhtin's translatedwork and developing theirutility. is The pointof departure an incidentI observedwhile conductingpredoctoral on research male authorityin LatinAmericanfamilies. The incidentis useful precisely because it is theoreticallyinexplicable, if one uses the traditionalformulations of the anthropological patriarchs.The event was itself a challenge to aua thority,in particular, challenge to the authorityof the senior male in the household. WhenI went into the field, the most authoritative paradigmof anthropological research, structuralfunctionalism, did not see this problem as a legitimate did one and earlierethnographies not provide satisfactorymethodologicalprecedents. The incident was troublingbecause it did not illustratethe Durkheimian notion of the constrainingor determinativecharacterof social facts nor an associated set of assumptions,that is, that all actors agree unthinkinglyabout their world, andtry scrupulouslyto maintaintheirtradition.I will use this young woman's challengeto her father'sauthoritythen as a metaphorfor my challenge to the of authority the anthropological patriarchs.
414

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 415

Cultural Background A man, Gonzalo, claimed to be the head of his householdin a setting where, among mestizos,2 the issue of domestic authorityis an object of great concern. Among the clase popular (glossed, roughly, as the workingclass) and those who aspireto be middleclass in Quito, Ecuador,conservativeculturalcanonshold that a man's sense of his own honor, as well as his claim to public recognitionof the honorhe feels is his due, is referredto his ability to commandthe obedience and respect of his wife and children within his home.3 These same culturalcanons containpostulatesthat supporthis claims, for it is generally understoodthat the husbandand fatheris the memberof the householdwho "gives orders, who is in charge" (es el que manda). This fusion, and at times confusion, of issues of male authorityand issues of honorproducesa situation in which male power and privilege are realized in a wife's and child's overt compliance with his general mandates.Obedience is the and "proper" response to a father's and husband'sdictates. A kind of preferred "dialogue" between the authorityand his subjects occurs daily as fathersmake very simple requestsfor choresto be completedor make moregeneralpronouncements. One of these, "my daughtershall remaina virgin (doncella) untilmarriage or death, whichevercomes first," is a common phrasingof a generalexpectation amongthe clase popularand the aspiringmiddle class in Quito.4Anotherof these mandates,"now thatyou are a senorita[readnubile], you will not talk to boys in the streetandyou will come righthome afterschool" providesa clearerstatement of the preferredand often the demandedresponse. While the issue of a young woman's sexuality and its control may not be faced in daily encountersof the family, otherresponsesto the authorityare requiredand expected with more regularity.These includedaily expressionsof respectanddeference, such as a child's requestsfor a father'sbenedictionwhen enteringandleaving, andthe child's servicing of his very specific requests for errandsto be run and chores to be done. These responses seem to ratify his claims to honor within his home and when a morepublic renderingof the service occurs in the eyes of the neighbors. While obedience is the "proper" response, it is not, however, blind. To focus on issues relevantto the anomalouscase in point, young women, sefioritas, over the age of 15, and youngerthan their mid-twenties, hear more thanjust the abouttheirsexual and social behaviorandfeel morethantheirfathers' injunctions efforts to police their activity. These women find themselves attracted culturby ally elaborate,yet subtlecourtingby young men. In addition,they respondto their own internaldesires, which are properlyexpressed among women of Quito's aspiringmiddle class in muted form amongpura (pure) women who are seria (serious), as opposedto coqueta or flirtatious.And it is precisely at this point in their lives thatyoung women feel social pressureto marrylest they be "left behindto dress the (images of) saints," in the words of anotherQuiteniansaying. From a young woman's perspective, she feels a great variety of conflicting social, hormonal, romantic, and familial pressures. A woman has to weigh involvementin romancewith more thanjust the filial demandsfor obedience in the

416 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

home of her upbringing. Romantic involvement also has implications for her honor, reputation,and position in the future. For she risks being engarado, that is, trickedor deceived into giving away her precious "possession," a problem with complications illustratedexquisitely in Garcia-Marquez'sChronicle of a Death Foretold (1983). Sufferingthis deceit is often discussed as being the brunt of men's jokes (se burla de la mujer).The sting of this ridiculeis felt stronglyby older women, especially by older single women who are left with children. Young women rarely oppose their fathers' mandatesdirectly. This is not simply a function of a culturalpreoccupationwith the properorderof hierarchy and differentialauthority.Many women feel that it is not in their interestto become involved with a young man and stain their honor and that of their fathers. Young women generallyrepresentthe issue as one of a preferencefor remaining virginsuntil marriage.They are often told that a hymen that is intacton the wedding night is the ilusi6n (illusion or hopeful anticipation)of the groom.5 Some women expect to be thrownout of the house on the wedding night if the groom findsout thathis brideis not a virgin. Otherssee an intacthymen simply as a sign of purityand truth,one indicatingthata woman was not "fooled" (engafiado)by anotherman. One woman said that her father told her it is her virginity that a womanbringsto a new home. That is the only gift that she can make to her husband. (Lo que tiene que llevar es su virginidad. Es el utnico que puede hacer al

