Joseph Bandolerismo Al

On the Trail of Latin American Bandits: A Reexamination of Peasant Resistance
Author(s): Gilbert M. Joseph

Source: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1990), pp. 7-53
Published by: The Latin American Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503816
Accessed: 30-05-2018 18:55 UTC
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 [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Latin American Research Review
This content downloaded from 164.73.224.2 on Wed, 30 May 2018 18:55:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ON THE TRAIL OF
LATIN AMERICAN BANDITS:
A Reexamination of Peasant Resistance*
Gilbert M. Joseph
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
In his acclaimed synthesis of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Alan

Knight observed that "the social bandit's career in Academe has somewhat
paralleled his life under the greenwood tree. Introduced by Professor
Hobsbawm, he was initially welcomed, even feted, and he put in many
appearances in academic company; but then (inevitably, after such un-
critical acceptance) some academics grew leery, and the recent trend-
especially among experts-has been to qualify, de-emphasise and even
deny his role."1
This essay will examine the prevailing critique of "social banditry"
in Latin American studies, reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of
the recent literature. It will suggest that focusing too narrowly on Hobs-
bawm's model, individual bandits, or bandit phenomena per se tends to
remove Latin Americanists from broader, fresher discussions of peasant
social action and mentality now underway for Europe, Latin America,
and other Third World areas. Such comparative discourse can generate
significant thematic and methodological issues that might promote a more
conceptually integrated Latin Americanist scholarship on banditry and
peasant resistance. In short, this essay will attempt in a modest way to
respond to the challenging (and still unanswered) question posed by
Friedrich Katz at a conference on rural uprisings in Mexico in the early
1980s: "What role should we assign to banditry in episodes of rural
insurgency?"2
THE CRITIQUE OF HOBSBAWM'S MODEL OF SOCIAL BANDITRY
Eric Hobsbawm's provocative, free-ranging examination of social

bandits and other "archaic forms of social movement" first emerged in
*The author gratefully acknowledges support from the National Endowment for the Human-
ities and the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego, in
the preparation of this study. He wishes to thank Eric Van Young, Paul Vanderwood, and
Christopher Birkbeck for their rigorous critiques of an earlier version of the essay.
Latin American Research Review
Primitive Rebels in 1959. A decade later, he refined his thesis regarding the
bandit element and supported it with additional comparative evidence.
Hobsbawm's classic portrait, Bandits, was reissued with only minor revi-
sions in 1981, as he stood firm in the face of a mounting international tide
of criticism.3 His well-known model requires only a brief rehearsal here.
In essence, Hobsbawm has continued to argue that social bandits were
typically peasant outlaws who followed the familiar practices of the bandit
trade but represented unconscious, primitive forms of popular protest
that were devoid of any explicit ideology, organization, or program.
Bandits' activities were aimed at the landlords and officials of an intrusive
capitalist regime and were supported by peasant communities and com-
mon people who benefitted materially or psychically from the bandits'
operations. Thus in contrast with the classic social bandit, the Robin
Hood who redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor, Hobsbawm also
identified the "avenger," a bandit who was excessively violent and often
feared by the poor but nevertheless gained popular appeal as "a vicarious
executor of the unarticulated rage of the poor."4
Hobsbawm's argument is evolutionary in insisting that social ban-
ditry is an archaic or "pre-political" phenomenon: more or less endemic in
isolated peasant or pastoral societies and reaching epidemic proportions
when such societies are transformed via incorporation into a capitalist
economy and the legal framework of the nation-state. When rural socie-
ties of this kind undergo transformation, more progressive and effective
forms of social protest like political parties, peasant leagues, and labor
unions make increasingly greater claims on the allegiance of rural inhabi-
tants. Hobsbawm contends that social banditry is eventually doomed to
extinction because of the loss of its local bases of support and the superior
might of the state.
Hobsbawm's portrayal of social banditry as "a universal and vir-
tually unchanging phenomenon" rests almost exclusively on folkloric and
literary materials.5 These "popular" sources, however, have not been
balanced by painstaking research in the "official" police and judicial
records that have become an important weapon in the social historian's
arsenal since Bandits originally appeared in 1969. Thus it is unsurprising
that while ethnographic and analytical scholarship on several of the other
forms of "primitive social movements" initially sketched by Hobsbawm in
the late 1950s-mafia, millenarian movements, urban mobs, and labor
sects-has grown steadily, empirically based treatments (not to mention
comparative studies) of social banditry lagged until the middle to late
1970s.
Nevertheless, as a later generation of Hobsbawm's critics freely
admit, the force of his model has exerted "an almost irresistible appeal."6
Few historical actors have generated more excitement, intrigue, and my-
thology over the long term than bandits. Seeking to explain their popu-
LATIN AMERICAN BANDITS
larity, Hobsbawm observed that in societies "in which men live by subser-
vience, as ancillaries to machines of metal or moving parts of human
machinery, the bandit lives and dies with a straight back."7 A hundred
years before, Stendhal commented that even French society's most shrewd
and cynical elements find their "favourite reading in the little poems
which narrate with ardour the lives of the most renowned brigands."8
Given the appeal of symbol and legend, the Robin Hoods or Pancho Villas
will continue to tug at the popular imagination. "Even if the social bandit
did not exist," writes one of Hobsbawm's sharpest Latin Americanist
critics, "the conditions to make him a plausible and significant symbol to
the rural masses did": "Deep social divisions and conflicts as well as elite
monopolization of economic opportunities [were] causal factors in Latin
American criminality, . . . the social roots of deviant behavior, including
banditry."9 To be sure, Hobsbawm and his supporters have always main-
tained that "real" social bandits were probably less influential than the
legends they inspired. Yet prior to the mid-1970s, few scholars had the
temerity to question either the existence of flesh-and-blood Robin Hoods
or to discount their significance as a phenomenon of the Latin American
(and human) past. As a result, the global dissemination and vulgarization
of Hobsbawm's thesis proceeded apace, occasionally stamping an aca-
demic cachet on locally produced historical narratives that glorify bandit-
heroes in Latin America and elsewhere. 10
But as the winds of "the new social history" began to blow with
greater force in the early 1970s, social banditry came under increasing
attack within the academy. Dutch historian Anton Blok's brief critical
comments provoked a lively exchange with Hobsbawm in 1972 and
touched off a series of challenges and qualifications of the social bandit
model by a younger generation of social scientists. These revisionists not
only mined criminal archives but exercised a more sophisticated eth-
nological and ethnohistorical scrutiny of folklore and other "popular"
sources. For example, in his debate with Hobsbawm, Blok argued that the
English historian had exaggerated the element of protest in social ban-
ditry, emphasizing the bandit's ties to the peasantry while minimizing
important other structural dimensions of his sociopolitical role. Focusing
instead on the "interdependencies between lords, peasants, and ban-
dits," Blok emphasized bandits' violent defense of their personal inter-
ests, more often than not through alliances and bargains with powerful
elite factions. According to his argument, banditry permitted some peas-
ants to achieve mobility at the expense of others, thereby undercutting
rather than strengthening class solidarity. Although Blok admitted that
the ballads, myths, and legends about brigand-heroes might potentially
galvanize forms of peasant protest, he believed that these heroic images in
the popular consciousness were typically contradicted by the bandits'
actual behavior."1
Latin Americanists have been extremely well represented in the

wave of empirically grounded revisionist studies that followed Blok into
print in the late 1970s and 1980s, although the Hobsbawm thesis still re-
tains a number of staunch supporters, particularly in Latin America.12 Billy
Jaynes Chandler,13 Linda Lewin,14 Paul Vanderwood,15 Rosalie Schwartz,16
and Richard Slatta17 have most purposefully entered into the interna-
tional debate on social banditry, endorsing Blok's core arguments and
rejecting those of Hobsbawm. Vanderwood perhaps comes closest to
affirming Carleton Beals's uncompromising assessment of the Latin Amer-
ican bandit, advanced in 1930, three decades before Hobsbawm first
tackled the subject: "Despite popular sentiment the true nature of the
bandit is not that of the social reformer. He is essentially selfish and has no
fundamental interest in rectifying social ills.' 18
In contrast, Peter Singelmann, Benjamin Orlove, Lewis Taylor, and
Alberto Flores Galindo have been somewhat more measured in their
critiques of Hobsbawm's model. Indeed, the first three take pains to
minimize the extent of disagreement between Hobsbawm and Blok.19 As
Singelmann points out, "Both seem to suggest that social banditry con-
tains elements of primitive protest insofar as it usually originates in acts of
defiance, often spares the poor, and particularly as it is idealized in
popular myths and ballads. At the same time, both authors agree that in
its actual functioning banditry may be at least marginally integrated into
an oppressive social structure and undermine class solidarity."20 Ulti-
mately, however, all four authors call into question the element of social
protest, suggesting that more often than not, banditry represents an
adaptation to, rather than resistance against, an exploitative regime and
that in the process, it works to maintain that system.
Without question, the state-of-the-art critique of Latin American
social banditry is Richard Slatta's recent anthology Bandidos: The Varieties of
Latin American Banditry.21 It was intended to be "a major comparative
testing of Hobsbawm's model" by a team of North American and Latin
American historians and anthropologists who have done long-term re-
search on bandit phenomena in a variety of postindependence regional
contexts.22 Thus the volume stakes a claim to being the most comprehen-
sive and sustained assault on the social bandit thesis anywhere in the
world to date. In addition to "rounding up the usual suspects" (Vander-
wood on nineteenth-century Mexico, Lewin and Chandler on the Bra-
zilian sertao, and Slatta himself on the Argentine pampa), Slatta's dis-
tinguished line-up includes Erick Langer on the Bolivian Andes, Louis
Perez on Cuba under U.S. occupation, Gonzalo Sanchez and Donny
Meertens on Colombia during the Violencia, and Miguel Izard and Slatta
on the Venezuelan llanos. In addition, Latin American banditry and the
Hobsbawm thesis have been examined from the perspective of modern
criminological theory (Dretha Phillips) and through the distorting lens of
10
Hollywood films (Allen Woll). In a manner unfortunately all too rare in

such multi-authored works, Slatta skillfully shapes these diverse treat-
ments into a coherent, highly readable volume by contributing a crisply
written introduction and a concluding chapter that never let Hobsbawm
too far out of their sights.
Although the contributions to Bandidos reflect some range of the-
matic concern and interpretive nuance, collectively the volume consti-
tutes a strong brief against the historical importance of social banditry in
Latin America. Moreover, Slatta's editorial presentation of the new schol-
arship frames the case in even stronger terms: at most, genuine social
bandits represented rare and colorful footnotes to history. Slatta reports
that he and his posse of social scientists "have galloped in hot pursuit of
bandits across several Latin American countries and through two cen-
turies" and that the bandits they have unmasked in the criminal archives
"carry visages different from the ideal type postulated by Hobsbawm."23
Perhaps most important (and echoing the earlier findings of Blok
and other European historians), the Latin American revisionists argue
that "the close ties of class and camaraderie that theoretically bind social
bandits and peasants together do not surface in the Latin American
context."24 These analysts come to other conclusions:25 that the rural
masses used banditry more for economic gain than for prepolitical protest
(see particularly the essays by Vanderwood, Chandler, and Lewin); that
when other avenues were open to them, peasants often chose those
options over banditry (Langer, Perez); that much banditry occurred in
sparsely populated frontier regions lacking a settled peasantry (Izard and
Slatta, Slatta); and that shrewdly negotiated elite-bandit alliances were
more common than the "fundamental rage" characterizing the prepo-
litical peasant-bandit solidarity posited by Hobsbawm (Vanderwood,
Lewin, Chandler, Sanchez and Meertens). As a corollary to this last point,
the revisionists emphasize that often these elite-bandit alliances origi-
nated in longstanding family feuds-not broad class injustices-in a soci-
ety where blood vengeance and individual defense of family or clan honor
were common imperatives.26 Based on this extensive comparative re-
search, Slatta concludes, "The social bandit fails to emerge as a distinctive
historical type in Latin America."27
Slatta's posse has not returned empty-handed, however: "More
types of banditry existed in Latin America than are captured with a
simple dichotomy of just social bandits and common criminals."28 Indeed,
most of the suspects that the volume's contributors have rounded up
would seem to lie somewhere between the "noble robber" and the com-
mon thief. Two other "clear types," the "guerrilla bandit" and the "politi-
cal bandit," are featured prominently in the scholars' line-up.
According to Vanderwood (and, elsewhere, Christon Archer and
William Taylor), bands of "guerrilla brigands" operated in Mexico during
11
the independence era and throughout much of the turbulent nineteenth

century. As rugged individuals who were more opportunistic than patri-
otic or communally solidary, they profited from the partisanship and
chaos of war.29 Izard and Slatta note that similar behavior characterized
South American contemporaries, the Venezuelan and Colombian llaneros
and the Argentine gauchos who fueled a seemingly endless cycle of caudi-
llale, montoneras, and populist risings.30 More recently, Rosalie Schwartz
has advanced much the same thesis for understanding the political gang-
sters who played a pivotal role in the outcome of the War for Cuban
Independence.31 Moreover, a substantial literature exists positing a simi-
larly opportunistic role for the klephts, haiduks, Cossacks, and other rather
amorphous, free-ranging bands of peasants and pastoralists who oper-
ated during the dynastic struggles and wars of national liberation against
the Turks that convulsed southern Europe, the Balkans, and the Russian
steppes from the fifteenth century onward.32
Still, one wonders whether revisionist scholars of banditry may not
be splitting hairs in attempting to distinguish their "guerrilla bandits"
from Hobsbawm's "haiduk" variant of social brigand. Like the guerrilla
bandits, Hobsbawm's haiduks were collections of ambitious social mar-
ginals who possessed only a rudimentary political consciousness but
often drew the support of local rural communities. As Hobsbawm ex-
plains, not only did haiduks frequently liberate peasants (from Turkish or
Spanish rule) but their very existence proved "that oppression was not
universal, and vengeance for oppression was possible." These "roving
bands of outlaws, raiders and Cossacks [operated] on the turbulent fron-
tier between state and serfdom on one hand, the open spaces and free-
dom on the other."33
Another "distinctive variation" of Latin American banditry touted
by Slatta, "political banditry," is plagued by similar conceptual problems.
It is not clear exactly what is meant by "political," or how "political
banditry" actually improves upon Hobsbawm's existing model. For exam-
ple, Perez shows in his essay on early-twentieth-century Cuba that tradi-
tional elite factional politics can touch off broader forms of protest, partic-
ularly social banditry-a point that would seem to support Hobsbawm's
thesis and run counter to the volume's central thrust.34 The link between
political turmoil and social banditry is further explored in Sanchez and
Meertens's complex analysis of peasant participation in the Colombian
Violencia. In this chapter and a more extensive study, these authors argue
convincingly that partisan political conflict, led (and often effectively
manipulated) by elite political configurations, confounded peasant soli-
darity, stripped bands of peasant insurgents of their legitimacy, and
ultimately reduced once-popular bandits to criminal status on the mar-
gins of national and regional political life.35
But if Slatta's "political" rubric is merely meant to underscore the
12
relational aspects of banditry, to emphasize the shifting nature of alliances

and power balances that engaged and often transformed banditry, his
quarrel with Hobsbawm may well be more rhetorical than real. Hobs-
bawm's writings frequently address the dynamic, often contradictory
dimensions of the politics of banditry. For example, in sketching the rise
and fall of Eliodoro Benel, an early twentieth-century Peruvian bandit
chief and regional political boss, Hobsbawm involves the reader in "a
complex combination of political and personal rivalries, vengeance, politi-
cal and economic ambition, and social rebellion."36 Here and elsewhere,
Hobsbawm undercuts the claims of his critics who would exaggerate his
argument and minimize his efforts to situate the social bandit within the
broader political economic context. He observes, "It is a mistake to think
of bandits as mere children of nature roasting stags in the greenwood."
Rather, they were closely involved with the market and political arena.37
This observation prompts Hobsbawm to reflect on the essential
ambiguity of the brigand's political status:
He is an outsider and a rebel, a poor man who refuses to accept the normal roles of
poverty, and establishes his freedom by means of the only resources within reach
of the poor, strength, bravery, cunning and determination. This draws him close
to the poor: he is one of them.... At the same time the bandit is, inevitably,
drawn into the web of wealth and power, because, unlike other peasants, he
acquires wealth and exerts power. He is "one of us" who is constantly in the
process of becoming associated with "them." The more successful he is as a
bandit, the more he is both a representative and champion of the poor and a part of
the system of the rich.38
Thus, while emphasizing social bandits' ties with the poor, Hobsbawm
clearly appreciates what revisionist scholars and the historical bandits
themselves knew only too well: that bandits' long-term profit and sur-
vival also meant forging some kind of relationship with the elite.39
In another respect, the revisionists' discussion of the "political"
dimensions of banditry registers an important criticism of Hobsbawm's
model by effectively puncturing Hobsbawm's conceptualization of ban-
ditry as "prepolitical" or "archaic." Once again, Sanchez and Meertens's
rich work on the Colombian Violencia is particularly instructive. Here was
a case where-for reasons having less to do with the peasantry's sup-
posedly limited forms of consciousness and organization and more to do
with the tactics and power of the dominant classes-a highly politicized
form of armed agrarian struggle regressed into predatory banditry.40
According to Hobsbawm's model, the rise of more sophisticated political
activity in Colombia should have resulted in the demise of banditry, not its
recrudescence. I will return to this point in a fuller critique of Hobsbawm's
notion of "prepolitical" forms of protest in light of other recent literary
trends.
Without doubt, the practitioners of the new social history, by
13
revising-or at least fleshing out-the portraits that Hobsbawm originally

