Political anthropology: new

challenges, new aims

Marc AbClks
Anthropologists were first prompted to take an bols. Far from presupposing a clear-cut and
interest in politics by following up evolutionist virtually pre-established division between what
theories. Their research was chiefly focused on is political and what is not, anthropologists are
remote societies with political systems different seeking to gain a better understanding of the
from those prevailing in modem societies on way in which power relationships are interthe state model. Studies conducted all over the woven, their ramifications and the practices to
world provided material for monographs, com- which they give rise. Investigations shed light
parative analyses and more general reflections on roots of political action that do not neceson archaic forms of power. Today, political sarily correspond to our empirical perceptions,
anthropology has to take into account the ever which tend to focus on the formal expressions
increasing interdependence
of power and the slowly
of those societies and our
turning wheels of instiMarc Abtlts is Director of Research at
own and the transformations
tutions.
the Centre National de Recherche Scienwhich are affecting tratifique. He is head of the Laboratory of
Stress has often been
Anthropology of Institutions and Social
ditional political processes
laid on the contrast between
Organizations, 59 rue Pouchet, 750 17
(Vincent, 1990). Like other
traditional societies in
Paris (France) and teaches at the Ecole
anthropological disciplines,
which the political sphere is
des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
it is also being drawn to
embedded
and the modem
He is the author of many articles and
explore the mysteries of the
world in which the autobooks on political anthropology. In particular, he has published Anthropologie de
modem world, the workings
nomy of politics is maniIEtat (1990). La vie quotidienne au
of power systems in the
fested in the organization of
Parlement europien (1992), En attente
framework of a modem
the states and their many
dEurope (1 996). and Politique ef instiState and the crises that can
institutions. This is probtutions: ilimenfs danthropologie (1 997).
make it fragile. This
ably why for a long time the
renewal is not confined to
anthropological approach
an extension of the empiriwas confined to exotic
cal field; it gives rise t i hitherto unasked ques- societies, where the absence of familiar landtions and entails a reappraisal of concepts and marks encouraged researchers in their eagerness
methods.
to identify those roots of political action by
Having started from a comparative stand- engaging in long-term in-depth projects. The
point which led to the construction of taxo- counterpart to this preference for far-off places
nomies of political systems, anthropology has and the exotic was the creation of boundaries
progressively moved towards modes of analysis between universes perceived as having different
focusing on the practices and codes of power ontological properties.
Two
contrasting
and revealing its forms of expression and stag- approaches were thus adopted; one appropriate
ing. This approach has always laid stress on to the understanding of societies in which it is
the close links between power, ritual and sym- difficult to separate the political from other

ISSJ 153/1997 0 UNESCO 1997. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

320

aspects of reality, and the other applicable to

contemporary society, where politics as an institution is clearly circumscribed. This implicitly
set limits to the work of anthropologists, and
gave sociologists and political scientists a
monopoly of research on modernity. The
division of labour has certainly had some positive effects, since it has enabled the different
disciplines to delve very deeply into the areas
assigned to them.

Power and representation

At the same time, the boundary that had been
created could not resist for long a twofold
movement: on the one hand, the curiosity which
anthropologists felt about their own societies
led them to expand their areas of investigation;
on the other, political scientists became increasingly fascinated by dimensions of politics, such
as rites and symbols, which had thus far
remained outside their fields of investigation
(Sfez, 1978). If we look at the development of
anthropological research since the 1970s, a
whole new field of issues emerges, linked with
the growing interest in developed Western
societies. We have only to note the significant
increase in work focused on Europe to gauge
what has changed. With hindsight, it is possible
to discern more clearly the degree of development of the whole set of issues involved.
Anthropologists began by giving prominence to
difference, taking more interest in the periphery
than the centre, preferring to study traditional
rural societies or urban minorities which had
preserved their specific features, as though
implicitly they still had to keep their distance
from their subjects.
It is true that the modem state appears to
be very remote from the archaic structures and
faltering institutions which attracted the attention of the first anthropologists. With its complex civil service, dense bureaucratic fabric and
deployment of hierarchies, the functioning of
the state in our societies bears little resemblance
to the much more diffuse workings of politics
in the exotic world. There is a real disparity of
scale between the contemporary state phenomenon and the systems that anthropologists have
described, in particular in categories such as
segmentary societies or chiefdoms which point

Marc AbelLs

to very different situations. And yet if we look

at things from the point of view of the approach
adopted, we see them in a quite different light.
If we understand anthropology as being the
study of the power processes and systems running through our institutions and the ways in
which the roots and forms of political action
are represented in our societies, it is then possible to obtain a clearer understanding of what
this sort of investigation can teach us about our
own universe and to determine its prime objectives.
Like the anthropologists who tackled the
question of power in African societies, we can
regard politics as a dynamic phenomenon, as
a process, freeing it to some degree from a
taxonomic approach centred on the concept of
systems. The definition of politics proposed by
Swartz, Turner and Tuden, whereby it involves
processes resulting from the choice and attainment of public objectives and the differential
use of power by the members of the group
concerned by these objectives (1966, p. 7),
clearly highlights the combination of three factors - power, determination and the achievement of collective objectives - and the existence
of a sphere of public action. Like all definitions,
this one can be criticized, but it has the advantage of spelling out what is at stake in any
political undertaking. A significant oversight
will, however, be noted in the propositions of
these anthropologists. The territorial dimension
is ignored, whereas authors as different as Max
Weber and Evans-Pritchard have laid stress on
this basic ingredient of politics. We should
remember Webers celebrated definition of the
state as the having a monopoly on legitimate
violence on a given territory, and the characterization in Evans-Pritchards The Nuer of
political relations as the relations which exist,
within the limits of a territorial system, between
groups of persons who live in clearly defined
areas and are conscious- of their identity and
their exclusivity (1940, p. 19).
A coherent anthropological approach that
is concerned not to reify the political process
should, in our opinion, combine three spheres of
interest: in the first place an interest in power, in
how it is acquired and in how it is exercised;
an interest in the identities which are asserted
in a given temtory and in the areas of influence
into which it is broken down; and an interest
~

