ethnography - political culture

8/14/2019 Ethnography - Political Culture

1/13

Methodological Notes on the Study of Political CultureAuthor(s): Paul Nesbitt-LarkingSource: Political Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1992), pp. 79-90Published by: International Society of Political PsychologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791425

Accessed: 03/02/2010 04:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispp.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791425?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ispphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3791425?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/13

Political Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1992

MethodologicalNotes on the Studyof PoliticalCulturelPaul Nesbitt-Larking'

Defining political cultures as those discursive practices associated with thepower-relatedfacets of evolving human relations and social movements, thepaper presents some methodologicalprinciples, inspired by the structurationistapproach, to overcomeexistingimpassesinpolitical culture research. In gener-al, it is argued that empirical research in political culturemust integratethe-oretical, ethical, andpractical concerns.More specifically,the case is made orgreaterdepthin the treatmentof the individualand consciousnessin theprocessof culturalproduction, for an extensionof empirical investigationsbeyondthelegal-institutional aspects of politics, for a more thorough explorationof therelationshipbetween social scientific and lay understandings,andfor a moresophisticatedtreatmentof time and space in political culturalanalysis.KEY WORDS: political culture;methodology;ethnography; tructuration.

INTRODUCTIONThe makingof methodologiesinvolves more than ust theroutineandinno-cent applicationof techniqueto concept. Eachstagein thedesignandpracticeofresearch is inherentlycompromisedby theoreticaland ethical challenges.Most studiesin politicalculturehaveexhibited nsufficientengagementwiththese methodologicalcomplexities. The result has been an impoverishedseriesof accounts,unableto convey thepracticesof realmenandwomen as theymakesense together of their power-relatedexperiences. In a great many empirical

analyses, methodology has been little more than an unselfconscioustechniquefor converting the 'partialtruths'(Clifford, 1986, p. 6) of the researcher nto'instruments.'Even the best of these instrumentshas tended to assign people to'Departmentof Sociology, Brock University,St. Catharines,OntarioL2S 3A1, Canada.

790162-895X/92/0300-0079$06.50/1 ? 1992 International ociety of Political Psychology


3/13

Nesbitt-Larkingpositions rather than to stimulate dialogue between the researcherand thesubjects.However, I do not wish to focus much of my attentionupon critique.[Useful critiquesare availablethroughout, interalia, (Almond & Verba(Eds.)(1980); Gibbins(Ed.) (1989); Pateman,(1971, 1980);Welch, (1987)]. InsteadIwish to addressthe legitimatequestion: 'So, whatwould you put in its place?'A wide rangeof developments n contemporaryocial theories andresearchpracticeshave stimulatedme to build a new agendafor research n the field ofpolitical culture. (Giddens, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1987; Bourdieu, 1987; Held &Thompson(Eds.), 1989; Luxton, 1980; Oakley, 1986; Henriqueset al., 1984).Ratherthan elaborating upon these insights explicitly, I will concentratemyattentionupon certainkey problemsin the buildingof a new methodology.Myanalysis will be theoreticaland ethical, but also practical.I stress the word "practical."The highly sophisticatednatureof successivewaves of critique in culturalstudies threatensto disempowerus as empiricalresearchers. wish to remainconnectedto thephenomenalworld.Consequently,despitesome misgivings, I respond o the inspiringexhortationsof WrightMills:

