Why Did Bloch Argue That the Formalisation of Speech Is one by Which Political Authority Is Established?

Bloch's "Introduction to political language and oratory in traditional society" (1975), is one of the essential readings which opens up a multi-faceted discussion on how formalisation of speech is one by which political authority is established. Evidence that both supports and goes against Bloch's assumption exists in various forms of ethnographies. These are discussed in the works of Rosaldo, Brenneis & Myers, Gingrich and, of course, Bloch himself. Ethnographic evidence is the key, which enables us to attempt to understand the views that are expressed about the connection or disconnection between formalisation of speech and political authority.

There are three major types of authorities that need mentioning: firstly "traditional authority", where people rely on age-old rules, where traditional and elderly wisdom are accepted; secondly, there is "rational bureaucracy", in which case authority is not related to age (in contrast to "traditional authority), and where power is established through legal understandings which have been explicitly articulated; thirdly we have "charismatic authority", where personal devotion to a specific leader plays an important role in constituting who has power.

Maurice Bloch, who argues that formalisation of speech creates and/or strengthens political authority, refers to the first type of authority mentioned above: "traditional authority". He does so with the aid of studies that he has conducted in Madagascar, where he soon realised that due to the lack of theory for relating everyday words to "politics", there was no evidence of local political hierarchy (Bloch, 1975: 3). In fact, conducting a traditional political anthropological analysis, where he would look at the political structure, was by far of no use and looking for power conflicts was pointless, since disputes did not occur. Having said this, he concluded by saying that he had "...nothing to say about politics," (Bloch, 1975), but at the same time, it was clear to him that hierarchy was manifested in the Merina councils, Madagascar, which allowed him to conduct further studies. The way in which Bloch approached the Malagasy was to "...look closely at what is being said and what is being done and see in this material how control is exercised" (Bloch, 1975: 4)

It appears that power is totally unconscious, but at the same time totally accepted in the Merina councils, almost as though "...everyday control is invisible," (Bloch, 1975: 4) in the eyes of those that are being "ruled". In fact, the only natural way to behave is by respecting the elderly, which could be why Bloch saw hierarchy as an important factor in the "non-existent" politics.

Bloch did this by observing speech acts of political leaders, trying to figure out what these speech acts implied (the intentions of the speakers) and in terms of the implications of the type of speech, which the speakers employed. Having done so, he tried to observe patterns in the speech acts, in the attempt to capture the correlation between the type of event and the type of speech. The events that he attended were in particular the Merina councils, which were extremely formal, regular affairs, which are a well-accepted and well-integrated feature of village life. He soon noticed that the way in which the formal speeches took place was highly structured, in fact, so strictly structured that, as it will be discussed further, the speeches in turn were predictable.

The Merina oratory, as observed by Bloch had a slow, quiet, hesitant start with the same rhythm and intonation, and needless to say, was conducted by one of elderly members of the council. It was divided into four parts: 1) excuses and "removal of guilty caused by the presumption implied in speaking at all", 2) thanks to the authorities for allowing the speaker to speak, 3) the most significant part, where "a certain freedom of expression can come in", and 4) thanks to everyone for having listened followed by blessings. (Bloch, 1975: 7-8)

The politeness entailed in the formalisation of speech above and the almost "mechanical" and repeated structure, may argue that it does not allow an individual's opinion to take part in the discussion, simply because of the fact that, "...if you have allowed somebody to speak in an oratorical manner you have practically accepted his proposal" (Bloch, 1975: 9). It may also be because when someone speaks in such a polite manner, there is no easy way of saying "no" (at least this is what a modern approach would be).

Parkin, in "Political Language" (1984), also discusses how Bloch's argument about formalisation of speech, allows little or no variation in the vocabulary, syntax and style, adding to the predictability of how the speech is going to take place, confirming the speaker's authority, which therefore validates his authority too. It generally does not allow the audience's view on the issues that have been addressed, and if they do, the way in which the speaker replies, is in turn, so formalised once again, marking the position of the speaker as the most powerful authority.

So how is it that formalisation can become a form of power or coercion? In addition to the fact that its politeness cannot be rejected, the fact that formalised language is an impoverished language adds to the establishment of political authority. That is to say that, the restrictions and constraints in the choice of words only allows the speech to take certain turns, therefore specific routes, which is why it seems as though the issue addressed in the speech act is given less importance at this stage. What is more important is the fact that this stylised form of communication disconnects the statement (issue) from the event, increasing ambiguity. As it has been mentioned, formalisation is predictable because of its strict structure, therefore because it can be predicted easily, it may be regarded as a form of social control, where rebellion is impossible.

Bailey's notion of structural metonymy, as discussed in Parkin's article (1984), reveals how the speaker focuses on a small part of the issue, so that he can deflect the listeners' attention away from greater issues. This strategy uses speech as method of control, power and authority (as Paine also points out, turning concrete notions into abstract ones).

Formalisation of speech is not strictly applied only to Madagascar. In fact, this idea of fixity is present in most stateless societies. As Rosaldo points out, there are two forms of speech amongst the Ilongot society, Philippines he studied: "crooked speech" and "straight speech", where the former refers to traditional oratory, which emphasizes the creative