marido.)6Finally this "gift" has implications for the tenor of a woman's relationshipwith her husbandthroughouttheir marriagefor it is seen as affecting a husband'sability to trusthis wife.7 In contrastto the present, generallyunfashionable,concern with chastity in North America, this preoccupationwith a daughter'svirginity at marriagedoes not turnsolely on the triumphof a woman's self-controlin the face of temptation. Thereareotherpartiesinvolved althoughthey may not be presentwhen each issue of a woman's sexuality and its control arises. Men in this setting, especially the fathersand sometimesthe older brothersof nubile women, are responsiblefor the sexualpurityof theirwomen. A man's honoris contingent,in part,uponhis ability to control the sexual behavior of his daughterand his wife. So a woman's to sexualityis subordinated the demandsof her father'shonor, and so his prestige (cf. Brandes1980; Douglass 1984; Pitt Rivers 1977; Shore 1981). The implicitreificationof a partof a woman's body, the hymen, has striking parallelswith capitalism'sreificationof humanlabor. While expendedhumanlabor in this historicallyspecific economic system creates value for the nonlaborer when embodied in a commodity, the expended hymen destroys value, or the honorclaimedby the father, as it spoils the sexual purityof his child.8Like commodifiedlabor, honoris, in some sense, as easily lost as surplusvalue associated with it. Conceptualizedin much of the discourse as an object, the reified hymen establishesa relationshipof unequalpower between a fatherand daughterand a less direct, but no less felt, relation of opposition between this father and his daughter'ssuitor, one in which claims to power and privilege over the young woman, and her sexuality, are asserted.The reified hymen becomes a sign or, as Marx(1975:35-83) would suggest, a "hieroglyph" concealing this complex set

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 417

of relationsbetween men, and between men and women. Its penetrationand defense become a strugglewaged with romanticpoetry and songs, on one side, and a bulwarkof restrictionson a daughter'sbehavior, on the other. What is interestingand theoreticallydifficult, if the perspective of the anis thropological patriarchs retained,is thatthe young woman is not a passive actor despite the "constraining" cultural conceptions discussed. These conceptions hold that a father's honor is maintainedboldly through action and a woman's honormaintainedthroughthe activity of her fatheror husband.Two women reportedto me that their boyfriends came to visit them at night even though the women's fathers had forbidden this. When the father of each found out, he grabbeda gun and chased the boy down the block, relying on his wife to restrain him. Withhis controlover his daughterdisplayed, he could returnhome, his public claim to honor reasserted, and his reputationas a man who tolerates no breachesof control, supportedin frontof the sleepy eyes of the neighbors. The culturalemphasison a father'sactivity, to cover for a woman's passivity, is a delightfulmyth obscuringthe fact thatdaughtersare capable of acting in ways thatjustify theirfathers'concernsabouttheirvulnerabilityto dishonor. It is the natureof the entity reified, the hiddencharacter the hymen, that allows for of intrigue,andmakethe clandestinelove affairsthe bane of a father'sexistence and the excitementof a young woman's (and man's) life. The hiddencharacter the hymen and its relativeinaccessibilitycompound of the problemfor the fatherbecause it makes the "true" test of purityimpractical and it fosters a situationin which indexes of purityand obedience to more minor paternalmandatesmust suffice. In addition, culturalconceptions of shame and respectmakediscussionsof a daughter'ssexualityandher actualvirginityacutely embarrassing.Taken together, they produce a situationthat is one of the most subtle and most precarioustests of a man's honor and his authority. Fathersrespondwith a litany of proscriptionson their daughter'sbehavior, that tend to turnon controllingtheir daughter'sactual movements proscriptions out of the domestic domain (la casa) into the street (la calle). Daughtersoften have to ask permissionto leave the household, even to go to church.Thatis, they have to seek permissionto move outside of the place in which their fathersexercise considerablecontrol. The culturalclassificationof space, referredto as the famouscasa/calle distinction,clarifiesthe spatialdimensionsregulated.9 Women are, ideally, confined to this space where their activities can be monitoredand their transgressions(probably) known (cf. Foucault in Dreyfus and Rabinow 1982:3-10, 189-191). Anotherset of proscriptionsare overlaidupon this controlof the movement of women. They regulatethe character a daughter'srelationships of with men who are outside of the household and are not kin. It was suggested above that some women, the daughterin our case in point, are forbiddento see men or date them (in the NorthAmericansense of the term)at all. Otherwomen areproscribedfrom talkingto boys outside of the house, requiredto ask permissionto invite a boy into the house, and may be watchedover by an elder brother,mother, etc. while the young man visits the house.10

418 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

A woman's own internaldesires, the excitementof courtship,and the pressure to marrypose a culturaldilemma for a young woman. They also present a dilemma for the man whose honor is contingent upon his ability to impose his wishes uponhis family anddemonstrate,in the eyes of the tribunal public opinof ion, his control throughdisplays of filial respect and obedience. If his power is impugned,he risks losing his claim to the honorhe feels is his right. The hidden of character the hymen and the associated limitationson his effective reach and his knowledgerestricthis vigilantefforts to protecthimself from humiliationand to respondto any potentialchallenge. Herein lies the weakness. The Actual Incident Gonzalo's daughter was nearing the age when she could begin sewing dressesfor saints (roughlythe mid-twenties,accordingto Quitenians).Her father had expressly forbiddenher to see young men. Her mother, a woman who was and respectfulof her husband'sauthority professedthatobedienceto his authority was essential, was, nevertheless,sympatheticto her daughter'splight. When her daughterbegan to meet with a friendof her son, she allowed this young man to visit theirhome while herhusband,this young woman's father,was at work. During these visits, her motherwas always home and the visits were effectively quite tame. The patternbecame establishedabout once every two weeks as her father came home regularlyaround5 o'clock, and the dog on the roof always barked wildly when he heard the father's car roundingthe corner, two or more blocks away. Thatleft the young man, Carlitos, plenty of time to escape. One day while I was visiting the dog must have been asleep when Gonzalo came home unexpectedly.Both motherand daughterwere at risk but, somehow, withoutexchanginga word, they cooperatedin an effort to hide Carlitosin a cabinet in anotherroom for five hours (he was readinga magazine in semidarkness when I slipped away to see how it had been resolved), and to make everything seem as if it were simply anothernormalday at the Reyes household. The mother respondedby usheringGonzalo into the kitchen and preparinghis meal, without to talkingto him too much. Withpleadingeyes she asked this anthropologist join tried herandpromoteda conversationbetween me and her husband.Herdaughter to avoid her father'seyes, tried to avoid talking to her fatheraltogether,and appearedto be busy in her room. Her motheralso avoided facing him and talkingto dinner. She was gratefulto have him as she appeared be preoccupiedpreparing to distraction.After the initial tension subsided, she attendedto the anthropological his him in an extremelyrespectfulmanner.She served him dinnerand anticipated His daughter was also respectful.Wheneatingdinnerwith us, both every request. were almost too eager to show their esteem and deference to him. The fatherdid not seem to suspect, or at least he did not let on that he did so, that evening nor in the months that followed. This subtle violation, while hidden by displays of deference, allowed the oppositionof these women to this man's controlover his daughter'sbody to remaincovert. A true violation had not occurred,leaving the hieroglyph(as far as I am aware)and this man's honor intact.