Urge the rehabilitation f the unpretentiousntellectualcraftsman,andtryto become sucha craftsmanyourself. Let every man be his own methodologist; et every man be his owntheorist; et theoryand methodagainbecomepartof the practiceof a craft. (1980, p. 224)Reflectiveof my concern to sustainanopennessto theexperienceof others,I have decided to flag each of the problemsI discuss with spatialmetaphors:depth, latitude,reach, and longitude.Before I get into the substanceof these problems, I will sketch a briefintroductorydelineationof my readingof the concept "politicalculture."Ray-mond Williams (1976, p. 76) describedcultureas one of the two or threemostdifficult wordsin theEnglish language.He did notmentiontheotherone or two,butI would nominate"politics"as a good candidate.The definitionalmurkiness

surroundingboth concepts perhapsworks to my advantage. I shall, however,resist the temptation o declareimperiouslythat the wordsmeanwhateverI saythey mean. More seriously, I shall operateon the assumption hatmy ability todefinepolitics and culture s, to a greatextent,dependentuponthe success of mydialogues with those who are living in culturesand makingpolitics.Since I must startsomewhere,I shall tackle "politics"first. I take a broadview of politics, seeing in it multifacetedpracticesof power.Poweremerges inrelationalnetworks as agents engage in the practicesof makingdecisions (someof them binding) and allocating resources. No political agent is ever entirelypowerfulor powerless. If one partyhas no power, then the otherpartyhas noneedof it. Powercertainlyconnotesoppressionandcoercion,but it also suggeststo me resistanceand/orcompliance.Furthermore,elationships f powermust beseen as enablingas well as constraining.Eachagentin political relationships,nomatterhow asymmetrical,controlsthe realmof possibilityanddesirability, venas they bear the apparently olid constraintsof necessity.

80


4/13

Methodological otes on the Studyof PoliticalCulture"Culture"is a social achievement in which people create and transmitmeaning. It is constantly being reproduced,modified and subvertedwhereverand wheneverpeople encountereach others'experiencesandvoices. In making

cultures,agentsroutinelydrawuponexisting symbolicresourcessuch as words,texts, actions, gesturesand artifacts.ParaphrasingGiddens(1984, p. 191) onecould say that cultures areboth the medium and the outcome of recursiveprac-tices. In other words, culturesare, simultaneously,the sedimented and wide-spreadstocks of symbolicresourcesas well as the manner n whichpeopledrawupon these resources n theirculturalactivity.This insightenables us to addressthe familiar and undialecticaldualism which characterizesmuchof the researchin political culture, the artificial distinction between micrological and mac-rological levels of analysis. Any given micrologicalculturalpractice,such as adyadic exchange, resonateswith culturalmaterialdrawnfroma complex, mac-rological series of sedimentedpracticesof meaning.Consequently,at the micro-logical level while people definitely make cultures, they do not do so undercircumstancesentirely of their own choosing (Marx, 1972, p. 10. Originally,1852). Thus it is possible to capture, n the samepracticalmoment,filamentsofculturefrom the global to the idiosyncratic.In a verypracticalsense, any analy-sis of cultureshouldattempt o identifyandclassify these filamentsaccording othe extent of their embededness in time and space.Culturaland political practices are so intimatelyrelated that it is oftendifficult in practice to distinguish between them. As Lipietz notes, ". .. much ofpolitics is conflict over the namingof social relations"(1988, p. 15). How weconceptualizeand label the world conditionsnot merely "who gets what," butmore fundamentally,"who gets to define what is worth getting." This is thepoint at which ideologies enter cultures (Giddens, 1983; Laclau, 1983). Ide-ologies areprogrammatic ndpartialappropriationsromcultures,originating nthe relatively organisedinterests of groups. Political culturesare looser, moregeneraland, relativeto ideologies, less interestedand investedways of seeing.Thus political cultures often develop quite practicallyand incoherently,even ifthey can also be struggledover and renderedmorecoherent.To summarize:Politicalcultureshappenas people, operating n an alreadyexisting symbolic field of culturalconceptsand practices,convey to each otherconceptionsof the distributionand uses of valuedresourcesand the makingofdecisions and rules.I now turnmy attentionto the fourproblemsidentifiedearlier.

