Ethnography of Politics and Political Communication

Ethnography of Politics and Political Communication

Page 1 of 11

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 21 September 2014

Subject: PoliticalScience,PoliticalBehavior,PoliticalMethodologyOnlinePublicationDate: Sep2014

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.28

EthnographyofPoliticsandPoliticalCommunication:StudiesinSociologyandPoliticalScienceEevaLuhtakallioandNinaEliasophTheOxfordHandbookofPoliticalCommunication(Forthcoming)EditedbyKateKenskiandKathleenHallJamieson

OxfordHandbooksOnline

AbstractandKeywords

Theethnographicapproachhasparticularpotentialforstudyingpoliticalcommunicationthroughenlargingunderstandingsofpoliticalinstitutionsandexpandingdefinitionsof“politics.”First,wideninginstitutionalunderstandingtakesadvantageofethnography’scapacitytoopenwindowsthattraditionalanalysisofpoliticalinstitutionsleavesshut.Second,ethnographyisuniquelyabletoexaminenewformsofengagementthatpeoplehavenotyetdefinedas“politics.”Third,studyingpoliticalcommunicationethnographicallymeansexpandingthemodesofcommunicationandactivityexaminedtoincludenonverbalandvirtualcommunication.Politicsisoneoftheprincipalarenasinwhich“culture”unfoldsandbecomesobservable,yetinwaysthatarenotlimitedtopoliticalinstitutionsordecision-makingpractices.Commontopoliticalethnographiesisthecapabilitytoshowhow“how”and“why”arelinked:howapoliticalprocessorpracticetakesplaceenablesfindingoutwhyitdoes.

Keywords:politicization,depoliticization,participation,ethnography,everydaypractices,organizationalstyle,empowermentproject,conflict,sedimentation,levelofgenerality

WhyEthnographyandPoliticsAreaNecessaryMatch

Anessayonethnographyofpoliticalcommunicationmustbeginwithtwoquestions:Whatdowemeanby“political,”andwhatdowemeanby“ethnography”?Dependingonthesedefinitions,thereareeitherveryfewethnographiesofpoliticalcommunicationorasubstantialnumber,spanningthedisciplinesofcommunication,sociology,politicalscience,history,business,andpolicy.Asforthedefinitionof“politicalethnography”anditssalience,recentdebates,especiallyinthefieldofpoliticalscience,havearguedaboutdifferentdefinitionsoftheconceptanditspositionintheacademicfieldwithsuchzealthatweconsideritunnecessarytoenterthisfray(seeTilly,2006;Auyero2006;AuyeroandJoseph,2007;Yanow,2009;Kubik,2009;Pachirat,2009;Warren,2009;Schatz,2009a,2009b;Wedeen,2010).Instead,wefocusondiscussingthefindingsandconsequencesoftheethnographicapproachtopoliticalphenomena,bymeansofafewparticularlyillustrativeexamples.

Inthewidestpossiblesense,theancestorsoftoday’spoliticalethnographerswrotetraveldescriptionsfirst,andanthropologicalaccountsalittlelater,aboutdistantculturesinwhichsocietieswereorganizedandthepoliswasconstitutedandactedoninwaysunfamiliartoWesterntraditions.Thesehistoricalaccountscontinuetoremindusthatunderstandingpoliticsrequiresmultiplestrategiesofanalysis.

Asimilarchallengetoourtaken-for-granteddefinitionsof“politics”confrontsWestern-educatedinvestigatorswhoconductcross-culturalethnography.Thesetemporalandspatialleapsforcetheresearchertoconfrontsomethingthatotherresearcherscanmoreeasilyavoid:thepuzzleofdefiningsomeinteractionsandactivitiesas“politics”andothersas“notpolitics”apriori,withoutdeeplyunderstandingthecontextandsituation.AsCliffordGeertz(1973,311–312)noted,politicsisoneoftheprincipalarenasinwhichthestructuresofmeaningwehabituallycall


Page 2 of 11


“culture”unfoldandbecomeobservable.Whatunfolds,then,isnotlimitedtopoliticalinstitutionsordecision-makingpractices,butbothreflectsandconstitutesavastarrayofactivitiesandmeaningswithwidelydifferentscopesofpoliticalconsequences,rangingfromtheobstaclesofpoliticizationexperiencedinapoorFrenchsuburbtothemotivationsofkeepingupwithexhaustingpoliticalworkinUSSenate-levelcampaigning(cf.Hamidi,2009;Mahler,2006).

Inthischapterwearguethattheethnographicapproachhasparticularpotentialforstudyingpoliticalcommunicationthroughenlargingcommonunderstandingsofpoliticalinstitutionsandexpandingcommondefinitionsof“politics.”First,wideninginstitutionalunderstandingtakesadvantageofethnography’scapacitytoopenwindowsthattraditionalanalysisofpoliticalinstitutionsleavesshut.Bypryingthesewindowsopen,ethnography,whendonewell,forcesustoseewhatmeanings-in-contextconstitutetheseinstitutions.Peeringinsidethe“big,”institutionalstructuresofpoliticsshowshowtheyareintricatelyandpreciselycomposedofelementsthattypicalresearchdoesnottheorizeaspartof“politics”;bythesametoken,ethnographyalsoforcesustonoticeatypicalpoliticalprocessesandarenas,outsideoftheinstitutionalizedforums.Thus,second,ethnographyisuniquelyabletoexaminenewformsofengagementthatpeoplehavenotyetdefinedas“politics.”Third,studyingpoliticalcommunicationethnographicallyalsomeansexpandingthemodesofcommunicationandactivityexaminedtoinclude,forexample,nonverbalandvirtualcommunication.Inadditiontotheirimpactonempiricaloutcomes,suchaspatternsofvotingandactivism,variedmediathatincludenonverbalandvirtualcommunicationcanhaveimplicationsthatchallengestandarddefinitionsofpolitics.

