Everyday Politics

Name: Selina Grace Alice Faulkner Degree Programme: Social Sciences, year two Date: 12 May 2013 Module Name: Politics and Power Module Code: SO713: Politics and Power Module Convener: Balihar Sanghera Seminar Leader: Balihar Sanghera Word Count: 2,740 Assignment Title: Critically examine how everyday politics and forms of resistance can shape political processes and outcomes.  In his book, Man’s Search For Meaning, psychologist Victor Frankl recalled his experiences in Nazi concentration camps, saying: …There were always choices to make. Every day, every hour offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become moulded into the form of the typical inmate. At its heart, the study of everyday politics and everyday resistance seeks to establish the validity of such a statement, not only in the horrific circumstances of the holocaust, but in everyday interactions. These decisions, choices, and powers can also accumulate to shape larger political processes and outcomes. To understand the meaning of everyday politics, this essay will begin with a review of definitions. The remainder will then be framed around three classical studies and their critiques: Kerkvliet’s (2005) study of peasant politics, Scott’s (1985) research on everyday resistance, and finally Nina Eliasoph’s (1997) work on the political apathy in American communities. In addition to the established literature, there are an endless number of examples where one can see the real implications of everyday politics, some of which will be included throughout. Through classic and applied studies, it is clear that everyday politics and resistance is crucial to not only understanding, but altering political processes and outcomes. As Victor Frankl rightly suggests, everyday choices and interactions should never be taken for granted, since larger powers can be affected. The study of everyday politics first requires a deep understanding of ‘politics,’ aside from the more common definition of ‘actions by governmental bodies’. According to Lasswell (1958), politics is defined as who gets what, when, where, and how. This definition can be extended to include the control, production, budgeting, and use of resources (tangible and intangible) as well as the ideals and meaning behind such activities (Kerkvliet, 2009). Crucially for this discussion, the behaviours listed above should not only be considered as grand, large-scale gestures such as the turmoil currently taking place in Ukraine (Ishvina, 2014). Indeed, the subject of ‘everyday politics’ is more interested in ‘quiet, mundane, and subtle expressions and acts’ (Hobson and Seabrooke, 2007; Kerkvliet, 2009). Drake (2010) argues that even something as indeterminate as social identity are political; for example, through institutions such as advertising, fashion, pornography, childcare, and architecture, the social identity of women has been constructed and, therefore, political. By his definition, no one can escape everyday politics, making even the most powerful males and females subject to the everyday politics that rules their identity, culture, and judgement. For instance, the 2008 Presidential campaign in the United States highlighted three influential women: Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama. Although their position at that time granted them higher than average political power, one can argue that their lives have been determined in part by the everyday politics of age, gender roles, and race (McGinley, 2009). Simply put, while these women can be analysed as key political figures of the 2008 campaign, they can just as easily be considered in terms of the everyday politics which she, and everyone else in the world is subject to. The study of such micro-level political action is crucial, because, as this essay will argue, the consequences and meaning of everyday actions can certainly become significant. In Kerkvliet’s (2009, 2005) studies, he divides the huge topic of everyday politics into five categories: support of the system, compliance within the system, modifications of the system, evasions from the system unintentionally, and outright resistance. For example, Kervliet found that all manner of peasants and ordinary people in central Thailand regularly discussed the nation’s current officials, policies, and projects, thereby showing compliance or support of their system (Kerkvliet, 2009). Modifications and evasions of the system includes ‘cutting corners’ or disregarding official protocol for one’s betterment, evinced by Vietnamese farmers who worked their fields sloppily to get ‘work points’ at a faster rate (Kerkvliet, 2009). Sloppy fieldwork on the national scale may cause concern to government, and would, at the very least, require a revision of agriculture or farm employment policy. Kerkvliet (2005) describes the pattern of Vietnamese resistance from the 1960s-80 as one of the best examples of ‘everyday’ resistance of peasantry. The Communist party dominated the political sphere, controlling all media and most organisations, while preventing citizens from travelling without explicit need (Kerkvliet, 2005). Peasants were able to affect the nation’s politics, first by levying their power as labourers. By withholding their distinct capability in this area, they were able to draw attention and action. Households and communities were self-sustainable, with each family owning a vegetable garden and a community network, which prevented reliance on the system they were opposing. Finally, the overarching effect of everyday politics and the use of small acts of noncompliance meant that attention was drawn to the peasant’s discontent, while the government could make no arrests and debunk no authority. The appropriate use of everyday politics is, in this case, not only a suitable alternative, but it also proves to be a superior tactic, which doesn't require implicit organisation. Kerkvliet (2009) concludes, saying that “Being conscious of politics as an everyday experience makes us mindful… and reflect on how our actions and relationships reinforce, amend, evade, or contest the political system(s) of which we are a part, however small or large the impact might be.” Regardless of whether Kerkvliet’s analysis is foolproof, this final point is correct; by becoming more aware of everyday politics, one can recognise, and even alter the wider political sphere. ‘Everyday