While this book is primarily a work of historical scholarship it was nonetheless an enjoyable read for the layperson. Hobsbawm starts by recognising the ubiquity of ‘the ideal social bandit myth’ in cultures as disparate and distant as medieval England and 20th century Latin America along with pretty much everything in between. The range of source material and scholarship he draws on is impressive. He also recognises the extreme longevity of certain social bandit myths, quintessentially that of Robin Hood who first appears in 14th century ballads, as supporting evidence for the value and interest of the genre.
What are the constituent parts of the ‘ideal social bandit myth’, as opposed to the common criminal? A few key attributes stand out as important but what follows will be by no means exhaustive given the extensive and nuanced account given of the dozen odd bandits in the book. Equally, each proclaimed proponent of social banditry may not display all the key attributes mentioned and, in some cases, none of them at all. First, the social bandit may be initially wronged by unjust authorities or the victim of exploitation; unfair taxes may be levied, excessive punishment meted out or a relative may be killed or raped by a nobleman or another figure above justice. The bandit will often refuse to bend to the greater power of the authority figure and, as such, may be seen as morally justified in his conflict. This moral justification may lend him, or very occasionally her, the help and support of the local community either implicitly or explicitly. Alongside these facets of the bandit’s origin, the bandit may have other ethical or moral advantages on his side. They may use violence and murder sparingly and only direct them against ‘fair’ targets rather than terrorising and otherwise abusing the general population. Indeed, in some cases they may even act as a protector of the local population. Equally, they may only steal from outsiders or other targets outwith the community they come from. As in the case of Robin Hood, they may distribute the spoils of their criminality amongst other members of their oppressed class. For Hobsbawm, a Marxist historian, this class is almost always oppressed peasants and landless labourers or cattle herders. Thus, there is a broad image of the social bandit as justified in his grievance, pursuing this greivance fairly or, at least, with some ethical considerations as to who his victims are and philanthropically distributing some of the spoils of his criminality with the general population.
For Hobsbawm, it’s hard for this type of figure to emerge before the idea of an external authority. Before the advent of the state, almost all power is wielded by groups of armed men very similar to bandit gangs. The existence of laws or externally imposed rules is negligible or weak meaning there is little scope for the social bandit to be abused and consequently react against. ‘Laws’, per se, are not so much broken as feuds between rival factions are inaugurated. Banditry “cannot...exist outside socio-economic and political orders” (p7). Indeed, the original meaning of the Italian ‘bandito’ is ‘one placed outside the law’. Equally, according to Hobsbawm, the modern capitalist state also largely excludes the possibility of social brigandage because the apparatus of the state is more ever present reducing the geographical homelands of the bandit. Secondly, the poor are rarely as hungry as in earlier forms of government. Hobsbawm links famines and other outbreaks of hunger closely with explosions of brigandage. As one would expect of a Marxist, for Hobsbawm bandits are the poor, the assetless, the hungry, living far from the seat of power, unrepresented and oppressed. They ‘resist the encroaching power of outside authority and capital’ (p9). Nonetheless, social bandits are rarely true revolutionaries although they can be incorporated into revolutionary causes. Their concerns are ordinarily less wide ranging than the revolutionary’s and, while they usually want to act outside of the existing laws for whatever reason, they rarely have plans of overthrowing the existing government and ruling themselves.
As alluded to in the previous paragraph, geography can play an important role in the birth and development of social banditry. Far flung, mountainous regions are often poor, removed from the seat of central power, suspicious of outsiders and devoid of much power in the political process. As such, the bandit may function as an alternative to absent law enforcement or the apparatus of the judiciary, if such a thing exists. The bandit may also represent unyielding dissent to the central authority, which other rural peasants would like to enact themselves were it not for circumstance, resources or disposition. In these regions, topographical knowledge may allow the bandit to elude capture, indulge in effective ambushes, kidnapping and highwaymanship and otherwise operate undetected. In turn, the local population may help to support the bandit in various ways. They may mislead the authorities, offer sanctuary or provide sustenance in times of need. Hobsbawm does debate how voluntary much of this assistance may be, given that it is probably quite hard to refuse the demands of a group of armed criminals!
The reality of the social bandit is evasive. Hobsbawm points out that the source material he is using, which largely consists of ballads, chapbooks and oral tradition, is poor. It is perhaps illustrative of the sub-culture as a whole that the existence of its most famous and enduring son, Robin Hood, has proved impossible to establish in spite of the huge amount of interest his figure has attracted over the centuries. The more modern examples that Hobsbawm examines shows there is often a good deal of common criminality mixed in with the supposed just practice that is celebrated by the community in songs and literature. Indeed, he notes that sometimes totally inappropriate characters are co-opted into the role of ‘social bandit’ just to give the community a figurehead through which to glorify opposition to outside authority. All told, it seems there is a good deal less reality to the ‘ideal social bandit myth’ than certain sources would imply and that these sources themselves are of dubious provenance. This begs the question as to why this type of myth is so universal and, in some cases, enduring when it has so little foundation in reality? For me, a salient point in this regard is the romanticism of the concept. The bandit is a quintessential underdog, a member of a poor, landless minority oppressed by external forces far greater than his own. Against all this, he stands up for himself and his community fighting against the injustice and attempting to improve the lot of his fellow community members by stealing from those who have to give to those who do not. The existence of this kind of symbol could be of huge importance to a community that is otherwise downtrodden and with little hope of alleviating or improving their circumstances. One of the most resonant passages, for me, was the following:
“Man has an insatiable longing for justice. In his soul he rebels against a social order which denies it to him, and whatever the world he lives in, he accuses either that social order or the entire material universe of injustice. Man is filled with a strange, stubborn urge to remember, to think things out and to change things; and in addition he carries within himself the wish to have what he cannot have - if only in the form of a fairy tale. That is perhaps the basis for the heroic sagas of all ages, all religions, all peoples and all classes.” p145, (taken from, I Olbracht ‘Der Rauber Nikola Schuhaj’ pp76-7).
Furthermore, the very existence of such a well known example as Robin Hood shows the broad appeal of such a figure in a world where many feel hard done by the cruelty of those in power or the heartlessness of anonymous, external bureaucracy. Indeed, most examples of the social bandit fail to gain much renown outside of their home region, which is necessarily limited by the geographical factors examined in the fourth paragraph. So it is striking that one example does transcend the natural tendency towards parochialism, which speaks to it wide and abiding appeal. How the myth attained such a status and whether or not he really existed are besides the point.
The book itself showed me how fun and romantic it is to read about these brave, principled outsiders fighting against an evil, oppressive authority. The stories and characters it contained really lit up an otherwise fairly dry work of academic history. In reality there’s probably a fair amount of artistic license taken in their creation. Nonetheless, their power as a symbol is undeniable. It was also very enjoyable to be able to benefit from academic quality footnotes, bibliographies and lists of further reading when something in the book piqued my interest, which goes against my allegation that the book is dry! There were some great postscripts to the text examining criticisms that have been made against Hobsbawm’s arguments and this detailed analysis made a nice change to sensationalist journalism and fake news. It was an enjoyable read and made an interesting argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment