I’m not an unequivocal fan of Julian Assange, for the hopefully obvious reasons, but his continued confinement by the UK Government with the apparent aim of handing him over to the Trump administration does as many have noted raise important issues around press freedom.
Assange appeared in Court on Monday and according to a BBC report was found to be mumbling at the judge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50132599
The most likely reason for this is that Assange is unwell and the conditions of his confinement are not helping matters.
However mumbling and muttering can be an effective way of frustrating the intentions of the powerful
The social theorist James C Scott has written in Weapons of the Weak that mumbling can be act of resistance.
He has studied peasant societies where ordinary people have little collective power on most occasions and expressing open dissent can be dangerous.
It is here that the mutter really comes in to its own. An oath or semi-audible word can give the appearance of dissent but since it has not been clearly heard it is very difficult for authority to pursue it.
The mutter provides a sense of dissent without a specific form.
It can work well in meetings- though pick your meeting with care. A remark, let’s say a mild piss-take of someone who is talking, which is only half heard can be off-putting and more effective than a heckle. Of course such interventions are not always designed to take the rise out of authority. They can be used in a reactionary way- the muttered sexist or homophobic remark for example.
But with that caution up front, the mutter and muttering should not be simply dismissed. To use Charles Tilly’s framework it is one of a range of tools that can be used to show dissent.
In the words of the song, ‘there’s something happening here, what it is, ain’t exactly clear
Leave a Reply