CurrentpoliticalethnographiesareundeniablyindebtedtostreamsofwritingandresearchgoingbacktotheearlymodernEuropeans’traveloguesdescribingexoticcultures,andfromthereontothetraditionoflinguisticanthropology.Nonetheless,inthistextweconcentrateprincipallyontheworkofethnographersfromthepastcoupleofdecadestostressthecrucialroleofethnographyinunderstandingwhatismostpropertocurrentpoliticalcommunication:mediatedflowsinglobalized,complex,andtransnationalsettings.Theneedtounderstandthesetransformationsbringsustotheparticularandincreasingimportanceofpoliticalethnographytoday.Inthecurrentpluralityofcontextsforpoliticalcommunication,multiplelevels,styles,andmeansofcommunicationaresimultaneouslyinfluential,andthelackoftoolstograspthismultiplicityhamperspoliticalanalysis.Inaworldofglobaland“glocal”(Brenner2004)crisscrossingmeanings,weaksignsgrowinimportance.Politicalethnographyisatbestaformofinquirythatspecializesinweak,barelyvisiblesigns,habitsandpracticeshiddenfromnewsheadlines,andthecountertrendsthatmaybebubblingunderneaththem,sometimestakingtheheadlinesaswellasmacro-levelpoliticalanalysisbysurprise.

HowDifferentOrganizationsCloseDown,OpenUp,andShapePoliticalCommunication

Sohowsurprisinghavethenewsheadlinesfromthepoliticalethnographychannelbeen,inrecentyears?Whathavewelearned,really,andwhatisspecificallyethnographicaboutthesefindings?Inthissectionweexplorepoliticalethnographyfromthreeoverlappingperspectives:theethnographicaccountsofstudying“established”politicalinstitutionsoraction;thegraspofpoliticalprocessesandcapacitytorecognizepoliticsinfragile,new,and/orunexpectedcontextsofanethnographicapproach;andtheethnographers’toolstoanalyzeandunderstandobstacles,hindrances,andthelackofpoliticsthatlargelyescapeotherresearchapproaches.Welookattheseperspectivesbysketchingbodiesofstudiesthatsharecertainfeaturesandthroughillustrativeexampleshighlightingthosefeatures.

Ethnographicresearchonpoliticssensitizesanalysisofthewaysthatdifferentorganizationsinvokedifferentkindsofpoliticalengagement.Itdoessobytakingintoaccountthe“nitty-grittydetailsandeffectsofdifferentformsofpoliticalaction,networksandtactics,”asAuyeroandJoseph(2007,3)describethebenefitsofpoliticalethnographyinintroducingtheireditedvolumeonthetheme.Inotherwords,ethnographicstudiesshowhowpoliticalpracticesreflect,construct,andoccasionallytransformorganizations,expanding,contracting,orreshapingthepossibleplacesforpoliticalexpression.

Thisfeaturemakesethnographyausefulapproachforstudyingvariouskindsofpoliticalorganizationsandprocesses,withthepromiseofresultsthatreachbeyondnotjustsurveysandpolicyanalysis,butalsointerview-basedstudies.Beit“businessasusual”orchangeandcrisismomentsofmoreorlessinstitutionalpolitics,NGOs,collectiveaction,andsocialmovements,ethnographicstudiesshowthatpoliticalcommunicationtakesshapeand


Page 3 of 11


hasvariousconsequencesasitunfoldsindifferenttypesoforganizations,contexts,andsituations,andthatgeneraltalkaboutpoliticalculturesshouldalwaysbeevaluatedwithprecaution,withacarefulinspectionoftheeverydaypracticesthroughwhichthe“cultures”materialize(e.g.,Abèles,1991;Lichterman,1996;Sampson,1996;Eliasoph,1998;Mische,2009;Moore,2001;Elyachar,2002;Baiocchi,2005;Mahler,2006;Steinhoff,2006;Yon,2009;Eliasoph,2011;Luhtakallio,2012).

LearningParticipation,DisplacingPolitics?

Oneexampleistheworldwide“participationindustry,”whichhasbeengiventhetaskofrenewingandsavingdemocracyfromacrisis(e.g.,Moore,2001;Baiocchi,2005;Talpin,2006;PollettaandLee,2006;Lee,2010).Butwhatdoesparticipationactuallyproduce,andcanitsavedemocracybysimplybeingimplemented?InacomparativeethnographyoforgansofparticipatorydemocracyinFranceandItaly,Talpin(2006)describesthe“effects”ofdeliberationamongtheparticipatingcitizens.Henotesthatovertime,somethingindeedchangesintheparticipants’actions;theylearnhowtoparticipate—appropriately.Thismeansthatthey,inhiswords,learnto“playgoodcitizens,”whichincludesaskingtherightkindofquestionsandavoidingsayinganythingthatmightseemtoocontroversialor“outofplace.”Talpinconcludesthatitseemsarbitrarytotrytoseparatedeliberationasapracticefromitssupposedeffects,asdeliberationistheprocessitself.Separatingdeliberationfromitseffectswouldbelikeseparatingthedancerfromthedance.Whatthecitizenslearnedfirstandforemostwastodeliberateaccordingtotheguidelinessetandkeptbythelocalpoliticalleaders.AsLee’sstartlingstudiesalsoshowintheUScontext,playinggoodcitizeninthesesituationsthattheparticipationindustrytendstocreatecanoftenrequireenteringaratherapoliticalorevendepoliticizinggame(Lee2010).

Thisexampleisnotchosentoshowthatparticipatorydemocracyisasham,buttostressthattheinternationallypromotedimageofparticipatorydemocracydoesnotactuallycapturetheseprocesses.Rather,theseforumsteachpeopleakindoforganizationalstyle(EliasophandLichterman,2003).Theylearntofollowthe“rulesofthegame.”Onecannotbecomeadecentmemberoftheneighborhoodcouncil,thebureaucracy,ortheactivistgroup,forthatmatter,untiloneknowswhattheunspoken“organizationalstyle”is.Theimportanceofmasteringtheorganizationalstyletolearnappropriatemodesofparticipationisnotnew;Mansbridge(1983)describeshowandwhy,intheclassicsiteofcivicengagement,Vermonttownmeetings,working-classpeopleroutinelycouldnotbeartobeoutspokenparticipants.

Inamorecurrentsiteofciviclife,Eliasoph(2011)portraysprogramsthataimatfightingsocialexclusionandpromotingempowermentamongunderprivilegedyouth.These“empowermentprojects”endupdoingsomethingquitedifferentfromwhattheyaredesignedtodo.Inthewhirlpoolofproject-basedgovernmentfunding,evaluations,andunspokenmissions,theyoungpeoplelearntorepresent“underprivilegedyouth”andtalkandactinafashionthatsatisfiestheexpectationsoftheprogramplanners.Insteadofbeingempoweredinwaysthatthedoctrineoftheseprogramspromises,theybecomecapableofplayingintheworldofprojectswheremoneyisscarce,goalsunrealistic,andtheresultssoughtveryfarfromtheirownrealities.Theylearnhowtonavigatethesequasi-governmental,quasi-civic,quasi-politicalorganizationsthatreceivefundingfromstateandnonprofitsources—askillthatmaycomeinhandyiftheythemselvesendupgettingjobsinthisincreasinglyprevalent“hybrid”nonprofitsector.Inthisway,participantsareinfactlearninghowtonavigateourcurrentpoliticalworld,inwhichitisincreasinglydifficulttofindtheboundarybetween“government”and“nongovernmentalorganization”allovertheworld—wheresomeNGO’sbudgetsandpoliticalpowerexceedthoseofmanygovernments.Alongwiththispoliticalstructurecomesapoliticalculture—forexample,intheformofanincreasinglyinternationallanguagethatananthropologiststudyingNGO’seffortsatbuildingciviclifeinAlbaniacalls“projectspeak”(Sampson1996).

Thisisnottosaythatthe“structure”ofanorganizationdeterminesitsstylesofcommunication.IntheBrazilian,university-basedactivistgroupsthatMischestudied,threeverydifferentstylespredominated.Inone,memberstriedhardtoalwaysagreeandbondandexpresstheirfeelings;inanothertypeofgroup,memberssharpenedtheirswordswithlouddebatevergingonfights;andinstillathirdtypeofactivistgroup,membersexploredideaswithoutfeelingtheneedtoconcludeanything(2001).

StudiessuchasMische’sshowthatweshouldbeuneasywhenwetalkaboutpoliticalculture“ingeneral”andwaryofmakingbroadinternationalcomparisons.Instead,thespectrumofcomparativeanalysiswidensandgainsincolor,detail,andpertinencewhencarriedoutwithethnographictools.IncomparingFrenchandFinnishstylesofpoliticization,Luhtakallio(2012)showedthatbroadinternationalcomparisonsarenonethelesspossible.Thereare


Page 4 of 11


featuresthatcharacterizelargeculturalentities,andanalyzinghowtheycometobe—thatis,throughandinwhatkindofprocessestheyactuallyexist—isthekeytounderstandingwhatisitthatmakesthem“generalfeatures.”Atthesametime,importantfissuresandweaksignsofchangethatmainlyescapetheeyesofpolicyanalysis–basedmodelbuildersbecomeapparent,andseeingtheseseeminglyinsignificantfeaturesofpoliticalengagementmakesitpossibletogetbeyondtwo-dimensionalcomparisons.Luhtakallio,forexample,concludedthatontheonehand,whenexaminedcloseup,theFrenchcontentiousnessininteractionsbetweenactivistsanddecision-makersincludedactivists’implicitknowledgethattheywerecontendingwithstagnant,out-of-reachhierarchiesthatkeptthepowerconfigurationsintact.Ontheotherhand,theFinnishcultureofconsensusandinclusivedecision-makingincludedputtingalotofeffortintoquellingconflictsanddepoliticizingissuesofcontroversy,insteadofdealingwiththemthroughapoliticalprocess.

Finally,alltheseexamplesshowthatbeitthe“participationindustry”oranothertypeofpoliticalinstitutionorgroup,carefulethnographycantellusanadditional,adifferent,andsometimeseventheoppositetalefromtheofficialstory,andthestakescanbehigh.

“Politics”intheMaking…andNot

Thesecondperspectiveelaboratesonthewaysethnographyprovidesfortoolstorecognizepoliticsinthemakingandthecrucialbuthard-to-catchprocessesofpoliticizationanddepoliticization,politicshappeningandfailingtohappen(Carrel,2006;Eliasoph,1998,2011;Hamidi,2006,2010;Luhtakallio,2012;Lichterman,2005).Botharefeaturesthatstatistical,macro,interview-based,andevenmultimethodanalysismainlyignores:torendersomethingvisiblethatisallbutnotthereyet,ordoesnothappen,requiresethnographiccrafting.Yettheseprocessesarecrucialingraspingtheessenceofpolitics.Herethequestionishownewissuesemerge,andwhathindersthemfromemerging,ontheagenda.

Ethnographersoftenbecomeinterestedinnew,nascentformsofpoliticsbeforeotherstudentsofpoliticsnoticethem.Politicalethnographiesbringtotheforetheblurringofbordersofhabitualfieldsofactioninshowingthingsthatareemergingandhavenotyetsolidifiedinto“politics”butaresocialwork,ortheater,orvoluntaryaidwork.Thisisduenotonlytotheirsensitivityinrecognizingpoliticalprocesses,butalsotothelogicofethnographicresearch:noinstitution,structure,orresearchcontextisa“given”whenthemeaningsandmeaningfulnessofactionareunderscrutiny.Furthermore,theethnographicapproachisprobablythemostprominenttoolforanalyzingthewhysandhowsoftheabsenceofpolitics:thevarietyofhindrancesandobstaclestopoliticizationandfragilitiesandfailuresofpoliticalprocesses.(HuspekandKendall,1991;Eliasoph,1998;Carrel,2006;Wolford,2006;AuyeroandSwistun,2007;Näre,2011).Wenextconsiderthesetwosidesofhowethnographicresearchcapturessituationsthatconstitutepolitics.

Hamidi(2006,2010)envisionsaconceptionthatcanincludepoliticalaction(lepolitique)thattakesplaceoutsidethesphereofinstitutionalpolitics(lapolitique),suchasestablishedsocialmovements,butalsoactivitiesthatarenoteasilyrecognizedaspoliticaltobeginwithandinwhichtheactorsdonotnecessarily“actuallythink”theyareengagedinpoliticalactivism.Hamiditalksaboutgraffitiwriting,askingwhethertaggingisaformof“politicalcommunication.”Shesaysthatthequestionisabitwrong:whethertaggingisaformofpoliticsornotdependsonhowthetaggersimagineitandtalkaboutitinrelationtowhatHamidicalls“organizedconflict.”Thisapproachsteersamiddlegroundbetweensearchingtoo“low”andsayingthattaggingis,ofcourse,aformofvague“resistance,”versussearchingtoo“high,”onlyexaminingofficial,publicdiscourseaimedatchangingpolicy.Hamidi’sdefinitioncombinesthenecessary“conflictualization”(Duchesne,2003)thatdenaturalizesaproblem—theessentialfirststepinpoliticization—withanapproachthatorganizesvariedobjectsintoacategorythatislargeenoughtoactupon.Thelattercanmeannamingtheforty-sevenhumiliationsexperiencedbyimmigrantyouthas“examplesofracialdiscrimination.”Thisistheprocessof“raisingtheproblemtoalevelofgenerality”astheauthorsofOnJustification,theinfluenceofwhichinEuropeanpoliticalresearchisnearlyinescapable,putit(BoltanskiandThévenot,[1991]2006).Itisalsothekeytotheprocessthatleadsfromthe“Iwant”tothe“Wehavetherightto”thatHannaPitkindescribedasthemetaphorforaprocessleadingtopublic-spiritedthinkingandprinciplesofjustice.

Hamidi’sstudy(2006)alsoputsher“enlargedconceptofpoliticization”toworkwhenfiguringoutwhythereseemedtobesolittle“politics”goingonintheassociationalactivitiesofimmigrant-dominatedsuburbs.Despitetheoftenconflictualsettingoftheactivities,conversationsintheassociationswererarely“political”inanyobvious


Page 5 of 11


sense.Itturnedoutthattherewerefeaturesthatwereparticularlyefficientintamingpoliticalexpressions,suchasdefiningaproblemasbeingofapsychologicalnatureorstressingtheurgencyofthecaseof,forinstance,avictimofdomesticviolence,insteadofincludingpoliticalreflectionintheprocessofhelpingout.

Inasimilarmanner,Eliasoph(1998)concludesthatparticularorganizationalstylesturnedsituationsandactivitiesthatcouldhaveapoliticaldimensionintosomethingelse:peoplecombatingaproposedtoxicdumpintheirneighborhoodcouldanalyzethecorporatepoliciesthatmakesomuchtoxicproductionpossible,andtheycoulddiscussthegovernment’sroleinallowingsomuchtoxicproduction,itslaxregulation,anditsownshareoftoxicwasteproduction,whentheymentionthattheUSmilitaryisthelargesttoxicproducerinthenation.Theycouldsaytooneanotherquiteclearlythatthewasteshouldnotgoinsomeoneelse’sbackyard.Theycouldsaythiskindofthingoverbreakfastwithoneanotherorincasualconversationsoutsideofmeetingswithoneanother.ButthemomenttheradioandTVmikesgooninapressconference,thesesamepeoplesay,“IcarebecauseI’mamom,”andexpressconcernsabouttheirownlocalneighborhood.Therewasapattern:whattheycaneasilysayinonecontext—incasualcontexts—washardforthemtosayinanother—thepressconference—andtheresultwasanevaporationofpoliticalspeechfrompublicsituations.

Carrel(2006)notesinherstudy—concerningpoliticizationprocessesinconsciousnessgroupsforresidentsofadisadvantagedneighborhood—thatasimportantasrecognizingpoliticizationisrecognizingthefragilityoftheseprocesses.Carreltellsthestoryof“Lila,”whohasbeenonthelistofapplicantsforgovernmenthousingforseveralyears.Lilaisaparticipantinasocialworker–ledgroupinwhatiscalleda“difficultneighborhood”inParis.Sheisanunemployedyoungmother,aFrenchcitizenofAlgerianorigin.Inthekick-offmeetingofthegroup,sheisangryandaggressive,reluctanttoparticipateatall.Asocialworkerhadputinagreatdealofeffortpersuadinghertoattend.Theprincipalreasonforherattitudewasthatshehadwaitedforalongtimetogetananswertoherhousingapplicationandhadbecomeconvincedthatherapplicationhadbeendeliberately“blocked”byaMrs.Martin,managerofthehousingservices,whomsheopenlyaccusedofracism.Sherockedbetweenresignationandrage,havingreceivednodetailedexplanationforthefailureofherapplication.Overaperiodofsixmonths,LilaandMrs.Martinengagedinanexchangeandaninquiryintotheproceduresthatdeterminewhogetspublichousing.Lilalearnedthatwhilethelocalcouncilcollectsapplicationsanddecidesonapreselection,thefinaldecisionismadeelsewhere.Thus,Mrs.Martinwasbutonelinkinalongchainofdecision-making.Liladebatedandconfronted,alongwiththegroup,theinadequateprovisionofpublichousingandtheopacityofthegrantingprocedures.Duringthisexperimentalprogramofparticipatorydemocracy,sheshiftedfrom“Iamavictimofracism,theydon’twanttogivemehousing”to“Asapplicantsforpublichousing,wedemandexplanationsfromelectedrepresentativesandadministrativeauthorities.”Lila’sshiftprovidesCarrelwithatextbookcaseofaPitkin-inspiredinstanceof“Iwant”becoming“wehavetherightto.”Attheendofthisproject,Lilagaveapublicspeechbeforethehousingmanagementcommitteecriticizingtheopacityoftheprocessandtheinadequateprovisionofaffordablehousinginthearea.Thiswasthepeakofherengagement,however.Afterfinallyacquiringanapartment,shewithdrewfrompoliticalactivities(Carrel,2006).

Lila’sisastoryofasuccessfulpoliticallearningprocess,andatthesametimeastoryofthefragilityoftheseprocesses.Evenonceithappens,politicizationisnotsomethingapersonpossessesoranachievedgroupcharacteristic.Itmaybetemptingtothinkofitasanachievedstateofaffairs,whichcomeswithabigsolidboxof“civicskills”(Verba,Brady,andSchlozman,1995),butfollowingtheprocessovertime,withthepatienceandeyesofanethnographer,revealsthesituationalnatureofpoliticsandpoliticization.Politicalemancipationof“thepoorandmarginalized,”asthiscasewouldseemtobe,maynotbealasting,linearprogressstoryevenonceithasstarted,butexactlythekindof“come-and-go”of“raisingjustificationstoalevelofgenerality”thatHamidi(2006)describes.Undeniably,Lilawentthroughaprocessofemancipationofsomekind,andyetayearlater,whentheethnographerreturnedtothefield,Lilawasnotanactivist,nordidsheexpressanypoliticalinterest—onthecontrary,shehadwithdrawnfromallparticipation,goingnearlyallthewaybacktoheroriginalposition,exceptthatnowshewasnolongerhomeless.Shouldthepeoplewhoranthisexperimentinparticipatorydemocracycallthisasuccess?Insomeways,itcertainlywas—shewasnolongerhomeless.Butinanotherway,itwasnot:Lila’spassionfordemocraticparticipationwasevanescentandvanishedwhenshegottheapartmentsheneeded.

Inastudyofenvironmentalsufferinginthe“Flammable”shantytowninBuenosAires,AuyeroandSwistun(2007)showhowanethnographicapproachcanrevealreasonsforcollectivepassivity.Inhabitantsofapollutedpoorneighborhoodinthevicinityofanoilrefinerykeptwaitingforachangeintheirdangerouslivingconditions,insteadofacting.Theywerehesitantandconfused,livinginageneralizedcloudofnotknowingwhattodoandwhen,not


Page 6 of 11


knowingifachangewasabouttotakeplaceornot.Theauthorsshowhowthisgeneralatmospherecameintobeing,definingeverydaylifeintheneighborhood.Theantipoliticizingeffectsofsmallenhancementsandvaguebutconstant(andmainlyunkept)promisesbytheauthoritiesandcorporaterepresentativespositionedthelocalinhabitants’senseoftime,asBourdieuhasputit.Ratherthanlivingontheirowncalendars,itwasasiftheywerelivingonacalendarthatwasorientedtoothers.

Byslowingdownthecameralikethis,ethnographycanrevealobstaclestopoliticalengagementandthepersonalandsocialconsequencesofpoliticalengagementanditsabsence.Insum,itcanuncoverthefragilityofpoliticalprocesses.

TheorizingPoliticsthroughEthnographicEvidence

Itmayseemobviousthatifonewantstostudypoliticalcommunication,oneshouldstudyapoliticalorganization—anactivistgroup,politicalparty,orpublichearings,forexample—andtheoriesfromTocquevilleonwardpointtocivicassociationsastheplacestogoifapersonislookingforthecultivationofcivicskills.Whentheethnographerselectsasiteaccordingtowhatseems,inthelightoftheoryor“commonsense,”tobethedependentvariable,sheusuallyfindssomethingotherthantheexpected.Anethnographercandiscoverthequalitiesofrelationshipsandmaterialconditionsinworkplaces,orchurches,orpoliticalactivistorganizationsthatshapepoliticalcommunicationonewayoranother,showinghowandwhypoliticalcommunicationariseswhereitdoes,andwhen,andbetweenwhom.Ethnography,inotherwords,takestheconceptsofBurke’s“pentad”(1945)andshowshowtheyreflectandcreateeverydaysituations.

Thesesituations,repeatedoftenenoughinawidespreadenoughway,createorganizationalformsthatshapethekindsofpoliticalcommunicationthatcanunfoldtherein.Milburn’sremarkablebook(2009)oncommunicationpatternsinnonprofitorganizationsintheUnitedStatesshowsthis“sedimentation(Ricoeur1991”clearly.“Oftenenough”and“widespreadenough”are,ofcourse,admittedlyvagueterms;furtherresearchcouldclarifyhowandwhenpeoplecometorecognizewhatisacceptableinanewkindoforganization.Eliasoph’s(2011)explorationoftheseprocessesinnonprofit-andgovernment-sponsoredyouthvolunteerprogramsoffersaninitialwayofthinkingabouttheprocessesofsedimentation.Inaneraofstate“devolution”ofcrucialgovernmentfunctions—forexample,socialservices,education,policing—tononprofitsand“community-basedorganizations,”studyingthesecases,whicharemoreandmoreprevalent,isawayofexaminingthestate’snewconfiguration.Thisisthenewfaceofthestate—whichisstillthefirstthingpeoplemeanwhentheysay“politics.”Theproblemisthatitisnolongeraseasyasitoncewastosay,withcertainty,“thisis‘government,’andthisis‘notgovernment.’”Nowthestate’sboundariesarenotsoclear.“Widespreadenough”and“oftenenough”maybegoodenoughfornow,sinceourseeminglysolidstructuresaremoreobviouslyprocesses,sedimentinganderodingandre-sedimentingintothingsthatlooksolid,tilltheydissolveagain.Ethnographyhelpsremindusthathistorydoesnot“freeze,”butisaseriesofpath-dependenteventsthatneverjuststop(Warren,2009).

Anotherwaythatethnographymakesusretheorizepoliticalengagementisbyshowinghowpeople“embody”it.Forexample,Mahler(2006)examinesextremelydedicated“politicos,”whoworkdayandnightwithseeminglyboundlessenergy.Mahler’scaseconsistsofpoliticiansandcampaignworkersontheSenatelevelandthequestionsofwhathasmadethemtakepoliticsasavocationandwhatkeepsthematit.Mahlershows—witharatherrareapproach(inethnography)basedonbiographicalandhistoricalaccounts—thattheobservablepoliticalactionsarenotwhatmakesthepoliticalexperiencesspecial,butinsteadthe“feel”:thewaypeopleenactthemtogether,fuelingandrefuelingeachother’spassioninamutualconflagrationofspiralingenergy,thatallowsthesesuper-activiststosurvivewithalmostnosleepforweeksandevenmonthsatatimewhentheyareworkinghardonacampaign.

Detailingthelevelsofengagementinpoliticalprocessescanbetheprincipalobjectiveofastudy,asitwasinOlgaKoveneva’scomparativestudyofthealternativegroundsfortheprotectionofenvironmentanddefenseoftheareainaFrenchandaRussiannaturepark,whichportrayedthedifferencesinhowactorsinthetwocontextsrelatedthemselvestothematerialworldtheyweredefendingandthewaysinwhichthesedifferencesaffectedpoliticalaction(Koveneva2011).Theparkwasasharedpoliticalspaceinbothcontexts,buttheprocessofpoliticizationgrewdifferentlyandhaddifferentimpactsaccordingtothelevelof“communicatingthecommon”thepeoplepracticed.TheFrenchnature-defendersspokeandactedonapubliclevelofjustifyingtheirarguments,


Page 7 of 11


provingtherepresentativenatureoftheirgroups,andgroundingtheirclaimsonexpertknowledge.TheRussians,incontrast,refrainedfrompublicjustificationsandcommunicatedmainlyontheleveloffamiliar,localloyaltiesandengagements,diminishingthepossibilityofapublicpoliticalprocessconsiderably.Thévenot’s(2006,2007)theoreticalworkprovidestheideaofthethreeregimesofengagement:publiclyjustifiableengagement,engagementinaplan,andfamiliarengagement.Thefirstisthelevelof“politics,”withitsanchorageinpublicjustifications.Nevertheless,asMahler’sandKoveneva’sworksbothshowindifferentways,politicalactionandprocessesofpoliticizationdonotresideexclusivelyintherealmof“public,”butareinsteadcomplexcombinationsofroutines,habits,plans,andchoices.Thekeyquestioninunderstandingtheseprocessesandtheirdifferentgroundsindifferentcontextsisthequestionofmovingfromone“level”toanotherandtransformingpeople’spersonalandparticularisticattachmentsintoissuesofhigherlevelsofgenerality.Inallthesestudies,itbecomesclearhowthe“how”and“why”arerelated;tolearnhowaqualityofengagementarisesopensaroutetofindingoutwhyitdoes.Thistheoreticalapparatusisalmostexclusivelybasedonethnographicresearchthatprovidestoolssensitiveenoughtocapturethesemomentaryprocesses(seeThévenot,Moody,andLafaye,2000;Doidy,2005;Thévenot,2006,2007;Koveneva,2011;Breviglierietal.,2009Charles,2012).

UnansweredQuestionsandCurrentChallenges

Manyethnographershaverecentlybeguntoexplorevirtualcommunitiesandthemultilevelandmultimediamobilizationstakingplaceonline,creatingnewunderstandingofbelongingandcorporealityinpoliticalprocesses(Fay,2007;Laine,2011).Corporalityanditsabsencepresentanew,underexploredavenueforthinkingaboutpoliticalethnography.Feelingitsabsenceinonlinecommunicationheightensourawarenessofjusthowmuchpoliticalcommunicationisnonverbal.

ThefollowingexamplefrombeforetheInterneterahighlightsboththenonverbalandthematerializedfeaturesofpolitics:WhenEastandWestGermanymergedafterthefalloftheBerlinWall,andpoliceofficersfromtheformercommunistEastandcapitalistWesthadtogetalongandforgeanewgovernmentbodyintheirnewrepublic,theireverydayhabitsweredifferent,inmajorandminordetails.FortheEastGermanofficers,forexample,itwasnormaltotakeofftheuniformathome,whilefortheformerWestGermans,itwaspropertotakeitoffbeforeleavingtheprecinctoffice.ThisdifferenceinhabitsmakessensewhenoneconsidersthatinEastGermany,housingwasallocatedmainlythroughaperson’sjob,whereasintheformerWestGermany,private,homelifewasasseparatefromworklifeasitisforusintheUnitedStates;homeandworkweremoreseparate.Thetakingoffoftheuniformsolidifiesthisinaconvenient“device,”asLatour(2005)orThévenot(2006)wouldputit.Participantsimplicitlyknowthattheuniform,oritsabsenceonthewayhome,summarizesawholewayoflifeandawholepoliticalsystem.Inthespiritofthisanecdote,weneedmoreresearch,notnecessarilyonWebactivisminavacuum,butontherelationsbetweenembodiedanddisembodiedpoliticalcommunication(e.g.,PollettaandLee,2006;Laine,2011;Luhtakallio,2013).Theprobleminthisregardishowtotrackthesekindsofunderlyingfeaturesofpoliticsdeliberately:Wheredowelookifwedon’tknowwhereitis?Howdopeople,andorganizations,connectanddisconnecttheirembodiedselvesto/fromtheironlineselves?

Anothersetofchallengesforethnographyofpoliticalcommunicationisthepuzzleofdoingcomparativeresearch.Inthepressingtaskofincreasingtransnationalunderstandingonpoliticalengagement,ethnographyisanimportantresearchstrategy.Butitisdifficulttoknowwhatcanstandasequivalentsfromonesocietytothenext.Alreadyinthischapter,AmericanreadersreadingaboutCarrel’scaseofpublichousingwouldhaveaverydifferentsetofassumptionsaboutitthantheFrenchpeopleinhercase.OurUSwelfarestateis(still)somuchweakerandsmallerthantheirsthatitmightevenseemstrangethatanyone,muchlessanimmigrant,wouldtakehousingasarightthatthestatemustguarantee.IfweweretoconductethnographyintheUnitedStates,couldapublichousingprojectstandasequivalentenoughtofunctionasacomparison?Wedoubtit.InHamidi’sstudiesofFrenchimmigrantsfromNorthAfrica,couldweusethemasequivalentstoimmigrantstotheUnitedStates?OrwouldtheybeequaltoAfricanAmericans,sinceimmigrantsfromFrance’sformercoloniesinNorthAfricaare,dejureanyway,fullcitizens,asblacksarehere?Ifwewantedtostudyanonprofithere,woulditbethesameasstudyingoneinanationthathadastrongwelfarestate?Onewayaroundthispuzzleistostudythesameorganizationacrossvariousnations—forexample,AmnestyInternational(Gray,2007).AnotheristodowhatLuhtakallio(2012)hasbegun,byshowinghowactivitiesthatlooksimilarindifferentnationsfacesimilartensionsinmeshingtheirdifferentmissions,butsolvethemverydifferently.


Page 8 of 11


Finally,asthediscussionofWeb-basedcitizenshipandactivismshows,itisagreatchallenge,andanevengreateropportunity,forethnographerstofindouthowtodelocalizeourinquiries.SinceearlyethnographerssuchasGluckmanwroteaboutseeminglylocalevents,ithasbeenclearthatthe“hereandnow”isneverjusthereandnow.InGluckman’sfamouscolonial-eracase(1958,1967),abridgeinZululandwasinaugurated,andthelocalceremonyreflectedandembodiedandreproducednotonlylocalpowerrelations,butalsoawholesetofrelationsbetweencolonizersandcolonized.Histaskwastoshowthataparticipantsimplycouldnotunderstandtheceremonywithoutthisimplicitbackgroundknowledge.When,totakeamorecurrentexample,MexicanimmigrantsinLosAngelesbecomeunionactivistsintheirnewplaceofresidence,theyhaveoneimaginaryfootinLAandtheotherinMexico;theactivismisbothhereandthere,andthemoney,thepeople,andtheimaginationsflowbackandforth(Fitzgerald,2004).Thelocalisneverjustlocal,butisalwayshauntedbytheseinvisibleghosts.Ethnography’schallengeistorevealtheseinvisibleghostsastheyproliferateandmovefasterandfaster.

References

Abèles,M.1991.QuietdaysinBurgundy:Astudyoflocalpolitics.Paris:EditionsdelaMaisondesciencedel’homme.

Auyero,J.2006.Introductorynotetopoliticsunderthemicroscope.Inspecialissueonpoliticalethnography,QualitativeSociology29(3):257–259.

Auyero,J.,andJoseph,L.2007.Introduction:Politicsundertheethnographicmicroscope.”InL.Joseph,M.Mahler,andJ.Auyero(Eds.),NewPerspectivesinPoliticalEthnography(pp.1–13).NewYork:Springer.

Auyero,J.,andSwistun,D.2007.Confusedbecauseexposed:Towardsanethnographyofenvironmentalsuffering.Ethnography8(2):123–144.

Baiocchi,G.2005.Militantsandcitizens:ThepoliticsofparticipatorydemocracyinPortoAlegre.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Boltanski,L.,andThévenot,L.(1991)2006.Onjustification:Economiesofworth.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.[Delajustification.Deseconomiesdegrandeur.Paris:Gallimard].

Brenner,N.2004.Newstatespaces:Urbangovernanceandtherescalingofstatehood.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Breviglieri,M.,Lafaye,C.,andTrom,D.2009.Compétencescritiquesetsensdelajustice.ColloquedeCerisy.Paris:Economica.

Burke,K.1945.Agrammarofmotives.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Carrel,M.2006.Politisationetpublicisation:Leseffetsfragilesdeladélibérationenmilieupopulaire.Politix19(75):33–51.

Charles,J.2012.Leschargesdelaparticipation.SociologieS,15novembre2012,http://sociologies.revues.org/4151.

Doidy,E.2005.(Nepas)jugerscandaleux:LesélecteursdeLevallois-Perretfaceaucomportementdeleurmaire.Politix71:165–189.

Duchesne,S.2003.Donsetrecherchedesoi,l’altruismeenquestionauxRestaurantsduCoeuretàAmnestyInternational.LesCahiersduCévipof33(janvier).http://www.cevipof.com/fr/les-publications/les-cahiers-du-cevipof/bdd/publication/437

Eliasoph,N.1998.Avoidingpolitics:HowAmericansproduceapathyineverydaylife.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Eliasoph,N.2011.Makingvolunteers:Civiclifeafterwelfare’send.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.


Page 9 of 11


Eliasoph,N.,andLichterman,P.2003.Cultureininteraction.AmericanJournalofSociology108(4,January):735–794.

Elyachar,J.2002.Empowermentmoney:TheWorldBank,non-governmentalorganizations,andthevalueofcultureinEgypt.PublicCulture14(3):493–513.

Fay,M.2007.Mobilesubjects,mobilemethods:Doingvirtualethnographyinafeministonlinenetwork.Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch8(3):Art.13.

Fitzgerald,D.2004.Beyond“transnationalism”:MexicanhometownpoliticsatanAmericanlaborunion,”EthnicandRacialStudies27(2):228–247.

Geertz,C.1973.Theinterpretationofcultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Gluckman,M.1958.AnalysisofasocialsituationinmodernZululand.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPressforTheRhodes-LivingstonInstitute.

Gluckman,M.1967.IntroductiontoTheCraftofSocialAnthropology,byA.L.Epstein(pp.xi–xx).London:Tavistock.

Gray,C.M.2007.“Thegulagofourtimes”:DiplomaticposturesanddactivistDramaticsinhumanrightsNGOstrategies.PaperpresentedattheInternationalStudiesAssociation48thAnnualConvention,Chicago,IL,February28.http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p179521_index.html.

Hamidi,C.2006.Elémentspouruneapprocheinteractionnistedelapolitisation:Engagementassociatifetrapportaupolitiquedansdesassociationslocalesissuesdel’immigration.RevueFrançaisedeSciencePolitique56(1):5–25.

Hamidi,C.2010.Lasociétéciviledanslescités:Engagementassociatifetpolitisationdansdesassociationsdequartier.Paris:Economica.

Huspek,M.,andKendall,K.E.1991.Onwithholdingpoliticalvoice:Ananalysisofthepoliticalvocabularyofa“nonpolitical”speechcommunity.QuarterlyJournalofSpeech77:1–19.

Koveneva,O.2011.“LescommunautéspolitiquesenFranceetenRussie“,Annales.Histoire,SciencesSociales3/2011,787–817.