sketched on the wanted posters, have made a signal contribution to
understanding the elusive phenomena of Latin American banditry. These
revisionists argue with some force that historians should not be reduc-
tionist in interpreting Latin American criminality,41 that banditry is a
complex, multivariate phenomenon governed by sociopolitical, cultural,
and ecological determinants.
Indeed, in a fundamental way, the essays in the Slatta volume
challenge Hobsbawm's conceptualization of the countryside, which was
inspired primarily by his familiarity with Mediterranean and European
societies. Hobsbawm's model of social banditry seems most plausible
when applied to remote rural sectors of enduring peasant communities
and distant lords. By contrast, the revisionists collectively reconstruct a
Latin American social matrix that is considerably more heterogeneous
and complex. These scholars demonstrate that such a varied landscape of
agrarian structures and social relations embraces diverse groupings of
rural cultivators who have had recourse to a broad range of social options.42
It is hinted throughout the Slatta collection, and explicitly invoked
in the piece by Chandler, that Marxist historian Hobsbawm's failure to
fully appreciate such historical diversity may be related to his ideological
motivation for examining bandits:
He was not, it appears, much interested in the field for its own sake, in the actual
lives of bandits, in the complexities that plague historians and frequently render
generalizations problematic. His purpose, it seems, was to establish a history of
revolutionary activity. Leftist intellectuals in the mid-twentieth century, losing
faith in Marx's industrial workers as vehicles of revolution, began searching for a
broader tradition. Hobsbawm contributed bandits, but they did not fit well. They
did not realize that they were social rebels; they sought no basic changes in the
structures of their societies. Hobsbawm recognized this, but since they practiced
violence against property and lives, they were, in his view, making a political, or
rather a "prepolitical," statement. This conclusion did not proceed so much from a
sound factual base as from fitting skimpy and often questionable data into a
preconceived framework.43
These are rather strong words, but it is also significant that Hobs-
bawm has been challenged in similar fashion by independent leftist
critics. They accuse him of burdening his account with a teleological,
unilinear view of working-class history that presumes that every form of
resistance must ultimately be superseded by a more "modern" form until
a mature Marxist-Leninist expression is achieved.44 Yet apart from the
question of whether banditry can be fitted into a broader tradition of social
protest, revolutionary or otherwise (the main theme to be addressed in the
second half of this essay), Hobsbawm and his defenders have at times
been rather cavalier in attributing "social content" to the diverse opera-
tions of bandits over the centuries. Some writers have facilely juxtaposed
14
biographies of individual bandits with generalized depictions of societal

injustice in a way that precludes determining whether the author has
made a case for social banditry or committed the crime of ecological
fallacy. Certainly, a line must be drawn between "avengers" and genuine
thugs among the poorer classes, who prey upon the have-nots more than
they threaten the haves. If no distinction is made, Chandler warns,
historians will find themselves on a slippery slope where all banditry
might ultimately be deemed social, "involving as it does, relations be-
tween people."45 Thus the attempt in this revisionist literature to establish
a more rigorous standard for interpreting social protest provides a useful
corrective to the excesses of the Hobsbawmians.46
The new social historians have also made an important meth-
odological contribution. More problematic than Hobsbawm's ideological
predisposition (although perhaps related to it) is his choice of historical
evidence. Hobsbawm's use of literary sources and popular tradition,
however creative (and pragmatic, given the chronological and global
sweep of his undertaking), does not compensate for a lack of documen-
tary evidence in national and regional archives. All sources have their
limitations, and Hobsbawm's critics are correct in suggesting that many of
the heroic folktales and ballads that he relied on may reflect the poor's
idealized aspirations rather than historical reality. Moreover, as main-
tained by Slatta for Argentina, Lewin and Chandler for Brazil, and by
Schwartz and French scholar Maria Poumier-Taquechel for Cuba during
the independence era, such literary sources frequently reflect the views of
romantic, ideological, or commercially motivated urban writers rather
than peasant folk tradition.47 In an earlier article on northeastern Brazil,
Lewin masterfully traces the often complex cultural and political histories
of such "popular traditions." For example, the Brazilian literatura de cordel
(literally "clothesline books," or chapbooks) promoting the legend of
bandit-hero Antonio Silvino was originally generated by dissident, de-
classe elites with their own agendas. Only later were such cultural motifs
appropriated and refashioned by the popular classes and their left-wing
ideologues.48
As will be shown, "official" police and judicial records are freight-
ed with bias and present problems of their own, but their extensive use by
revisionist writers provides an essential complement to the "popular"
sources utilized by Hobsbawm. As Barrington Moore pointed out some
thirty years ago, an adequate strategy for researching banditry would
require a blend of both types of sources and substantial cross-checking to
mitigate the limitations of each.49 Unlike police and criminal records,
popular traditions have limited value in documenting the actual behavior
of bandits (or other historical actors). They nevertheless hold great poten-
tial for examining contending definitions of crime and the social, political,
and cultural contexts that shape such discourses of power.50
15
A QUALIFIED DEFENSE OF HOBSBAWM' S MODEL
As valuable as the new revisionist scholarship is, it evidences

certain limitations. In arguing that the social bandit has failed to emerge
as a distinctive historical type and in discounting the possibility of real
solidarity with the rural masses, these revisionist writers have surely
gone too far. To paraphrase Knight, the social bandit may no longer
deserve to be feted, but it is certainly premature to show him the door.51
In The Mexican Revolution, Knight himself makes a strong case for
the importance of banditry as a significant "surrogate form of popular
protest" during the Porfiriato and at key junctures of the Revolution of
1910. He asserts that at certain times and places, "the kinship between
social banditry and popular rebellion was . . . so close that the two can
scarcely be differentiated."52 In arguing for the social content of banditry
particularly during periods of revolution and social upheaval, Knight
lends support to Hobsbawm and also echoes a strong tradition in Euro-
pean social history. For example, according to Richard Cobb, during the
French Revolution, "banditry was never purely criminal; it always took
on political [that is, social] overtones."53
For Knight and a host of British and European social historians, the
problem is not whether social banditry existed but rather how to dis-
tinguish it from other localized, often inchoate forms of rural protest.54
Like the revisionists, but unlike Hobsbawm, Knight does not argue that
bonds of class were essential in cementing peasant-bandit relationships.
Constructing a concise "ecology of banditry and popular protest," Knight
shows that in revolutionary Mexico, such "horizontal" ties predominated
in areas where free villagers enjoyed great numerical strength and often
mobilized agrarian insurgencies (like Zapatismo) that subsumed and
successfully incorporated bandit elements. Elsewhere, however, in Mex-
ico's remote sierras and in underpopulated expanses where haciendas and
ranchos dominated free villages, vertical divisions took precedent over
horizontal ones. There social bandits like Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco
might lead entire communities against enemy "outsiders," often cultivat-
ing and relying on the support of local elites.55
In the process, aspiring bandits might well enhance their own
social and economic position, in the manner of Vanderwood's "profiteer-
ing bandits" of the nineteenth century. Typically, they became the new
revolutionary caciques, and in some cases powerful caudillos. Yet Knight
stops well short of Vanderwood's characterization of banditry as an almost
classic expression of individual enterprise and "modern" initiative. The
Mexican bandit may not have been a Robin Hood, but he was no closer to
being a Henry Ford: "It is mistaken to regard most bandit careers as the
result of deliberate, individual choice, a release from boredom into excite-
ment, rather than as an existence compelled by circumstances.... Most
16
bandits ... had banditry thrust upon them."56 For Knight, a measure of
upward mobility, although not particularly forward-looking, was emi-
nently compatible with social banditry in Mexican peasant society, pro-
vided that the bandit kept faith with the shared struggle against intruding
authority and common foes.
In other words, it is the existence of "popular support," whether
articulated through class or clientelist bonds, that Knight regards as the
defining characteristic or hallmark of social banditry. His insistence on the
pervasiveness of this support, at least during revolutionary episodes,
places him at odds with the general interpretation advanced by the
revisionists. According to Knight, popular support "gave bandits their
'social' function, assimilated them . . . [in]to rural protest movements
more generally and . .. set them apart from their professional colleagues."57
But Knight adds the important caveat that such popular support was
"relational" rather than inherent and could change without any necessary
alteration in the bandits' activities: "Just as prerevolutionary, professional
banditry, overtaken, swallowed up, and thus politicised by the popular
revolution, thereby acquired 'social' attributes, so too social banditry
could be professionalised (or 'de-socialised') as the revolution ebbed,
leaving it stranded without the popular support and sympathy which
maintained and defined it.... The social bandit of 1911 became the
terrorist of 1917; the social bandit of one valley crossed the mountains and
terrorised another."58
Here Knight reestablishes some common ground with the revi-
sionists. Despite editor Slatta's rather uncompromising conclusions, sev-
eral of his anthology's regional case studies document close ties between
bandits and peasant communities (e.g., Perez's essay on Cuba during the
"Chambelona" insurrection and Sanchez and Meertens's study of the
Colombian Violencia),59 while others at least recognize that given the
proper historical circumstances, no "insurmountable barriers" stand in
the way (see Chandler, Langer, and even Izard and Slatta).60 Like Knight's
work, these essays demonstrate implicitly the relational, circumstantial
character of social banditry. Collectively, they lend much support to
Knight's contention that perhaps more than underlying motives, levels of
political sophistication, or even methods of operation, it was popular
support-however transitory (as in the case of the Violencia)-that most
determined the "social" content of banditry. Such support, in turn,
depended on the larger historical conjuncture-on the correlation of
forces that frequently lay beyond the control of bandits and the peasantry.
Rosalie Schwartz, however, injects a note of caution regarding
Knight's conceptualization of popular support. If social banditry merely
represents a relationship between a bandit and the rural population, do
historians not risk diluting the concept to a point where it loses its value as
an analytical category for problems of popular protest? For example,
17
Schwartz wonders whether in a peasant area where intervillage or inter-

familial feuds are common, each side boasts its own "social bandits" who
commit depredations against their factional rivals. 61 Alberto Flores Galin-
do's work on the bandits of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century coastal
Peru-predominantly poor negros and castas who spared blacks but regu-
larly robbed serrano Indian communities as well as the rich-raises much
the same question in interethnic terms.62 This thorny problem of gauging
communal or popular support for banditry (and other forms of rural
social action) will be addressed in the second half of the essay within a
broader conceptual framework.
BEYOND THE MODEL: PEASANT CONSCIOUSNESS,
BANDITRY, AND REBELLION
If the revisionists go too far in categorically indicting Hobsbawm's

model, they may not go far enough in other respects in their explanation
of bandit phenomena. Historians have now reached a point where con-
tinued focus on the Hobsbawm thesis-once a useful centering device
and a prod to empirical investigation-has become constricting. As sug-
gested above, recent attempts in the Latin American field to distinguish
between professional and social bandits and among subcategories of
social bandit have frequently led to rather inconclusive taxonomic de-
bates.63 In sum, it is time to get on with exploring the broader issues
related to the social history of rural crime.
Indeed, in other areas of the world, social science treatments of
banditry have moved beyond the Hobsbawm model and even beyond
criminality per se. Discussions of bandits regularly proceed within the
context of larger themes, such as forms of peasant resistance and social
control, which now involve a more sophisticated examination of peasant
consciousness. Moreover, the application of semiotics and discourse anal-
ysis to both "official" and "popular" sources has greatly expanded the
utility of each.
Unfortunately, much of the new revisionist literature on Latin
American banditry, while documenting the relationships that individual
bandits forged with elite actors and encouraging Hobsbawm's followers to
attend to such linkages, has tended to dismiss "the peasant connection,"
particularly the rural population's attitudes and perceptions toward ban-
dits. This tendency has resulted because revisionists have relied mostly
on police reports and other official sources, which are heavily biased and
rarely focus on the questions relating to group composition and moti-
vation that need to be answered in order to determine whether or not a
particular gang or individual was truly an exponent of popular protest (a
"social bandit"). Consequently, the revisionists have made their main
contribution to an "elite historiography" of Latin American banditry, a
18
history of individual bandits and their incorporation into, or subordina-

tion by, the world of power and interests. Hobsbawm has consistently
asserted in a provocative general manner the primacy of bandits' connec-
tion with the peasantry, but he has never empirically documented either
the substance or the mental realm of that partnership. Thus in order to
write a more "popular" history of Latin American banditry, scholars must
begin, as one rural historian recently suggested, ""to integrate the lower
sectors back into bandit studies by going beyond the simplistic dichotomy
between elite collaboration and peasant rebellion that some students of
banditry, intent on demolishing Hobsbawm, are posing."64
How can social scientists place peasants at the center of bandit
studies without marginalizing elites? And what inspiration and models
does recent comparative discourse provide? The remainder of the essay
will tap several currents in the global literature on peasant social action
and mentality in an effort to identify promising thematic and meth-
odological departures for research on Latin American banditry. Particular
attention will be given to two broader themes: first, how the relationship
between banditry and the law (or the way in which social groups define
criminality and perceive social deviance) provides a window on forms of
social control and popular resistance in the countryside; and second, how
banditry and other strategic peasant options reflect the dynamic larger
social environment.
In essence, the newer conceptualizations of banditry and related
social phenomena, which are only beginning to be applied to Latin
America, are guided by the assumption that greater attempts must be
made to address social behavior from the perspective or "consciousness"
of the participants themselves. Consciousness becomes the central theme
"because it is not possible to make sense of the experience [of peasant
action or resistance] merely as a history of events without a subject."65 A
second assumption is that forms of peasant consciousness are enmeshed
in the dynamic process of history, shaped by identifiable social and
political forces, rather than being the product of an ontologically "pre-
political" mentality. The social historians' task is to locate the sources and
methodological tools needed to decode "popular knowledges" -that is, to
make sense of the aspirations and moral criteria that inform social action.66
But to acknowledge peasants as the conscious subjects and, in a
real sense, the makers of their own history, one need not make inflated
claims about the "sophistication" of peasant politics. Although modalities
of peasant resistance were not "spontaneous" or "unthinking" as Hobs-
bawm suggested, they were often inchoate and diffuse. They frequently
aimed to destroy or undermine, actually or symbolically, the dominant
class's authority but proposed no blueprint for its replacement. Yet this
tendency does not place them outside the political realm. Indeed, peasant
resistance was all about politics-but popular, rather than elite, politics.
19
Despite their rejection of Hobsbawm's subpolitical interpretation of

social banditry, exponents of this new approach to peasant protest and
mentality share with him a fundamental concern with forms of oppres-
sion and control that are never absolute and are always contested. Ranajit
Guha, an Indian social historian and theorist influential in this emerging
tradition that he and others refer to as "subaltern studies," sketches in
broad strokes the thematic contours of the new approach:
The oppression of the peasantry and the latter's revolt against it figure again and
again ... not only as intermingled matters of fact but also as hostile but
concomitant traditions. Just as the time-honored practice of holding the rural
masses in thraldom has helped to develop codes of deference and loyalty, so has
the recursive practice of insurgency helped to develop fairly well-established
structures of defiance over the centuries. These are operative in a weak and
fragmentary manner even in everyday life and in individual and small-group
resistance, but come into their own in the most emphatic and comprehensive
fashion when those masses set about turning things upside down and the
moderating rituals, cults and ideologies help no longer to maintain the contradic-
tion between the subaltern and superordinate at a non-antagonistic level. In their
detail of course these larger structures of resistance vary according to differences
between regional cultures as well as between styles of dominance and the relative
weights of dominant groups in any given situation. But since insurgency with all
its local variations relates antagonistically to this dominance everywhere . . ..
there is much to it that combines into patterns cutting across its particular
expressions.67
Guha's research deals with peasant revolts in colonial India, but he

has compared his data with the vast literature on European peasants and
attempted to identify the "common forms" of peasant consciousness that
underwrite protest and insurgency. In the process, he has incorporated
banditry into a broader, distinctly political spectrum of peasant protest,
which places the element of class at its core. Although Guha refers in
passing to "everyday" forms of resistance at an individual or small-group
level-livestock theft, pilfering, arson, and sabotage (offenses often grouped
together in standard notions of banditry)-he does not systematically
examine such everyday phenomena in his major writings. Nor does Guha
concern himself with more complex twentieth-century revolutions in
which peasants played a pivotal role because such analysis would greatly
transcend local agrarian class relations and mentalities.68 Nevertheless,
Guha argues that both peasant insurgency and certain kinds of rural
crime have an "inversive function"-they turn the social order upside
down-a quality that has occasionally led authorities (and historians who
utilize official sources) to mistake peasant insurgency for rural crime.
Guha contends that a sharp increase in rural criminal activity and vio-
lence (including forms of social banditry), which occurs frequently in
times of scarcity, usually signals a "lowering threshold of the peasant's
tolerance" of his conditions of life and often inaugurates a peasant re-
20
volt.69 During this so-called "twilight phase," a "switching of codes"

