The aim of this WP is to identify forms of resistance expressed in everyday life, and within Iberian institutions. Examining a number of representative cases from the various political, legal, religious, cultural contexts and chronologies covered by this project, our hypothesis is that political dissension was far from being limited to violent opposition or rejection of dominant initiatives. Either individually or collectively, a substantial number of people engaged in a variety of forms of resistance that, although less visible and non-violent, could prove to be, in the long-term, highly disruptive of the dominant order.

This WP will thus conduct a “microphysics of resistance” in the early-modern Iberian world. It will examine everyday forms of resistance based on James Scott’s understanding of the concept. We aim to identify a set of dissimulated or passive forms of dissension and resistance, such as: excessive deference by the dominated to the dominant; disorganized participation in public rituals organized by the dominant; engagement in the production of new (or reinterpretation of) normative, institutional, and political arrangements; institutionalized petitions; or simply poor performance at work. These and other gestures could be “hidden transcripts”, that is, forms of resistance that were conscious for the dominated, but not regarded as such by the dominant. Based on this interpretative framework, research within this WP will explore different types of historical sources in order to identify forms of resistance that were less visible to the dominant, as well as to historians. Everyday forms of resistance also included visible resistance: soldiers refusing to serve in the army, sometimes deserting; people refusing to pay taxes; contraband and smuggling, and so forth.

These and other forms of resistance were not necessarily organized, and usually involved simple forms of organization and a small number of people. They coexisted with another form of dissension: resistance from within - resistance inside political, legal, religious, cultural institutions. From the sixteenth to the first half of the nineteenth century, opportunities for political participation were undoubtedly limited by social and institutional factors, and the dominant groups usually controlled the terms of social negotiation. Nevertheless, this WP aims to investigate whether or not those who participated in politics within certain institutional frameworks were more diverse than traditionally thought. We are convinced that a wide range of individuals and groups, drawn from different sectors of society, were involved in institutions (municipalities, courts, professional corporations, brotherhoods, church institutions) in which power deals were often negotiated between the opposing parties. Such institutions were places where voices of dissension were frequently heard, as heard were proposals for the reinterpretation of normative orders or even alternative modes of organizing society and resources. Research to be conducted within this WP will thus identify and map these voices of dissension, their practices within institutions, and their different layers of impact. The agency of groups that were usually regarded as being less prominent in terms of political and normative participation, as is the case

of peasants, artisans, women, Africans (both enslaved and free), Asians, and native Americans, and also lower-ranking officers, will be scrutinized. In order to achieve these goals, this WP will focus on sources that have not been widely approached in terms of historical studies of resistance, albeit having been surveyed through anthropological work on contemporary forms of resistance, or addressed by other historiographies.

Studying routine forms of resistance in accordance with the indications described above involves:

1. Multiple observation sites focusing on areas of early-modern Iberian societies usually given less attention when it comes to everyday forms of resistance and resistance from within;

2. A critical approach to sources to be used to overcome the point of view of “dominant groups”, and its effect on the “silencing” and “concealment” of the voices of groups from below;

3. The diversification of sources to be used;

4. A special focus on the multicultural and transcultural dimension of resistance, in order to capture the agency of individuals and groups who originated in Asian, African and Amerindian political formations with which the Portuguese and Spanish interacted.

Work Package Leaders

Evergton Sales Souza

Benita Herreros

Manuela Bragagnolo

Pablo Sánchez León