resistance’ and its definition have likewise become a popular topic of study which harkens back to Foucault’s belief that where there is power, there is resistance (1990). James Scott’s Weapons of the Weak (1985) explores the reasons why this resistance rarely presents itself as outright revolts. Using current and historical examples of Southeast Asia, Europe, and the United States, Scott (1985) argues that hidden, everyday politics must be examined to understand the lack of outright resistance. He considered gossip, petty theft, and damage to property as everyday ‘resistance,’ as long as there was ill intent on the part of the resister (Scott, 1985). Especially interested in everyday resistance, Scott (1985) concludes that large, organised resistance is often difficult to achieve by peasant communities, so they show their non-compliance through ‘foot dragging’ and false compliance. For example, Scott references the widespread poaching practices throughout the mid 17th to 19th centuries. Theft from the properties of gentry became such an issue that the use of capital punishment became legal on such a criminal (Scott, 1985). Considering everyday resistance, it could be argued that peasants would initially rob the higher classes out of disapproval of the system they imposed, and a belief of having the right to claim resources from the higher classes (Scott, 1985). Later, the practice accumulated to become a cultural norm, upheld by peasant communities (Scott, 1985). This support from small, poor communities was crucial to the sustainment of poaching, causing government to take such extreme lengths. James Scott (1985) argues that this is one of the best historical examples of everyday resistance, as it clearly illustrates the outcome of a lack of formal, outright resistance. In his early work, Scott (1985) perhaps overemphasises the need to define resistance, which many others have since (Bayat, 2000; O’Brien, 1996), and doesn't seem to appreciate that outright resistance and rebellion is difficult to organise and very dangerous for the lowest classes, currently and historically. Likewise, while his discussion of symbolic resistance and symbolic authority is interesting, it’s a difficult aspect to divide from, say, societal morals. Gupta (2001) points out that Scott first discussed peasant resistance with the nobility of Malaysaia, and later merely confirmed their statements with the peasants of the village. Gupta also points out that the poor are able to gain through open and organised politics, such as India’s Bahujan Sanaj Party, which has become the fourth largest party in India. Elias (2000) argues that violent revolts have become sparse merely because modern people realise its dysfunction. A good example of this is Kenya’s sex strike in 2009. Women all across the country, fearing the violence that would commonly take place after an election, urged men of both parties to settle their differences by withholding sex from their partners. The chair of one women’s group stated, “…[sex] does not know tribe, it does not have a party, and it happens in the lowest households,” which may have been the key to the movement’s success (Crawshaw, and Jackson 2010). Perhaps more significant is the comparable movement in Sudan in 2002, in which thousands of women withheld sex, encouraging men to end their twenty-year long war, in which an estimated two million citizens had already died. Nothing can become more ‘everyday’ than the bedroom and marriage dynamics, and these two situations are great examples of how effective everyday resistance can be in avoiding, and even discouraging violence and outright rebellion. Scott’s (1985) definition of everyday resistance and evidentiary support must be recognised as one of the front-runners of everyday politics studies, sparking an on-going discussion for sociologists, ethnographers, and historians alike. When considering how everyday resistance can shape wider political processes, Scott’s work is undeniably a useful resource. An American phrase popularised by former speaker of the house Tip O’Neill, is simply, “all politics is local” (O’Neill and Gary, 1994). The scale of political interactions can be argued as crucial to the success of a political movement (Cox, 1998). In her study, Nina Eliasoph (1997) explored just how local Americans consider politics, to find that Americans actively choose to produce an apathy and silence when it comes to politics outside of their immediate sphere. Rather than using everyday politics to build momentum and affect a greater cause as seen in Kerkvliet’s and Scott’s studies, everyday politics was retained at the local level, rather than applied to wider political life. Eliasoph (1997) found Americans continually referring to ‘close to home’ issues and problems that ‘affect me personally’ as important, whereas the larger political atmosphere remained unmentioned. Larger political involvement and discussion was avoided, especially in larger groups, to focus instead on smaller issues that they deemed manageable. For instance, throughout her two-year fieldwork, Eliasoph (1997) found that when first asking about large political issues such as nuclear war and issues around drugs, participants would begin with enthusiasm, but quickly became overwhelmed and felt that they and their community couldn’t do anything about it. This apathy would then require effort; men and women clearly felt it was an issue in private, but never thought it acceptable to discuss these wider issues with one another (Eliasoph, 1997). Prolonged, widespread attitude of apathy and avoidance would undoubtedly change the wider political sphere. Officials, Elisasoph (1997) argues, are able to dominate the public sphere under such circumstances, eliminating the need for wider political discussions and trade unions (Crouch, 2004), leaving matters to lobbysits, political organisations, special interest groups, and a handful of powerful individuals. The American community in her study was seemingly unaware of how their apathy for everyday politics reflected on larger political institutions, which makes these political bodies all the more volatile (Eliasoph, 1997). Politics isn’t always necessarily avoided out of apathy, but rather disguised as an experience of everyday life. Javier Auyero’s (2011) work focused on the culture and suppression of waiting, an integral aspect of domination, according to