0 UNESCO I997

Political anthropology: new challenges, new aims

32 1

in the representations and practices which shape are inextricably bound up can, in fact, enable
the public sphere. It is easy to see that these us to understand politics better, not as a separate
different spheres are closely interlinked. It sphere but as the crystallization of activities
would be difficult to contemplate a study of modelled by a culture which provides its own
power which disregarded the territory on which code for the behaviour of human beings.
it was exercised; it is likewise difficult to think
It is from this angle that the analysis of
of the public sphere and the preserve and action political phenomena in our societies should be
of the politician in isolation from each other. approached, by rediscovering the theme of
From an analytical standpoint, however, it may interweaving which has guided anthropology
be necessary to envisage these three dimensions from its beginnings and in its subsequent develseparately and successively as we look at con- opments. In order to study power in the immatemporary societies and the state.
nence of the social sphere, and to understand
In order to think about politics in our state- from the inside how some people govern others,
based societies, we have to rid ourselves of the we have to give an account of the conditions
stubborn illusion that a political system is an in which that power and governing capacity
empire within an empire. Then, at a second emerged. The capacity can be satisfactorily
stage, we must endeavour to combine the separ- summarized in the democratic context by the
ate pieces, in this case the institution on the expression representativeness. We disagree
one hand and society on the other. Foucault, here with Foucault on two points: on the one
who, in his work on madness, sex and prison, hand, he explicitly rejects the question of repwas confronted with the omnipresence of norms resentation as a metaphysical aspect of the basis
and systems, proposed a method of analysis and nature of power, with two blunt questions:
aimed at overcoming this essential difficulty: What is power? Where does power come
Analysis in terms of power should not postu- from? (1984, p. 309); and on the other hand,
late, as initial facts, the sovereignty of the State, he rejects, as reflecting a legalistic attitude, any
the form of the law or the global unity of a question about the legitimacy of power. We
domination; these are only the terminal forms have stressed the positive contribution made by
(1976, p. 120). It is important to look beyond Foucaults view of power as a relationship and
the most immediate facts represented by the law as action on possible actions, but we do not
and the institution and to consider the power consider that there is any need to reject quesrelationships and strategies that are forged tions about representation and legitimacy. That
within the systems. The traditional instruments rejection could embroil us in a problem area
of political theories prove inappropriate: We where power is thought of as a pure dynamic
use ways of thinking about power which are relationship between abstract capacities to act,
based either on legal models (what is the legit- whose roots in what Foucault calls the social
imacy of power?) or on institutional models nexus are no longer discerned. For anthropol(what is the State?) (Dreyfus and Rabinow, ogists, power and representation are like two
aspects of the same reality, and refusing to ask
1984, p, 298).
Rather than concretizing power by treating questions about the legitimacy of power in order
it as a mysterious substance, whose real nature to avoid being legalistic would be tantamount
we should endlessly seek to track down, Fou- to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Returning to political representation, the
cault states that the question of how power is
exercised has to be posed. Thinking of power two questions of how power is acquired and
as an act, as a mode of action on actions how it is exercised are clearly indissociable.
(1976, p. 3 16), requires from anthropologists an With regard to the first question, everything in
exploration of its roots in the heart of society our societies is centred on the idea of election
and of the patterns it produces. Analysing power in both its practical impact and in the symbolic
where it is exercised offers the advantage of content we confer on it. In most Western
setting the state in perspective on the basis of democracies, engaging in politics means, at
real-life political practices. Trying to take into some time or other, standing for election to an
consideration the exercise of power and its roots office that will make it possible to reach a
in a complex soil in which society and culture position of power. Moreover, to a large extent,

0 UNESCO 1997.

322

an election is regarded as a mysterious process

that has the effect of transforming individuals
into public figures. From one day to the next,
people who were ordinary citizens are called
upon to personify the interests of the community and speak on its behalf. This quality of
representativeness gives them the right to act
on the actions of other people and exercise their
power over the group. Bourdieu regards this
alchemy of representation as a real circular
pattern in which representatives form the group
which forms them: spokespersons with full
powers to speak and act on behalf of the group
and to act on the group . . . become the substitutes for the group which then exists only by
proxy (1982, p. 101). The delegation which
takes place from the group to the individual is,
in fact, a constituent part of the collective identity. By their existence representatives mediate
between these two terms. Bourdieu interprets
the phenomenon of representation in terms of
letting go, of the transfer of wills to a third
party which sets itself up as a unifying power
and as the guarantor of collective harmony. In
this theoretical perspective, analysing representation involves deconstructing the mechanisms
which result in individuals becoming subjected
to power and its symbols. The aim is to engage
in a critique of this transfer by bringing to light
the roots of the illusion. Anthropology does not
purport to engage in a criticism of politics; it
aims rather at understanding how power
emerges and is asserted in a given situation.

