James C. Scott is a political scientist and anthropologist, specialist in forms of subaltern resistance, among others. These days I am reading a book of yours, The Dominated and the Art of Resistance (“Dominated and Art of Resistance”, Txalaparta, 2003). It talks about the difference between public discourse and hidden discourse. It tells us that public discourse is what is done from hegemony, and hidden discourse is what subaltern groups use to each other. One is done in public places, it is evident, everyone knows it, both the upper and the lower, while the other is not known by the superior, the rulers.
For example, what is said in a slave society, in the street and before the owner is a public discourse. In the slaves’ houses, however, one can speak quietly and, what is never said before the owner, is said there. They're places to release irritations and anger. It is unimaginable that a slave tells his owner that "he would die with my hands." The cruelty of the consequences that this kind of sincerity would entail, if it were public, is untenable. Of course, sometimes the sanitary cord is broken and the hidden words appear exposed. But in most cases, oppressed groups, when working in public, measure words very well, performing difficult containment exercises. J.C. As Scott says: "For most of the oppressed in history, (...) a trick to survive, because can't you say it's always been insignificant? It has been to swallow bile and suppress the momentum of anger and physical violence.” We have shaped our speeches according to this hidden law.
The minority European countries also have our gossip. But to make you graceful you must know our codes
Another example, less violent, less radical. Installation of new doors at home. The team was South American, the helmets. The ways to talk to me were very measured. They had refined the information technique that suits them. They probably did so to maintain their autonomy and control of their work. I noticed evidence of occult speech in the worker's language, but not only he, but on another axis of oppression, I also annoy my words as a woman. I use unconscious techniques to maintain my position and take my words into account. So almost without realizing it, I like to talk like I'm not sure. And I often use macular words. “Right? Something like that, they say, maybe, maybe, they say...” My technique to sell my ideas is to seek the other's consent. In this regard, Scott states that women use more frequently in their statements what linguists call a question of etiquette: "Right?" or the modulation of the tone of voice, which is to say, "I think this is the case," but if you asked, "Is this not the case?" They're singing like they're asking for consent."
Another branch of the hidden discourse is what Scott calls "mask politics": stories, jokes, songs, euphemisms, etc., come from popular cultures and are very useful, among other things, because they protect the identity of the authors. Furthermore, I would add that they are redeemers, liberators. The minority European countries also have our gossip. But in order for them to make you graceful, you have to know our codes and, above all, you have to be bilingual:
"Do you know what the speaker of three languages is called? "; it is called “trilingual” or “plurilingual”: “And to whom does two languages speak?”; “Elebide”; “And to whom does only one speak?”, “French”. (The joke works well even if you put “Spanish”)
There is another, typical of Catalan, but recently I have also heard in Basque: "Once upon a time there was a man willing to drink from a source. A citizen walks by and says: “Do not drink from this source because it is harmful water.” And the others: “Tell me in Crisitan!” (speaks in the Christian language! ). So the citizens: Nothing, nothing, that drinks despacite, that is very good water" (Nothing, nothing, to drink little by little, is very good water).