takes place among the peasantry, a cognitive rite of passage that trans-
forms bandits or criminals into insurgents.
Ordinarily, Guha explains, "the social order derived its stability
from a firm and traditional if tacit agreement between the rulers and the
ruled on a mutually acceptable code of dominance and subordination."70
Why, then, do conservative peasants, who are usually so peaceful and
perhaps at other times have even been preyed upon by bandits, ulti-
mately join them in rebellion? To begin with, Guha points out (and here
he is as influenced by Michel Foucault as by Hobsbawm), the peasant's
own perception of crime differs greatly from that of his class enemies (the
landlords, bosses, and government officials): whereas they would tend to
lump all forms of defiance of the law as crime, the peasant is normally
tolerant of crimes of indigence and often regards acts of defiance against
authority as justifiable protest. During the "twilight phase," when codes
switch,
peasants tend to invest disparate attacks on property and person with new
meaning and rephrase them as a part of a general discourse of rebellion.
Consequently, each of these acts acquires an ambivalence: wired at the same time
to two different codes-the code of individualistic or small-group deviance from
the law where it originates and that of collective social defiance which adopts it-it
bears the twin signs of a birth-mark and a becoming. It is precisely this duplex
character which permits it to be interpreted one way or the other depending on the
interpreter's point of view.71
Thus, Guha suggests, the "official mind" of the state, as reflected in the
police and judicial records that serve as the basis for much of the existing
revisionist historiography on banditry and rebellion, might be inclined to
view and most certainly would portray such social phenomena as crimi-
nal deviance. By contrast, peasant rebels (and probably historians who
are able to read such official sources critically and thereby "decode"
peasant consciousness) would tend to interpret such behavior as clear-cut
social protest.
Here Guha and the "subalternists" wrestle constructively with the
unresolved definitional problem that lies at the heart of bandit studies and
has often muddied the debate between Hobsbawm and his critics.72
Rather than attempt to distinguish bandits from social bandits and specu-
late on the relative incidence of each "type," Guha performs what he
regards to be a logically prior task: addressing the nature of the category
itself, particularly the circumstances surrounding its application and per-
ception in different sectors of society. Here his analysis reinforces the
work of anthropologists like David Moss, Paul Winther, and Deborah
Poole, who are concerned with the genesis and maintenance of social and
symbolic boundaries in relation to banditry and other criminal phenom-
ena.73 Such work not only taps a venerable Anglo-Saxon literature on the
21
sociology of deviance, particularly the interactionist theory of labeling,

but also draws inspiration from the recent linguistic turn in critical inquiry
and the social sciences associated primarily with French scholarship. 74
Thus, Guha and others have argued, scholars play the state's (and
the dominant classes') game when they define banditry solely along
traditional legal lines-as revisionist scholars of Latin American and glob-
al banditry have been wont to do.75 Invariably, such writers have identi-
fied bandits according to some variation of the following common denom-
inator: groups of men who attack and rob, typically to steal property or
rustle livestock.76 Yet, as Moss has observed, while states have tradi-
tionally applied the term to indicate rather precisely defined legal of-
fenses, in practice they have consistently expanded or transformed the
notion of banditry to meet specific political needs or challenges. In this
sense, the term banditry has been used "not to designate a particular
offense, but to group together a set of offenses, some of which may over
time appear in or disappear from the set."77 Thus much like the modern
concept of "terrorism," "banditry" became more a part of the ""meta-
language of crime" than a specific crime itself. It was used in this manner
by the state to ""mark" certain kinds of violent or potentially violent
behavior by "dangerous classes" in society. Indeed, even banditry's ety-
mological origins (coming from the Latin bannire, meaning to banish)
suggest this process of exclusion, in which a boundary was created
between the bandit and society (the process is cast in even bolder relief in
the case of the analogous term outlaw).78 Consequently, Guha and others
contend, it is important to maintain the distinction between the social
label "bandit" and the events it signifies. The actions of "bandits" may
often be difficult to distinguish from those of other criminals and rural
insurgents, but the label itself has often served at strategic conjunctures to
crystallize images, recast allegiances, and mobilize public sentiment. In
the hands of the state, the label has been employed to "normalize deviant
behavior" (that is, to "regulate defiant behavior"), thus depriving it of
legitimacy. In the hands of insurgents, who have broken with the rules
and interests served by such labeling and have set about inverting them,
the label itself has been refashioned into a badge of honor.79
Guha's provocative thesis and methodology deserve to be tested in
Latin American and other rural contexts. At a minimum, Guha challenges
historians to reexamine their characterizations of bandits as well as their
handling of official sources. His caveat that modalities of resistance vary
according to differences in regional culture and structures of domination
cannot be emphasized too strongly. For example, despite its comparative
dimension, Guha's work focuses on India, whose highly exploited but
village-based peasantry still had substantial cultural resources and tac-
tical mobility during the nineteenth century under the British Raj. Many
other groups of peasants have had far fewer cards to play, and hence the
22
progression from banditry to generalized rebellion was often beyond the

realm of possibility. Such was certainly the case for many of Latin Amer-
ica's tightly controlled estate-based or plantation-based societies, where
"/routine" or "everyday" forms of resistance were more feasible.80
Indeed, it may be that Guha's analysis of peasant insurgency takes
too little account of the sectionalism of peasants and rural workers. As
C. A. Bayly, one critic of the "subaltern studies" approach, has pointed
out, "Down almost to the very bottom of society every subaltern was an
elite to someone lower than him."'81 Nevertheless, stressing the agency
and relative autonomy of peasants, as Guha and the "subalternists" have
done, has the virtue of curtailing the more mechanistic and abstract
tendencies in agrarian historiography. Yet Guha and his colleagues run
the risk of exaggerating the peasantry's historical propensity for rebellion
and insurgency. As Bayly cautions, "It is not at all clear that resistance, let
alone violence, is a defining characteristic of the poor or exploited. This
may be an unfortunate fact, but it is not one that historians can ignore."82
These reservations notwithstanding, a fruitful comparative discus-
sion appears to lie in the offing. Guha's semiotic analysis of elite and
peasant discourses on rural insurgency would seem to support the recent
findings of British social historians who have sought to refine Hobs-
bawm's original model of social banditry. Examining crime and society in
eighteenth-century England, these historians have identified a variety of
smugglers, poachers, armed foresters, and rioters, who are said to repre-
sent intermediate types on the spectrum of social protest, sharing sim-
ilarities with "social bandits" and "agrarian rebels" but identical with
neither. 83 Nevertheless, as E. P. Thompson points out, "all of these actions
were . .. seen by the authorities within one common blur, as outrages."84
Yet, although the state classified the perpetrators according to a familiar
and convenient code, the evidence shows that the common people who
often sheltered and supported them did not regard them as "criminals."85
After the experience of reading official criminal records, replete with
references to "bad characters" and "criminal elements," these British
historians warn that it is deceptively easy to appropriate contemporary
labels of "deviance" and criminal "subculture."86
Although these Indian and British scholars have resisted the pull of
the official mind, their warnings regarding the pitfalls of official sources
might have been better heeded by the revisionist historians of Latin
American banditry, particularly Slatta and his colleagues. None of his
anthology's contributors discuss the challenges that official sources pose.
Instead, they invoke or assume their analytical superiority over Hobs-
bawm's folkloric materials and report their documentary findings straight-
forwardly. A "balanced handling" of sources seemingly mandates little
more than the checking of problematic literary and folk materials against
authoritative police and judicial records.87
23
It is therefore not surprising that these official sources occasionally

seem to command the writers' own views of peasant protest. For example,
when editor Slatta observes that in Cuba during World War I, "elite-led
political revolt . . . quickly degenerated into banditry," he not only misin-
terprets the thrust of Louis Perez's more sensitive portrayal of what had
become a popular grass-roots insurgency but also sounds eerily like the
U.S. consul, whose contemporary report referred to forces that "have
now degenerated into groups of bandits headed by notorious characters
having no political significance."88 Scattered references to "social devi-
ance" and criminal "subcultures" throughout the collection underscore
not only the authors' reliance on official sources but also the likelihood
that occasionally their voices may have been allowed to merge with those
of the contemporary officials who prepared the criminal reports. Indeed,
Dretha Phillips's essay suggests that "a theory of subcultures" may be
particularly fruitful for future criminological research on Latin American
banditry.89
The value of official sources as a staple of historical research is
beyond dispute. They provide a corrective to the bias found in oral and
written folklore, and in terms of sheer volume and accessibility, they
overwhelm it. The discourse on peasant insurgency is predominantly a
discourse of power, an outcome attributable to literacy levels as well as to
the vested interests of the state and the dominant classes of society in
monitoring gestures of defiance of authority.
How, then, do social historians tap into a consciousness of protest
and insurgency when access to it is often impeded by a discourse of social
control and counterinsurgency? Guha and other students of peasant
consciousness argue that the task is challenging but not insurmountable.
Apart from critically reading folkloric sources (which contribute to our
knowledge about popular attitudes toward "crime" or resistance), histo-
rians can gain access to a peasant discourse of insurgency that is often
embedded in the official documents themselves. First of all, peasant
consciousness makes its presence felt directly in a variety of ways, mainly
in the reporting of insurgent messages and proclamations that are inter-
cepted by the authorities and in the personal testimonies of peasants
interrogated by the police or the courts. But such documentation is
fraught with interpretative problems, as William Taylor, Allen Wells, and I
have discussed elsewhere.90 Nevertheless, because this kind of documen-
tation was gathered to assist the state in controlling diverse forms of social
protest, its usefulness in that regard seems a measure of its authenticity as
a window on peasant consciousness.
This consciousness is at times validated more subtlely by key
indices within elite discourse. Often, words, phrases, occasionally even
extended passages of official documents are devoted to indicting charac-
terizations of the perpetrators of rural violence and unrest as well as to
24
denunciations of their deviance from the legal order. Read carefully, these
passages can frequently mark out the difference between two mutually
contradictory norms or perceptions of society.91 Thus often by reversing
the terms of elite discourse, one implicitly picks up on the terms of
peasant discourse. For example, references to a "bandit village" might not
describe a nest of thieves but indicate instead that much of the population
of a pueblo is resisting state forces. Repeated mention of "regional con-
tagion" might reveal more about solidarity and enthusiasm among a
variety of groups within an area than about the rapid spread of deviance.
Similarly, official references to "lawlessness" might tell more about collec-
tive defiance of what had come to be regarded as bad laws or admin-
istrative practices than about rampant, wanton criminality. As Guha has
trenchantly observed, "The pressures exercised by insurgency on elite
discourse force it to reduce the semantic range of many words and
expressions, and assign to them specialized meanings in order to identify
peasants as rebels and their attempt to turn the world upside down as
crime. Thanks to such a process of narrowing down it is possible for the
historian to use this impoverished and almost technical language as a clue
to the antonymies which speak for a rival consciousness."92
Need it bear repeating, neither Guha nor I is suggesting here that
the "official mind" of the state consistently "'misreads' the codes locked
up in collective behavior." To do so, as Eric Van Young correctly observes,
would be to "paint the State and its servants as slavering idiots, an
assumption no more reasonable for this group than for peasants and
other rural protesters."93 I would agree with Van Young that, more likely, a
"realpolitik of reflexive regime self-defense" operated here, for in defining
as crime what it knew to be protest, the state sought to strip the insur-
gents' actions of any claim to political legitimacy. Indeed, the use of the
"standard manipulationist vocabulary"94 (such as "brigand-infested lairs"
and "criminal contagion") for the purpose of criminalizing popular pro-
test may have been particularly necessary in the Latin American context.
As Richard Morse and others have shown, doctrines of immanent popular
sovereignty dated from at least the sixteenth century and grew in tandem
with a highly porous absolutist state.95 Criminalization of popular protest
and resistance was therefore essential to nullify protesters' claims to
political legitimacy under the aegis of such doctrines.96
BEYOND THE MODEL: EVERYDAY FORMS
OF PEASANT RESISTANCE
Recently, James Scott, Michael Adas, and other Asianists have

helped to expand further the conceptual framework for studying peasant
protest and consciousness. They have focused their attention on "every-
day forms of peasant resistance" that make no headlines and rarely even
25
surface in official administrative records.97 Like Guha's findings, their

principal data come from Asian societies, but their conceptual frame-
works are typically informed by wide reading in the social history of
Europe and the Third World. Also like Guha, they posit a continuum of
popular resistance "ranging all the way from petty individual acts fo-
cussed on the here-and-now to highly organized, durable movements of
broad ideological purpose."98 Yet whereas Guha gives greatest attention
to peasant rebellions and the liminal, ambiguous historical junctures that
usher them in, these scholars are primarily concerned with social forms
and mentalities at the beginning of the continuum-with peasant resis-
tance that proceeds without overt protest and with little or no organiza-
tion. Collectively, they argue that such "routine" resistance has histor-
ically lain at the core of peasant politics. As Scott observes, "Much, if not
most, of the prosaic but constant struggle of the peasantry to thwart those
who seek to extract labor, grain, taxes, rents, and interest from them takes
forms which cannot satisfy [the] definition of a social movement."99 Al-
though it is impossible to do justice to these authors' rich, historically
nuanced arguments in a few paragraphs, by focusing primarily on Scott's
work (the most visible and polished statement of what now constitutes a
vital current in peasant studies), I can suggest how their analysis of
"everyday forms of peasant resistance" can contribute valuable insights
to a broader conceptualization of Latin American banditry. 100
Scott argues on historical grounds for a broadly inclusive defini-
tion of peasant resistance, which he understands as 'any act . .. intended
either to mitigate or deny claims made on [peasants] by superordinate
classes . . . or to advance peasant claims (e.g., to land, work, charity,
respect) vis-'a-vis these superordinate classes." Such a definition makes
no requirement that resistance take the form of collective action, let alone
overt protest. Moreover (and here Scott's judgment has already begun to
generate controversy even among students of "everyday resistance"), the
intent to resist is "built into the definition."101
Casting the problem in these terms, Scott argues that most peasant
resistance has always proceeded on a day-to-day basis, outside the bounds
of organized movements. By "everyday forms," Scott means the full
range of "ordinary weapons" that have been used for centuries by peas-
ants and other relatively powerless groups such as slaves:102 at a mini-
mum, foot-dragging, dissimulation, and false compliance; and somewhat
more aggressively, slander, poaching, theft, arson, and sabotage. Collec-
tively, these forms of resistance are "Brechtian" (or better, "Schweikian")
forms of struggle, the "small arms fire of the class war."103 Such tactics
share certain common traits: they require little planning, represent forms
of self-help, and typically avoid any direct (and likely costly) confronta-
tion with powerful elites or state authorities. Their execution requires
only a modicum of room to maneuver and a supportive climate within the
26
peasant community. As Scott and resistance scholars observe, these his-

torical conditions have obtained minimally in even the most oppressive
plantation societies, while free peasant communities-even "open" strat-
ified ones-have often benefited from "deep subcultures of resistance to
outside claims."'104
Scott concedes that "the noisier events of agrarian history"-peas-
ant jacqueries and rebellions, as well as extensive bandit operations
(social and otherwise)-were almost invariably doomed to eventual de-
feat, even massacre. He argues, however, that "'this more clandestine,
undeclared war beneath the surface" had much greater success over the
long run in mitigating claims by the powerful on the peasantry.105 After
all, Scott contends, given peasants' pragmatic and truly conservative
bent, "the goal . . . of the bulk of . . . resistance is not to overthrow or
transform a system of domination but rather to survive-today, this week,
this season-within it."'106 Or, as Hobsbawm aptly observed, the aim of
peasants has always been to "work the system to their minimum dis-
advantage "1107
Such "/routine resistance" is little noticed in official state records
because it does not generate the programmatic remarks, violent encoun-
ters, and public demonstrations that tend to rivet the state's attention.
Indeed, the goal of the perpetrators is precisely to avoid drawing attention
to themselves. Moreover, state bureaucrats have little interest in publiciz-
ing incidents of peasant insubordination because doing so would ac-
knowledge unpopular policies and the limits of hegemony in the coun-
tryside and perhaps risk dismissal or something worse.108 With good
reason, then, do Scott and his colleagues argue that the historiography of
class struggles has been ""statolotrous." Minor, doomed revolts that have
left an impressive paper trail continue to preoccupy social historians
disproportionately to their impact on class relations, while "unheralded
acts of flight, sabotage, and theft that may be of greater long-run signifi-
cance are rarely noticed."109 Thus the priorities of agrarian history must
now be recast. Such routine forms of resistance were probably more
effective, certainly safer, and particularly appropriate for a diverse peas-
antry scattered across the countryside. Peasants, who are often isolated
from outside allies and internally differentiated according to relations of
production, have historically confronted formidable obstacles to mobi-
lization, let alone to organized collective action.110
Theft, the more generic and neutral term that Scott prefers to ban-
ditry, dovetails with his focus on individuals and the smallest, most infor-
mal of groups. It is therefore a crucial component of his schema of every-
day forms of peasant resistance. A closer examination allows teasing out
some of his thesis's most interesting and controversial notions.
In itself, rural theft is "unremarkable," a regular feature of agrarian
life whenever and wherever the state's agents cannot or will not control it.
27
Yet, "/when such theft takes on the dimensions of a struggle in which

property rights are contested," Scott views it as resistance.1"'
Herein lies the difficulty. How do scholars know when class strug-
gle lies at the heart of the matter? For example, poaching was the crime of
choice among the poor in England and France for centuries. Emile Zola
observed accurately in The Earth that "every peasant had a poacher inside
of him." Eighteenth-century poachers were intent on pressing their own
traditional agrarian rights when they resisted the gentry's exclusive claim
to property in wild game, but they also had an abiding interest in rabbit
stew. Nineteenth-century Maya villagers felt the loss of common lands
and resented the trampling of their milpa by the cattle of neighboring
haciendas. Yet their rustling also put meat on the table.112 In each case,
which of these inextricably fused motives should analysts assume was the
controlling one? For Scott, more is at stake than petty semantics because
on this question hinges the interpretation of a variety of activities that, he
contends, "lie historically at the core of everyday class relations."'113
As has been shown, British social historians have made a strong
case for the political and class meaning of certain collective forms of
poaching. Indeed, it would be difficult to assign a clear-cut economic
motive to the ""Hampshire Blacks," armed foresters who traversed the
eighteenth-century countryside administering folk justice to the English
gentry. "Blacking" could hardly be interpreted in terms of subsistence
needs or involvement in the illicit venison trade because the deer the
Blacks killed were often left to rot in the parks. Without entirely dismiss-
ing economic factors, E. P. Thompson has concluded that "other [political]
motives were dominant."114 In this regard, Guha's interpretation that
such popular acts of violence were invested with an inversive function,
undermining the gentry's authority by destroying its symbols, appears to
be right on the mark. But what of the many "free-lance" actions that the
Blacks precipitated by poachers, venison dealers, smugglers, and others
with whom the Blacks had no direct contact? Clearly, on our spectrum of
peasant resistance, the more an action shifts away from crime toward
rebellion, the more it is marked by political rather than economic inten-
tions. But the problem of common acts of theft remains to be resolved.
Scott makes an impressive effort to wrestle with this thorny prob-
lem. Essentially, he defends such individual (or small-group) acts of theft
as peasant resistance even when it is difficult to test for intent or defini-
tively establish social approval. Moreover, acts of theft-as-resistance need
not necessarily be directed at the immediate source of elite appropriation.
Because the perpetrator's objective is typically to meet pressing household
needs in as safe a manner as possible, Scott argues that the act of re-
sistance may likely follow the path of least resistance.115
These are controversial propositions. Do such self-interested, in-
formal episodes constitute genuine acts of political struggle by subordi-
28
nate classes? Scott's advocacy is often spirited and generally compelling.