Political institutions and

networks
The fieldwork carried out by anthropologists in
developed Western societies gave prominence
first to the study of politics in restricted communities: village politics accordingly became a
key theme, and the subject of local power, its
reproduction and its ramifications, came to the
forefront. Anthropologists circumscribed their
aims by not going beyond the bounds of the
locality, which was defined as being the ideal
field for their investigations. There was accordingly an implicit separation between the periphery, the chosen field of ethnologists, and the
centre, which was bound up with national and
state policy and which it was left to other disci-

0 UNESCO 1997

Marc Abel&s

plines to study. Political anthropology was confined to micro-universes and the image of authentically insular autochthonous powers, in the
closed world of the village community, prevailed. As far as history is concerned, prominence was given above all to the long term,
which might appear relevant in situations where
there was a real gap between local forms of
politics and the surrounding context. Anthropologists were almost exclusively interested in the
traditional aspects of political life. Curiously,
although the work of Africanists (Gluckman,
1963; Balandier, 1967) had laid stress on the
need to think in terms of dynamics and change,
the anthropologists working on Europe seemed
to remain on the sidelines of modernity, in an
extension of ancestral history.
This trend has nevertheless given rise to
new perspectives on phenomena that were
hitherto little known - witness the monographs
on patronage and power relationships in the
Mediterranean world (Boissevain, 1974;
Schneider, 1976; Lenclud, 1988). Another
theme dear to anthropologists drawn to the
exotic, that of the modes of devolution and
transmission of political roles, has mobilized
researchers; in-depth surveys have been conducted on the construction of legitimacies and on
the relations between power, kinship and matrimonial strategies (Pourcher, 1987; AbClbs,
1989). This work has the advantage of showing
how veritable dynasties of elected representatives are established and reproduced, in accordance with a logic which does not always tally
with a superficial view of democratic systems.
It also reveals that political representation brings
into play a whole series of informal networks,
which must constantly be taken into account in
the elaboration of individual strategies.
The work of anthropologists consists, in
fact, of reconstructing this relational pattern,
since their autochthonous informants give them
only a partial and sometimes biased view of
things. The reconstruction can be brought about
through very detailed investigations based on
intensive observation of local political life. It
also entails meticulous work on archival documents. The analyses carried out in rural areas
clearly show how positions of eligibility are
transmitted over the long term within networks
where kinship links and matrimonial strategies
are closely intertwined. The overall relational

Political anthropology: new challenges, new aims

patterns which can be revealed and which warrant the name of networks should be considered
as ideal types, in the sense in which Max
Weber uses the term, or, to use another
expression dear to that author, thought pictures
(Weber, 1965).
However, the ideal type produced in this
way will probably not reflect all the facets of
a situation, which is often more complex than
it appears, at least at first sight, even if the
ethnological approach offers a good means of
discerning the main contours of these relational
patterns. The fact that networks are not fixed
entities should not be underestimated. The idea
is not to list all the ties which unite one individual to others in the very general context of local
life. Political networks should be considered as
an essentially dynamic phenomenon: we are
dealing here not with groups which can be
identified to a greater or lesser degree, but with
a set of potentialities that are capable of becoming actualized according to the practical situations which arise. Voting is one of the points
in time when this relational system is actualized.
A candidate for political representation can very
consciously use his or her relational potential
by displaying the signs that are most likely to
evoke that potential in the eyes of the community. This strategy can be observed in cases
where the candidate is very closely connected
with the leading figures of the network. However, even if there are no apparent signs, the
inhabitants of the voting community spontaneously attribute membership of one or other
of the patterns to one of the candidates. Accordingly, far from the network being an inert
reality, it is a factor which can be brought into
play by the way others see it; the members of
the local society are, in a manner of speaking,
the depositaries of a memory which restores
links that have become partially blurred. In
stressing the very high degree of temtorialization of political practices, the idea is not to
minimize the national factor or, obviously, the
role of the parties, especially in the selection
of candidates for parliamentary seats.
Political representation is a phenomenon
which takes on its full meaning in the long
term. Talking politics is, in one way or
another, a way of situating oneself in relation
to certain divides which go back to the remote
past but whose traces have still not faded. The

0 UNESCO 1997.

323

example of French political life, marked by the

major founding events which were, in addition
to the French Revolution, the separation of
Church and State, and the Resistance, is significant; these conflictual vicissitudes still have
a lasting influence on the collective imagination.
When, at the end of the last century, relations
between the Church and the Third Republic
grew increasingly bitter, the political networks
organized themselves on either side of this line.
Over the years, the ideological antagonism was
to become gradually less sharp, but even today
it is still the background to a good many electoral bouts; even in situations where there is
an outward show of disregard for politics, any
candidate is immediately identified by reference
to this ancestral bipolarity. The founding event
leaves its mark and the behaviour of the electors
is very much conditioned by this memory,
which is handed down from generation to generation.

The ceremonial of politics

Showing accordingly appears to be a consubstantial dimension of the political order. This
order operates in the sphere of representation:
power exists only on stage, according to
Balandier ( I 980). Whatever the regime adopts,
the protagonists of the political game claim to
have a mandate from society as a whole. Legitimacy, whether founded in immanence or transcendence, is a quality assumed by power. It is
up to this power to project an image of coherence and cohesion to the community it
embodies. Power represents: this means that an
individual or a group stands as a spokesperson
for the whole. However, power also represents
in that it creates a picture of the universe from
which it emerged and whose permanence it
ensures.
Anthropologists have succeeded in exploring the symbols and rituals of power in remote
societies and it should come as no surprise that
the modem world offers ample material for their
analyses. The political drama takes on more
familiar forms these days, but it still does not
abolish the gap between the people and those
who govern. Everything suggests, on the contrary, that this gulf between the world of public
figures and the daily lives of ordinary citizens