DEPTHMy strategyfor exploringpeople's experiencesof power is both "etic"-that is, involving externalized and social scientific conceptualization-and"emic"-concerning the internalizednterpretationf lay actors.The emic facet

81


5/13

Nesbitt-Larkingof the researchagendatakesus rightto those places where culturesare lived andmade.Since interpretations, in the end, a psychic ratherthan a social act, wemust inevitablywrestle with the relevance of the individualin culturalproduc-tion. However,we should avoiderectingartificialbarriersbetween the individualand the social group.Ratherthanregarding he individualas, on the one hand,the historicallyfixed andsovereignsource of cultureor, on the otherhand,as anoversocializedanddetermined lusterof roleexpectations,we do better o regardthe individual as the conditionedyet contingentoutcome of complex layers ofdiscursive and materialpractices. Consequently,one task in political cultureresearch s to explorethepreciseinterweavingof conditionsandcontingencies nwhat individualspracticetogetherand say to each other.Testimonyto the centralityof this task is evident in the consistentinabilityof social researchers o explain why, despite theircarefullyconceived explana-tions of social relations, real humanagents do not always follow in the antici-patedfashion. As Reich long ago argued,whatneeds explainingis not why thehungrysteal, but why they do not steal (Reich, 1970, p. 19.).Despite its insights, thereis a problemwith Reich's argument: he implicittendencyto treatcollectivities as pre-given subjects.Any reference o a groupasa subjective agent should be madecautiously.The most we shouldargueis that,from time to time, people who come to membershipof such groups, as well asotherpertinentagentsin social systems, recognizethem as effectiveagenciesandact accordingly.The extent to which groups come to be recognized is an em-pirical question which can only be addressed insofar as relevantculturesareinvestigated. We cannot, for instance, assume that groups known as "socialclasses" exist andthenask people about their class membership.Peoplemaynotthink about "class" very much or they may operate with understandingsofstratificationand differentiationwhich are unknownto the researcher-even ifthat researcher s well-informedabout theoriesof "false consciousness." Thisproblemwill become acute if sufficientnumbersof people operatewith concep-tions which create systematicpatternsof response, but only do so for reasonsabout which theresearcher emains gnorant.One criticalelementin overcomingthis problemis the depthanalysis of how individualsmakesense together.It might be objectedthatthe individual is no more a given transhistoricalsubject than the group. I would not entirely agree. It is true that historicalconceptionsof individualityhave changedandthatcurrentWesternunderstand-ings of the autonomousindividual are productsof the modem era. However,irrespectiveof its substance, consciousness is an omnipresentand irreduciblyindividualphenomenonjust as culture, despite its variablecontent, is a ubiq-uitous and necessarilycollective phenomenon.Consciousnessis that reflexivemode of self-awareness the locus of which is the individual.Culturesare madeand re-madethroughpracticesof individualconsciousness.

82


6/13

Methodological otes on the Studyof PoliticalCultureHowever,culturesare mediated hrough ndividuals n otherways. Muchofthe work individualsperformwith culturalmaterial s implicit, covert, or evensilent. Individualsare often unable to accountfor the ways in which they rou-tinely draw upon culturalmaterial,and they are not always able to controltheeffects of their culturalinitiatives, both deliberateand routine. Consequently,research n politicalculture s obliged to attendto the routineand commonsenseaspects of cultural work as much as to the discursive and conscious elements.This requiresresearchers o develop a familiaritywith the sedimented rules ofcultural anguages as well as the often obscurepracticesof culturalspeech.Oneindispensableelementin theexplorationof how intersubjectiveulturesemerge is, therefore, the appreciationof particular ubjectivities.This entails