Regarding the issue of "immediate self-interest" as opposed to "prin-
cipled collective action," he argues vigorously that whether one is talking
about peasant rebellions or petty theft, ""to ignore or relegate to some
lower realm the self-interested element in peasant resistance is to ignore
the determinate context of peasant politics. We need assume no more
than an understandable desire on the part of the peasant household to
persist . . . to identify the source of its resistance."116
Indeed, Scott points out that the social historian is unlikely to
penetrate much further on the question of motivation. Everyday resis-
tance depends for its effectiveness and safety on secrecy and the appear-
ance of conformity. He also contends that ""intentions may be so embed-
ded in the peasant subculture and in the routine, taken-for-granted
struggle for subsistence as to remain inarticulate." In other words, just as
"the fish do not talk about the water," so peasants themselves may not be
able to determine clearly which of the two intimately related motiva-
tions-subsistence or resistance-is the more powerful for them.117
Ultimately, in the absence of abundant documentary or oral evi-
dence, historians must assess the local setting and infer intention (that is,
peasant consciousness) from the social behavior itself. Where the material
interests of the dominant class are directly in conflict with those of the
peasantry (as in issues of access to land and water, rents, wages, and
employment), acts of rustling and theft against the haves by the have-nots
can be presumed to be resistance. But Scott's insistence on the presence of
resistance even in cases where the act of theft is not directed at the
peasant's immediate landlord or employer is obviously more problematic.
Resistance here is easier to justify where evidence exists of significant
regional participation or a mood of popular complicity-such as appar-
ently occurred in eighteenth-century England, India under the Raj, and
nineteenth-century Prussia and Corsica with the massive poaching of
wood. Such supporting evidence, however, is generally rare.118
Scott seems on firmer ground in questioning the superiority of
organized, collective action (presumed by liberal and Marxist scholars
alike) over forms of individual or small-scale self-help. He points out that
organized political activity is primarily the politics of elites, who have
traditionally monopolized institutional skills in rural societies: "It would
be naive to expect peasant activity to take the same form." Moreover, rural
options and responses, including theft, have historically been limited by
the prevailing structures of control and repression: "More than one
peasantry has been brutally reduced from open, radical political activity
at one moment to stubborn and sporadic acts of petty resistance the next."
In short, Scott and other resistance scholars are justifiably leery of allow-
ing the structure of domination to define what is and is not a legitimate
form of resistance.119
29
Scott argues that theft and other routine forms of peasant resis-
tance are fundamentally popular because they tap into a folk culture that
underwrites, legitimates, and even celebrates them. Thus while separate
acts of resistance proceed in the absence of formal organization, they
represent more than an aggregate of individual actions. Here, too, an elite
conception of organization derived from institutionalized settings pro-
vides little understanding of social action in small rural settlements with
vital informal networks and structures of ritual and community.
Several of Scott's Asianist colleagues are reluctant to go as far as he
does on the related questions of intent and popular support. While all
concur that intention is crucial in identifying everyday resistance, signifi-
cant debate continues as to what is required to identify motivation or
exactly how one distinguishes "routine resistance" from a variety of
survival strategies. For example, Scott's flat assertion that resistance is
whatever peasants do to deny or mitigate claims by appropriating classes
or to press their own claims vis-a-vis those dominant classes includes a
broader range of activities than Christine White or Brian Fegan are pre-
pared to grant in their work on rural social action in Vietnam and central
Luzon (the Philippines), respectively.120 Fegan argues that resistance
requires not only the intention to withhold services from powerful appro-
priators but also that fellow peasants concur that it is right to do so, a level
of consensus that cannot always be presumed. Benedict Kerkvliet, who
has also worked with Tagalog villagers in central Luzon, similarly under-
scores the need for a popular conception of justice to underwrite acts of
resistance, but he stops short of demanding the consensus required by
Fegan. Kerkvliet argues with Scott that it is naive to expect such an
embracing consensus in modern "open" peasant communities where
class contradictions are rife.121 In an interesting development, historian
Michael Adas's position on "avoidance protest" (his own term for "rou-
tine" forms of resistance) has also recently moved closer to Scott's rather
broad understanding of intent. Whereas Adas once required documen-
tary proof akin to the proverbial "smoking gun," insisting that such
protests have detrimental consequences known by both the resisting
peasants and their elite targets, he is now more comfortable reconstruct-
ing motivation circumstantially, through an in-depth analysis of the sur-
rounding context.122
Adas and Andrew Turton highlight the significant methodological
task of specifying as finely as possible the structures of domination if the
routine forms of resistance embedded within them are to be identified
and assessed. Adas emphasizes the need to conceptualize "whole" social,
political, ecological, and ideological systems "rather than concentrating
on peasant conditions and responses to vaguely delineated and car-
icatured elites."'123 Inspired by Foucault, Turton cautions that this
"specification" requires attention not only to institutional and physical
30
forms of control but to the exercise of power in manifold local "capillary

forms of domination," which include more subtle practices of intimida-
tion and cooptation that are often accomplished through surveillance and
the labeling of "deviant" behavior. Yet like Guha, Turton contends that the
strategic application of physical and discursive forms of power by the
dominant classes engenders analogous ("capillary") forms of struggle-a
kind of "microphysics of resistance."'124
The argument by Scott and these other Asianists that routine forms
of resistance, such as theft and rustling, drew support from solidary
bonds even within internally differentiated peasant communities raises
questions regarding Erick Langer's and Slatta's flat assertion that Latin
American banditry was invariably a "weaker strategy," a tactic of last
resort. They argue that unlike mestizo areas, which lacked strong corpo-
rate identities and were prone to banditry, structurally cohesive Indian
communities typically opted for rebellion when litigation and other non-
violent strategies (including migration) failed to stem elite encroachment
and abuse.125 Only painstaking microhistorical research (of the kind that
Langer, Benjamin Orlove, and Deborah Poole126 have done for the Boli-
vian and Peruvian Andes) will resolve this larger question of peasant
options and strategies across time and regions. But certainly, less drastic
and more routine forms of protest woven into long-term patterns of
pragmatic resistance, while challenging to document,127 should inform
conceptualization of the problem.
Steve Stern insists on this point in a recent essay formulating
methodological suggestions for the study of peasant resistance and con-
sciousness in the Andean world:
Only by asking why, during what period, and in what ways earlier patterns of
"resistance" and defense proved more compatible with and "adaptive" to the
wider structure of domination, and perhaps even its partial legitimation, do we
understand why resistance sometimes culminated in violent collective outbursts
against authority.... In some cases "resistant adaptation" may have included
occasional acts of violence, and the necessary analysis would therefore include
study of transformations in the uses of violence, rather than imply a pure or
simple transformation from nonviolent to violent forms of resistance.
Thus rebellion, when seen in this context, becomes "merely a short-term

variant within a long-term process of resistance and accommodation to
authority."128
Certainly, peasants' recourse to routine forms of resistance, includ-
ing theft and rustling, or to more coordinated acts of banditry and rebel-
lion depended at any given juncture on a variety of exogenous factors that
transcended peasant strategies and cultural resources. Such external
factors included the state's capacity for social control and enforcement as
well as strategies of appropriation by the state and the dominant classes.
Adas's work on south and southeast Asia during precolonial and colonial
31
times complements the essays in Stern's recent edited collection on the

Andean world by providing a wealth of documentation on how state
power and elite repression strongly influenced peasant consciousness
and tactical options.129 Adas's work is particularly valuable in showing
how the character of Asian banditry was dramatically transformed as the
colonial state consolidated itself. As state power advanced, large-scale
bandit operations were increasingly perceived by the authorities as poten-
tial political threats and were severely persecuted. Full-time professional
gangs then gave way to a proliferation of "part-time avengers." Because
they kept a lower profile, were not harassed by the state, and did not have
to prey on villagers in the neighborhood, these "part-timers" could more
easily maintain their accustomed roles in the peasant community. This
conclusion leads Adas to observe that social banditry may indeed have
been more a part-time or even a one-shot activity than the full-time career
that Hobsbawm suggests, a shrewd insight that lends nuance to Hobs-
bawm's venerable model.130
Why, then, should scholars necessarily assume that peasant vil-
lagers would eschew theft and banditry for rebellion? As noted, analysts
like Guha and Adas argue plausibly that some forms of banditry shared
the same inversive function as revolt and often evolved into it. Hobsbawm
himself recognized "the significant coexistence of banditry with more
ambitious or general movements of social insurrection."'131 Following the
logic of Scott's argument, one would expect to find something of an
escalation in protest forms, from the least to the most risky. After all,
peasants did not take risks easily, and the overriding goal remained
survival. Pursuit of this goal might require more dramatic and violent
strategies that could lead peasants far beyond individual and small-scale
robberies, assaults, and other routine measures of resistance. Yet Scott
argues persuasively that peasants ordinarily prefer ameliorative, incre-
mental strategies to insurgency or bold revolutionary claims. '32 After all,
merely by "working the system to their minimum disadvantage," peas-
ants have often been afforded opportunities to thwart the material and
symbolic claims of superordinate classes.133 Not surprisingly (and like the
higher profile "bandits" who also issued from their social milieu), peas-
ants' efforts have been routinely denigrated in elite discourse. Such
descriptions as "pilfering," "truculence," and "deceit" have all been used
to "label . .. the many faces of [routine] resistance." 134
Nevertheless, Scott, Adas, Stern, and other students of "everyday
forms of resistance," "avoidance protest," and "resistant adaptation" (the
nomenclature varies with the author) are all careful to emphasize that
resistance is not merely whatever peasants do to survive. Most of the
time, they accommodate and adapt. Moreover, when survival comes at the
expense of other peasants, appropriation by the dominant classes is
aided, not resisted. Scott views the extent to which peasants are reduced
32
"to purely 'beggar-thy-neighbor' strategies of survival" as central to a

social system's hegemonic capability: "Certain combinations of atomiza-
tion, terror, repression, and pressing material needs can indeed achieve
the ultimate dream of domination: to have the dominated exploit each
other."135 Here Scott and other students of routine resistance would sup-
port the position taken by several of the revisionist scholars of banditry:
that modern Latin American history provides ample, well-documented
evidence of peasant bandits who profited handsomely by leeching on
their own class, frequently in alliance with local elites or the state or both.
But the incidence of such behavior does not negate what these scholars
regard as another powerful and perhaps ultimately deeper current run-
ning throughout agrarian history: the persistent, day-to-day efforts of
peasants to defend their fundamental material and physical interests and
to reproduce themselves.
RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
This essay has attempted to expand existing analytical frameworks

for studying Latin American bandit phenomena. Unfortunately, as has
frequently been the case in Latin American social history, conceptual and
methodological developments in other fields and disciplines have filtered
rather slowly into the literature on Latin American banditry.136 Latin
Americanists are still debating in earnest the merits of Hobsbawm's model
of social banditry twenty years after its more mature statement, and more
than a decade after British social historians began to distinguish among
various forms of "protest crime."'137 Meanwhile, newer innovative ap-
proaches to the broader themes of peasant resistance and consciousness,
emanating largely from other Third World agrarian contexts, have only
slowly begun to make an imprint on the research agenda.138
The new perspectives offered by Ranajit Guha and the "subalter-
nists" on the one hand and by James Scott and students of everyday
resistance on the other deserve critical reading and testing by Latin
Americanists. Both approaches reiterate that forms of peasant resistance
must not be understood in essentialist terms but historically. Peasant
political strategies were "traditional" in the sense that their roots could be
traced back in time and they emerged from long-standing, but hardly
static, relationships to the land and systems of production. By no means
were they "archaic" in the sense of being outmoded or prepolitical.
Moreover, together with the more established literature in British and
European social history, such new literary currents underscore the meth-
odological as well as conceptual possibilities that the study of crime and
resistance continues to offer for a more adequate social history of Latin
America from below.
Nevertheless, dangers inhabit an approach that attempts to gener-
33
alize about social trends and class tensions largely on the basis of criminal
phenomena. As the recent "revisionist" mood in British social history
indicates, criminal data can be notoriously unreliable. Chronic under-
reporting of certain crimes renders such evidence highly problematic as a
barometer of social life or class dynamics. Moreover, an obsession with
"protest crime"-actions in defense of peasant moral economy-risks
relegating "normal" crime "to the status of unintelligible counterpoint."139
Similar cautions should be entertained by students of Latin Ameri-
can agrarian societies. Indiscriminately equating poorly documented,
self-interested acts of theft and destruction of property with resistance
risks blurring the distinctions between crime and protest to the point
where neither serves as a useful analytical category. If resistance is to be
inferred from the social context, historians should be prepared to make a
compelling, if not gilt-edged, case. In this regard, several of the Latin
American revisionist critiques of Hobsbawmian social banditry make
convincing historical arguments, particularly Lewin's and Chandler's
studies of the Brazilian sertao. Like their British counterparts, empathetic
Latin American historians should guard against the temptation to exagge-
rate confrontations between large landowners and the laboring classes,
perhaps excluding in the process middle sectors that were at once particu-
larly vulnerable to actions against property and well-placed to broker or
actually lead them.140
Bandit studies will advance as a more nuanced social history of the
Latin American countryside continues to emerge. By focusing on the
internal organization of the rural sector and its links with external loci of
power, the best revisionist work demonstrates how an interest in bandits
contributes to a better understanding of rural communities and vice
versa. Still, one has to wonder to what extent Hobsbawm's seductive but
monochromatic portrait of a traditional peasantry seized by "fundamen-
tal rage" -a depiction inspired largely by Mediterranean experience-has
served to delay serious inquiry into a variety of social themes that histo-
rians of Latin American banditry are only now beginning to investigate.
For example, in addition to documenting a rather diverse set of
social backgrounds for the region's most visible bandit chieftains,141 schol-
ars are beginning to reassess the social composition of brigand gangs. In
the process, they are challenging Hobsbawm's notion that bandits were
recruited disproportionately from the ranks of the rural unemployed or
underemployed and were typically "young and single or unattached."142
Ethnohistorical research on the social fabric and political culture of village
and hacienda communities in Mexico and the Andes has begun to reveal
the active participation of older smallholding peasants with dependents in
a variety of bandit operations. Such studies have also raised new ques-
tions about the role of women, families, gender relations, and wider
networks of kinship and patronage in banditry. 143 Frequently, such exten-
34
sive factional networks facilitated bandit operations and alliances in towns

and cities, blurring the conventional distinction between rural and urban
life.144 Only when these leads are tracked down by the next generation of
bandit scholars and particularly when issues of gender, household, and
faction are more successfully integrated into studies of banditry and rural
social action will Latin American historians really be able to speak with
any degree of authority or nuance about "peasant moral economy" (or
"rational choice") and "subcultures of resistance."'145
Finally, Latin Americanists need to know more about the develop-
ment of judicial systems across the region, as well as about the state's
historical relationship with superordinate classes in general. Might it be
an exaggeration to reflexively identify criminal law and the courts with a
ruling class that is viewed as a mirror image of the criminal classes, such
that law-as-social-control invariably confronts crime-as-social-protest?146
Does "limited autonomy of the state" only apply in twentieth-century
contexts?147 Even if the law predominantly performs a hegemonic func-
tion, historians need a more sophisticated analysis of its relationship to
other state functions and agencies, as well as to groups and institutions in
civil society.148 In other words, even as we ponder the intriguing concep-
tual formulations of writers like Guha and Scott, we must guard against
sociological generalizations and learn more about the distribution of
power, the nature of the state, and the role of law and the courts in the
recent Latin American past. An adequate social history of bandits and of
peasants in general will be crafted only when a history of protest and
resistance from below is effectively integrated with a history of power and
interests from above.149 Hobsbawm, for one, is heartened by such an
expansion of the research agenda. Thirty years after the publication of
Primitive Rebels, he observed, "the serious historical study of banditry is
only just beginning."'150
NOTES
1. Alan Knight, The Mexican Revolution, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986), 1:353-54.
2. Friedrich Katz, "Rural Uprisings in Mexico," manuscript, 1981.
3. Eric J. Hobsbawm, Primnitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Form1s of Social Movement in
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centtiries (Manchester, Engl.: Manchester University Press,
1959), esp. 13-29; and Hobsbawm, Bandits (New York: Pantheon, 1969; rev. ed., 1981).
4. For a critical discussion of these variants, see Linda Lewin, "The Oligarchical Limita-
tions of Social Banditry in Brazil: The Case of the 'Good' Thief Ant6nio Silvino," in
Bandidos: The Varieties of Latin American Banditry, edited by Richard W. Slatta (New
York: Greenwood Press, 1987), esp. 67-69, 91 (quotation). Lewin's essay was originally
published in Past and Present, 82 (Feb. 1979):116-46. Hobsbawm also posited a third,
less clearly defined variant of social bandit, the haiduks or primitive guerrilla fighters.
Haiduks were groups or entire communities of free armed men who became involved
in-and often led-movements for national liberation, typically in frontier or periph-
eral zones. Their relevance to the debate on Latin American banditry is discussed in a
subsequent section of this article.
35
5. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, 5.