324

is tending to widen. The public arena of media

societies does not conflict with that of traditional parties in bringing the sphere of power
and civil society closer together. A whole set
of rituals draws a magic circle around those
who govern, making them unassailable at the
very time when media commodities enable us
to capture their image with unequalled ease. In
order to penetrate these modem symbolizations
of politics, it is worth considering the ritual
construction of political reality (Kertzer, 1988,
p. 77) and analysing the workings of political
liturgies (Rivibre, 1988) and the ceremonial
mise en sctne of power. This can shed light on
the contemporary public arena for anthropologists.
The ceremonial is inseparable from a global concept of representativeness. It is a concept
which anchors legitimacy in the temtory: in
order to build and subsequently maintain this
legitimacy by the reactivation of rites which
appeal to the nation and its memory, which
exalt a system of common patriotic values
through the flag, medals and references to the
nation which punctuate speeches. It is not very
surprising, therefore, that those who govern
engage in these practices whose use may appear
dubious to the outsider. These rituals offer
material for a twofold political operation: firstly,
an expression of strong cohesion among those
who are governed, who display their attachment
to common values and symbols and to a common history; and secondly the reaffirmation of
the collective consent given to the established
power and those who personify it. In very different societies, the important rites surrounding
the enthronement of the sovereign also take the
form of a tour of the territory by the new
monarch, each stopping-place being the
occasion for ceremony and reinforcing the link
between the governors and the governed. As
Geertz (1983) has shown, the ceremonial forms
in which monarchs take possession of their
kingdoms display significant variations, such as
the peaceful and virtuous procession through
England when Elizabeth Tudor assumed power
in 1559, or the splendid caravan of Hayam
Wuruk in fourteenth-century Java.
Other major rituals form an essential part
of political life: these are political meetings and
street demonstrations. These rites punctuate circumstances in which political life takes a more

0 UNESCO 1997

Marc AbPles

agitated turn. Street demonstrations provide an

opportunity for brandishing a very specific form
of symbolism; while the rites mentioned above
refer to consensual values, street demonstrations
brandish symbols of antagonism. To start with,
the people, with their slogans and banners, are
in the street, where they shout and heckle and
there is always an undercurrent of violence.
They are demonstrations of force which are
ordered in accordance with a set scenario:
improvisation is only allowed within a protocol
for action which should not depart from the
collectively acknowledged rules.
The same observation could be made about
another rite of confrontation - the political
meeting: now battered, transformed and perhaps subjugated, political meetings are nevertheless still the preferred weapon of political
debate and of electoral campaigning, notes
Pourcher (1990, p. 90). Both camps engage in
a demonstration of power. And there are no
surprises. On the platform, there are speakers
and dignitaries chosen according to the place,
circumstances and their ranking order in the
movement. In the meeting hall there is the audience which has sometimes been brought in from
a vast surrounding area. Everything depends on
the relationship that is established between this
community, whose task is to applaud and to
call out names and slogans, and those officiating, who must constantly fan the flames of
popular enthusiasm. The succession of
announcements, promises or threats which are
greeted with applause or booing make the meeting a carefully produced show. The staging, the
decor, the music, the postures, all play a part
in building up the candidates distinctive identity. The meeting has to represent a highlight,
where every possible means is used to create
both a sense of communion around the speaker
and the firm determination to confront and
beat all the other candidates, who are portrayed to the participants as adversaries.
What political meetings and demonstrations have in common with consensual rituals is that they require a physical presence on
the part of the protagonists. They are likewise
localized, are broken down into a large number
of sequences and combine words and non-verbal symbols, such as gestures and the manipulation of objects of symbolic value, all in a
production which integrates action and speeches

Political anthropology: new challenges, new aims

325

Crowd awaiting Pope John Paul I1 in Warsaw, June 1979. FahiadSygma

in accordance with a traditional framework.

Another analogy can be seen in the religious
dimension of these ceremonies, which all refer
back to a transcendence (the nation, the people,
the working class), a transcendence alluded to
in the speeches of those officiating or through
the interplay of the symbols used on such
occasions. Also of note is the truly religious
dimension of the relationship that is established
between those officiating and the faithful. In
this case, we are indeed dealing with rites in
the full meaning of the term. On the one hand,
we have splitting-up and repetition, while on
the other we have dramatization: everything
contributes to producing a thought trap. Similarly, we find the four ingredients - sacredness,
territory, the primacy of symbols and collective
values - all at work.
Nowadays, the political spectacle is inseparable from the growth of the mass media. It
is chiefly through television that people participate in history as it is being made. Electoral

0 UNESCO 1997

campaigns, the actions and gestures of those

who govern, and major political happenings
only take on their full dimension when they
are retransmitted on our television screens. The
production of images for the general public is
creating a new form of theatre. An electoral
campaign has a full impact only if its main
actor can be relied on to go down well on
television. Major meetings are organized in such
a way that the message can be echoed on television immediately; during the French Presidential campaign, FranGois Mitterrand made his
appearances at 8.00 pm sharp, so as to benefit
from live transmission on the evening news
(Pourcher, 1990, p. 87). The very style of these
meetings has eventually come to be modelled
on television broadcasts. The fact is that political life now has to follow the rules of the
media game. Modern public figures set out
above all to be good communicators: eloquence
on television is synonymous with simplicity;
emphasis is placed as much on form as on

326

content. Knowing how to sell a political product is all-important.