researchwith particular ndividuals because individuals are the sites of con-sciousness as well as less reflective forms of awareness.In the North Americancontext, a promisingsite for the investigationof asmall numberof individualswho regularlyperformculturalworktogether s thehousehold. [See Barnard 1969, p. 393) andCohen(1975, p. 163).] The house-hold is itself an important ite of political culture,and it is likely to serve as aspringboard nda soundingboardfor other contexts.Orientedbut not limited tothe household, the researcher, rom an etic standpoint,must analyse what indi-viduals do and say in a rangeof contexts. Each individual in a household willalso operate in a numberof other social settings, such as the workplace, theschool, and the social club. Theresearcher houldbe presentwiththe individualsin these other settings in order to appreciatethe entire repertoireof symbolicpractices.From an emic position, a progressionof dialoguesmustbe establishedin which the interpretations f the researcher,principalactors, and others areconstantlytriangulated.The researcher an offer lay actorscertainmaterialandinsights, but should, while being a good teacher,remain an exemplarystudent.What benefits accrueto those who agreeto be researchsubjects?None canbe guaranteed.At best, theanalysisof powerrelationsandconceptionsof powerin small group situations encourages all participants o reflect and to learn.Moreover,participantsbecome beneficiariesof what is sadlya raretreasure, heconcernof the genuinely interested istener.Researchof this kind canempoweror even disempowercertainparticipants.I amacutelyawareof thepotencyof simply raisingthepartialityandcontingencyof ways of seeing and ways of doing politics. Such potency carrieswith it aheavy responsibilityon the partof the researcher.The ideal of the disinterestedand detachedobserverin such an obtrusivesettingis unattainable.As a conse-quenceof in-depthresearch,some individualsmightdevelopa new-foundassert-iveness, while othersmight find their hithertotaken-for-grantedoercive rightsin certainspheresbeginningto crumble. The difficultiessurroundinghesepoten-tialities deserve more analysis than I can give them here.I will, however, briefly commentupon one aspect of these problems, the

83


7/13

Nesbitt-Larkingissue of researcherneutrality.We arenotneutralandwe should notpretend o be.While retaining a genuine receptiveness, we should convey to our researchsubjectsas clearly andhonestlyas possible ourinterpretationsf theirideas andpractices. We should also attend to their interpretations f us. Under certaincircumstances we might offer advice and judgment, but we should never tellpeople whatto believe or whatto do. Oakley(1986) discoveredthat realpeopledo, in fact, ask questionsand solicit opinions. A mutedor deflectionarystrategyon the partof the researchers unrealisticand, undercertaincircumstances,cangive rise to a situationin which important nformation s withheldto the detri-ment of the subject. I acknowledgethat the line betweenadvice andinstructionis, in practice, blurredand often difficult to sustain. However, the alternativestrategyof distanced and spuriousneutrality s likely to lead to arid researchfindingsand will maldistributeowardthe career academicany "benefits"fromthe research.

LATITUDESince politicalculture s ubiquitous,a useful researchagendawill be opento

a broadrangeof power-related ymbols andobjects. While the large-scalelegalandinstitutional ocuses of the pastretaintheirimportance, he net must be castmuch wider to includehouseholds,workplaces,schools, andsites of recreation.It is highly probable, as Pateman (1980, pp. 85, 86) argued, that people'sexperiencesof powerformcontinuitiesacrossexperientialsites. It is, moreover,useful to explore discontinuities n differentsettings.As I have mentioned, a plausible research strategy might begin in thehousehold, working with threeor four individuals. One suitabletechniqueforassessingthe complexinterplaysof the experiencesandsymbolisationsof powerof the variousparticipantsacrosstheirdaily sites is to travel with them, observ-ing how theyadjust o these variousnetworksof interactions. t will be importantto compareand contrast he ways in which the key actorsperform heirpoliticalculturalwork-what accounts, schema, knowledges, affects, opinions, mythsandideologies they drawuponandhow theyutilise these strands n theirdiscur-sive practices.Patzelt(1990) is developinga thoroughsymbolic framework orthe classification and analysis of political conversations. Using Patzelt's tax-onomy, a detailedprofile of each individual can be establishedto serve as thebasis for articulatingstatementsaboutculturalpracticesin the rangeof micro-logical settings pertinent o the actors.Consistentwith my generalapproach, hese techniqueswouldimplicatetheresearcherin semi-participantobservation, neither completely involved, norcompletelydetached. Theproblemof reactivitycannotbe entirelyovercome,butit will be lessened to the extent that the various sites are already somewhat