6. The quotation comes from Billy Jaynes Chandler, "Brazilian Cangaceiros as Social Ban-
dits: A Critical Appraisal," in Slatta, Bandidos, 100.
7 Hobsbawm, Bandits, 132 (all citations from this work refer to the 1981 revised edition).
8. Stendhal as cited in Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in
the Age of Philip II, 2d rev. ed. in 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 2:745.
9. Slatta, Bandidos, "Introduction," 2; and "Conclusion," 191, 196.
10. Two paradigmatic illustrations of this pervasive Latin American tradition in Peru
convey a sense of the genre: Alberto Carrillo Ramirez, Luis Pardo, "El Gran Bandido":
vida y hechos del fainoso bandolero chiquino que acapar6 la atenci6n ptiblica durante varios
anos (Lima: n.p., 1970); and Enrique L6pez Albujar, Los caballeros del delito (Lima: Juan
Mejia Baca, 1936; 2d ed., 1973).
11. For the now-celebrated 1972 debate, see Anton Blok, "The Peasant and the Brigand:
Social Banditry Reconsidered," Comnparative Studies in Society and History 14, no. 4
(Sept. 1972):494-503 (quotation, 496); and Hobsbawm's "Reply" in the same issue,
503-5. Blok went on to develop his critique of social banditry in The Mafia of a Sicilian
Village, 1860-1960 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974), esp. in chaps. 1 and 5. Other notable
revisionist studies include Pat O'Malley, "Social Bandits, Modern Capitalism, and the
Traditional Peasantry: A Critique of Hobsbawm, " Journal of Peasant Studies 6, no. 4 (July
1979):489-501; David Moss, "Bandits and Boundaries in Sardinia," Man, n.s. 14
(1979):477-96; Richard White, "Outlaw Gangs of the Middle Border: American Social
Bandits," Western Historical Quarterly 12, no. 4 (Oct. 1981):387-408; Banditry, Rebellion,
and Social Protest in Africa, edited by Donald Crummey (Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann
Educational Books, 1986); John S. Koliopoulos, Brigands with a Cause: Brigandage and
Irredentism in Modern Greece, 1821-1912 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987); Ruth Pike,
"The Reality and Legend of the Spanish Bandit Diego Corrientes," Folklore 99, no. 2
(1988):242-47; Stephen Wilson, Feuding, Conflict, and Banditry in Nineteenth-Century
Corsica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Phil Billingsley, Bandits in
Republican China (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988); Cheah Boon
Kheng, The Peasant Robbers of Kedah, 1900-1929: Historical and Folk Perceptions (Sin-
gapore: Oxford University Press, 1988); and Claire B. Potter, "Guarding the Cross-
roads: The FBI's War on Crime in the 1930s," Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1990.
12. For example, Rui Fac6, Cangaceiros e Fanaticos, 2d ed. (Rio de Janeiro: Civilizaca-o
Brasileira, 1965); Amaury de Souza, "The Canga(o and the Politics of Violence in
Northeast Brazil," in Protest and Resistance in Angola and Brazil, edited by Ronald L.
Chilcote (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972), 109-31;
Robert J. Rosenbaum, Mexicano Resistance in the Southwest: "The Sacred Right of Self-
Preservation" (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981); Jean Meyer, Esperanldo a Lozada
(Guadalajara: El Colegio de Michoacan and CONACYT, 1984); Louis A. Perez, Jr.,
"Vagrants, Beggars, and Bandits: The Social Origins of Cuban Separatism, 1878-1895,"
American Historical Review 90, no. 5 (Dec. 1985):1092-1121; Perez, "The Pursuit of
Pacification: Banditry and the United States' Occupation of Cuba, 1889-1902," Journal
of Latin American Studies 18, pt. 2 (Nov. 1986):313-32; and Perez, Lords of the Mountain:
Social Banditry and Peasant Protest in Cuba, 1878-1918 (Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-
burgh Press, 1989). Braudel's treatment of brigandage in Spain and the Mediterranean
world during the sixteenth century also supports Hobsbawm's argument. See Braudel,
The Mediterranean 2:734-56.
13. Billy Jaynes Chandler, The Bandit King: Lampiao of Brazil (College Station: Texas A & M
Press, 1978); "Brazilian Cangaceiros as Social Bandits," in Slatta, Bandidos, 97-112; and
Chandler, King of the Mountain: The Life and Death of Giuliano the Bandit (DeKalb:
Northern Illinois Press, 1988), esp. chap. 12.
14. In addition to the work by Linda Lewin cited in note 4, see Lewin, "Oral Tradition and
Elite Myth: The Legend of Antonio Silvino in Brazilian Popular Culture," Journal of
Latin American Lore 2 (Winter 1979):157-204; and Lewin, Politics and Parentela in
Para,'ba: A Case Study of Family-Based Oligarchy in Brazil (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1987).
15. Paul J. Vanderwood, Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police, and Mexican Development
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981); see also the special issue, "Social Bandit-
36
ry and Spanish American Independence," which Vanderwood edited and introduced,