One of the most conspicuous effects of
media inflation is that all events become ordinary. The repetition of images, the omnipresence of well-known faces and speeches produce
a dulling effect. The possibility of channel-hopping from one programme to another tends to
make the political scene just one feature among
many others of a multifaceted show, where a
football match or variety show will be more
attractive than a political event. If politics is to
make itself felt, dramatic art is required. At
election time suspense has to be maintained
through opinion polls and confrontations
between antagonists, all culminating with the
evening the results come in. Elections increasingly resemble television series in which personalities confront each other rather than ideas.
The contempt shown by American television
networks for the Republican convention in 1996
is significant: what was chiefly involved was
the candidate Bob Doles lack of charisma and
his inability to win over an audience. In France,
the contest between Jacques Chirac and Edouard
Balladur during the 1995 Presidential election
particularly caught the attention of television
viewers, since it brought face to face two
friends of thirty years standing and ended
with a spectacular reversal of fortune when the
candidate who had long been predicted to be
the loser finally won.
Television has become a mode of
expression which makes it possible not only to
broadcast events but also to create them. The
journey which Pope John Paul I1 made to his
country of origin in 1979, one year after
assuming office, offers an example of a communication exercise that succeeded beyond all
expectation. Even before the Popes journey
took place, it had become a symbolic issue
which brought two contradictory interpretations
face to face. On either side, a historical reference was put forward to guide the public in its
reading of the event: the assassination of Saint
Stanislas and, in the other camp, the creation
of the communist state. The Popes visit dealt
a very severe blow to the regime. The rite
rocked the very foundations of its legitimacy,
as a speech, however critical, could never have
done. It displayed an image of what another
type of political community (in this case, that

0 UNESCO 1997

Marc Ab&s

uniting the Pope and the faithful) might be like,

and suggested another possible legitimacy. In
short, the rite gave substance to an alternative.
From this example, it is possible to gauge the
extraordinary impact of an occasion which combines a ritual, a political act and a media event.
It is clear that, far from being exceptional, this
type of public demonstration forms an integral
part of political action. Acting and communicating merge at certain critical moments to establish a relationship between governors and governed in a mode different from that of the
ballot paper. We are dealing with a real test of
legitimacy. Through the Popes actions and
words, his journey to Poland produced a strong
message which destabilized the communist
authorities, even though it remained in the
domain of symbol and ritual. We are dealing
with what Augt (1994, p. 94) described as an
expanded ritual arrangement. This arrangement is characterized by the distance between
the transmitter and the receivers: it aims not
only at reproducing the existing situation, but
also at making it evolve.
This message, whose geo-political effects
were considerable, could have an impact only
if it fitted in with an overall dramatic staging
of the event. John Paul 11s return to Poland
took on the dimensions of a world event by
being totally suited to the universe of television.
It was presented to viewers as an exceptional
occasion, for which the normal programme
schedules were disrupted. The journey was
handled as if it were a narrative, with different
episodes and a progression. The public was held
spellbound and, sitting in front of their television sets, identified with the pilgrim. This
presentation of the Pope as a traveller (Dayan,
1990) illustrates the power of the media. The
fact is that representation has become an essential ingredient of political action. The journey
of John Paul I1 was not only a pilgrimage; it
took on the sense of a reconquest. It was not
merely the reflection of a power relationship,
which was, when all is said and done, unfavourable to the Vatican. We remember Stalins sally:
How many divisions has the Pope? In both
its performance and its orchestration, the Popes
visit to Poland produced a new situation.
While representation and action, spectacle
and life, are often contrasted, the image is seen
more and more clearly as a constituent dimen-

Political anthropology: new challenges, new aims

sion of real contemporary politics. Politics

abides by the rules of the game of communication. If we compare the power of the television screen and the media with the firmly
rooted rites of the ancestral political scene, we
find that the former gives pride of place to
innovation. In order to be present on the scene,
without a real message, the medium of the
message must be constantly renewed. On the
other hand, political ritual always brings into
play a tradition, and it takes on its full dimension by explicit or implicit reference to that
tradition. Another characteristic distinction is
that modem communication tends to lay heavy
stress on individuality. Viewers in front of their
television sets expect to see a face appear, they
are attentive to a voice or an inflection: a good
leader is a person who has managed to construct
this difference with the assistance of marketing and audio-visual experts. With rites, however, the persons officiating will tend to keep
in the background in order to let the symbols
speak, or to set their action in a system of
values which goes beyond their persons and
reaches out to a more all-embracing collective
history. The dominant feature here is the system
of values and symbols reactualized by the ritual.
One last notable aspect of modem political
communication is its deterritorialized character.
A leader can immediately communicate the
message of his or her choice to the whole
planet; there is no longer any need to move
crowds. Everybody experiences politics sitting
in an armchair. Here again is a contrast with
the ritual practices to which we have referred
and which give a stage setting to the aspect
of territory.
All these observations highlight a sort of
hiatus between modem political communication
and the various aspects of the rituals which
have hitherto prevailed in traditional societies:
the sacred, tradition, the relative obscurity of
individuals who are mainly there to express
collective values, and the emphasis on territory.
This is the case at first sight, at least, since it
can be observed that the new forms of political
communication do not mechanically replace
practices which have preserved their vitality
intact: inaugurations and commemorations have
not disappeared, and demonstrations and political meetings still occupy a large place in political life. Far from finding that there is a real

0 UNESCO 1997

327

contradiction between the functioning of ritual

and the use of the media, we should rather ask
whether the latter do not foster the emergence
of new forms which combine old referents with
modern procedures. The question is particularly
interesting in connection with the representation
of power; in the staging of power, the combination of heterogeneous contents and symbolic
forms, drawn from different historical contexts
and periods, has been highlighted (Balandier,
1985; Rivikre, 1988; AugC, 1995).