84


8/13

Methodological oteson the Studyof PoliticalCulturefamiliar to the researcher.To achieve this end, the researchercould conductpreliminary econnaisanceof a rangeof maximally-similarites priorto entranceto the actual sites with the researchsubjects.Subsequent stages of the research project, which I discuss in the nextsection, take the analysis to more general and abstracted modes of culturalmanifestation.They should be rootedin, but not hemmed in by, the preliminaryfindings of the micrologicalresearch.

REACHStudentsof culture ace theperennialhermeneuticproblemof how to recon-cile expert and lay understandings.The problem might be easier if we couldclaim for the researchera monopoly on discursive or scientific reason, whileallowing lay actorsonly practicalorcommon-sensereason.Inpractice,however,distinctions are not so clear-cut. Underthe best of circumstances, he most thatcan be said is that theresearcher s often able to bringcertainsystematic nsightsto the explorationof culturewhich are not immediatelyavailableto lay actors.This probabilisticsituationrequiresus to steer a course betweenthe Scylla

of researcher-based rroganceand the Charybdisof subject-basednaivete. Weare obliged to acknowledgethe creativeculturalknowledgeof lay actorswhilerecognizing those patternsof culturalconditioningwhich are likely to movesituatedculturalactorsin certainways even whenthey arenot themselvesawareof such conditions.One obviouspreconditions thediligenceof theresearcherncoming to grips with a range of contextualizingcommentarypertaining o thelives of those subjectsunderstudy.Thisimmersestheresearchern a detailedandfar-reachingexploration of already existing researchfindings concerning theeconomic, political, and social circumstances of those particular ndividualswhose cultural ives are being exploredin detail.Armedwith thisknowledge, theresearcher an at least asksome of therightquestions, even if she or he must also anticipatesome "wrong"(i.e., unantici-pated) answers. Thus a properunderstanding equiresmore than backgroundknowledge; it depends upon communicativeexchange. I envisage a recursivefour-way dialogue. Most obviously, the discursivereasoningof the researchermustencounter he practicalreasoningof the actor.However,the lay actor s notcompletely lacking in discursive reasoning, and, of course, the researcher'sdiscourse is itself conditioned by taken-for-grantedssumptions.Much of thesuccess in unearthing he natureof the politicalculturalworkgoing on dependsupon the successful maintenanceof open and equalcommunication.Wheneverthis processentailsdisagreementor discord aboutfacts or values, the researchermustexhibit the thicker skin and mustbear muchof the strainof reachingout tonegotiate the process back to mutualunderstanding, f not agreement.To this

85


9/13

Nesbitt-Larkingend, some formof pre-selectionof both researchers nd research ubjectsas wellas the establishmentof terms and conditions of the research"contract"becomecritical.One of the most powerfulspinoffsof establishinga workingrapportwith asmall numberof individuals,which includes an empatheticappreciationof howthey experience and symbolize power, is that these individualsconstitute anexcellent source for testing the validity of those researchschedules and instru-ment necessaryfor broaderresearch n political culture.I envisage an iterativeresearchprocess which takesas its raw material he observedpracticesof politi-cal culture n a small numberof settingsin a single community.This knowledgeshould guide the substantiveagenda for the next roundof research-a largernumberof interviews, perhapsa few dozen, with others in the community.Onthe basis of the ethnographicwork and the findingsof the interviews,it is thenpossible to devise questionnaires or mass administration.At each stage, it isimportant o sustain the collaborativenatureof the exchangebetweenresearcherand researched.(Verba, 1980, p. 398).