in Bibliotheca Americana 1, no. 2 (Nov. 1982).
16. Rosalie Schwartz, Lazwless Liberators: Political Banditryl and Ciuban Iindependence (Dur-
ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989).
17 Richard W. Slatta, "Rural Criminality and Social Conflict in Nineteenth-Century
Buenos Aires Province," Hispanic American Historical Reviezw 60, no. 3 (Aug. 1980):
450-72; and Slatta's edited volume, Bandidos, to which he contributed the introduction,
conclusion, and two essays (see note 30 below).
18. Carleton Beals, "Brigandage, " in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 15 vols. (New York:
Macmillan, 1930), 2:693-96 (quotation, 694).
19. Peter Singelmann, "Political Structure and Social Banditry in Northeast Brazil," Joulrn1al
of Latini American Sttudies 7, pt. 1 (May 1975):59-83; Benjamin S. Orlove, "The Position
of Rustlers in Regional Society: Social Banditry in the Andes," in Land and Pozoer in
Latin Amlerica: Agrarian Economies and Social Processes in the Andes, edited by Orlove and
Glynn Custred (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1980), 179-94; Lewis Taylor, Bandits anld
Politics in Peru: Landlord and Peasant Violence in Hiialgayoc, 1900-1930 (Cambridge:
Centre of Latin American Studies, Cambridge University, 1986); and Alberto Flores
Galindo, Aristocracia y plebe: Limla, 1760-1830 (Lima: Mosca Azul Editores, 1984),
esp. chap. 5.
20. Singelmann, "Political Structure and Social Banditry," 60.
21. See note 4.
22. Slatta, Baindidos, "Introduction," 2.
23. Ibid., "Conclusion," 198, 191.
24. Ibid., "Conclusion," 192.
25. These findings are formally stated in Slatta's Bandidos, "Introduction," 8.
26. On this point, also see Maria Isaura Pereira de Queiroz, Os Cangaceiros (Sao Paulo:
Duas Cidades, 1977), which was originally published in 1968 in French as Cangaceiros:
Les Bandits d'Iionnleiir bresiliens; Lewis Taylor, Bandits and Politics, esp. chap. 1; and
Deborah A. Poole, "Landscapes of Power in a Cattle-Rustling Culture of Southern
Andean Peru," paper presented at the 46th International Congress of Americanists,
Amsterdam, 4-8 July 1988. Also compare Wilson, Feuiding, Conflict, and Banditry.
27 Slatta, Bandidos, "Conclusion," 193.
28. Ibid., 191.
29. Vanderwood, "Nineteenth-Century Mexico's Profiteering Bandits," in Slatta, Banididos,
11-31; Vanderwood, Disorder anid Progress; Christon Archer, "Banditry and Revolution
in New Spain, 1790-1821," Bibliotheca Americatna 1, no. 2 (Nov. 1982):59-90; and
William Taylor, "Bandit Gangs in Late Colonial Times: Rural Jalisco, Mexico, 1794-
1821," Bibliotheca Americana 1, no. 2 (Nov. 1982):29-58.
30. Miguel Izard and Slatta, "Banditry and Social Conflict on the Venezuelan Llanos," in
Slatta, Bancdidos, 33-47; and Slatta, "Images of Social Banditry on the Argentine
Pampa," in the same work, 49-65.
31. Schwartz, Lazoless Liberators.
32. For example, see Koliopoulos, Brigancds with a Cauise.
33. Hobsbawm, Bandits, chap. 5 (quotations, 80-81).
34. Louis A. Perez, Jr., "'La Chambelona': Political Protest, Sugar, and Social Banditry in
Cuba, 1914-1917," in Slatta, Bandidos, 131-47 This essay was originally published in
Inter-American Economzic Affairs 31, no. 4 (Spring 1978):3-28.
35. Gonzalo Sanchez and Donny Meertens, "Political Banditry and the Colombian Violen-
cia," in Slatta, Bandidos, 151-70; and Sanchez and Meertens, Banldoleros, gamonales y
campesinos: el caso de la violencia eni Colombia, 2d ed. (BogotA: El Ancora Editores, 1984).
For a partisan account that graphically details the marginalization and pursuit of such
bandit gangs, see Evelio Buitrago Salazar, Zarpazo the Bandit: Memloirs of an Undercover
Agent of the Colombian Army (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1977;
originally published in Spanish in 1968).
36. Hobsbawm, Bandits, 93-95. In Bandits and Politics, Lewis Taylor develops his more
detailed analysis of Benel's career along the very lines suggested here by Hobsbawm.
37 See, particularly, Hobsbawm, Bandits, chap. 6 (quotations, 85).
38. Ibid., 87-88 (Hobsbawm's italics).
37
39. For an incisive examination of this paradoxical identity in the case of twentieth-century
Chinese bandits, see Billingsley, Bandits in Republican China; also compare Blok's rich
discussion of the domestication of Sicilian brigands by well-entrenched mafiosi in The
Mafia of a Sicilian Village, esp. chap. 5.
40. This theme of peasants preying on each other will be considered in my subsequent
discussion of James Scott's recent work.
41. But as suggested before, at times the revisionists are the ones who verge on reduc-
tionism in exaggerating or simplifying elements of Hobsbawm's thesis, which is often
more nuanced than they convey. Blok himself candidly refers to "the widespread
vulgarization of Hobsbawm's model [by critics and supporters alike] that tends to see
virtually all brigandage as a manifestation of peasant protest." See Blok, The Mafia of a
Sicilian Village, 101n. Be this at it may, close attention to Hobsbawm's progressive
refinements of the model since the publication of Primitive Rebels reveals something of
the subtlety (and wiliness) of the old master. The closer one looks for a clear-cut
"model," the harder it is to find. Indeed, Hobsbawm never actually defines social
banditry (nor do the majority of his critics, an issue I will take up later in the essay) but
rather presents a number of traits that the social bandit tends to display. Moreover,
Hobsbawm's writings are filled with disclaimers that among the various kinds of
bandits in history, by far the most common are garden-variety thugs and criminals.
Thus in a certain sense, when the revisionists attempt to pin Hobsbawm down and
marshall a detailed brief against his "model," "they wrestle where none contendeth,"
to quote one his defenders. See Arnold Bauer's review of Slatta's Bandidos in the Journal
of Social History 22, no. 3 (Spring 1989):562. In this regard, one Europeanist critic of
Hobsbawm noted with a certain amount of frustration that "Hobsbawm frequently
acknowledges [the] aspects of banditry highlighted by his critics but gives them little
emphasis in his general interpretation." See Wilson, Feuding, Conflict, and Banditry,
507
42. The structural diversity of the countryside and its impact on forms of social action over
a long time span is the theme of Friedrich Katz's new edited collection, Riot, Rebellion,
and Revolution: Rural Social Conflict in Mexico (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1988).
43. Chandler, "Brazilian Cangaceiros," in Slatta, Bandidos, 103; also compare the same
author's similarly antitheoretical remarks in King of the Mountain, 215.
44. For example, see James Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forns of Peasant Resistance
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985), 233.
45. Chandler, "Brazilian Cangaceiros," in Slatta, Bandidos, 109; also compare Judith Ewell's
review of Slatta's Bandidos in The Americas 45, no. 1 (July 1988):131-33.
46. For a rigorous revisionist analysis of capoeira, the Brazilian social phenomenon that
some writers have portrayed as an urban variant of social banditry, see Thomas H.
Holloway, "'A Healthy Terror': Police Repression of Capoeiras in Nineteenth-Century
Rio de Janeiro," Hispanic American Historical Review 69, no. 4 (Nov. 1989):637-76.
47 From Slatta's edited Bandidos, see Slatta, "Images of Social Banditry"; Lewin, "The
Oligarchical Limitations of Social Banditry"; and Chandler, "Brazilian Cangaceiros." See
also Schwartz, Lazoless Liberators, esp. 9-13; and Maria Poumier-Taquechel, Contribu-
tion a l'etude du banditisine social a Cuba: L'Histoire et le inythe de Manuel Garcia (Paris:
Editions L'Harmattan, 1986).
48. See Lewin, "Oral Tradition and Elite Myth." Compare Koliopoulos's discussion of the
deft manipulation of myths about pallikar and klepht (brigand) heroes by the ruling class
of postindependence Greece. See Brigands zvith a Cause, esp. chap. 11. In addition to
research remaining to be done on flesh-and-blood bandits and their social and mental
worlds, much work has yet to be undertaken on the care and grooming of their myths,
particularly the reasons why idealized images of brigands emerge at some historical
conjunctures and not at others. For an interesting study of modern U.S. banditry,
which relates representations of bandit myth to watersheds in the process of state
building, see Potter, "Guarding the Crossroads."
49. Writing about nineteenth-century Chinese banditry, Moore cautioned, "It is necessary
to be aware of romanticizing the robber as a friend of the poor just as much as of
accepting the official image." See Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship:
38
Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1968),
214. Drawing on both criminal archives and popular lore, Lewin comes as close as any
Latin Americanist scholar to achieving an understanding of the bandit as historical
actor and transcendent symbol. For a commendable Asian study in the same vein, see
Cheah, Peasant Robbers of Kedah, especially chap. 3.
50. For a balanced assessment of the value of folkloric sources, see James A. Inciardi, Alan
A. Block, and Lyle A. Hallowell, Historical Approaches to Crime: Research Strategies and
Issues (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1977), chap. 2.
51. Knight, The Mexican Revolution 1:354.
52. Ibid., 1:122-23.
53. Richard Cobb, The Police and the People: French Popular Protest, 1789-1820 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1972), 93.
54. The relevant work of British social historians such as E. P. Thompson, Douglas Hay,
Peter Linebaugh, and Cal Winslow is discussed further on in the article.
55. Knight, The Mexican Revolution 1:123-26, 352. Drawing on his own research on the late
nineteenth-century "Kelly Outbreak" in Australia, O'Malley's "Social Bandits, Mod-
ern Capitalism, and the Traditional Peasantry" also emphasizes the potential for social
bandits to galvanize rural communities of heterogeneous class composition "where
there exists a commonly shared experience of . . . exploitation" (p. 492). In the process,
O'Malley questions Hobsbawm's insistence that communal unity depends on the
existence of a solidary "traditional peasantry." Knight's ecological analysis acknowl-
edges a debt to Constancio Bernaldo Quir6s's pioneering but little-cited study, El
bandolerismo en Espana y en Mexico (Mexico City: Juridica Mexicana, 1959). Other works
that show great sensitivity to the ecological determinants of bandit phenomena include
L6pez Albujar, Los caballeros del delito; Lewis Taylor, Bandits and Politics; Orlove, "The
Position of Rustlers"; and the Slatta anthology Bandidos, although Slatta surely over-
states his case in discounting the "social" content of banditry in remote or frontier areas
that lacked a high concentration of peasant villages. For examples, see Bandidos, 4-5,
191-92.
56. Knight, The Mexican Revolution 1:123, 354; compare Vanderwood, "Nineteenth-Cen-
tury Mexico's Profiteering Bandits," and Disorder and Progress, esp. xv-xviii, 14-15, 56,
95-96. See also Claudia Gerdes, Mexikanisches Banditentum (1821-1876) als sozial-
geschichtliches Phlinomen (Saarbriucken: G. Breitenbach, 1987), which demonstrates
that however enterprising such bandits might have been, social and racial barriers in
nineteenth-century Mexican society typically thwarted their attempts to gain social
mobility.
57 Knight, The Mexican Revolution 1:354.
58. Ibid., 1:355. In Primitive Rebels, Hobsbawm had noted that "one sort of bandit can
easily turn into another" (p. 13); see also Bandits, 56. Compare similar observations by
Fernand Braudel, "Misere et banditisme," Annales 2 (1947):129-43; Blok, "The Peasant
and the Brigand," 496; and particularly the following passage by Wilson on nineteenth-
century Corsican banditry: "Driven from his own territory, separated from his network
of support, the bandit of honor would be forced to attack travellers, to prey on local
people, in order to survive. Even if he did stay in his own region, he might be caught up
in a web of crimes . . . in defending himself against his enemies or escaping the pursuit
of the authorities." See Wilson, Feuding, Conflict, and Banditry, 357.
59. Here one finds an interesting parallel with Donald Crummey's anthology, Banditrjl,
Rebellion, and Social Protest in Africa. Although the editor rather straightforwardly
dismisses the validity of "social banditry" in the African context, several of the volume's
essays document organic ties between brigands and peasant communities.
60. For example, see Chandler, "Brazilian Cangaceiros," 102. Indeed, Chandler's new study
of the renowned Sicilian bandit, Salvatore Giuliano, King of the Mountain, itself docu-
ments close ties between Giuliano and the local peasantry.
61. Schwartz, Lawless Liberators, 255.
62. Flores Galindo, Aristocracia y plebe, 142-58.
63. Compare Moss, "Bandits and Boundaries," 480.
64. See Catherine LeGrand's review of Slatta's Bandidos in American Historical Reviezw
no. 4 (Oct. 1988):1145.
39
Latin American Research Reviezw
65. Ranajit Guha, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgenicy in Colonzial In7dia (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1983), 11.
66. Several younger anthropologists working on northern Mexico, who have combined
extensive archival research with ethnographic and oral history strategies, have already
done much to advance this approach among Latin Americanists. For example, see Ana
Marfa Alonso, "The Hermaneutics of History: Class Struggle and Revolution in the
Chihuahuan Sierra," manuscript; Maria Teresa Koreck, "The Constitution and Deploy-
ment of Popular Knowledges: From Colonists to Colonized to Revolutionaries," Ph.D.
diss., University of Chicago, forthcoming; and the essays by Alonso, Koreck, and
Daniel Nugent in Rural Revolt and United States Inztervention in Mexico, edited by Nug
(La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, 1988).
Historian Eric Van Young has creatively employed psychoanalytical concepts to tease
out an understanding of popular ideologies in the Wars of Independence. See Van
Young, "Millennium on the Northern Marches: The Mad Messiah of Durango and
Popular Rebellion in Mexico, 1800-1815," Comparative Studies in Society ald Historyl
no. 3 (July 1986):385-413; also Van Young, "To See Someone Not Seeing: Historical
Studies of Peasants and Politics in Mexico," Mexicanz Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 6, no. 1
(Winter 1990):133-59. See also notes 128 and 138.
67 Ranajit Guha, Elemen7tary Aspects, 11-12. In addition to having published this major
work, Guha edits and contributes to Subalternii Studies (published by Oxford University
Press in Delhi), a journal dedicated to questions of working-class resistance and
consciousness in South Asia. For a selection of some of the best early work in the
journal, see Subalterni Studies I: Writings on South Asiani History anzd Society, edited b
Ranajit Guha (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982).
68. Political sociologists, anthropologists, and social historians continue to debate the
relative importance of and relationship between internal and external determinants of
peasant social action in twentieth-century revolutions. Analysis of such discourse lies
beyond the scope of this essay and has been carried out elsewhere. For example, see
John Tutino, From Insurrection to Revolution inZ Mexico: Social Bases of Agrarian Violence,
1750-1940 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986). The first chapter assesses
recent contributions by Barrington Moore, Theda Skocpol, Charles Tilly, Eric Wolf,
Jeffrey Paige, James Scott, and others.
69. Ranajit Guha, Elemenitary Aspects, 76-108; compare Billingsley, Banidits in Republicanz
Chinia, and Michael Adas, "From Avoidance to Confrontation: Peasant Protest in
Precolonial and Colonial Southeast Asia," Com1Zparative Sttudies in Society anid History 2
no. 1 (1981):217-47 At points, Guha's neat correlation of worsening economic condi-
tions and mass discontent comes dangerously close to the now-discredited notion of a
"J-Curve" and other variants of the "volcanic theory" of popular movements. For a
critique of such thinking, see Rod Aya, "Popular Intervention in Revolutionary Situa-
tions," in Statemiaking and Social Movements: Essays in Histor1y an7d Theory, edited by
Charles Bright and Susan Harding (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984),
318-43.
70. Ranajit Guha, Elementary Aspects, 106.
71. Ibid., 107-8.; compare Michel Foucault, Discipline anzd Puniishl, translated by Alan
Sheridan (New York: Pantheon, 1977; originally published in French in 1975), esp.
75-87, 274.
72. Braudel observes that banditry is "an ill-defined word if ever there was one." See
Braudel, The Mediterraneanz 1:102. Only one example of an informative case study t
appreciably undermined by its failure to define or conceptualize banditry is Richard L.
Maullin, The Fall of DumarAljure, a Colombian Guerrilla and Banidit (Santa Monica, Calif.:
Rand Corporation, 1969).
73. Moss, "Bandits and Boundaries"; Paul C. Winther, "Contemporary Dacoity and Tradi-
tional Politics in South Asia," University of Oklahzoma Papers in Anthzropology 18, no.
(Fall 1977):153-66; and Poole, "Landscapes of Power."
74. Michel Foucault's most influential work on "deviance" and "labeling," Disciplilne an
Punzish, is cited in note 71. Representative of the Anglo-Saxon sociological and crim
nological literature are The Other Side: Perspectives onz Deviance, edited by Howard S.
Becker (New York: Free Press, 1964); Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of
40
Deviance (New York: Free Press, 1963); David Matza, Becomning Deviant (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1969); Donald Black, The Behavior of Lazy (New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1978); Philip Abrams, Historical Sociology (Somerset, Engl.: Open Books,
1982), esp. chap. 9; David Downes and Paul Rock, Uniderstaniding Deviance: A Guide to
the Sociology of Crime and Rule-Breaking (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982); and George B.
Vold and Thomas J. Bernard, Theoretical Criminology, 3d ed. (New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1986), especially 47-107
75. For example, see Eric Van Young, "Mentalities and Collectivities: A Comment," in
Rebellions in Mexican History, edited by Jaime E. Rodrfguez 0. (Los Angeles: Latin
American Center, University of California, Los Angeles, forthcoming).
76. For example, see Slatta, Bandidos, 1; and Wilson, Feuding, Conflict, and Ban7ditry, 38-39;
compare Hobsbawm, Bandits, 17
77 Moss, "Bandits and Boundaries," 480. Compare Cheah, Peasant Robbers of Kedah, 8-9; and
Ann Laura Stoler, "Plantation Politics and Protest on Sumatra's East Coast," Journal of
Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):124-43. Stoler argues persuasively that "'criminality'
became newly defined by whatever it was that potential workers did to keep themselves
independent of [Dutch] colonial cash cropping commitments, plantation and mining
jobs, that is, by working as forest foragers, hunters, squatters, scavengers and thieves"
(p. 140, Stoler's italics). Also see Jack Goody's discussion of the law as an elite discourse of
power that changes according to the requirements of that elite, in Goody, The Logic of
Writing and the Organization of Society, chap. 4, "The Letter of the Law."
78. Moss, "Bandits and Boundaries," 480-81; compare Foucault, Discipline ald Punish,
274-77; and Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (New York: Harper and
Row, 1985), 165.
79. In addition to Ranajit Guha, Elemenitary Aspects, 78-106, and Foucault, Discipline and
Punzish, 178-85, see Goody, The Logic of Writing, 133-35, and Andrew Turton, "Patroll-
ing the Middle-Ground: Methodological Perspectives on Everyday Peasant Resis-
tance," Journal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):36-48.
80. James Scott and Michael Adas make much the same point in their discussions of forms
of rural protest in South and Southeast Asia. For citations of Scott's and Adas's principal
works, see notes 44, 69, and 97
81. C. A. Bayly, "Rallying around the Subaltern," Journal of Peasant Studies 16, no. 1 (Oct.
1988):110-20 (quotation, 119).
82. Ibid. O'Malley also emphasizes the internal differentiation of the peasantry and the
rural working class but is more sanguine about the poor's propensity to resist and their
capacity to submerge sectional differences in the face of common experiences of
exploitation. See "Social Bandits, Modern Capitalism, and the Traditional Peasantry."
83. See especially E. P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act (London:
Allen Lane, 1975); and E. P. Thompson, Douglas Hay, Peter Linebaugh et al., Albion's
Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Centiury England (New York: Pantheon, 1975);
also see Hobsbawm's and George Rudes earlier account of the 1830 "Swing Move-
ment," Captain Szving (New York: Pantheon, 1968). A comparable study on British India
is Ramachandra Guha and Madhav Gadgil, "State Forestry and Social Conflict in
British India," Past and Present, no. 123 (May 1989):141-77.
84. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters, 145.
85. For example, see ibid., 64; and Cal Winslow, "Sussex Smugglers," in Thompson et al.,
Albion's Fatal Tree, 119-66, esp. 159.
86. Preface to Albion's Fatal Tree, 14.
87. See Slatta, Bandidos, 3, 191. Compare the similarly uncritical revisionist posture toward
"official" sources in Inciardi et al., Historical Approaches to Crimne, and Koliopoulos,
Brigands with a Cause, viii, 279. For another insightful critique of how such sources have
been abused by historians and anthropologists, see Renato Rosaldo, "From the Door of
His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor," in Writing Culture, edited by James
Clifford and George E. Marcus (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1986), 77-97 In a recent paper (which I heard after this essay went to press),
Slatta briefly acknowledges the bias inherent in official sources: "Banditry as Political
Participation in Latin America," paper presented at the meeting of the American
Historical Association, San Francisco, 29 Dec. 1989.
41
88. Slatta, Bandidos, 6; also Consul H. M. Wolcott as cited by Perez in "'La Chambelona,'
in Slatta, Bandidos, 141.
89. Dretha Phillips, "Latin American Banditry and Criminological Theory," in Slatta,
Bandidos, 187-89.
90. William Taylor, Drinking, Homnicide, and Rebellion in Colonial Mexican Villages (Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1979); Gilbert M. Joseph and Allen Wells, Slummner of
Discontenit, Seasons of Upheaval: Elite Politics and Rlural Insurgency in Yucatdn, 1890-1915
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, forthcoming); also compare Rosaldo,
"From the Door of His Tent." Despite problems of interpretation, Wells and I have
found criminal court testimonies invaluable in reconstructing peasant participation in
and perceptions of revolts and other forms of resistance in Yucatan during the late
Porfiriato and early years of the Mexican Revolution. For example, see Joseph and
Wells, "The Rough and Tumble Career of Pedro Crespo," in The Human Tradition in
Latin America: The Tzventieth Century, edited by William Beezley and Judith Ewell
(Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1987), 27-40.
91. Here, the Comaroffs' notion of a "rhetoric of contrasts" is illuminating. See John
Comaroff and Jean Comaroff, "The Madman and the Migrant: Work and Labor in the
Historical Consciousness of a South African People," American Ethnologist 14, no. 2
(1987):191-209; compare Ranajit Guha, Elemenitary Aspects, 16-17
92. Ranajit Guha, Elementary Aspects, 17; also see Winther, "Contemporary Dacoity," for
the British colonial authorities' characterization of Indian dacoits (bandits).
93. Van Young, "Mentalities and Collectivities."
94. The phrase is borrowed from Billingsley's discussion of the Chinese state's depiction of
brigands in Bandits in Repuiblican China, xiv.
95. Richard M. Morse, "The Heritage of Latin America," in The Founding of Nezw Societies,
edited by Louis Hartz (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1964), 123-77, esp. 151-77; and Van
Young, "Mentalities and Collectivities."
96. Van Young, "Mentalities and Collectivities." For documentation of a significant histor-
ical case of such criminalization of popular protest, see Leon G. Campbell, "Banditry
and the Tuipac Amaru Rebellion in Cuzco, Peru, 1780-1784," Bibliotheca Americana 1,
no. 3 (1983):164-80.
97 James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, "Resistance without Protest and without Organiza
tion: Peasant Opposition to the Islamic Zacat and the Christian Tithe," Colliparative
Stludies in Society and History, no. 293 (July 1987):417-52; Scott "Everyday Forms of
Peasant Resistance," Journal of Peasant Stludies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):5-35; Michael Adas,
"From Avoidance to Confrontation"; Adas, "From Footdragging to Flight: The Evasive
History of Peasant Avoidance Protest in South and Southeast Asia," Jolurnal of Peasant
Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan 1986):64-86; and Adas, "Bandits, Monks, and Pretender Kings:
Patterns of Peasant Resistance and Protest in Colonial Burma, 1826-1941, " in Pozver and
Protest in the Countryside, edited by Robert P. Weller and Scott E. Guggenheim (Dur-
ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1982), 75-105. See also the remaining essays in the
special issue edited by James Scott and Benedict Kerkvliet, "Everyday Forms of Peasant
Resistance in South-east Asia," Journal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):1-150;
Cheah, Peasant Robbers of Kedah; and Resil B. Mojares, "Nonrevolt in the Rural Context:
Some Considerations," Philippinie Studies 31 (1983):477-82.
98. Scott, "Resistance without Protest," 419.
99. Ibid.
100. As will be shown presently, however, this literary current includes interpretive
ings and some points of disagreement.
101. Scott, "Resistance without Protest," 419; for a more elaborate justification of this
definition, see his Weapons of the Weak, chap. 7
102. Significantly, the field of comparative slave studies-like peasant studies-is also wit-
nessing something of a shift in emphasis from rebellions to more "routine" forms of
resistance.
103. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, chap. 1. Scott is obviously influenced here by Jaroslav
Hasek's and Bertold Brecht's fictional character, Joseph Schweik. "The good soldier
Schweik" is the archetypal "little man" practiced in the art of dissimulation and
footdragging, whose tactics repeatedly confound the master plans of his superior
42
officers. For an interesting illustration of such "Schweikian" forms of resistance in

