Interview of Richard Snyder with James C. Scott: Peasants, Power, and the Art of Resistance

This interview with James C. Scott offers insights into his research on peasants, power, and resistance, exploring his intellectual journey and perspectives on political science. It delves into his fieldwork experiences, theoretical influences, and critical views on the discipline’s trends. This serves as a valuable resource for researchers and students interested in understanding Scott’s work and his approach to studying complex social and political phenomena.

Key Insights

Shift from Elites to Peasants

Scott’s research interests evolved from studying political elites to focusing on peasant societies. This shift was influenced by the Vietnam War and a growing realization that much of the literature on patron-client relations had to do with structures of feudal authority and that patron-client breakdown seemed to play an important role in peasant-based revolutions.

The Moral Economy of the Peasant

The core argument of The Moral Economy of the Peasant (Scott 1976) centers on the idea of risk-averse behavior by peasants. Understanding this averseness helps explain why certain kinds of oppression are worse than others and why certain kinds of extraction are more onerous, thus provoking resistance.

Weapons of the Weak

Scott’s ethnographic fieldwork in a Malaysian village, documented in Weapons of the Weak (Scott 1985), revealed that subordinate groups engage in “everyday resistance” to authority. This finding challenged the notion that these groups were incapable of resistance due to hegemony.

Seeing Like a State

Seeing Like a State (Scott 1998) examines how states simplify and domesticate the world to gather the information they need to govern. This process often leads to unintended consequences and widespread misery, as illustrated by cases like the ujamaa villagization scheme in Tanzania and scientific forestry in eighteenth-century Prussia. Scott argues that “high modernism,” an ideology that ignores local, practical knowledge, leads to catastrophic outcomes.

Critique of Political Science Methodology

Scott is critical of the increasing emphasis on methodological rigor in contemporary political science, arguing that it often leads to a focus on trivial questions. He states, “In political science, rigor has come to be defined as a narrow methodological rigor that, although you can’t fault the technique, often does not get you anywhere because it is used to answer trivial questions.”

Interdisciplinary Approach

Scott advocates for an interdisciplinary approach to political science, incorporating insights from history, anthropology, and literature. He explains, “I am happy to be called an artist because I don’t believe political science is a natural science in the first place… I like Laitin’s work, and I think he’s an interesting intellectual. But I also think he is less of a social scientist than he believes himself to be.”

Perestroika Movement

Scott played a prominent role in the Perestroika movement, advocating for reform of the American Political Science Association (APSA) and greater diversity in methodological and theoretical approaches. “In 2000, a scholar writing as “Mr. Perestroika” circulated an anonymous manifesto calling for reform of the American Political Science Review (APSR), the American Political Science Association (APSA), and the political science profession in general.”

Key Statistics & Data

• Scott taught a course on peasant revolution with Ed Friedman at Wisconsin, which had 350 students enrolled.
• Scott mentioned that according to his colleague Douglas Rae, the average number of readers of a social science journal article is less than three.

Methodology

This document is an interview, so the methodology involves qualitative inquiry through a question-and-answer format. Richard Snyder’s questions guide James C. Scott in reflecting on his career, research, and perspectives on political science, yielding rich qualitative data.

Implications and Conclusions

The interview underscores several key implications:

• The value of interdisciplinary approaches: Scott’s work emphasizes the importance of integrating insights from multiple disciplines, including history, anthropology, and literature, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of social and political phenomena.
• The significance of local knowledge: Scott’s research highlights the need to ground theoretical abstractions in concrete, local contexts through fieldwork and engagement with specific communities.
• The limitations of methodological rigor: Scott critiques the overemphasis on methodological rigor in political science, arguing that it can lead to a focus on trivial questions and a neglect of broader, more meaningful inquiries.
• The importance of critical engagement: Scott advocates for a critical and self-reflective approach to the discipline, encouraging scholars to challenge prevailing assumptions and engage in ongoing dialogue and debate.