Back in 1976, when I entered the Jackson School of International Studies, I had the great good fortune to study with Professor Paul Hiebert, an anthropologist specializing in South Asia and an all round good guy.
"If you want to understand how the Asian village works," sez he, "you have to read this book," and he gave me one of his extra copies of Stratagems and Spoils by F.G. Bailey. You need a playbook to recognize the players and how the game is played, he explained.
Although not a game theorist, Bailey's analysis of political culture uses the language and imagery of competitive games--games like polo (played by the Swat Pathans), or cricket (played by British Raj personnel), or football (played by the hoi polloi). All such games involve players and their teams, a playing field, goals, grandstands for the audience, rules, and referees. Most importantly, while players may have talent or skill, games are won by tactics.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons of Bailey's work is the distinction between normative rules and practical rules.
"Normative rules are very general guides to conduct; they are used to judge particular actions ethically right or wrong; and within a particular political structure to justify publicly a course of conduct. Use(d) in this way is probably the readiest test of whether or not a particular rule is to be given normative status. For example, I can think of no part of our own society where a leader can say 'I did this because I enjoy ordering people about and I like to be famous': but he can say 'I did this for the common good.'" [All quotes here are from The Anthropology of Politics: a reader in ethnography, theory, and critique, by Joan Vincent and online here.]
"Pragmatic rules are statements not about whether a particular line of conduct is just or unjust, but about whether or not it will be effective. They are normatively neutral. They may operate within the limits set by the rules of the game; or they may not. They range from rules of 'gamesmanship' (how to win without actually cheating) to rules which advise on how to win by cheating without being disqualified (what may be done, for example, on the 'blind' side of the referee in the boxing ring)."
Using ethnographic studies, Bailey explains how these two sets of rules combine for effective action--pragmatic rules are to move the ball to the goal; normative rules are to play to the grandstand. More to the point, these games are won by factional politics--how to mobilize your supporters from the audience to step into the field and join in, too. To do that, you need to work and know the normative system.
"There are hundreds of other examples of how people try to win their way in political competition, displaying a private wisdom which lies behind the the public face of politics. Each culture--English policians, academics, villagers in Wales, villagers in India, villagers anywhere, a Vatican Council, the racketeers of the American cities as revealed in [William F.] Whyte's book or in the 1963 Senate hearings, when Vallachi took the lid off the cosa nostra--each culture has its own set of rules for political manipulation, its own language of politcal wisdom and political action."
Since I have lived in Israel, I have been amazed at how apt Bailey's work is and just how sage the advice of Professor Hiebert has been. Everywhere I turn, I see the tension between these two sets of rules and the centrality of factional politics in virtually every part of Israeli society. The isolated individual, without party or factional allegence is lost at sea. Pragmatic rules are how things are done and are essential to know--the cab driver who tries to run you off the road so he can squeeze in front of you, will overtake you down the road, come along side of you in the lane belonging to the oncoming traffic to quote to you words of Torah on why you SHOULD have let him run you off the road. As my buddy Arik says, that's how you know he respects you.
In Israel, there is a rich matrix of normative rules. There are religious rules, and we have a lot of rule books from which to choose--a gazillion shades of Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Druze, and who knows what else. There are the secular rules and the endless rules of the Kibbutz cultures and Kibbutz wannabe cultures. Then, there are the endless committee rules and procedures. Each government bureau has its own forms and processes. Village councils are another set of rules that require negotiation. And everyone, like the samurai cab drivers have an opinion about how YOUR culture works.
There is, however, only one set of pragmatic rules--whatever wins the goal works. Since life in Israel is like a professional sports game that has NO TIME LIMIT, the best any player or team can hope for is to win THIS round with the certainty that no round is final and there will always be another inning/quarter/leg to be played. It takes years (literally) to get an idea through all the normative layers UNLESS you have the factional support (protexia, as it is called), to play the pragmatic trump card.
This is true on the national level as it is in fights over rights to parking spaces. In this part of the world, ANY contest involves not just the players, but the relevant audience and each player's faction. I have been repeatedly told that whenever someone says this can't be done, an attorney must be consulted. Sometimes, the mere threat to talk with an attorney is sufficient; but, you always need to be prepared to increase the scope of the conflict at any point. After all, that is how things get done--pragmatic rules.