Bordieu (2000). The act of keeping another waiting implies that their time is more valuable than the waiter; Auyero (2011) describes such a situation taking place in a Buenos Aires welfare office. Interviewees describe the trials they go through to even get to the welfare office, from spending much needed cash on a bus ticket, to waiting outside from 11PM the night before. Such a system creates and experience of ‘uncertainty, arbitrariness, and confusion,’ creating a class that ‘knows no security in life’ (Auyero, 2011; Engels, 1973). Although the process of waiting may be a reality of everyday life, Auyero’s research suggests that lives can be very much altered. Or, in Auyero’s words, “the experience of waiting transcends the time and space of the waiting room” (2011). It can be argued that social media and the prevalence of the internet have further increased political apathy. Bennett (2008) suggests that media, everyday conversation, and even politicians have furthered this idea of ‘politics’ as a dirty word. Political cynicism of older generations has lead to young people feeling apathetic towards conventional politics. Recent developments in social media and internet networks has increased political activity, but young people regard involvement as a ‘lifestyle concern’ (Bennett, 2008). For instance, the conflict over abortion has been a lively debate in federal government for years, culminating into the Supreme Court case Roe v Wade in 1973 (Staggenborg, 1991). In more recent times, social media has allowed activists on both sides of the debate to share their experiences and influence potential activists to feel that this is a problem ‘close to home.’ US citizens can easily remain at home to sign online petitions and call their congressman without feeling overwhelmed, or in this case, ‘political’ (Bennett, 2008). Geography and locality may simply be playing less of a role in ‘everyday politics’ as compared to the classical studies previously discussed (Cox, 1998). In both cases, political apathy (Eliasoph 1997) and increased involvement through social media will have greater effects on the political sphere. Inactivity or small amounts of activity create the everyday politics which, in one way or another, will affect lager political organisations. The beauty of the study of everyday politics and everyday resistance lies in the theoretical basis, paired with the applied circumstances and ethnography which prove the importance of its study. Based on applied studies by a number of sociologists, one can begin to see the real implications of ‘everyday’ activities upon wider political processes and outcomes. Kerkvliet’s review and categorization of everyday politics demonstrates that organisation and outright protest isn’t necessary to change the political sphere, and by realising one’s political influence, people can utilise their individual power to the full extent. Scott was interested in why peasants don’t revolt against higher systems, only to find that there is plenty of ‘everyday’ resistance. This everyday resistance can be effective enough to end civil wars, and extreme potential violence, as evinced by Sudanese and Kenyan women. Nina Eliasoph (1997) reviewed her two years of field work, to discover that Americans actively choose to produce an apathy, especially outside of their immediate sphere, ‘close to home.’ While Americans may choose to avoid political discussion, others may not even realise that they are participating in a deeply political existence, as studied by Auyero (2011) at an Argentinian welfare office. Each study, although differing in definition and research topic, suggests that the mundane realities of everyday politics has real, wider implications. To be ignorant of the politics of everyday life has implications of its own, creating a dominated, disengaged lower class. However, to know of and utilise the power of everyday unorganised activity can achieve great feats, some of which were discussed above. Everyday politics can certainly create shape political processes and outcomes for better or worse, and should continue to be explored.  Bibliography Auyero, J. (2011). Patients of the State: An Ethnographic Account of Poor People’s waiting. Latin American Research Review. 46 (1). Bayat, A. (2000). Social Movements, Activism, and Social Developments in the Middle East. Geneva: UNRISD. Bennett, W.L. ed. (2008). Civiv Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Bordieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cox, K. (1998). Spaces of Dependence, spaces of engagement, and the politics of scale or: looking for local politics. Political Geogrpahy, 17 (1) pp.1-23. Crawshaw, J. and Jackson, J. (2010). Small acts of resistance: how courage, tenacity, and ingenuity can change the world. New York: Union Square. Elias, N. (2000). The Civilising Process. 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell. Eliasoph, N. (1997). ‘Close to Home’: The Work of Avoiding Politics. Theory and Society. 26 (5). Foucault, M. (1990). The History of Sexuality 1: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House. Gupta, D. (2001). Everyday resistance or routine repression? Exaggeration as stratagem in agrarian conflict. Journal of Peasant Studies 29(1): 89. Hobson, J. and Seabrooke, L. (2009). Everyday Politics of the World Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ishvina, O. (2014). Uklraine Crisis: Pro-Russian Attack in Ukraine’s Horlivka [Online]. BBC News. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27018199 [Accessed: 15 April 2014]. Kerkvliet, B. (2005). The Power Of Everyday Politics: How Vietnamese Peasants Transformed National Policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Kerkvliet, B. (2009). Everyday Politics in Peasant Societies (and ours). The Journal of Peasant Studies. 36 (1) 227-243. Lasswell, H. (1958). Who gets What, When, How. Cleveland: World Publishers. McGinley, A.C. (2009). Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing Gender, Race, and Class on the Campaign Trail. [Online]. Accessed 9 May, 2014. Available from: http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/171 O’Brien, K.J. (1996). Rightful Resistance. World Politics Journal, 49 (1). O’Neill, T. and Gary, H. (1994). All Politics Is Local. New York: Times Books. Scott, J. (1984). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Connecticut: Yale University.