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 419

The Interpretation
Traditional Authority in Anthropology

The canons of anthropologicaldescription, while familiarto most readers, for these data. The anthropological would suggesta pattern interpreting patriarchs
emphasize the "general or normal forms . . . of behavior or relationships, ab-

stractedfrom a variety of particularinstances" (Radcliffe-Brown 1952:192), a problemfor this anomalousincident. A series of assumptionsaboutthe natureof this behaviorand the relationshipsbetween individuals, as well as their common have guided the selection of data and their representation.Indiunderstandings, viduals and their consciousnesses are subsumedto an overarchingrelationship. These relationshipsare characterizedalmost entirely by a patternof adjustment or convergenceof interestsof the respectivepartiesto the relationship(RadcliffeBrown 1952:192-199). Faceless andvoiceless, these individualsseem to have reacheda silent agreement on the course of action to be taken in all instances. Parsonianssuggest that the agreement reachedis a functionof socialization,a kindof monologuein which the ignorantlearna set of culturaltruths.Those culturaltruthsareoften formulated as a set of norms. Abstractedfromthe prescriptions proscriptions pepand that per informants'explanationsof their conduct and their past, they are integrated into analyses as accuraterepresentations behavioror guides to properperforof mance. Out of respect for the authorityof the patriarchs,a neat set of numbered norms, with the requisite rights and duties defined, was constructedfrom field notes. Norm1. Theseniormale, in his roleas husband father,is the one who gives and orders is "in charge." and Norm2. A man'swife andchildren oughtto obey. Norm Themaleheadof thehousehold 3. should receive service respect the and due a person his status. of These kinds of formulationsand the unstatedlogic are probablyfamiliarto the reader. As an abstractrepresentation and a guide to the behavior observed, Norm 1 recastinformants'statements(es el que manda)in anthropological jargon. In this case, the content of this norm relied on a translationof the verb mandar, reiterated frequentlyby informants.It describedthe subjectof the action in terms of his gender, relative age, and kinship status. This delineationof the subject of the action was best derived from observationsand informants'rationalesthat, in this case, happenedto be multiple and intertwined.Rules governingthe orderof the householdwere couched in the kinshipidiom with paternalimageryreceiving greatemphasis. Conceptionsof gender and honor as well as economic privilege were also invoked, the lattertwo relativelyless thanthatof genderand kinshipin these explanations.In this setting both virility and honorhinged, to some degree,

420 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

that upon demonstrations a man could impose his wishes upon his wife and children.Displays of boldness, courage, andthe use of physical force, whereneeded, highlightedgender-basedconceptionsof manliness. Intransigenceand a conviction of his own importance,supported haughtinessand insolentpride(Stevens by of 1973:90), all characteristics the real man, especially when pushed,also entered into informants'ideas aboutmale privilege and power in the household. Greater economic advantagesaccruingto men were resisted as a source of power in the family in many descriptions,but male economic privilege tendedto find its way into explanations; especially those of Quiteniansmore integratedinto the capitalintensiveindustrialeconomy. Norm 2 suggested the appropriately passive response of individualsto aube thoritywhen conversingwith a father/husband conceptualizedas an obligation in the famous rights and duties formulation.In fact, informantsexplained their own behaviorin terms of a kinship relationship,emphasizingobedience, espewhat seems cially obedienceto the paternalfigurein their lives. Wives reiterated to be a male demand, that a wife, as well as a child, ought to obey. Anotherassumptionabout the characterof anthropologicaldescriptioninfluencedthe formulationof this norm. That is the assumptionthat the interestsof the partiesto this kin relationshipconverge. The issue of power and its influenceon the characterof this "meeting of minds,'' as well as the response, for example, of women to the male mandatesand culturallydefined constraints,were not consideredin formulationssuch as this one. Conformityto what was constructural-functional as ceptualizedas externalconstraintwas generallyinterpreted passive acceptance of tradition(Murphy1971:53); hence a supportof the assumptionthat the structurecoheres and orderendures. The developmentof norm3 moved fartherfrom the explicit formulationsof audience. It respondedto a theoreticaltiff Quitenianstowardan anthropological in women's studies, that is, whethermale power was real or simply appearedto be real, and so shouldbe seen as a mystificationof latentfemale power within the household(cf. Freidl 1967). The incidentobserved suggested that women could have used ritualsof respect and service to hide delicts. This patternof pretense of was characteristic later phases of the developmentalcycle of the household, that is, when older childrenbegan to marryand move on to establish their own householdsand begin the cycle anew (Weiss 1988). Anotherset of normswould point the reader'sattentionto the set of underlying norms, which could be seen as functioningto maintainthe existing order. The problemof the mother'scomplicity with her daughter'sscheme suggested a of secondarystructure authoritybased on the tacit assumptionthat: in can Norm4. Authority be delegated an orderly fashion,espeLessConscious ciallyto thewife. Delegatedauthoritywas, however, held in check by anotherassumption:
Less Conscious Norm 5. The husband, as the executive, has the right to counter-

to the of mandor rescind decisions the person whomhe hasdelegated authority.