LONGITUDEPoliticalscientistshaveestablishedboundaries orpoliticalcultures,usuallythose given by nation-states,andthenproceeded o explore patternsof cognitionand affect within these containers. I favorexploringpatternsof cognition andaffect so that we might discover what boundariesexist for culturalactors. Thetaskis renderedcomplexbecausepoliticalculturesaremultifaceted,andthere isno guaranteethat the variousspatialsymbolizationsoverlap neatly.If we could draftdependable maps of political cultures, in which typical

patternsof culturalexpressivityweregiven spatial imits, we mightclaimto have"captured"expressivity in some way. But this would be a Pyrrhicvictory, forculturesarein temporalas well as spatialflux. Moreover,timeandspaceare notgiven frameworks n which to explain culture.They are created and recreatedthroughculturalpractices. We can assume very little. The legal boundariesofnation-statesare torn down and yesterday'sobedient subjects are today's de-mandingparticipants.Given the slipperinessof these manifoldboundaries,how do we ever cometo make statementsof a general kind aboutpatternsof political culture?One answeris inherent n the emic side of my approach.At the very leastwe should listen to those people who create and reproduceboundaries hroughtheirpurposiveactions. Furthermore,we must continue to return o them, andotherslike them, in acyclical strategycombiningthe styles of in-depthandmassresearchI have described so far. Political culture s best readlongitudinally.Butwe shouldnot, anddo not haveto, relyupontheselay informants lone.

86


10/13

MethodologicalNoteson the Studyof PoliticalCultureAs we gatherincreasingstocks of data on existing culturalpatterns, t becomeseasierto interpretwhat is happeningand what is likely to happen.Some of thesedatacome from carefulempiricalresearchwith culturalactors,and some derivefrom materialemploying otherquite conventionalstrategiesof research.For instance,a broadrangeof social theoryanddata exist to illuminatethecoexistentforcesof globalizationand localization n contemporary ulturalprac-tices-that paradoxicalblend of explosion and implosion. One could borrowfrom the broadtheoretical raditionof Innis(1971) andMcLuhan 1966), askingplausibleandgroundedquestionsabout the contemporary elevance of regimes,states, and nationalpolitical communities in the world of contemporarymasscommunications.One of their most stimulatinghypothesesis that in theirbu-reaucratic-militaristicontrolof huge expansesof space, largeempires nevitablyfail to appreciate he transhistorical bdurateness f integratedocal cultures.Putepigrammatically,"space" conquers "time," but "time" erodes and slowlycracks "space."Butbeforepredicting he demiseof statesor theeruptionof newnationalisms, we should, of course, be sure to listen to the voices of thoseactually makingthe history.

CONCLUSION: A NEW METHODOLOGY?Social scientists will be familiarwith most of the proposedmethodologyIhave discussed in the paper. Taken in isolation, these elements are not new.Contextualized earches of literatureanddata, in-depth nterviews,semi-partici-pant observations,carefully craftedquestionnaires,triangulationsof accounts,and longitudinalstudies are all familiar.So what is new? I make four claims for the novelty of my approach.First, I believe that the ethnographicside of research in political cultureremains underdeveloped.(Laitin, 1988). I hope to have incorporatednto myproposalsethnographic deas which will enrich the experienceof being thereascultures are lived and made.Second, I hope to havetakenmy analysisa stage beyondthe announcementof the cessationof hostilitiesbetweenquantitative ndqualitativesocial science.I have devised a set of proposalswhich will allow both for the intimateanalysisof how culturesareexperiencedandcreatedand for themoredistancedempiricalassessment of the distributionof these cultures. I have outlined a cyclical andcumulativeprocess which incorporates xtensive and personalwork with a fewindividuals,detaileddialogues with a few dozen, andimpersonal,yet germane,questioningof hundredsand thousands.Third,I havedeliberately nvestedintomy proposalssome seriousconsider-ation of challengingethical issues. Believing thatneutralityanddetachmentareboth intellectually unproductiveand difficult to sustain in practice, I have at-

87


11/13

Nesbitt-Larkingtempted to create the groundworkfor open, honest, and egalitarianresearchpractices.

