POPULAR POLITICAL CULTURES
Introduction
1. Historiography
 Traditional view that mass of population were excluded from political
power, and had no political awareness or politics of their own.
 1950s and 60s: George Rudé (crowd in 18th century Paris and London),
Brian Manning (demonstrations and riots during English Revolution),
Edward Thompson (rural forms of protest were ideological and political in
nature). Collective agitations that were ostensibly ‘political’ in the narrow
sense of the term.
 1970s and 80s: Questions raised about the politics of the people that were
not rioting, and broader definition of the ‘political’. ‘Everyday’ forms of
popular political were identified.
Tim Harris (ed.), The Politics of the Excluded
Michael Braddick and John Walter (eds.), Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society
Andy Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics
Peter Bierbrauer in Peter Blickle (ed.), Aufruhr und Empörung?
2. Government and Ideology
 Rulers’ control is limited by mighty subjects and lack of coercive powers
 Government is therefore a bargaining process between rulers and ruled
(Wayne te Brake)
 Notion of reciprocity: government by mutual consent of rulers and ruled
 Social depth of political activity: all levels of society, rich and poor are
involved in the political process
3. Forms of Popular Politics
a. Rebellion:
Demonstrates sophisticated political awareness and activity.
 Causes:
Economic: high taxes, rent increases, oppressive landlords, enclosure.
Religious: in defence of Catholicism or in support of Protestantism
 Characteristics:
Lack of violence
Planning and co-ordination (fast spread of risings, organised camps)
Limited aims
Fundamental loyalty to crown (blame evil councillors)
b. Riot:
Principles and logic behind it. When moral values and traditional rights are violated
or ignored, the crowd take action.
KEY CONCEPT: The ‘moral economy’ of the crowd (E.P. Thompson)

Characteristics:
Preceded by petitioning or litigation (last resort)
Limited aims
Discipline of crowd (price setting)
Legalistic and deferential language
Meant to inspire the magistrates to action, appealed to paternal, patriarchal and
hierarchical ideology that lay behind governance.
c. Resistance:
People were not always passive and deferential, they engaged in (not directly
confrontational) activity that was subversive and threatening.
KEY CONCEPT: ‘The weapons of the weak’ (James C. Scott)
 Claiming loyalty to the crown and acknowledging their power was a
sensible tactic or strategy
 But this in fact concealed more subversive politics
 These actions are subversive because they do pose a direct threat to the
social order and are critical of the inequality of the way that society is
structured and functions
 Examples: libel, threats of arson, anonymous letters, underground verse,
rumours, seditious speech.
Ethiopian proverb: when the great lord passes the wise peasant bows deeply and silently
farts.
‘Weapons of the weak’ sample bibliography
Bellany, Alastair, ‘“Rayling Rymes and Vaunting Verse”: Libellous Politics in Early
Stuart England, 1603-1628’, in Kevin Sharpe & Peter Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics in
Early Stuart England (London & New York, 1994), pp. 285-310.
Capp, Bernard, ‘Arson, Threats of Arson and Incivility in Early Modern England’, in
Peter Burke, Brian Harrison and Paul Slack (eds.), Civil Histories: Essays in Honour of
Sir Keith Thomas (Oxford, 2000), pp. 197-213.
Cox, Nick, ‘Rumours and Risings: Plebeian Insurrection and the circulation of
Subversive Discourse Around 1597’, in Dermot Cavanagh & Tim Kirk (eds.), Subversion
and Scurrility: Popular Discourse in Europe From 1500 to the Present (Aldershot,
2000), pp. 43-57.
Fox, Adam, ‘Ballads, Libels and Popular Ridicule in Jacobean England’, Past & Present
145 (November 1994), pp. 47-83
Hindle, Steve, ‘Custom, Festival and Protest in Early Modern England: The Little
Budworth Wakes, St Peter’s Day, 1596’, Rural History 6:2 (1995), pp. 155-78.
Rollison, David, ‘Conceit and Capacities of the Vulgar Sort: The Social History of
English as a Language of Politics’, Cultural and Social History 2:2 (2005), pp. 141-64