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 421

Our patriarchs emphasizedthe order and unity underlyingaction, an order thatis assumedto be coherentandconsistentandstable(Radcliffe-Brown1952:7, 10, 152). Orderand unity could be explained, while change and resistancewere explained away, if the less conscious norms were seen as part of a secondary structure authority of which was "nested in" andso "constrainedby" the formal, of legitimatestructure authoritywhere "men were actuallyempoweredto control theirwives." Following Comaroffand Roberts(1981:4), the rules could become a repertoire manipulation.Hence in the barelyexplicable incident, the daughfor ter's behaviorcould imply that norms 2 and 3 were followed in scrupulousdetail while norm 2 could be flauntedand norm 3 put up as a shield to cover over the sins of transgression. exhibitsthe requisiteconsistencyand The problemis thatwhile this approach closure, thatis, the overt and covertorderunderthe system is "nailed down" and authorityclaimed (Marcusand Cushman1982:32), this description ethnographic does not do justice to the characterof the event. This flat descriptionlevels the ironyof the daughter'schallenge and the mother'sduplicity.
Challenge to Authority

The assumptionsandpostulatesof the old and venerablemen to whose precedents we (sometimes less consciously) refer are invested with the power to determinethe characterof our descriptions. It is time to call into question some of the assumptionsand propositionsof this tradition. that a cultureor The first assumptionseems to derive from the requirement structureis necessarily coherent and consistent, inviolable and indisputable (Bakhtin1981:270;295-296, 61; 1986:5-6; see also Kristeva 1987:115;Clifford 1986:2). The coherenceof the system and its presumedimperviousnessto questions of truthandvaliditycan be maintained one assumesfurther,andthen gives if voice to, the perspectiveof one individual, or a class of individuals, within the system. The next step is to assumethatall membersof the cultureagreepassively to thatperspective. Often postulatedas a unified system of norms, representing perspective the of, for example, in our incidentthe man who claims a position of authorityin his family, this constructionignores the responses, actions, and perspectivesof others. Competingconceptualizations the same issue, in this case the rightto conof trol a young woman's sexuality, are not taken into theoreticalaccount. In addition, the potentialfor disagreementand for tension between the partiesto the relationshipare not explored. Awareness of these competing interpretations issues is centralto Bakhof tin's approach.It is associated with the concept of dialogue or dialogization in Bakhtin's work (1981:46, 76; 1984a; see also Holquist's glossary in Bakhtin
1981:427)."1 Dialogue, dialogism, and dialogization are terms used by Bakhtin

in a varietyof ways'2 and are best introducedwith referenceto the more familiar and form, the monologue. Bakhtinuses the concept of monologue to characterize criticize the traditionalapproachesin two different fields that drew his interest,

422 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

of to linguisticsandthe construction the novel. The two uses areintertwined some to degree;the critiquein linguistics provides a valuable introduction the critique in literature. In linguistics, Bakhtintakes issue with the standarddiagramfound in texts such as de Saussure'sCourse in GeneralLinguistics(1959). The image is one of a single speakerwho utterssomething for the ear of an unspecifiedother who is the listener.Bakhtinarguesthatthis image of languageas a monologueis a fiction that distortsthe complex, multifacetedprocess of active communicationand so too our analysisof it (1986:68). The listeneris not as faceless, passive nor indeed as voiceless as the diagramand our descriptionshave suggested. The listenerperceives and understands meaning of the speaker's utteranceand thinks about the it, then formulatesa responseto the speaker(Bakhtin 1986:67-68). Both parties to the dialogue know that the "listener" will soon speak and so can redirectthe and conversation,and so changethe character complexityof the event subsequent WhatBakhtinis arguing(negatively)is thatthe monolog(Bakhtin1986:68-70). ic approachhas ignored the intellect of the partiesto the dialogue, and their pothe tentialfor acting, alteringand otherwise transforming topic, and the take on the issue. As a result, our attentionhas been divertedfrom the active, surprising, of andopen character conversation,and, I would suggest, social action. The argumentagainst the monologic approachis more complex when discussed in the analysis of Dostoevsky's novels, and has some important parallels with recentcritiquesof traditional authority.At this point, the conethnographic cept of monologueis not used to analyze speech, but ratherthe author'sapproach or to the construction the novel anddiscoursewithinit. A traditional monologic of fromthe author'spoint novel presentsclosed, finalizeddescriptions,summarized of view (Bakhtin 1986:112). The identity of the actors, their consciousness and action, unfolds within the frameworkof the singularor monologic perspectiveof the author(or narrator) (Bakhtin 1984a:18, 47-50). The hero can be collapsed into the author'sargumentbecoming, in the novel, the author'smouthpiece,and so passive and constrainedby the quasi-objectivereality depicted by the author of (Marcusand (Bakhtin1984a:18, 47-52), or the scientificnarrator ethnography Cushman1982:31-32). In short, the consciousness of the hero and his actions of become, in a sense, predictable,his conscious interpretations his world impotent. Bakhtinargues againstthis impotence. The voice of all of the partiesto the dialogueareto be heard.This entailsan assumptionthatthe partiesto the dialogue are intelligent individuals with well-developed political, social, and cultural points of view. It entails assuming, in addition, that they live in a world that is characterizedby reactions against the established order and conformity to it (Bakhtin1984b:37-41). This meansthatthe one-sided, serious, andofficial order has anotherside, or other sides, of alienationfrom that order. The actors in this morevariedworld accept and reject aspects of thatorder, find themselves, in addition, ambivalentaboutsome of the mandatesof thatorderand some of the dictates of the powerful (Bakhtin 1984b:41-49). This more intelligent, more complex "listener" enters into a dialogue and actively participatesin it, thinking

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 423

aboutthe meaningof his own and the speaker'swords or actions, and developing a thoughtfulresponseto them. In the process of any dialogue, she/he can just as easily disagree with the speaker as affirm his position, just as easily object as sympathize,etc. (Bakhtin 1986:68-69). Bakhtinargues that as an intelligent individual, she/he refers what she/he hears to previous discussions of the issue, as well as the precedentsset in and out of the particular dialogue in which she/he is engaged. And she/he refersit to the point of view she/he has developed as a function of her position in a complex world and her relatedexperiences (Volosinov 1973:95;Bakhtin 1984a:47),'3as well as the more temporalpressuresexertedby otherpersons, events, or pressuresoutside of the momentof discourse, including culturallyand historicallydeterminedideologies which have their effect (Volosinov 1973:94-95, 103). The consciousnesses or, better, the points of view of both (or all) partiesto the dialoguearetakenmore seriouslyas arethe implicationsthateach perspective has for interpreting evaluatingthe actions in the context of discourse. As sugand the assumptionof a convergence of interests, characteristicof a gested above, monologic formulation,is replacedby an approachthat assumes that a struggle betweenspeakers,and amongtheirpointsof view, is possible (Bakhtin1981:273; Hill 1986:94). In this approach,actors can do battle with other people's definitions of them, they can violate officialized policies (e.g., norms) thrust upon them, and quarrelwith them in dialogue, the arenain which the perspectivesof each partycan clash (Bakhtin 1984a:59-62). In this approach,the actors' points of view unfold as each individualacts, reveals, substantiates some degree) or tries to conceal the rightnessof her/his (to own position. Contendingpoints of view areexpressedwith force or depth, in the case of Dostoevsky's work (Bakhtin 1984a:63-69), and can be given more diplomaticform outside the novel, for example, in ethnographic description.Norms no longer take the place of conscious actors, determiningand constrainingthe them into reifiedor stable images, persons, and people we observe, transforming relationships. When the perspectivesand personalexperiences of the people we study are fused, their lives are infused with principle and passion. This passion, whether political, cultural,or sexual, develops and unfolds when an individualentersinto a relationship that is a dialogic relationshipwith otherpeople. Bakhtin argues that perspectives do not live in isolated consciousnesses. They take shape in dialogue, in the struggle between consciousnesses. It is imto momentsof discourse, these points of view and portant note that, in particular the representations concrete dialogue actively illuminateone anotherin an enin gaging manner(Bakhtin 1981:76). Nuances, and the latent possibilities of each perspective,can be revealed (or concealed as in the case in point) in dialogue as estrangedperspectivesmeet. The image of a dialogue unfoldingimplies furtherthatthere is no closure in an individualinstanceof conversation.A problemdisputed,or a mandateissued, does not complete the dialogue. Each does not preclude a response (Bakhtin 1986:115). At anotherlevel the lives of each character,as well as the issues that

424 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

each personfaces, can remainunresolved.This is especially significantat turning points in one's life, for instance, as a woman continuouslydecides what to do aboutherown sexualityand her future,andher fathertries to controlhis youngest daughterand maintainhis authorityeven in his old age. To summarize, a pluralityof independentand unmergedvoices meet and potentiallyclash in the Bakhtiniandialogue. The dynamics of their activity and the selectionof particular coursesof actiondo more in a Bakhtinian dialogue than reflectstatusesor passively reiteratethe dominantculturalnorms.14 In these contentiousdialogues, active objection to the statementsof one speaker, caricature of his speech, and even more secretive subversionare possible. It should be clear that individualsin a Bakhtiniandialogue create, or embody, particular ideologies or worldviews(Bakhtin1981:76, 332-334; 1986:84). The speech or the voices of the participantsin such a dialogue are ideologically freighted (Bakhtin 1981:333), resonatingpolitical, cultural, or other conservatism, on the one hand, or "radicalism" on the other, as well as more personal fearsandpassions. The implicationsof this point for ethnographic descriptionare thatthe dialogue of the characters become essential for exposing and testing ideculture(Bakhtin 1981:334). ological positions within a particular In developingthe idea thatindividualsembodyideologies, I do not thinkthat Bakhtinmeantto suggest thatthese characters shallow images thatblindly act be out culturallyconstrainedconceptions of their rights and duties. More depth is and possible. IndeedHolquist's translation notes develop the aspect of Bakhtin's workthatemphasizesmultipleperspectiveswhich vie with each other, which can be critical of, or parody, the position of another.They do not simply reflect an officialposition(Bakhtin1981:60). While characters may embodypointsof view, are not mimics nor spokesmenfor particular orientations.An ideology may they be wholly or partiallyvoiced in the speech of one, two, or more individuals.And individualactorscan be ambivalentabout aspects of these culturalconceptions, acceptingsome and rejectingothers. When viewed in terms of a struggle among conflicting points of view, the conservatismimplicit in the control of daughters,and the concern with hymens and honor, become a voice of traditionand/ormiddle-classpretensionembodied in, or betterheardthrough,the mouthof the father.His perspectiveis not as selfless as it may seem for he is nearinga turningpoint in his life when the power and privilege he has enjoyed in the past, as the household authority,is threatenedby the plansof his youngestchildrenfor theirown future.The more urbane,slightly feminist position is embodied in the daughterwho looks away from the past of subordination externalcontroltowardan, as yet, undefinedfuture.Poetryand and passioncolor her perceptionas do the promisesof courtshipand ilusi6n so warm and inviting. The struggleturnson control, especially the controlof a woman's desire and it is waged from two positions. The concerns of the father are enunciatedwith that clarity,andthereis an implicitunderstanding the termsof the struggleare not The young woman's point of view is less openly voiced. In fact, her negotiable. clash with her fatheris, at this point, hidden. While Mariaquarrelswith her fa-