Kubik,J.2009.Ethnographicinnovationsinthestudyofpost-communism:Twoexamples.Qualitative&Multi-MethodResearch7(2):37–41.

Laine,S.2011.Groundedglobalizationsoftransnationalsocialmovement:EthnographicanalysisonfreehugscampaignattheWorldSocialForumBelém2009.Ephemera11(3):243–257.

Latour,B.2005.Reassemblingthesocial:Anintroductiontoactor-network-theory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.2008“DiscipliningDemocracy:MarketLogicsinthePublicDeliberationIndustry.”AmericanSociologicalAssociation,Boston.

Lichterman,P.1996.Thesearchforpoliticalcommunity.Americanactivistsreinventingcommitment.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lichterman,P.2005.Elusivetogetherness:ChurchgroupstryingtobridgeAmerica’sdivisions.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Luhtakallio,E.2012.Practicingdemocracy:LocalactivismandpoliticsinFranceandFinland.Basingstoke,UK:PalgraveMacmillan.

Luhtakallio,E.2013.BodiesKeyingPolitics.VisualFrameAnalysisofGenderedLocalActivisminFranceandFinland.InResearchinSocialMovements,ConflictandChange35,Guest-editedbyDoerr,N.,A.Mattoni&S.Teune:27–54.


Page 10 of 11


Mahler,M.2006.“PoliticsasaVocation:NotesTowardaSensualistUnderstandingofPoliticalEngagement.”QualitativeSociology29:281–300.

Mansbridge,J.1983.Beyondadversarydemocracy.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.

Milburn,T.2009.Nonprofitorganizations:Creatingmembershipthroughcommunication.Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress,Inc.

Mische,A.2009.Partisanpublics:CommunicationandcontentionacrossBrazilianyouthactivistnetworks.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Moore,S.F.2001.Theinternationalproductionofauthoritativeknowledge.Ethnography2(2):161–189.

Näre,L.2011TheInformalEconomyofPaidDomesticWork:TheCaseofUkrainianandPolishMigrantsinNaples.InBommes,M.&Sciortino,G.(eds.)FoggySocialStructures:IrregularMigrationandInformalEconomyinWesternEurope(pp.67–87).Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress.

Pachirat,T.2009.Shoutsandmurmurs:Theethnographer’spotion.Qualitative&Multi-MethodResearch7(2):41–44.

Polletta,F.,andLee,J.2006.Istellingstoriesgoodfordemocracy?Rhetoricinpublicdeliberationafter9/11.AmericanSociologicalReview71(October):699–723.

Ricoeur,P.1991.Life:Astoryinsearchofanarrator.InM.Valdés(Ed.),ReflectionandImagination:APaulRicoeurReader(pp.482–490).Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Sampson,S.1996.“TheSocialLifeofProjects.ImportingCivilSocietytoAlbania.”InC.MannandE.Dunn(Eds.),CivilSociety:ChallengingWesternModels(pp.121–142).LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Schatz,E.2009a.EthnographyandAmericanpoliticalscience:Twotribes,brieflycharacterized.Qualitative&Multi-MethodResearch7(2):48–50.

Schatz,E.(Ed.).2009b.Politicalethnography:Whatimmersioncontributestothestudyofpower.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Steinhoff,P.G.2006.Radicaloutcastsversusthreekindsofpolice:ConstructinglimitsinJapaneseanti-emperorprotests.QualitativeSociology29:387–408.

Talpin,J.2006.Jouerlesbonscitoyens.Leseffetscontrastésdel’engagementauseindedispositifsparticipatifs.Politix19(75):13–31.

Thévenot,L.2006.L’actionaupluriel:Sociologiedesrégimesd’engagement.Paris:LaDécouverte.

Thévenot,L.2007.Thepluralityofcognitiveformatsandengagementsmovingbetweenthefamiliarandthepublic.EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory10(3):409–423.

Thévenot,L.,Moody,M.,andLafaye,C.2000.Formsofvaluingnature:ArgumentsandmodesofjustificationinFrenchandAmericanenvironmentaldisputes.InM.LamontandL.Thévenot(Eds.),RethinkingComparativeCulturalSociology:RepertoiresofEvaluationinFranceandtheUnitedStates(pp.229–272).Cambridge,NewYork,andMelbourne:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tilly,C.2006.Afterword:Politicalethnographyasartandscience.QualitativeSociology29(3):409–412.

Verba,S.,Brady,H.,andSchlozman,K.1995.Voiceandequality:CivicvoluntarisminAmericanpolitics.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Warren,D.2009.Studyingpoliticswithanethnographicandhistoricalsensibility.Qualitative&Multi-MethodResearch7(2):44–48.

Wedeen,L.2010.Reflectionsonethnographicworkinpoliticalscience.AnnualReviewofPoliticalScience13:255–272.


Page 11 of 11


Wolford,W.2006.Thedifferenceethnographycanmake:UnderstandingsocialmobilizationanddevelopmentintheBrazilianNortheast.QualitativeSociology29:335–352.

Yanow,D.2009.What’spoliticalaboutpoliticalethnography?Abductingourwaytowardreasonandmeaning.Qualitative&Multi-MethodResearch7(2):33–37.

Yon,K.2009.Quandlesyndicalisms’éprouvehorsdulieudetravail:LaproductiondusensconfédéralàForceouvrière.Politix22(85):57–79.

EevaLuhtakallioEevaLuhtakallio,PhD,sociologistandresearchfellowattheUniversityofHelsinki,Finland,isspecializedinresearch,methods,andtheorizingofcomparativeandpoliticalsociology.HerbookPracticingDemocracy:LocalActivismandPoliticsinFranceandFinland(PalgraveMacmillan,2012)analyzesthelocalpoliticizationprocessesintwoculturalcontexts.

NinaEliasophNinaEliasophisanAssociateProfessorofSociologyattheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia.SheistheauthorofAvoidingPolitics:HowAmericansProduceApathyinEverydayLife(CambridgeUniversityPress,1998)andMakingVolunteers:CivicLifeAfterWelfare'sEnd(PrincetonUniversityPress,2011).

Documents

Ethnography of Politics and Political Communication