From postnational to
multicultural
The interest anthropologists take in the subject
of political arenas in the societies of centralized
states is now leading them to give thought to
the way in which those arenas are being reorganized and the changes in scale that this
entails. The fact that actors on the political
scene can at one and the same time play a
leading local role and participate in the govemment of the country prompts questions about
links between spheres of political action and
about the historical construction of local identities which, far from being a stable and permanent factor, have been reordered many times
over the years. Anthropological study of political arenas, which sets out to place the field
in a ramified whole, embracing powers and
values, also offers a means of seeing the state
from below (AbClCs, 1990, p. 79), starting
from the temtorialized practices of the local
protagonists, whether they be politicians, managers or ordinary citizens. The need to take a
pluridimensional view of the strategies and
forms of involvement of all those who, from
near or far, participate in the political process,
in no way implies giving up the localized
approach in which ethnographic methods have
been tried and tested. However, it is important
to replace the illusion of a microcosm and of
enclosure by study of how the universes studied
by ethnologists come into being.
In addition, describing the facts of power
in non-Western cultures not only helps us to
think about how politics fit into reference systems different from our own, it also prompts
us to reflect, from a comparative standpoint, on

328

the coherence of our own conceptions. The

work done by L. Dumont and E. Gellner is
very convincing on this point. While both of
them began with an interest in thought systems
very different from our own, they subsequently
came up with a new angle on the concepts at
the root of modern political organization.
Dumont did not consider that his far-reaching
study on castes in India was an end in itself.
In highlighting the impact of the hierarchical
principle in this universe, he set out to define
the holistic ideology which enhances the social
totality and which he contrasted with the individualism dominant in our societies. Having
studied the conditions in which individualism
emerged and the conceptual nature of this
Homo aequalis which triumphed in the nineteenth century, Dumont looked into the contrast
between the French and German concepts of
the nation-state, which prompted him to ask
questions about modem forms of democracy
and totalitarianism. The path taken by this
anthropologist, and his preoccupations, are in
some ways reminiscent of Gellner, whose first
work on Morocco was an extension of traditional studies on segmentary systems. His
reflection then led him to tackle the thorny
problem of nationalism in modem states in a
book which is one of the most important contributions to the intelligibility of highly topical
issues. This rewarding to-and-fro movement
between the nearby and the remote has given
rise to a real renewal of issues, which is
inseparable from developments at the end of
this century.
Political anthropology has therefore broken
free of the limits which it had explicitly set
itself, in terms of both space and time. It is now
undergoing new developments which mirror the
burning issues of the day. It should not be
surprising to find anthropologists mobilized by
contemporary issues. It is sufficient to gauge
the changes that have occurred during the last
quarter of the twentieth century to realize that
the whole concept of politics goes well beyond
references to modes of government and
embraces a whole set of processes which culminate in the destructuring and recomposition of
historical forms which appeared to be unshakeable. Various events have left their mark on the
recent situation including, in the first place, the
collapse of a system which, as well as exerting

Q UNESCO 1997

Marc Abelts

pressures, was an essential factor in the balance

of world forces. The bankruptcy of socialism
and the Soviet empire destabilized the world
order and reintroduced contingency at a global
level. One of the consequences of this situation
was the fragmentation of certain geo-political
units whose intrinsic fragility had not always
been seen for what it was. On the fringes of
Russia and of the former Yugoslavia, the process of structural decomposition of the state
has reintroduced conflict in the very heart of a
continent which seemed to have abolished it
by substituting the all too familiar balance of
terror. War no longer seems to be the business
of developed countries, yet it has reappeared
with its train of horrors, and the whole question
of the nature and foundations of political communities has arisen again.
For a long time, the figure of the nationstate was dominant and circumscribed political
practices. It is this model which is called into
question in the context of the post-Cold War
situation and of the conflicts w3ich this has
brought to the Balkans and the former Soviet
Union, as well as in the context of increasing
economic interdependence in multinational
groupings. European construction is a good
illustration of the emergence of these new political arenas. States are engaged increasingly in
a process of large-scale negotiation, and no
country can refuse to budge from its position.
The question of the further division of political
areas of action or their recomposition can therefore be seen as coming to the fore. These processes are bound to give rise to in-depth reflection on political affiliations and identities.
Terms such as territory, nation and ethnic group
(Amselle, 1990) have never before had such
resonance. They take us back to phenomena
which have often been underestimated by a
political discourse which was obsessed with the
rising power of centralized political organizations, seen as the triumph of rationality and
progress.
The affirmation of distinctive group characteristics and the establishment of relations
between infra-national territorial levels and the
European authorities will not necessarily contribute to a weakening of the state, but may
involve it in more complex arrangements. The
movement may lead to competition between different community levels, as in France, or con-