contemporary Latin America, see Forrest D. Colburn, "Footdragging and Other Peas-
ant Responses to the Nicaraguan Revolution," Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Winter 1986):
77-96.
104. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 300; see also Scott, "Protest and Profanation: Agrarian
Revolt and the Little Tradition," Theory and Society 4, no. 1 (1977):1-38, and 4, no. 2
(1977):211-46.
105. Scott, "Resistance without Protest," 420. But compare Christine P. White's much more
pessimistic assessment of the efficacy of such routine resistance in capitalist societies in
"Everyday Resistance, Socialist Revolution, and Rural Development: The Vietnamese
Case," Journal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):49-65.
106. Scott, "Resistance without Protest," 424. Here Scott draws on Annales scholar Marc
Bloch's French Rural History (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1970), 170. Scott and Adas cannot (and do not) take full credit for focusing attention on
"quiet" forms of struggle that do not result in insurgency. Their work obviously builds
on previous studies by scholars working in other areas on similar agrarian themes, such
as Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York:
Pantheon, 1972); Thompson et al., Albion's Fatal Tree; and Allen Isaacman, The Tradition
of Resistanice in Mozambique (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1976).
107. Hobsbawm, "Peasants and Politics," Journal of Peasant Stuidies 1, no. 1 (1973):12.
108. Adas documents that in Southeast Asia, evidence of misrule often brought imprison-
ment and in some instances execution. See Adas, "From Footdragging to Flight,"
67-68.
109. Scott, "Resistance without Protest," 422; compare his Weapons of the Weak, chap. 7 Scott
points out, for example, that the accumulation of thousands of individual acts of tax
evasion, theft, or desertion can seriously disrupt elite establishments and even desta-
bilize regimes.
110. My research on Yucatan provides a classic example of the obstacles to mobilization in a
region where the peasantry was isolated and internally differentiated. It is not surpris-
ing that in the decades prior to the radicalization of the Mexican Revolution in the
peninsula (circa 1915), the Yucatecan peasantry was essentially reduced to everyday
forms of resistance. See Gilbert M. Joseph, Revolution from Without: Yucatdn, Mexico,
and the United States, 1880-1924 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982; rev.
paperback edition published by Duke University Press in 1988), chap. 3.
111. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 265.
112. Zola, as quoted in Scott, Weapons of the Weak. See also Jose Arturo Giiumez Pineda,
"Everyday Forms of Maya Resistance: Cattle Rustling in Northwestern Yucatan, 1821-
1847," in Land, Labor, and Capital in Modern Yuicatdn: Essays in Regional History and
Political Economy, edited by Jeffrey T. Brannon and Gilbert M. Joseph (Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press, forthcoming); also Orlove, "The Position of Rustlers";
and Daniel W. Gade, "Ecologia del robo agricola en las tierras altas de los Andes
centrales," America Indigena 30, no. 1 (Jan. 1970):3-14.
114. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters, 160-61.
115. Compare Gade, "Ecologia del robo agricola."
117. Ibid., 452
118. Peter Linebaugh, "Karl Marx, the Theft of Wood, and Working-Class Composition: A
Contribution to the Current Debate," Crime and Social Justice 6 (Fall-Winter 1976):5-15;
Wilson, Feuding, Conflict, and Banditry, 349; and Ramachandra Guha and Gadgil,
"State Forestry and Social Conflict in British India."
120. C. White, "Everyday Resistance, Socialist Revolution, and Rural Development"; Brian
Fegan, "Tenants' Non-Violent Resistance to Landowner Claims in a Central Luzon
Village," Journial of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):87-106.
121. Benedict J. Tria Kerkvliet, "Everyday Resistance to Injustice in a Philippine Village,"
Journal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan. 1986):107-23.
43
122. Adas, "From Footdragging to Flight"; but see also his "Bandits, Monks, and Pretender
Kings," 159ff, in which he makes an unassailable case for theft-as-resistance in colonial
Burma based on a series of surprisingly candid police reports.
123. Adas, "From Footdragging to Flight," 65-67 (quotation, 66).
124. Turton, "Patrolling the Middle-Ground."
125. Erick D. Langer, "Andean Banditry and Peasant Community Organization, 1882-1930,"
in Slatta, Bandidos, 113-30; and Slatta, "Conclusion," 194. But compare Knight in The
Mexican Revolution, who argues against ethnicity as a predominant factor in mobiliza-
tion and peasant revolt (1:115-16, 281n).
126. Langer, "Andean Banditry" and Econiomic Change and Rural Resistance in Southernl
Bolivia, 1880-1930 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1989); Orlove, "The
Position of Rustlers"; and Poole, "Landscapes of Power."
127 Apart from oral tradition (and inference from the social context), routine forms of
resistance are periodically captured in district- or local-level administrative and crimi-
nal reports, as bureaucrats seek to explain to their superiors fluctuations in the inci-
dence of crime (see note 122 above), shortfalls in tax receipts and leva quotas, labor
flight, and similar matters.
128. Steve J. Stern, "New Approaches to the Study of Peasant Rebellion and Consciousness:
Implications of the Andean Experience," in Resistance, Rebellionl, and Consciousness in
the Andean Peasant World, 18th to 20th Cenituries, edited by Stern (Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1987), 3-25 (quotations, 11).
129. Stern, Resistance, Rebellioni, anid Consciousniess; and Adas, "From Avoidance to Confron-
tation," and "From Footdragging to Flight." See also the essays in the anthology by
Weller and Guggenheim, Power anid Protest, particularly the editors' introduction,
"Moral Economy, Capitalism, and State Power in Rural Protest," 3-11.
130. Adas, "From Footdragging to Flight," 80; compare Mojares, "Nonrevolt in the Rural
Context." Hobsbawm and several of his critics continue to debate whether social
banditry has (or will) become extinct in the face of preponderant state power and police
technology, or whether it is eminently adaptable to modern settings and technologies.
For example, compare O'Malley, "Social Bandits, Modern Capitalism and the Tradi-
tional Peasantry," and Hobsbawm, Bandits, 150-64.
131. Hobsbawm, "Social Banditry," in Rural Protest: Peasant Movements anld Social Change,
edited by Henry Landsberger (London: Macmillan, 1974), 142; also compare William
Taylor, "Banditry and Insurrection: Rural Unrest in Central Jalisco, 1790-1816," in Katz
Riot, Rebellion, and Revolutioni, 205-46; and Gerdes, Mexikanisches Banditentum.
132. On this point, see Flores Galendo, Ar istocracia y plebe, chap. 5. Another case study that
supports Scott's argument and runs counter to Langer's thesis on the role of banditry in
Indian communities is Guemez Pineda, "Everyday Forms of Maya Resistance."
133. Stern and several of the other contributors to Resistance, Rebellionl, and Consciousness
stress formidable external constraints on social action and the overriding importance of
subsistence to Andean peasants. For example, see Florencia Mallon, "Nationalist and
Antistate Coalitions in the War of the Pacific: Junin and Cajamarca, 1899-1902," 232-79.
But they caution constructively against "straitjacketing" the category of peasant con-
sciousness. Andean peasant aspirations, they suggest, frequently transcended paro-
chial obsessions with land, subsistence, and autonomy and on occasion embraced
efforts to forge a new macro-level polity that would be more responsive to local peasant
needs.
135. Ibid., 302.
136. For a provocative discussion of the consequences of this "lag" for Mexican regional
historiography, see Paul J. Vanderwood, "Building Blocks But Yet No Building: Regional
History and the Mexican Revolution," Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3, no. 2
(Summer 1987):421-32; compare Van Young in "Mentalities and Collectivities," who
points up the slowness with which Latin Americanists have begun to consider seri-
ously questions of mentalitW and culture.
137 The term protest crime comes from George Rude, Criminal and Victim: Crime and Society
in Early Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).
138. But see notes 66 and 128 above. Several recent landmark historical studies do not focus
44
on banditry but treat problems of peasant resistance and consciousness from perspec-
tives informed by other fields and disciplines. Rebecca J. Scott borrows insights from
the comparative slavery literature to weave "routine" forms of resistance into a chal-
lenging explanation of slave emancipation in Slave Emiiancipationi in Cuba: The Transitioni
to Free Labor, 1860-1899 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986). The follow-
ing studies have all effectively combined anthropological tools and archival sources to
examine the variety of strategies employed by peasant villagers in Mexico and Peru to
defend subsistence and a way of life: William Taylor, Driniking, Homicide, anid Rebellionl;
Nancy Farriss, Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Suirvival
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984); Steve Stern, Peru's Indian1 Peoples
anid the Challenige of the Spanish Coniquest: Huamnanga to 1640 (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1983); and Florencia Mallon, The Defenise of Commalunity in Peru's
Central Highlands: Peasant Struggle and Capitalist Transition, 1860-1940 (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1983).
139. For example, see Joanna Innes and John Styles, "The Crime Wave: Recent Writing on
Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century England," Jour nal of British Stuldies
25 (1986):380-435; Peter C. Hoffer, "Counting Crime in Premodern England and
America: A Review Essay," Historical Methods 14, no. 4 (Fall 1981):187-93; and Rude,
Criminial and Victim, which provides the quotation (p. 397). Regarding the unreliability
of Latin American criminal data, compare Lyman Johnson and Julia Kirk Blackwelder,
"Estadistica criminal y acci6n policial en Buenos Aires, 1887-1914," Desarrollo Eco-
n6mico 24, no. 93 (Apr.-June 1984):109-22.
140. In this regard, compare Bayly's critique of the "subaltern studies" school ("Rallying
around the Subaltern"), Blok's analysis of upwardly mobile elements in bandit and
mafia phenomena (in The Mafia of a Sicilian Village), and the monographic studies by
Vanderwood (Disorder and Progress) and Schwartz (Lazvless Liberators). In our forthcom-
ing book, Allen Wells and I give particular emphasis to the roles played by middle
sectors on both sides of the law in a congeries of revolts and other violent rural
episodes. See Summer of Disconitent.
141. See especially Lewin, "The Oligarchical Limitations of Social Banditry," in Slatta, Bani-
didos; Chandler, The Bandit King; Vanderwood, Disorder and Progress; and Schwartz,
Lawless Liberators.
142. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, 17-18.
143. For example, see Lewis Taylor, Banidits and Politics, Poole, "Landscapes of Power," and
Joseph and Wells, Summer of Disconitenit, Seasonis of Upheaval. The traditional view was
that women were "conspicuously absent from the band and the world of bandits in
general," as observed by Koliopoulos in Brigands with a Cause (p. 283). This conclusion
is now being challenged in the global literature. See, for example, Hobsbawm's most
recent statement, "Women and Banditry," in the revised edition of Bandits (pp. 135-
37); see also the sophisticated examination of female bandits, gender, and family
relations in Billingsley, Ban1dits in Repliblican1 Chin1a; and Potter, "Guarding the C
roads."
144. See, for example, Lewis Taylor, Banidits anid Politics, 6-7
145. For example, in "Landscapes of Power," Deborah Poole begins to examine how gen-
dered forms of domination have confounded class solidarity among peasant rustlers in
highland Peru. Chumbivilcano peasants are thus "caught in the contradictions of a
system of male power, honor, and self-made justice which implicitly reinforces the
gamonal's [landowner's] hold on local 'culture."'
146. Compare Van Young's recent critique of Ranajit Guha and the "subalternists" in
"Mentalities and Collectivities": "Good as [their] advice is, if we take it too far we are at
peril of falling into a sort of post-Foucaultian romanticism in which everything pro-
testers say is honest and true, and everything the authorities and the powerful say is
self-serving and duplicitous."
147. The powerful, prevailing leftist current in North American legal scholarship, "Critical
Legal Studies," has drawn on Foucault and other social thinkers to effectively critique
instrumentalist Marxist notions of the law, even as it has mounted its greatest opposi-
tion against mainstream liberal interpretations of legal discourses. For an introduction
to the scholarship of the "Crits," see Mark Kelman, A Guide to Critical Legal Studies
45
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987); and Robert W. Gordon, "Law
and Ideology," Tikku n 3, no. 1 (1987):14-17, 83-86.
148. See William Taylor's helpful discussion of the need for "the historical study of the
operation of the law in relationships of inequality," which recommends the application
of a variety of important theoretical and comparative works to the Latin American case.
Taylor, "Between Global Process and Local Knowledge: An Inquiry into Early Latin
American Social History, 1500-1900," in Reliving the Past: The Worlds of Social History,
edited by Olivier Zunz (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 115-90,
esp. 162-64 and 185-87 Also suggestive for conceptualizing the problem are Gen-
ovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll, 24-49 ("The Hegemonic Function of the Law"); Goody, The
Logic of Writinig, chap. 4; and Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer, The Great Arch: English
State Formationi as Cultural Revolutioni (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985). The last cited
work is a penetrating analysis ranging over eight centuries of the state's involvement in
defining and regulating British law and social life.
149. Stern's rich collection on the Andean world, Resistance, Rebellion, anld Colnsciousness,
focuses on peasant social action but also represents a pioneering effort in its related
examination of state and elite structures of domination.
150. See Hobsbawm's review of Slatta's Banididos in Hispan1ic American Historical Review 68,
no. 1 (Feb. 1988):135-36.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABRAMS, PHILIP
1982 Historical Sociology. Somerset, Engl.: Open Books.

ADAS, MICHAEL
1981 "From Avoidance to Confrontation: Peasant Protest in Precolonial and Colonial

Southeast Asia." Comparative Studies in Society anid History 23, no. 1:217-47
1982 "Bandits, Monks, and Pretender Kings: Patterns of Peasant Resistance and Protest
in Colonial Burma, 1826-1941." In Pozver and Protest in the Countryside, edited by
Robert P. Weller and Scott E. Guggenheim, 75-105. Durham, N.C.: Duke Univer-
sity Press.
1986 "From Footdragging to Flight: The Evasive History of Peasant Avoidance Protest
in South and Southeast Asia." Jouirnial of Peasanit Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan.):64-86.
ALONSO, ANA MARIA
1988 "U.S. Military Intervention, Revolutionary Mobilization, and Popular Ideology in

the Chihuahua Sierra, 1916-1917" In NUGENT, ED., 1988, 199-228.
n.d. "The Hermaneutics of History: Class Struggle and Revolution in the Chihuahuan
Sierra." Manuscript.
ARCHER, CHRISTON
1982 "Banditry and Revolution in New Spain, 1790-1821." Bibliotheca Americana 1, no.
2 (Nov.):59-90.
AYA, ROD
1984 "Popular Intervention in Revolutionary Situations." In Staternaking anld Social

Movemnenits: Essays in History and Theory, edited by Charles Bright and Susan
Harding. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 318-43.
BAUER, ARNOLD
1989 Review of Slatta's Bandidos. The Journial of Social History 22

BAYLY, C. A.
1988 "Rallying around the Subaltern." Jouirnal of Peasant Studies 16,

BEALS, CARLETON
1930 "Brigandage." In Encyclopaedia of the Social Scienices 2:693-96. New York: Mac-
millan.
BECKER, HOWARD S., ED.
1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Devianice. New York: Fre

1964 The Other Side: Perspectives on Devianice. New York: Free Pres
BILLINGSLEY, PHIL
1988 Ban1dits in Republicani China. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ
46
BLACK, DONALD
1976 The Behavior of Laum New York: Academic Press.

BLOCH, MARC
1970 Frenich Ruiral History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universit

BLOK, ANTON
1972 "The Peasant and the Brigand: Social Banditry Reconsidered." Comliparative Stltdies
ini Society anld Histor-y 14, no. 4 (Sept.):494-503.
1974 The Mafia of a Siciliani Village, 1860-1960. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
BRAUDEL, FERNAND
1947 "Misere et banditisme." Ann 1ales 2:129-43.

1973 The Mediterranean anid the Mediterranieani World ini the Age of Phlilip II. 2 vols., 2d rev.
ed. New York: Harper and Row.
BUITRAGO SALAZAR, EVELIO
1977 Zarpazo the Bandit: Memioirs of ani Unidercover Agenit in1 the Co
sity, Ala.: University of Alabama Press. Originally published in Spanish in 1968.
BURKE, PETER
1983 Popiular Cuilture in Early Moderni Europe. New York: Harper and Row.
CAMPBELL, LEON G.
1983 "Banditry and the Tuipac Amaru Rebellion in Cuzco, Peru, 1780-1784." Bibliothleca
Amnericania 1, no. 3:164-80.
CARRILLO RAMIREZ, ALBERTO
1970 Luis Pardo, "El Grani Banidido": vida y heclios del faimioso banidolero
la atenci6n pt0blica durarite varios anios. Limna: n.p.
CHANDLER, BILLY JAYNES
1978 The Banidit Kinig: Lam ipiuo of Brazil. College Station: Texas A & M Press.
1987 "Brazilian Canigaceiros as Social Bandits: A Critical Appraisal." In SLATTA, ED.,
1987, 97-112.
1988 Kinig of the Mouniitaini: The Life anld Death of Gitulianio the Banidit. DeKalb: Northern
Illinois University Press.
CHEAH, BOON KHENG
1988 The Peasant Robbers of Kedah, 1900-1919: Historical anid Folk Perceptions. Singapore:
Oxford University Press.
COBB, RICHARD
1972 The Police an1d the People: Frenichl Popuilar Protest, 1789-1820. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
COLBURN, FORREST D.
1986 "Footdragging and Other Peasant Responses to the Nicaraguan Revolution."

Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Winter):77-96.
COMAROFF, JOHN, AND JEAN COMAROFF
1987 "The Madman and the Migrant: Work and Labor in the Historical Consciousness
of a South African People." Amiiericani Ethlnlologist 14, no. 2:191-209.
CORRIGAN, PHILIP, AND DEREK SAYER
1985 The Great Arch: Eniglish State Formtationi as Ctulttural Revoltution. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
CRUMMEY, DONALD, ED.
1986 Baniditry, Rebellioni, and Social Protest ini Africa. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann
Educational Books.
DOWNES, DAVID, AND PAUL ROCK
1982 Uniderstanldinig Devianzce: A Guide to the Sociology of Crimn

ford: Clarendon Press.
EWELL, JUDITH
1988 Review of Slatta's Banididos. The Amnericas 45, no. 1 (July):131-33.

FACO, RUI
1965 Canzgaceiros e Fanidticos. 2d ed. Rio de Janeiro: Civilizagao Brasi

FARRISS, NANCY
1984 Maya Society tun1der Coloniial Ruile: The Collective Enzterprise of

N.J.: Princeton University Press.
47
FEGAN, BRIAN
1986 "Tenants' Non-Violent Resistance to Landowner Claims in a Central Luzon Vil-

lage." Jotirnal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan.):87-106.
FLORES GALINDO, ALBERTO
1984 Aristocracia y plebe: Lima, 1 760-1830. Lima: Mosca Azul.

FOUCAULT, MICHEL
1977 Discipline and Punish. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon. Origi-
nally published in French in 1975.
GADE, DANIEL W.
1970 "Ecologia del robo agricola en las tierras altas de los Andes centrales." America
Indigena 30, no. 1 (Jan.):3-14.
GENOVESE, EUGENE D.
1972 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon.
GERDES, CLAUDIA
1987 Mexikanisches Banditentum (1821-1876) als Sozialgeschichtliches Phainomen. Saar-

bruicken: G. Breitenbach.
GOODY, JACK
1986 "Patrolling the Middle-Ground: Methodological Perspectives on Everyday Peas-

ant Resistance." Journal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan.):36-48.
GORDON, ROBERT W.
1987 "Law and Ideology." Tikkun 3, no. 1:14-17

GUEMEZ PINEDA, JOSE ARTURO
n.d. "Everyday Forms of Maya Resistance: Cattle Rustling in Northwestern Yucatan,

1821-1847" In Land, Labor, anid Capital in Modern Yucatdn: Essays in Regional
History and Political Economy, edited by Jeffrey T. Brannon and Gilbert M. Joseph.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, forthcoming.
GUHA, RAMACHANDRA, AND MADHAV GADGIL
1989 "State Forestry and Social Conflict in British India." Past and Present, no. 123
(May): 141-77.
GUHA, RANAJIT
1983 Elementary Aspects of Peasant Inisurgency in Colonial India. Delhi: O

Press.
GUHA, RANAJIT, ED.
1982 Subaltern Studies I: Writiings on South Asiani History and Society. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
HOBSBAWM, ERIC J.
1959 Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement

Twentieth Centuiries. Manchester, Engl.: Manchester Universit
1969 Bandits. New York: Pantheon. Revised edition, 1981.
1972 "Reply." Comparative Studies in Society and History 14, no. 4 (Sept.):503-5.
1974 "Social Banditry." In Rural Protest: Peasant Movements and Social Change, edited by
Henry Landsberger. London: Macmillan.
1988 Review of Slatta's Bandidos. Hispanic American Historical Review 68, no. 1 (Feb.):
135-36.
HOBSBAWM, ERIC J., AND GEORGE RUDE
1968 Captain Swing. New York: Pantheon.