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 425

ther's definitionof her, and her sexuality, feeling that his conception of her as a child and a pawn of his honor is arcane, she recognizes that his mandates are clearly statedin a culturethat puts more weight on his position. Overt objection to his mandatescould jeopardize her ability to continue to live in peace in her father's home if she does not marry.'5When thinking about her lover's poetic promiseand her own sexuality she is curious and attracted.But she seems to be too intelligentand sophisticatedto be duped into engano and she does not think of the issue as one of purity. She is not entirelyopposed to her father'sarguments for she is quite takenby the stories thatportraythe loss of virginityrupturing the of tranquility the wedding night. She feels, with only some skepticism, that she is on the thresholdof the future. The courtshipis gentle and seems to be sincere. She is very attractedto Carlitos, and she is enjoying much of the ilusi6n of love. She has shared her dreamsof the futurewith her motherand this sympatheticwoman has arrogated the rightto give permissionto the boy to visit. Whatis remarkable thatshe has chosen Gonzalo's very domainas the setis It is not the sole setting for her encounterswith this young man. She meets ting. him afterschool with her brother.But it is the setting of surveillance,the famed casa to which properwomen return,the small, intimatespace thather fathercontrols. The irony is enhancedby the fact thatthe disputeover a woman's sexuality is rarelywaged in terms of direct control over the reified object in question. The hiddencharacterof the hymen, which makes the true test of purity impractical, fosters a situation in which indexes of purity and obedience to minor paternal mandatesmust suffice. So the idiom of the disputeis often one of movement, that is, a daughter'smovementoutside of the domestic domain,'6the domainof direct control. An alternateidiom, noted above, turnson the more general issue of respect for authority.Since culturalconceptions of respect and honor make references to the hymenandmaidenhoodinfrequent,attentionshifts to secondarydemonstrationsof purity, most notably indexes of the relationof unequalpower between fatheranddaughter,takingthe form of demonstrations respect and obeof dience. The signs chosen, a daughter's serious demeanor, her restricted movementoutsideof the household, limitedcontactwith males andher deference in generalsuggest affirmation a father's authority,and honor, as well as sugof gesting the obedience and honorof a daughter. Mariahas clearly thoughtaboutthe issues facing her and the dictates of her father. She has developed a perspectiveand a response to the issue, but it is not voiced loudly. Up to the moment of the dog's temporarylapse, and her father's earlyarrival,therehas been no closureon the issue. The momentis tense because it is probablethatthere will be. WhenGonzalo arrives,his wife acts quickly. She greets him and bringshim to the kitchen, the site of every evening's intimacy, and the family's unity. As I am pressedinto service, into thinkingof things to say, Mariadisappearsinto her room. I rambleas Gonzalo's wife preparesher response. It is a family dinner, a statement love andrespect, domesticityandwifely responsibility.And the form of it takes is service, service of the patriarch'sneeds and desires. The service sug-

426 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

gests the privilegeandpower of this man withinhis own domain. In point of fact, this man is generally served his meal first, while his wife stands attentiveto his needs, anticipatingall of his requestsfor salt and condiments, or runningoff to findhis glasses, or a screwdriver,or whateverhe requests. So this evening's gesture of service refers to precedents set in the past, and indexes of respect and deferencefor the authorityof this man (Bakhtin 1984a:202). Ordoes it? Thereis a kind of play with signifiershere in the responsechosen by the wife and daughter.The shift of the focus of attentionfrom daughterto introducedby the dinner,or indeed from daughterto interloper(anthropologist) wife and maintainedby the obliging anthropologist,shifts the direction of the The wife's response impendingdialogueaway fromMariaandhertransgressions. to this new turnof events is cagey. in Bakhtinargues(1986:86-95) thatthe participants any dialogueknow that word (slovo), utterance,or gesturethey select is ideologically freighted(Hill any 1986:92) and so provokes a response. Each partyto the conversationanticipates the effects of the gesture chosen, whetherinflammatory,conciliatory(etc.), and plans her/his response carefully. In this case, the shift of focus anticipatesthis man's response to his (potential)discovery of the women's challenge to his authority. Even more important,the respectfuland deferentialservice of the wife and takes accountof the possible reactionsof Gonzalo (Volosinov 1973:85; daughter Bakhtin1986:94). It seems to bring into existence the privilege and power of the patriarch, drawingattentionto itself. The gesturesin this instanceof discourseare the emptysigns. While the gestureschosen seem to echo or reverberate past, they fabricate continuityin the present.And they postponediscoveryof the subversion (andCarlitos).In otherwords, the gesturesof respect screen the challenge of the wife and daughter and postpone knowledge of what they conceal (Barthes 1982:12-18, 30, 46). They also put off, for a while, closure on the issue of the controlof this woman's sexuality. In short, the women know that their subversivepracticeswill provoke a response, in this case one thatis clearly unwanted.They choose seemingly passive gestures that ironically constrainthe subsequentresponse of the most powerful memberof the family. They rely on the fact that the meaningof a signifieris not fully presentin the gesture or word chosen (Vologinov 1973:101-105; Bakhtin 1984a:202;Derridain Moi 1985:106-107). The significance of the conciliatory wordschosen is settledby a numberof factorsotherthan accuratereference.The play in the meaningof these words'7in dialogue is the key to irony, as well as to parodyof official form so dear to Bakhtin'sheart(Bakhtin 1984b). This play offers, amongotherthings, the liberation,howevertemporary,of laughter(Bakhtin 1984b:4-10). the In summary,the women appreciate fact that, at this momentof discourse, word or gesture may provoke disagreementor diplothe selection of a particular matically mollify hostility. The gestures they choose acknowledge the force of authority,yet also allow themto hide theirchallengeto authorityin a cabinet. The