Finally, my entireapproach s drivenby the profound heoreticaladvance-ments of structuration heory (Giddens, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1987). AnthonyGiddens has set himself the theoretical task of replacingthe undialectical du-alisms of existing social theory with the breathingdualities of structurationtheory.I have attempted o apply Giddens'sinsightspractically n the develop-ment of a viable methodologyfor the studyof political culture:(i) Ratherthanarguingfrom the academicposition of political scientist, sociologist, or socialpsychologist, I have made my case as a free intellectualconcerned to discoverhow poweris experiencedandsymbolizedand what difference his makes to thesocial fabric. (ii) I have avoided the extremes of synchrony and diachrony,arguing hatculturesarealwaysemergentbut nottherebycompletely unpatteredin time and space. Equally, (iii) my approachhas been both micrologicalandmacrologicaland I reject the barrierswhich have been erected between theselevels of analysis. The broadestelementsof globalcultureresonate n the privateacts and sayings of individuals,and it is only by attendingto these particularsthat we can begin to appreciatethe vicissitudes of generalculturalmanifesta-tions. (iv) Ratherthanarguingthe case for individual-levelor group analysis, Ihave developed a curiosity about how subjectivityand agency are mediatedthroughdiscursiveandpracticalconsciousnessandcultures. Boththe individualand the grouparecomplex and malleableproductsof discursivepracticesratherthan parametricpre-givens. (v) There are no pregiven structuralboundaries oculture. Culturescan certainly be interpreted n ways which are beyond theimmediatecomprehensionof largenumbersof lay actorsbut,as I haveattemptedto explain, the ultimatemorphologyof anyculturedepends uponthepracticesofthose who both deliberatelyand routinely draw upon its characteristics.(vi)Finally, I have attemptedto displace both the researcherand the researched,favoringa collaborativeand cooperativeresearchprocess. Discursive reason isthe avowedgoal of theresearcher,andmostlay actorsperform heirculturalactsin a routineandunself-consciousmannermost of thetime. However,such a rigiddivision of laboris by no meansa given or somethingdeservingof ourautomaticencouragement.As researchers,we have fallen victim to our often myopic"commonsense" in the past. Wehavealso failed to acknowledgethetheoreticalinsights of those we purport o understand.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSRevisedcopy of a paperpresentedatthe ThirteenthAnnual ScientificMeet-ing of the InternationalSociety of PoliticalPsychology, Washington,D.C., July11 to 15, 1990. I gratefullyacknowledge helpfulcommentsandguidancefrom

88


12/13

Methodological Notes on the Study of Political Culture

Nicolas Baxter-Moore,David Bell, CharlesBurton,TerranceCarroll,JaneJen-son and two anonymousreviewers.REFERENCES

