unwieldy and perilous instrument. In time, authority figures and healers inevitably suffered the consequences of speaking ill of one more powerful than they. 3 Even those who engaged the invisible realm through rumor, innuendo, suspicion, and accusation did so with great risk (often with disastrous effect) and only because they knew that ignorance of sorcery was as perilous an option as any. 4 Ultimately, all Muedans—whether powerful or weak, envied or envious, knowledgeable or ignorant—were undone by sorcery.
“Men make their own history,” Marx wrote, “but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directlyfound, given and transmitted from the past” ([1852] 1978: 595). As Muedans (re)made their world through sorcery discourse, they spoke a language—and made use of a symbolic repertoire—not entirely of their own invention. The sense of this polyvalent production often lay beyond the grasp of individual speaker/producers. 5 Thus, sorcery was not only a means by which Muedans made their world but also a means by which the world they encountered made them. 6
Even so, sorcery constituted a discursive space in which Muedans could speak about the world and act within it in ways they could not through other discursive formations. 7 For most, the discourse of liberal democracy, for example, oversimplified an inescapably inchoate world. By contrast, sorcery discourse accentuated the ambiguity of ongoing events and processes in the inchoate world of postsocialist Mozambique. If sorcery discourse served Muedans as metaphor, it more closely resembled metaphor as conceived of by Ann Game and Andrew Metcalfe—metaphor that “works with indeterminacy to keep meaning safe from the final clarification that is its obituary” (1996: 50). 8
By expressing continuing suspicions of power in the democratic era through sorcery discourse, Muedans partially realized the world on their own terms and partially realized enduring constraints upon their abilities to do so. Indeed, sorcery discourse served Muedans well in their struggles to survive “on the margins” (as they were fond of saying) of the modern world. The “hidden transcript” (Scott 1990) sustained by Muedans through sorcery discourse told them that the operation of power itself remained hidden, notwithstanding the inception of liberal democracy. 9 Through reflection in and on the invisible domain of sorcery, Muedans sustained their understanding that the forces that animated social life were not always comprehensible, or readily manipulable. Sorcery discourse nurtured Muedan ambivalence toward power, reminding them both that power was essential to the creation of prosperity and social well-being and that truly decisive power generally operated in a realm accessible only to an extraordinary few. 10 Sorcery discourse facilitatedMuedan appreciation for the complex dilemmas created by the elusiveness and capriciousness of power in their midst. Those who did not enter with vigor into the fray remained vulnerable to being devoured, sorcery discourse reminded them, while those who played the games of power were destined, eventually, to lose. Sorcery discourse reminded Muedans that politics is an unavoidable and unending contest in which no victory is final, no defeat complete—a contest requiring constant surveillance and judgment of the contestants by participants and observers alike. 11
Through sorcery discourse, Muedans reflected upon the complex truth that the world they made sometimes eluded their grasp, sometimes turned around and made them, and sometimes became suddenly and unexpectedly responsive to their whims. 12 Through the production of sorcery discourse, they reconciled themselves to the indomitable dialectics of social life. They resigned themselves to the idea that one cannot always truly see or know with certainty the reality in which one is suspended 13 —that one
“Men make their own history,” Marx wrote, “but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directlyfound, given and transmitted from the past” ([1852] 1978: 595). As Muedans (re)made their world through sorcery discourse, they spoke a language—and made use of a symbolic repertoire—not entirely of their own invention. The sense of this polyvalent production often lay beyond the grasp of individual speaker/producers. 5 Thus, sorcery was not only a means by which Muedans made their world but also a means by which the world they encountered made them. 6
Even so, sorcery constituted a discursive space in which Muedans could speak about the world and act within it in ways they could not through other discursive formations. 7 For most, the discourse of liberal democracy, for example, oversimplified an inescapably inchoate world. By contrast, sorcery discourse accentuated the ambiguity of ongoing events and processes in the inchoate world of postsocialist Mozambique. If sorcery discourse served Muedans as metaphor, it more closely resembled metaphor as conceived of by Ann Game and Andrew Metcalfe—metaphor that “works with indeterminacy to keep meaning safe from the final clarification that is its obituary” (1996: 50). 8
By expressing continuing suspicions of power in the democratic era through sorcery discourse, Muedans partially realized the world on their own terms and partially realized enduring constraints upon their abilities to do so. Indeed, sorcery discourse served Muedans well in their struggles to survive “on the margins” (as they were fond of saying) of the modern world. The “hidden transcript” (Scott 1990) sustained by Muedans through sorcery discourse told them that the operation of power itself remained hidden, notwithstanding the inception of liberal democracy. 9 Through reflection in and on the invisible domain of sorcery, Muedans sustained their understanding that the forces that animated social life were not always comprehensible, or readily manipulable. Sorcery discourse nurtured Muedan ambivalence toward power, reminding them both that power was essential to the creation of prosperity and social well-being and that truly decisive power generally operated in a realm accessible only to an extraordinary few. 10 Sorcery discourse facilitatedMuedan appreciation for the complex dilemmas created by the elusiveness and capriciousness of power in their midst. Those who did not enter with vigor into the fray remained vulnerable to being devoured, sorcery discourse reminded them, while those who played the games of power were destined, eventually, to lose. Sorcery discourse reminded Muedans that politics is an unavoidable and unending contest in which no victory is final, no defeat complete—a contest requiring constant surveillance and judgment of the contestants by participants and observers alike. 11
Through sorcery discourse, Muedans reflected upon the complex truth that the world they made sometimes eluded their grasp, sometimes turned around and made them, and sometimes became suddenly and unexpectedly responsive to their whims. 12 Through the production of sorcery discourse, they reconciled themselves to the indomitable dialectics of social life. They resigned themselves to the idea that one cannot always truly see or know with certainty the reality in which one is suspended 13 —that one
Similar Books