CHALLENGETO AUTHORITY 427

women's challenge to authority has not dared too far, but it should arouse the anthropological imagination. Conclusion This article challenges the tradition of authoritative, or unitary, descriptions in anthropology, especially analyses that rely on the passive response to cultural norms and ignore the intellect of the people we study. Past efforts to be blind to resistance to, for example, authority, within a culture and blind again to the creativity of actors, rob our analyses of depth and our subjects of their individuality, their political, cultural, and sexual passions as well as their readiness to act with reference to them. Bakhtin's work is useful for it develops an appreciation of the independent, unmerged voices of the people who engage each other in ongoing dialogues of words and actions. The actors in Bakhtin's theory think about their actions and the actions of others, referring them to previous discussions of the issues, referring them as well to the perspectives they have developed as a result of their position and experience in a complex world. So they can disagree, for example, with authority, not entirely but with some of its demands, accepting some cultural postulates and finding themselves ambivalent about others. They may quarrel openly or struggle silently, expressing their point of view, or more quietly in response to the dictates of authority. As the action and the dialogue in relationships unfold, the actors often enjoy the openness of the argument, in whatever form it takes. In the case in point the women hide a young man in a cabinet and effectively push their position in the dark, but offer a challenge that anthropology can't ignore. Notes This articlehas been writtenwith the generousattentionof my female Acknowledgments. colleagues Beverly Clark, Susan Standing, JudithShapiro and my husband, Stephen E. Shay. All commentedon versions of the article or suggested readingsthat were helpful. 1 would like to express my appreciation them, to the readersof this article, and to a series to of grantingagencies that fundedthe originalresearchfor this work, includingthe Doherty Foundation.And I would like to thankthe Washington Foundation,andthe Wenner-Gren WorkingGroupon Theory, an informalcollective, for theirtime and their inspiration. 'Thereare many theoreticaldevelopments(includingthe work of Kristeva, Cixous, Derrida, Foucault,and Barthes, among others)thatwould also be worthyof considerationfor they promise to expand anthropologicalinsight. It would not be possible to do justice to the work of each of these theoristsin a single article, althougheach deserves attentionin turn. 2Iuse the term "mestizo" with some trepidation.The term "mestizo" is an analyticconcept that is used to refer to a category of persons who are ethnically non-Indianand nonwhite. The term is not used in Ecuador. Many there feel it is an insult. It is, however, frequentlyused in Mexico and in social science literature.With all due respect to the Ecuadoriansystem of ethnic classification, which rests on a false and simple opposition of Indianand white, I have decided to use the term mestizo here for comparativepurposes.

428 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 3Thereare other materialand social bases for this authoritybut what is importantfor the purposeof this articleis the set of culturalconceptions. 4Notethatthis formulationof the mandaterequires,quite obviously, thata daughtermarry as a virginor, less obviously, thatshe be carriedto her finalrestingplace in a white coffin, a sign that she was entirelypureuntil her death. sTheterm "ilusi6n" is glossed in the Simon and Schusterdictionaryas "illusion," yet it is a culturalconcept with greatersignificancethan the English gloss represents.Cassell's transtranslates as "hopeful anticipation"andthis is, perhaps,an appropriate it dictionary lation of the groom's thoughtson the eve of his wedding night. The term is also used in descriptionsof courtingand love, especially in instances where the speakerfeels that he/ she experienceda loss of illusion. In this sense, the term suggests thatthe speakerheld a false impression, based on his/her wishful thinking, fancy or, as a speakermay lament, thathe/she was deludedby his/herown mind or the activities of another. 6Notall women that marryare virgins. In fact, I suspect that in the 1980s few do. Nevertheless women have been known to try to conceal the loss. One womanarrangedwith her sisterand motherthat they would get her futurebridegroomvery drunkon their wedding night. The idea was to offer him drinksuntilhe passed out, then the bridecould stay in bed the next day complainingof pain. When he asked her what the problemswere, she would answerwith a demur"don't you rememberdarling?". This same theme is echoed in Garcia Marquez'snovel when the heroineis coached in a similarmanner.
They taughther old wives' tricksto feign her lost possession . . . her friendinstructedher to get than she really felt her husbanddrunkin bed until he passes out, to feign more embarrassment so he'd turnout the light, to give herself a drasticdouche of alum waterto fake virginity, and to so stain the sheet with Mercurochrome she could display it the following day . . . [1983:38, 90]

are 7There some parallelshere with Cixous's (1980) conceptionof the "gift" (in the form of generosity)which is opposed to the "proper." However, an elaborationof this concept in oppositionto Derrida'smetaphysicsof presenceis beyond the scope of this article. 8Insome sense the lost hymen createsvalue for the man who takes it at the expense of the young woman and her father.And, of course, it retainsits value for the father, if intacton the wedding night. The reified hymen establishes a competitive relationbetween men in two differentgenerations.It becomes a point of honor and oppositionbetween fatherand suitor,one in which claims to rankare asserted, and challenges must be met. 9Iam suggestingthatthis distinctionbetweenhouse and streetnot be seen simply as a basis for the exclusion of women frompublic life butratheras a basis for distinguishingbetween the areasof directcontrol, and less directcontrol, over women. are '?Needlessto say, these proscriptions not always heeded, as the high frequencyof marriagesin Quito (includingCatholic, civil, andreasonablefacsimiles thereof)attest. Indeed in the family that we will discuss in some detail, all five of the daughterswere forbidden to see men, and only two did not yet marrynor have children. "Here I wish to complementMarcusand Cushman's (1982) discussion of the dialogical and model, one obtainingbetween the ethnographer the subject, and begin to look at dialogue between subjects. The objective is to develop the idea that the worlds that we are tryingto representare shot throughwith other subjectivities(Clifford 1983:133).