HOFFER, PETER C.
1981 "Counting Crime in Premodern England and America: A Review Essay." Histor-
ical Methods 14, no. 4 (Fall):187-93.
HOLLOWAY, THOMAS H.
1989 "'A Healthy Terror': Police Repression of Capoeiras in Nineteenth-Century Rio de

Janeiro." Hispanic American Historical Review 69, no. 4 (Nov.):637-76.
INCIARDI, JAMES A., ALAN A. BLOCK, AND LYLE A. HALLOWELL
1977 Historical Approaches to Crime: Research Strategies and Issues. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage.
INNES, JOANNA, AND JOHN STYLES
1986 "The Crime Wave: Recent Writing on Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-
Century England." Journal of British Studies 25:380-435.
48
ISAACMAN, ALLEN
1976 The Tradition of Resistance in Mozambique. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
IZARD, MIGUEL, AND RICHARD W. SLATTA
1987 "Banditry and Social Conflict on the Venezuelan Llanos." In SLATTA, ED., 1987,
33-47.
JOHNSON, LYMAN, AND JULIA KIRK BLACKWELDER
1984 "Estadistica criminal y acci6n policial en Buenos Aires, 1887-1914." Desarrollo

Econ6mico 24, no. 93 (Apr.-June 1984):109-22.
JOSEPH, GILBERT M.
1982 Revoliitioni from Withouit: Yucatdn, Mexico, and the United States, 1880-1924. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. Revised paperback edition published by
Duke University Press in 1988.
JOSEPH, GILBERT M., AND ALLEN WELLS
1987 "The Rough and Tumble Career of Pedro Crespo." In The Hunmani Tradition in Latin1
America: The Tzwentieth Centuiry, edited by William Beezley and Judith Ewell,
27-40. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources.
n.d. Summer of Discontent, Seasonis of Upheaval: Elite Politics and Rural Insurgency in
Yucatdn, 1890-1915. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, forthcoming.
KATZ, FRIEDRICH
n.d. "Rural Uprisings in Mexico." Manuscript.

KATZ, FRIEDRICH, ED.
1988 Riot, Rebellioni, and Revoltution: Rural Social Coniflict

Princeton University Press.
KELMAN, MARK
1987 A Guide to Critical Legal Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
KERKVLIET, BENEDICT J. TRIA
1986 "Everyday Resistance to Injustice in a Philippine Village." Journal of Peasant

Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan.):107-23.
KNIGHT, ALAN
1986 The Mexican Revolution. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KOLIOPOULOS, JOHN S.
1987 Brigands with a Catuse: Brigandage anid Irredentism il Modern Greece, 1821-1912.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
KORECK, MARIA TERESA
1988 "Space and Revolution in Northeastern Chihuahua." In NUGENT, ED., 1988, 127-48.
n.d. "The Constitution and Deployment of Popular Knowledges: From Colonists to
Colonized to Revolutionaries." Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, forthcoming.
LANGER, ERICK D.
1987 "Andean Banditry and Peasant Community Organization, 1882-1930." In SLATTA,

ED., 1987, 113-30.
1989 Econiomnic Change and Rural Resistance in Southern Bolivia, 1880-1930. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press.
LEGRAND, CATHERINE
1988 Review of Slatta's Bandidos. Americani Historical Review 93, no. 4

LEWIN, LINDA
1979 "Oral Tradition and Elite Myth: The Legend of Ant6nio Silvino in Brazilian
Popular Culture." Journal of Latin American Lore 2 (Winter):157-204.
1987a "The Oligarchical Limitations of Social Banditry in Brazil: The Case of the 'Good'
Thief Ant6nio Silvino." In SLATTA, ED., 1987, 67-96. Originally published in Past
and Present, no. 82 (Feb. 1979):116-46.
1987b Politics and Parentela in Parat'ba: A Case Stuidy of Family-Based Oligarchy in Brazil.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
LINEBAUGH, PETER
1976 "Karl Marx, the Theft of Wood, and Working-Class Composition: A Contribution
to the Current Debate." Crime and Social Justice 6 (Fall-Winter):5-15.
LOPEZ ALBUJAR, ENRIQUE
1936 Los caballeros del delito. Lima: Juan Mejia Baca. Second edition, 1973.
49
MALLON, FLORENCIA
1983 The Defense of Commun1i1ileity in Perui's Cenztral Highlanids: P

italist Tr anlsitioni, 1860-1940. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ
1987 "Nationalist and Antistate Coalitions in the War of the Pacific: Junin and Caja-
marca, 1899-1902." In STERN, ED., 1987, 232-79.
MATZA, DAVID
1969 Becomiin1g Deviant. Englewood Cliffs., N.J.: Prentice Hall.

MAULLIN, RICHARD L.
1969 The Fall of Dulmar AIjure, a Colonmbian1 Guerrilla and Ban1dit. Santa Monica, Calif.:
Rand Corporation.
MEYER, JEAN
1984 Esperanido a Lozada. Guadalajara: Colegio de Michoacan and CONACYT.

MOJARES, RESIL B.
1983 "Nonrevolt in the Rural Context: Some Considerations." Philippine Studies 31:
479-82.
MOORE, BARRINGTON, JR.
1968 Social Origins of Dictatorship: Lord an1d Peasanit in the Makin1g of the Moderni World.
Boston, Mass.: Beacon.
MORSE, RICHARD M.
1964 "The Heritage of Latin America." In Thze Fotunidinig of Newv Soci

Hartz, 123-77 New York: Harcourt, Brace.
MOSS, DAVID
1979 "Bandits and Boundaries in Sardinia." Mani, n.s. 14:477-96.

NUGENT, DANIEL
1988 "Rural Revolt in Mexico, Mexican Nationalism and the State, and Forms of U.S.
Intervention." In NUGENT, ED., 1988, 1-21.
NUGENT, DANIEL, ED.
1988 Rural Revolt anid Uniited States Initervenitioni in Mexico. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-
Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
O MALLEY, PAT
1979 "Social Bandits, Modern Capitalism, and the Traditional Peasantry: A Critique of
Hobsbawm." Jolurnial of Peasant Studies 6, no. 4 (July):489-501.
ORLOVE, BENJAMIN S.
1980 "The Position of Rustlers in Regional Society: Social Banditry in the Andes." In
Land and Pozwer in Latin America: Agrarian Econom01ies and Social Processes in
Andes, edited by Benjamin S. Orlove and Glynn Custred, 179-94. New York:
Holmes and Meier.
PEREIRA DE QUEIROZ, MARIA ISAURA
1977 Os Cangaceiros. Sao Paulo: Duas Cidades. Originally published in 1968 as Can-
gaceiros: Les Bandits d'honn11euir bresiliens.
PEREZ, LOUIS A., JR.
1985 "Vagrants, Beggars, and Bandits: The Social Origins of Cuban Separatism, 1878-
1895." Amnerican Historical Reviezw 90, no. 5 (Dec.):1092-1121.
1986 "The Pursuit of Pacification: Banditry and the United States' Occupation of Cuba,
1889-1902." Journial of Latin American Studies 18, pt. 2 (Nov.):313-32.
1987 "'La Chambelona': Political Protest, Sugar, and Social Banditry in Cuba, 1914-
1917." In SLATTA, ED., 1987, 131-47 Originally published in Initer-Amnerican
u-iomiic Affairs 31, no. 4 (Spring 1978):3-28.
1989 Lords of the Mouintaini: Social Banditry anid Peasant Protest in Cuiba, 1878-1918.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
PIKE, RUTH
1988 "The Reality and Legend of the Spanish Bandit Diego Corrientes." Folklore 99, no.
2:242-47
POOLE, DEBORAH A.
1988 "Landscapes of Power in a Cattle-Rustling Culture of Southern Andean Peru."

Paper presented at the 46th International Congress of Americanists, Amsterdam,
4-8 July.
50
POTTER, CLAIRE B.
1990 "Guarding the Crossroads: The FBI's War on Crime in the 1930s." Ph.d. diss., New
York University.
POUMIER-TAQUECHEL, MARIA
1986 Contribuitioni a l'etude dii baniditsrne social a Cuiba: L'Histoire et le mnythe de Manuiel
Garcia. Paris: L'Harmattan.
QUIROS, CONSTANCIO BERNALDO
1959 El bandolerismno en Espaiia y en Mexico. Mexico City: Juridica Mexicana.

ROSALDO, RENATO
1986 "From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the Inquisitor." In Writinig
Cultuire, edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus, 77-97 Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
ROSENBAUM, ROBERT J.
1981 Mexicano Resistance in the Southw)est: "The Sacred Righlt of Self-Preservationz." Aus-
tin: University of Texas Press.
RUDE, GEORGE
1985 Crimninial an1d Victimii: Crine and Society in Early Ninieteenith-Cenituiry Eniglanid. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
SANCHEZ, GONZALO, AND DONNY MEERTENS
1984 Bandoleros, gamoniales y cam pesinos: el caso de la violeincia en Colomnbia. 2d ed. BogotA:
El Ancora.
1987 "Political Banditry and the Colombian Violenlcia." In SLATTA, ED., 1987, 151-70.
SCHWARTZ, ROSALIE
1989 Lawless Liberators: Political Baniditry anid Cluban Inidependence. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press.
SCOTT, JAMES
1977 "Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition." Thleory anid
Society 4, no. 1:1-38 and 4, no. 2:211-46.
1985 Weaponis of the Weak: Everyday Formns of Peasant Resistanice. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press.
1986 "Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance." Journial of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2
(Jan.):5-35.
1987 "Resistance without Protest and without Organization: Peasant Opposition to the
Islamic Zacat and the Christian Tithe." Comparative Studies in Society anid History,
no. 293 (July):417-52.
SCOTT, JAMES, AND BENEDICT KERKVLIET, EDS.
1986 "Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance in South-east Asia." Special issue of

Journal of Peasant Stuidies 13, no. 2 (January).
SCOTT, REBECCA J.
1986 Slave Emnancipationi in Cuba: The Tranlsition to Free Labor, 1860-189

Princeton University Press.
SINGELMANN, PETER
1975 "Political Structure and Social Banditry in Northeast Brazil." Journal of Latin
Amnerican Studies 7, pt. 1 (May):59-83.
SLATTA, RICHARD W.
1980 "Rural Criminality and Social Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Buenos Aires Prov-
ince." Hispanic American Historical Reviezw 60, no. 3 (Aug.):450-72.
1987 "Images of Social Banditry on the Argentine Pampa." In SLATTA, ED., 1987, 49-
65.
1989 "Banditry as Political Participation in Latin America." Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Historical Association, San Francisco, 29 December.
SLATTA, RICHARD W., ED.
1987 Bandidos: The Varieties of Latini Amnerican Banditry. New York

SOUZA, AMAURY DE
1972 "The Ca;iga(o and the Politics of Violence in Northeast Braz

Resistance in Angola and Brazil, edited by Ronald L. Chilcote, 109-31. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
51
STERN, STEVE J.
1983 Peru's Indiani Peoples anid the Chlallenige of the Spaniish Coniqiuest: Huamaniga to 1640.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
STERN, STEVE J., ED.
1987 Resistance, Rebellion, anid Conisciousniess in the Anidean Peasant World, 18th to 20th
Cenituries. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
STOLER, ANN LAURA
1986 "Plantation Politics and Protest on Sumatra's East Coast." Journal of Peasanlt Studies
13, no. 2 (Jan.):124-43.
TAYLOR, LEWIS
1986 Bandits and Politics in Peru: Lanidlord an1d Peasanit Violence in Hualgayoc, 1900-1930.
Cambridge: Centre of Latin American Studies, Cambridge University.
TAYLOR, WILLIAM
1979 Drinkinig, Homicide, and Rebellion in Coloniial Mexican Villages. Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press.
1982 "Bandit Gangs in Late Colonial Times: Rural Jalisco, Mexico, 1794-1821." Bibli-
otheca Americana 1, no. 2 (Nov.):29-58.
1985 "Between Global Process and Local Knowledge: An Inquiry into Early Latin
American Social History, 1500-1900." In Reliving the Past: The Worlds of Social
History, edited by Olivier Zunz, 115-90. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
1988 "Banditry and Insurrection: Rural Unrest in Central Jalisco, 1790-1816." In KATZ
1988, 205-46.
THOMPSON, E. P.
1975 Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act. London: A
THOMPSON, E. P., DOUGLAS HAY, PETER LINEBAUGH ET AL.
1975 Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Centulry England. New York:
Pantheon.
TUTINO, JOHN
1986 Froml Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico: Social Bases of Agraria

1940. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
VANDERWOOD, PAUL J.
1981 Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police, and Mexican Development. Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
1987a "Nineteenth-Century Mexico's Profiteering Bandits." In SLATTA, ED., 1987, 11-31.
1987b "Building Blocks But Yet No Building: Regional History and the Mexican Revolu-
tion." Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3, no. 2 (Summer):421-32.
VANDERWOOD, PAUL J., ED.
1982 "Social Banditry and Spanish American Independence." Special edition of Bibli-
otheca Americana 1, no. 2 (November).
VAN YOUNG, ERIC
1986 "Millennium on the Northern Marches: The Mad Messiah of Durango and Popu-
lar Rebellion in Mexico, 1800-1815." Comnparative Studies in Society and History
no. 3 (July):385-413.
1990 "To See Someone Not Seeing: Historical Studies of Peasants and Politics in
Mexico." Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 6, no. 1 (Winter):133-59.
n.d. "Mentalities and Collectivities: A Comment." In Rebellions in Mexican History,
edited by Jaime E. Rodriguez 0. Los Angeles: Latin American Center, University
of California, Los Angeles, forthcoming.
VOLD, GEORGE B., AND THOMAS J. BERNARD
1986 Theoretical Criminology. 3d ed. New York: Oxford Univerity Press.

WELLER, ROBERT P., AND SCOTT E. GUGGENHEIM
1982 "Moral Economy, Capitalism, and State Power in Rural Protest." In Power and
Protest in the Countryside, edited by Weller and Guggenheim, 3-11. Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press.
WHITE, CHRISTINE P.
1986 "Everyday Resistance, Socialist Revolution, and Rural Development: The Viet-
namese Case." Journal of Peasant Studies 13, no. 2 (Jan.):49-65.
52
WHITE, RICHARD
1981 "Outlaw Gangs of the Middle Border: American Social Bandits." Westernl Histor-
ical Quiarterly 12, no. 4 (Oct.):387-408.
WILSON, STEPHEN
1988 Feuding, Conflict, and Banditry in Nineteenthl-Centlirry

bridge University Press.
WINSLOW, CAL
1975 "Sussex Smugglers." In THOMPSON, HAY, LINEBAUGH ET AL. 1975, 119-66.

WINTHER, PAUL C.
1977 "Contemporary Dacoity and Traditional Politics in South Asia." Uniiversity of

Oklahoma Papers in Anthropology 18, no. 2 (Fall):153-66.
53

Joseph Bandolerismo Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joseph Bandolerismo Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joseph Bandolerismo Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On the Trail of Latin American Bandits: A Reexamination of Peasant Resistance

Author(s): Gilbert M. Joseph

LATIN AMERICAN BANDITS:

A Reexamination of Peasant Resistance*

In his acclaimed synthesis of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Alan

THE CRITIQUE OF HOBSBAWM'S MODEL OF SOCIAL BANDITRY

Eric Hobsbawm's provocative, free-ranging examination of social

Latin Americanists have been extremely well represented in the

Hollywood films (Allen Woll). In a manner unfortunately all too rare in

the independence era and throughout much of the turbulent nineteenth

relational aspects of banditry, to emphasize the shifting nature of alliances

revising-or at least fleshing out-the portraits that Hobsbawm originally

biographies of individual bandits with generalized depictions of societal

A QUALIFIED DEFENSE OF HOBSBAWM' S MODEL

As valuable as the new revisionist scholarship is, it evidences

Schwartz wonders whether in a peasant area where intervillage or inter-

BEYOND THE MODEL: PEASANT CONSCIOUSNESS,

BANDITRY, AND REBELLION

If the revisionists go too far in categorically indicting Hobsbawm's

history of individual bandits and their incorporation into, or subordina-

Despite their rejection of Hobsbawm's subpolitical interpretation of

Guha's research deals with peasant revolts in colonial India, but he

volt.69 During this so-called "twilight phase," a "switching of codes"

sociology of deviance, particularly the interactionist theory of labeling,

progression from banditry to generalized rebellion was often beyond the

It is therefore not surprising that these official sources occasionally

BEYOND THE MODEL: EVERYDAY FORMS

Recently, James Scott, Michael Adas, and other Asianists have

surface in official administrative records.97 Like Guha's findings, their

peasant community. As Scott and resistance scholars observe, these his-

Yet, "/when such theft takes on the dimensions of a struggle in which

nate classes? Scott's advocacy is often spirited and generally compelling.

forms of control but to the exercise of power in manifold local "capillary

Thus rebellion, when seen in this context, becomes "merely a short-term

times complements the essays in Stern's recent edited collection on the

"to purely 'beggar-thy-neighbor' strategies of survival" as central to a

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

This essay has attempted to expand existing analytical frameworks

sive factional networks facilitated bandit operations and alliances in towns

5. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels, 5.

ry and Spanish American Independence," which Vanderwood edited and introduced,

officers. For an interesting illustration of such "Schweikian" forms of resistance in

1982 Historical Sociology. Somerset, Engl.: Open Books.

1981 "From Avoidance to Confrontation: Peasant Protest in Precolonial and Colonial

1988 "U.S. Military Intervention, Revolutionary Mobilization, and Popular Ideology in

1984 "Popular Intervention in Revolutionary Situations." In Staternaking anld Social

1989 Review of Slatta's Bandidos. The Journial of Social History 22

1988 "Rallying around the Subaltern." Jouirnal of Peasant Studies 16,

1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Devianice. New York: Fre

1988 Ban1dits in Republicani China. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ

1976 The Behavior of Laum New York: Academic Press.

1970 Frenich Ruiral History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universit

1947 "Misere et banditisme." Ann 1ales 2:129-43.

1986 "Footdragging and Other Peasant Responses to the Nicaraguan Revolution."

1982 Uniderstanldinig Devianzce: A Guide to the Sociology of Crimn

1988 Review of Slatta's Banididos. The Amnericas 45, no. 1 (July):131-33.

1965 Canzgaceiros e Fanidticos. 2d ed. Rio de Janeiro: Civilizagao Brasi

1984 Maya Society tun1der Coloniial Ruile: The Collective Enzterprise of

1986 "Tenants' Non-Violent Resistance to Landowner Claims in a Central Luzon Vil-