Political anthropology: new challenges, new aims

versely, as in Germany, confirm the existing

balance between the Federal state and the
regions. In any event, this development is
prompting researchers to think again about the
location of politics, which was long associated
with the pre-eminence of the bench-mark
nation-state. Gellner (1983, p. 11) defined the
principle of nationalism as a principle which
asserts that political unity and national unity
must be congruent. However, it is the congruence which now creates the problem. Another
question pertinently raised by B. Anderson
(1983) concerns the nature of the ties which
bind the members of the same nation. Anderson
stresses the imaginary character of this community. Imagined as being limited and sovereign, the nation takes the place of the control
exercised by religious communities and dynastic
kingdoms which had marked earlier periods.
From different standpoints, Gellner and
Anderson both take us back to the need for
in-depth reflection on political affiliations and
identities. It is probably no coincidence that
this issue marks a rewarding meeting between
anthropologists and historians: the production of
a common tradition (Hobsbawm and Ranger,
1983) and the symbolic construction of the
nation have been the subject of far-reaching
research, giving rise to such studies as that of
M. Agulhon (1979; 1989) on the figure of Marianne and the symbolism of the republican
nation in France. In this case, the historian highlights the vicissitudes which marked the construction of a political community and the
images it has generated. One of the lessons that
can be drawn from these analyses is that preeminence of a national representation of the
political link is inseparable from a pattern and
a balance whose lasting nature can by no means
be relied upon. The patriotic memory remains
an essential factor: analysing the way in which
the symbolic and the political are interwoven
in commemorative events, such as the building
of the memorial dedicated to the American
combatants in Vietnam and the controversy to
which it gave rise among veterans (Bodnar,
1994, pp. 3-9), or the reburial of the Hungarian
leaders eliminated by the Russians during
the events of 1956 (Zempelini, 1996), makes it
possible to gain a clearer understanding of how
representations of a common citizenship and a
divided country are crystallized.

0 UNESCO 1997

329

The questions that crop up everywhere on

the concept of citizenship clearly indicate that
this is a peculiar historical instance of the
relationship between the individual and the
community. This concept is founded on the idea
of the nation and is inseparable from a type
of political sphere of action whose specificity
anthropologists are well placed to demonstrate.
At the same time, this political sphere is now
undergoing far-reaching transformations, and
this new historical factor cannot be underestimated. It is the duty of anthropology to analyse
its consequences. Anthropologists have always
been concerned to set the modem form of the
state in perspective by showing historical and
geographical variations in the exercise of politics. However, this work is being carried out in
a hitherto unprecedented context, marked by
the intensification of relations between different
parts of the world. Globalization is one of the
most significant phenomena of this latter end
of the century. It is bound up with technological
transformations and increasing economic interdependence. The planet has shrunk and the
sense of strangeness which surrounded peoples
once described as exotic has disappeared for
ever. The rapid circulation of information and
images help to erase the mythical dimension
which used to be attached to these other
societies and which was the prime subject of
ethnological scrutiny. The reign of communication has come, and the media and tourism
offer ready access to this other world, which
used to provide so much material for anthropology. Otherness is no longer identified with
remote places: it forms part of our everyday
lives. There is one essential political issue
which, moreover, comes to the fore. It concerns
intercultural relations, the promiscuity and plurality of cultures which operate within given
political arenas and the institutions of power.
This question is one for anthropologists to the
extent that, as Balandier wrote, The knowledge
of acculturations which come from outside
seems to be capable of contributing to a better
understanding of self-acculturating modernity
(1985, p. 166).
One of the objectives of political anthropology is to give an account of the effects of
globalization on the workings of the institutions
and organizations which govern the economy
and society. Transnationalism is certainly a fea-

330

ture of contemporary capitalism, but it also governs power relations and cultural referents. We
see the emergence of new supranational institutional patterns, such as the European Union,
in which representatives of different political
cultures and traditions come together to work
on the harmonization of legislation and the construction of an all-embracing project. These
trends raise several questions for anthropologists. One question relates to the effects of
this permanent confrontation between different
identities (McDonald, 1996) and between
heterogeneous languages and administrative
traditions in a common political undertaking
(Bellier, 1995). Other questions concern the
invention of forms of co-operation in a wider
bureaucratic framework (Zabuski, 1995) or the
practical and symbolic effects of deterritorialization and changes of scale in these new places
where power is exercised (AbClks, 1992; 1996).
The case of national administrations, in
which homogeneity of thinking and action may
seem to be guaranteed by the fact that there is
only one language and that civil servants have
benefited from the same type of training,
appears to contradict this type of assertion. It
might be thought that a bureaucracy, backed by
a strong body of concepts and values which it
helps to reproduce, would be relatively exempt
from external developments. In fact, this is by
no means the case; a demonstration is given in
the analyses of Herzfeld (1992) of the modem
Greek bureaucracy, where a language, metaphors and stereotypes constitute the ingredients
of a true rhetoric. The latter, far from being the
simple expression of a pre-established system,
can be seen as an essential feature of the state
process. In addition to the constant recourse to
stereotypes and the use of a language which
reifies and acts as a fetish, there is a whole
symbolic pattern which defines peoples respective positions. However, the terminology that
circulates in the bureaucratic machine draws
on meaningful resources which refer back to
historical strata as varied as ancient Greek
democracy and the Ottoman Empire. Closer to
home, we might mention public service in
France and the upheavals that the institution
has experienced, tom as it is between the old
republican concepts and the need to integrate a
liberal outlook in the context of competition
within Europe. This prospect has a direct impact

0 UNESCO 1997.

Marc AbPlks

on the everyday practice of civil servants.