CHALLENGE AUTHORITY429 TO '2Theconcept of dialogue is distinct from dialectic (Holquist in Bakhtin 1986:xxxi). Dialectic is synthetic and reaches closure. By contrast, a dialogue is never closed. Each speakerawaits an answer(Hill 1986:93-94). '3Ihave followed the establishedprecedent, one of seeing Volo?inov as a pseudonymfor Bakhtin. '4Theidea thataction is productive,not merely reflective is developed in the work of Kristeva (1987:334). 'In contrastto the North Americanpattern,unmarriedwomen in Quito do not move out of theirparents'households. '6There a varietyof imagerythatassociatesthis idea of women's movementwith a young is woman's delicts. The images I have collected turn on the idea of a woman walking and takinga misstep (di6 un mal paso) or falling as in La mujercuando cae, entonces cae una sola vez y no se levanta. (When a woman falls, she falls only one time and does not get up.) This imageryof falling and slipping is contrastedto the imagery of a man who gets
up and moves away freely. El hombre alza el poncho (o pantal6n) y se va. Y la mujer queda

con la bariga. (A man [simply] raises his poncho (or pants)and goes [away]. A woman is left behindwith a [pregnant] belly.) '7This to conceptionof the "word" contributes the generaleffortto criticizethe conception of meaningas fully presentin the word (cf. Derrida,etc.). Cixous sees writingas necessary for breakingout of the "prison house of patriarchal language" because writing allows a freeplay for signification(Moi 1985:107). Thereis a certainironyhere. Bakhtinintroduces the idea of polyphonyor the multivalentcharacterof linguistic phenomenathrougha discussion of dialogue, while Cixous and Derridaarriveat the same conclusions throughan emphasis on writing. A careful comparisonand contrastof these schools of thought is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this article, yet worthyof attention. References Cited Bakhtin,M. M. 1981 The Dialogical Imagination:Four Essays. Michael Holquist, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1984a Problemsof Dostoevsky's Poetics. CarylEmerson,ed. andtrans.Minneapolis: Universityof MinnesotaPress. 1984b Rabelaisand His World. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. 1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, eds. Vern W. McGee, trans. Austin: Universityof Texas Press. Barthes,Roland 1982 Empireof the Signs. New York:Hill and Wang. Brandes,Stanley 1980 Metaphorsof Masculinity:Sex and Statusin AndalusianFolklore. Philadelphia: Universityof PennsylvaniaPress. Cixous, Hdelne 1980 Sorties.In The New FrenchFeminism. ElaineMarksandIsabellede Courtivron, eds. Pp. 90-98. New York: Schocken. 1981 Castration Decapitation.Signs 7(1):41-55. and Clifford, James 1983 On Ethnographic Authority.Representations1(2):118-146.

430 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 1986 Introduction: PartialTruths.In WritingCulture.JamesCliffordandGeorgeMarcus, eds. Pp. 1-26. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. Comaroff,JohnL., and Simon Roberts 1981 Rules and Processes:The CulturalLogic of Dispute in an AfricanConcept. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Douglass, CarrieB. 1984 Toro Muerto, Vaca Es: An Interpretation the Spanish Bullfight. American of Ethnologist11:242-258. Dreyfus, HubertL., and Paul Rabinow 1982 Michel Foucault:Beyond Structuralism Hermeneutics.2d edition. Chicago: and Universityof Chicago Press. Freidl,Erestine 1967 The Position of Women: Appearanceand Reality. AnthropologicalQuarterly 40:97-108. [reprinted Jill Dubisch, ed., GenderandPower in RuralGreece, 1986] in GarciaMarquez,Gabriel 1983 Chronicleof a Death Foretold. New York:Knopf. Hill, Jane 1986 The Refigurationof the Anthropology of Language. Cultural Anthropology 1(1):89-101. Kristeva,Julia 1987 TalkingaboutPolylogue. In FrenchFeministThought.TorrilMoi, ed. Pp. 110117. New York:Basil Blackwell. Marcus,George E., and Dick Cushman 1982 Ethnographies Texts. AnnualReview of Anthropology11:25-69. as Marx, Karl Publishers. 1975[1867] Capital.New York:International Moi, Torril 1985 Sexual TextualPolitics: FeministLiteracyTheory. London:Methuen. Murphy,Robert 1971 The Dialectics of Social Life. New York:Basic Books. Pitt Rivers, JulianA. 1977 The People of the Sierra. 2d edition. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Radcliffe-Brown,A. R. 1952 Structure Functionin PrimitiveSociety. New York:Free Press. and de Saussure,Ferdinand 1959 Coursein GeneralLinguistics. New York:McGraw-Hill. Shore, Bradd 1981 Sexualityand Genderin Samoa:Conceptionsand Missed Conceptions.In Sexual Meanings. SherryOrtnerand HarrietWhitehead,eds. Pp. 192-215. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Stevens, Evelyn P. 1973 Marianismo:The Other Face of Machismo in Latin America. In Female and Male in Latin America. Ann Pescatello, ed. Pp. 89-102. Pittsburgh:University of Press. Pittsburgh Volosinov, V. N. 1973 Marxismand the Philosophyof Language. New York:SeminarPress. Weiss, Wendy A. in 1988 The Structure and Contradictions Male Authorityin UrbanHouseholdsin of, Quito, Ecuador. Michigan State University Working Papers on Women in International DevelopmentNo. 163.