Bailey tells us that in village conflicts, it is how each contestant appears to the audience that is the most telling. This is not merely a question of "face" or "honor". Like those judges with the cards who rate the spins and twirls of ice skatters, the audience in these conflicts evaluates how each side is making its case and how each side utilizes the pragmatic rules while working the normative rules to advantage. It is ballet. Those who rely on either one set of rules too much lose major points. Too much pragmatic turns the crowd against the player; but, too much normative brands the contestant as a sucker, or a freier as it is called in Israel.
Now, Professor Hiebert had one problem with Bailey's book, and it was a lesson he constantly hammered me with: auto-correlation. In almost all of the cases Bailey discussed (Wales, Ireland, India, Pakistan), Hiebert said were, or had been, part of the British Colonial Office. Justice in the old Mandate system, was based on keeping the peace. While the office of Judge was separate, the District Police Officer was/is the prosecutor. When a person appears in court, the District Officer appears in court and tells the Judge, this person is guilty--the case proceeds from there. The pragmatic rules. Why? Because the job of the District Police Officer is to maintain the peace--no conflict. This is the hallmark of the British system--in Jamaica, in India, in Ireland, and in Israel.
In village life, then, the role of the police officer simplifies the game's equations significantly. In the old days, the ultimate resolution of conflict was just that--conflict as in violence as in bloodshed. This is still how things work at a national level in my neck of the woods. At the local level, however, the contestant/team/faction that can present the best case, appearance really, of bringing things to a full conflict will not only win the goal, but the support of the police, if two conditions can be satisfied. First, that the normative rules will support that team's claim; second, if a significant number of factional members can be mobilized in a show of force (and the threat of violence).
At that point, the Police will intervene on the side of the stronger party. Even if the weaker party is the one with the legal right to do whatever it is they want to do. If those who oppose them can mobilize a substantial threat of violence, the District Officer will do what is expected--keep the peace, not the law. Normative rules have nothing to do with it.
Regionally, this post-colonial system fuels much of the factional intercommunity politics in Israel, especially in the north. I am repeatedly struck by the similarity of community factionalism in the Galilee with communal rivalries in South Asia. Bailey's manual works equally well in both ends of Asia--the west as well as the south.
In the Galilee region, there is a low level violence taking place between Jewish (from both European and Arab extractions) and Muslim dominated communities. Jewish landholders and businesses have been facing a constant level of "noise" in terms of thefts, arsons, poaching, assaults, and other forms of nuisance. In most of the cases, the individuals are known to the victims. The response to these predations are almost unitary--the District Officer will do nothing because they are powerless and must maintain the peace.
The Israelis follow the normative rules; the Arab communities follow the pragmatic rules; the District Officers make sure that the two groups stick to their ascribed roles. Complaining about the lack of normative process means using the other "f" word--"it isn't FAIR", which goes nowhere. In fact, the result of such recourse merely subjects the claimant to complete defeat and the well earned jeers and derision of the opposing team.
Recently, young pre and post IDF idealists from the Israeli communities in the Galilee region have organized a group to support Israeli farmers, businesses, and communities against such predatory behavior. Modelling their group on the old watchmen from the 19th century who protected small Jewish communities from Muslim violence, they call themselves the Irgun Shomer Chadash--the New Guardians.
HaShomer HaChadash was established as a result of the inability of farmers and cattlemen in Israel to deal with the recurring problem of seizure of land.
Incidents of imposed protection money, crop theft, animal theft, threats and physical violence, destruction of property with the purpose of causing financial damage are only some of the examples of the attempts to exhaust and weaken the farmers and cattlemen and cause them to surrender their land.
The authorities responsible for providing protection are unable to prevent such occurrences and thus it was decided to establish HaShomer HaChadash in order to return the courage to farmers and cattlemen or any person who does not feel safe in Israel in their own country on their own land.
They are young and idealistic and not always the favorites of the District Officers since each group has very different goals. However, the Shomer Chadash has accomplished something that the general Israeli normative system and rules have not done--they have provided the means for the Israeli individual to have FACTIONAL support against the pragramtic groups of the opposition. They are limited because, being Israelis, they must adhere to the normative system--that is their handicap. Israelis MUST play by the normative rules of their religious group, their residential affiliation, and by a host of civic and governmental players each with their own pragmatic process and normative labels.
The results, however, are mixed as I shall explore in Stratagems and Spoils--Part II, which is a field work illustration of Bailey's guidebook in action. Pictures, even.
Posts