Henceforward, the game is played in an arena
which extends beyond the strict national framework. The use of the ideas and vocabulary
of management, which cobble together French
and English, and the frequent references to
Brussels, clearly illustrate this intellectual
remodelling. There can be no doubt that something has changed at the very heart of the state
and national framework; borders that were
hitherto impervious are being shaken by this
speeded-up circulation of ideas. Does this mean
that a uniform and hegemonic global model is
being imposed?
An answer in the affirmative would appear
to be borne out by our second example, namely
that of international firms established in countries freshly converted to the market economy.
In fact, matters are more complex: in the countries of Eastern Europe, it can be seen that the
injection of a corporate culture made in the
USA does not entail the immediate replacement
of the old order by a new one. Re-appropriation
and reinterpretation are concepts that correspond
more closely to a process which calls into question the issues of power and brings into play
cognitive factors referring back to earlier history. The twofold task of decontextualization
and recontextualization which operates in
organizations cannot be reduced to a phenomenon of assimilation which would result in standard copies of the dominant paradigm spreading
all over the world. Social scientists have the
task of analysing how institutions construct the
representations and conceptual procedures
which govern the practicalities of their negotiations and decision-making, and play a decisive
role in their functioning.
The dialectics of political and cultural
issues in the transnational universe of today
require new analyses, in which the contribution
of anthropology takes on its full dimension,
without thereby invalidating the specific contributions of political science and the sociology
of institutions. The power processes experienced
by institutions in increasingly complex social
and cultural organizations are likely to be better
understood by an approach that is concerned
with reporting on intersecting relationships of
power and meaning in a fast-changing universe.
This is the challenge which anthropology has
to face in the light of developments in the

Political anthropology: new challenges, new aims

modern world. Taking up this challenge does

not mean denying a tradition which has enabled
us to know more about societies that are remote
from our own, it means broadening a field of

33 1

research to grapple with the problems of our

contemporaries.
Translated f r o m Fre n c h

Refetences
ABBLEs, M., 1989. Jours tranquilles
en 1989. Ethnologie politique dun
departemenr francais. Paris: Odile
Jacob.
ABBLEs,M., 1990. Anthropologie
de IEtat. Paris: Armand Colin.
ABBLEs, M., 1992. La vie
quotidienne au Parlement europeen.
Paris: Hachette.
ABBL~s,M., 1996. En attente
dEurope. Paris: Hachette.
AGULHON,
M., 1979. Marianne au
combat. Limagerie et la
symbolique republicaines de 1789 a
1880. Paris: Flammarion.
AGULHON,
M., 1989. Marianne au
pouvoir. Paris, Flammarion.
AMSELLE,
J.L., 1990. Logiques
metisses: anthropologie de 1identite
en Afrique et ailleurs. Paris: Payot.
ANDERSON,
B., 1983. Imagined
Communities: ReJecrions on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
London: New Left Books.

BOISSEVAIN,
J., 1974. Friends of
Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
BOURDIEU,
P., 1982. Ce que parler
veut dire. Paris: Fayard.
BODNAR,
J., 1994. Remaking
America. Public Memory,
Commemoration and Patriotism in
the Twentieth Century. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
DAYAN,
D., 1990. Prksentation du
pape en voyageur. TCICvision,
exgrience rituelle, dramaturgie
politique, Terrain, 15, pp. 13-28.
DREYFUS,
H.; RABINOW,
P., 1984.
Michel Foucault. Un parcours
philosophique. Paris: Gallimard.
EVANS-PRITCHARD,
E.E., 1940. The
Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
FOUCAULT,
M., 1976. La volonte
de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.

KERTZER,
D.I., 1988. Ritual,
Politics and Power. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
LENCLUD,
G., 1988. Des idtes et
des hommes: patronage tlectoral et
culture politique en Corse, Revue
FranGaise de Science Politique, 385, pp. 770-82.
MCDONALD,
M., 1996. Unity and
Diversity: Some tensions in the
construction of Europe, Social
Anthropology, 4-1, pp. 47-60.
POURCHER,
Y., 1987. Les Maftres
de granit. Les notables de LozPre
du XVIIIe si2cle a nos jours. Paris:
Olivier Orban.
R I V I ~ RC.,
E , 1988. Les liturgies
politiques. Paris: PUF.
SCHNEIDER,
J.; SCHNEIDER,
P.,
1976. Culture and Political
Economy in Western Sicily. New
York: Academic Press.

GELLNER,
E., 1983. Nations and
Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

SFEZ,L., 1978. LEnfer et le

paradis. Paris: PUF.

AucB, M., 1994. Pour une

anthropologie des mondes
conremporains. Paris: Aubier.

GEERTZ,C., 1983. Local

Knowledge. Further Essays in
Interpretive Anthropology. New
York: Basic Books.

SWARTZ,
M.; TURNER,
V.; TUDEN,
A., 1966. Political Anthropology.
Chicago: Aldline.

BALANDIER.
, G.., 1967.
Anthropologie politique. Paris:
PUF.

GLUCKMAN,
M., 1963. Order and
Rebellion in the Tribal Societies.
London: Cohen & West.

BALANDIER,
G., 1980. Le pouvoir
sur sdnes. Paris: Balland.
G., 1985. Le DPtour.
BALANDIER,
Pouvoir et modernite. Paris: Fayard.

HEKZFELD,
M., 1992. The Social
Production of Indifference.
Exploring the Symbolic Roots of
Western Bureaucracy. Chicago:
University o f Chicago Press.

BELLIER,Y., 1995. MoralitC,

langues et pouvoir dans les
institutions europtennes, Social
Anthropology, 3-3, p p . 235-50.

HOBSBAWN,
E.; RANGER,
T., 1983.
The Invention of Tradition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

0 UNESCO 1997.

VINCENT,
J., 1990. Anthropology
and Politics. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
WEBER,M., 1965. Essais sur la
thkorie de la science. Paris: Plon.
ZABUSKY,
S.E., 1995. Launching
Europe. An Ethnography of
European Co-operation in Space
Science. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
ZEMPLENI,
A., 1996. Les marques
de la nation sur quelques

Marc AbNbs

332
propri6t6s de la patrie et de la
nation en Hongrie

8 UNESCO 1997.

contemporaine. In Fabre, D. (ed.),

LEurope entre culture et nations,

Paris: Editions de la Maison des

Sciences de 1Homme.