Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Jonathan Chibois
(School of Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS))
Samuel Shapiro (Université Laval)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Marta Cabezas
(Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
- Formats:
- Panels
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 22 July, -
Time zone: Europe/Lisbon
Short Abstract:
This panel aims to bring together anthropologists and political scientists to reflect on the means of undertaking ethnographic fieldwork within parliaments, which are state political institutions. Its purpose is to prepare a collective publication.
Long Abstract:
Work on the anthropology of the state represents a paradox in that far more of this research approaches the state from its margins and peripheries than by its centres of power. Some anthropological work on governance has specifically focused on international institutions using ethnographic methods, but it is striking to notice that parliamentary institutions are relatively understudied. Dialogue with political scientists seems obvious when studying such institutions, but epistemological and methodological differences between the two disciplines remain and are sometimes significant. With that in mind, this panel aims to bring together anthropologists and political scientists in order to develop a common reflection on the methods, issues and perspectives of an ethnography of parliaments as well as its broader contribution to the study of governance. Panellists will be especially asked to consider methodological questions related to the practice of fieldwork in such contexts (e.g. access, freedom of investigation, the weight of institutional discourses, the lack of legitimacy of academic perspectives, the relationship between fieldwork and written research, the role of the informal in fieldwork). This panel comes out of an interdisciplinary research group on worldwide parliaments that wishes to be structured, expand and take advantage of the EASA conference to work towards a collective publication (e.g. journal issue or edited volume). The panel might consist of one traditional on-site session and possibly a second, nearly carbon-neutral session in order to open up our questions to further colleagues who are not able to attend the conference in person.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 22 July, 2020, -Paper short abstract:
The paper proposes to analyse parliamentary practice by focussing on their public rituals and associated semiotic forms. By presenting a parliamentary ritual from East Java, it highlights the methodological advantages and challenges of studying parliament rituals from a semiotic perspective.
Paper long abstract:
This paper presents a model of analysing parliamentary practice by focussing on their public rituals and associated semiotic forms. Leaning on Webb Keane's concept of "semiotic ideology" (2007), this approach emphasizes the interpretation of parliamentary practices from the perspective of the councillors/MPs "presupposed cultural theory of semiosis" (Parmentier 1994).
As an example, the paper describes the practices of regional councils in East Java, where there is an elaborate parliamentary ritual that is acted out on every public plenary session. When individual councillors put their agency in abeyance, the ritual is seen as celebrating Javanese political values. Rarely, this ritual order is disturbed by councillors' public criticism of the executive branch, which is seen as a failure of the parliamentary process.
By highlighting the relationship between the parliamentary ritual, the actors' analyses of it, and the wider political discourse, it is possible to engage in an "immanent critique" of a parliamentary culture, instead of relying on the Eurocentric normative yardstick of liberal democracy, for example. The paper closes with a brief discussion on the limits of this approach to studying parliaments, by considering the relationship between public rituals and private negotiations, and assessing if these connections can be analysed with the same theoretical framework.
Paper short abstract:
Places matter and influence actors' experience of navigating it as a political space. Through an ethnography within and near the European Parliament in Brussels, we inquire into how political actors make use of the (online & offline) space when it comes to political practice.
Paper long abstract:
Space is an empirical and theoretical entry point into research on culture, relationships and symbolism - all critical to the processes involved in political work. Political space is only beginning to receive attention in the study of Parliaments. There is still a perplexing blind spot with regard to the meaning of spatial settings for political practice. The goal of this communication is to better understand how materiality contributes to shaping social interactions between politicians and others and, therefore, to better understand the materiality and spatial context of political work. The internet also contributes to an expansion of space. Parliaments have developed their own online presence on the one hand, while on the other hand internet and technology artefacts are very much present in the offline context of Parliaments. Political practice is thus shaped by the material forms and spaces through which actors act and interact. We will focus on the European Parliament and its related (offline and online) spatial settings (the "Brussels bubble") where politicians meet and interact with colleagues and other actors. Ethnography offers us remarkably rich opportunities to explore parliaments and political spaces in terms of the norms, beliefs and practices of those who operate inside them, thereby advancing our understanding of these institutions and how they are understood, navigated and utilized by political actors. The objective is explore whether and how spatial settings interact with political practice and policy making and how political actors make use of the space.
Paper short abstract:
This contribution will present different types of places of political practice and highlight their qualities. In doing so it aims to help understanding national political fields. On the methodological level, different field research practices will be discussed.
Paper long abstract:
This contribution deals with the national political fields of Berlin and Madrid and the relationship between their socio-spatial and place-specific characteristics. The research is theoretically based on Pierre Bourdieu's work on the practice of politics and the social field of politics as a socio-structural frame for it.
Building on the findings of various field research stays and the already completed analysis of the extensive material gained, this contribution examines the question of the extent to which the dimensions of place and space are helpful for a better understanding of political fields. It will focus on the process of ethnographic field research and its advantages and disadvantages in the study of places of political practice and site-specific socio-spatial practices. Questions addressed:
- Which characteristics of places of political practice and which site-specific practices can be explored through ethnographic fieldwork?
- Which methodological framework and which methods work best for this kind of research?
- What problems result from the combination of the research interest, the field of research and the chosen methods?
This contribution will present different types of places of political practice and highlight their different qualities. It will also explore the connection between places and the field specific practices performed there. On the methodological level, the different field research practices will be discussed, especially in the context of their spatial and local references. Finally, methodological obstacles with regard to the exclusivity of political fields and the specific role of the researcher in international comparative settings will be analysed.