Almond, G., & Verba,S. (1965). The civic culture. Boston: Little Brown.Almond, G., & Verba,S. (Eds.). (1980). The civic culture revisited. Boston: Little Brown.Barnard,F. M. (1969). Cultureand political development:Herder'ssuggestive insights. AmericanPolitical Science Review, 63, 379-397.Bay, C. (1965). Politics and pseudopolitics:A critical evaluationof some behavioralliterature.AmericanPolitical Science Review, 59, 39-51.Bourdieu,P. (1984). Distinction:A social critiqueof thejudgement of taste. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Clifford,J., & Marcus,G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing ulture: Thepoetics andpolitics of ethnogra-phy. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.Cohen, A. P. (1975). The political context of childhood: Leaders and anti-leaders n a changingnewfoundlandcommunity. In E. Zuriek & R. M. Pike (Eds.), Socialization and values incanadian society. Volume1. Political socialization (pp. 161-184). Toronto:McClellandandStewart.Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1969). Childrenin the political system: Origins of political legitimacy.New York: McGraw-Hill.Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), MichelFoucault:Beyondstructuralismand hermeneutics pp. 208-226). Chicago: Universityof Chi-cago Press.Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretationof cultures. New York:Basic Books.Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method. New York:Basic Books.Giddens, A. (1979). Centralproblems in social theory. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Giddens, A. (1983). Four theses on ideology. Canadian Journalof Political and Social Theory,7,18-21.Giddens, A. (1984). The constitutionof society. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Giddens, A. (1987). Social theoryand modernsociology. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.Gibbins, J. R. (Ed.). (1989). Contemporary olitical culture:Politics in a postmodernage. London:Sage.Held, D., & Thompson, J. B. (Eds.). (1989). Social theoryof modernsocieties: AnthonyGiddensand his critics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Henriques,J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine,V. (1984). Changingthe subject:Psychology, social regulationand subjectivity.London:Methuen.Innis, H. A. (1971). The bias of communication.Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress.Kardiner,A. (1987). The techniqueof psychodynamicanalysis. In H. Applebaum Ed.), Perspec-tives in cultural anthropology(pp. 147-159). Albany: State Universityof New YorkPress.Keat, R., & Urry,J. (1980). Social theoryas science. London:Routledgeand KeganPaul.Laclau,E. (1983). The Impossibilityof Society. CanadianJournalof Political andSocial Theory,7,21-24.Laitin, D., & Wildavsky,A. (1988). Politicalculture and political preferences.AmericanPoliticalScience Review, 82, 589-596.Lipietz, A. (1988). Reflectionson a tale: The marxistfoundationsof the conceptsof regulationandaccumulation.Studies in Political Economy, 26, 7-36.Luxton, M. (1980). More than a labour of love. Toronto:The Women'sPress.MacIntyre,A. C. (1971). Is a science of comparativepolitics possible? In A. C. Maclntyre(Ed.),Against the self-images of theage: Essays on ideologyandphilosophy(pp. 260-279). London:Duckworth.Marx, K. (1972). The eighteenthbrumaireof LouisBonaparte. Moscow: ProgressPublishers.McLuhan, M. (1966). Understandingmedia: The extensions of man. New York:McGraw-Hill.

89


13/13

90 Nesbitt-Larking

Oakley, A. (1986). Telling the truth about Jerusalem. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.Pateman, C. (1971). Political culture, political structureand political change. British Journal ofPolitical Science, 1, 291-305.Pateman,C. (1980). The civic culture:A philosophicalcritique.In G. Almond& S. Verba Eds.),The civic culture revisited(pp. 57-102). Boston:Little Brown.Patzelt, W. (1990). Ethnomethodologicalanalysis of political conversation:An outline and a casestudy.Unpublishedpaper presentedat the ThirteenthAnnualScientificMeetingof the Interna-tional Society of Political Psychology, Washington,D.C., July, 1990.Radcliffe-Brown,A. R. (1987). On social structure. n H. Applebaum Ed.), Perspectives n culturalanthropology(pp. 121-135). Albany:State Universityof New York Press.Reich, W. (1970). The mass psychology offascism. New York:Farrar,Strausand Giroux.Reimer,B. (1989). Postmodern tructures f feeling: Valuesandlifestyles in the postmodernage. InGibbins, J. (Ed.), Contemporary olitical culture(pp. 110-126). London:Sage.Turner,B. S. (1989). Frompostindustrial ociety to postmodernpolitics: the politicalsociology of

Daniel Bell. In J. Gibbins(Ed.), Contemporary olitical culture(pp. 199-217). London:Sage.Welch, S. (1987). Review article:Issues in the studyof politicalculture-the exampleof Communistpartystates. British Journal of Political Science, 17, 479-500.Williams, R. (1976). Keywords:A vocabulary of culture and society. London:Fontana.WrightMills, C. (1980). The sociological imagination.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

ethnography - political culture

Documents