Studying political ideas: A public political discourse approach

Political Studies

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 283-301

  Chadwick, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034361435     PISSN: 00323217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00260     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. 1 The list of references in this note may have proved extremely long. By way of avoiding this, I refer readers to one article, which extracts 27 'definitional elements' from 85 sources on the concept of 'ideology'. M. B. Hamilton, 'The elements of the concept of ideology', Political Studies, 35 (1987), 18-38.
2. 2 See, for example, D. Nunan, Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin, 1993.
3. 3 N. Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity, 1992.
4. 4 See, for example, M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock, 1972.
5. 5 N. Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of Language. London: Longman, 1995, pp. 4-5.
6. 6 Not only is this due to postmodernism's inherent objections to such methods, it is also a quirk of political science itself. Postmodernism has largely been confined to political theory because the rest of the field has been dominated by the mainstream institutionalist or behaviouralist approaches. If we examine the major developments in postmodernism's impact on the social sciences and humanities, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the major events have been the publication of new theoretical texts by celebrated authors such as Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard and Baudrillard, rather than insights derived from empirical types of research practice. One could argue that all intellectual paradigms exhibit such characteristics, but this would be to miss the extreme to which postmodernism has swung. We do not usually look in the book review columns for the latest 'application' of a postmodernist approach to (for instance) political parties, pressure groups, public administration, public policy, constitutions. We look instead for the latest theoretical exposition of what, as an intellectual paradigm, postmodernism is. It has carved out a niche where theoretical research practice is the norm, and where engagements with the work of others in that field has proved more intellectually rewarding. Like all writers, postmodernist theorists have craved an audience, a community of the interested.
7. 7 G. Stedman Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History 1832-1982. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, especially the Introduction and ch. 3, 'Rethinking Chartism'. There were, of course, several 'linguistic turns' during the twentieth century, from Ludwig Wittgenstein through J. L. Austin to the emergence of J. G. A. Pocock's and Quentin Skinner's approaches to political thought in the early 1970s. Though they are inevitably related to the developments in the field of social history, in that field the linguistic turn is usually taken to indicate the influence of postmodernist approaches to language, the roots of which are usually traced back to the early twentieth century structuralist linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure.
8. 8 D. Mayfield and S. Thorne, 'Social history and its discontents: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language', Social History, 17 (1992), 165-188. See the defence by J. Lawrence and M. Taylor, 'The poverty of protest: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language - a reply', Social History, 18 (1993), 1-15, and the counter-attack by Mayfield and Thorne, Social History, 18 (1993) 219-233. See also A. Marwick, 'Two approaches to historical study: the metaphysical (including 'postmodernism') and the historical', Journal of Contemporary History, 30 (1995), 5-35, especially pp. 28-30.
9. 8 D. Mayfield and S. Thorne, 'Social history and its discontents: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language', Social History, 17 (1992), 165-188. See the defence by J. Lawrence and M. Taylor, 'The poverty of protest: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language - a reply', Social History, 18 (1993), 1-15, and the counter-attack by Mayfield and Thorne, Social History, 18 (1993) 219-233. See also A. Marwick, 'Two approaches to historical study: the metaphysical (including 'postmodernism') and the historical', Journal of Contemporary History, 30 (1995), 5-35, especially pp. 28-30.
10. 8 D. Mayfield and S. Thorne, 'Social history and its discontents: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language', Social History, 17 (1992), 165-188. See the defence by J. Lawrence and M. Taylor, 'The poverty of protest: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language - a reply', Social History, 18 (1993), 1-15, and the counter-attack by Mayfield and Thorne, Social History, 18 (1993) 219-233. See also A. Marwick, 'Two approaches to historical study: the metaphysical (including 'postmodernism') and the historical', Journal of Contemporary History, 30 (1995), 5-35, especially pp. 28-30.
11. 8 D. Mayfield and S. Thorne, 'Social history and its discontents: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language', Social History, 17 (1992), 165-188. See the defence by J. Lawrence and M. Taylor, 'The poverty of protest: Gareth Stedman Jones and the politics of language - a reply', Social History, 18 (1993), 1-15, and the counter-attack by Mayfield and Thorne, Social History, 18 (1993) 219-233. See also A. Marwick, 'Two approaches to historical study: the metaphysical (including 'postmodernism') and the historical', Journal of Contemporary History, 30 (1995), 5-35, especially pp. 28-30.
12. 9 D. Thompson, 'The languages of class', Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, 52 (1987), 54-57.
13. 10 B. D. Palmer, Descent into Discourse: the Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990; L. Stone, 'History and postmodernism', Past & Present, 131 (1991), 217-218; R. Price, 'Languages of revisionism: historians and popular politics in nineteenth-century Britain', Journal of Social History, 30 (1996), p. 246. See also D. Nicholls, 'The new liberalism - after Chartism?', Social History, 21 (1996), 330-342, p. 331. For a critique based on the US experience, see J. Appleby, L. Hunt and M. Jacob, Telling the Truth About History. London: Norton, 1994.
14. 10 B. D. Palmer, Descent into Discourse: the Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990; L. Stone, 'History and postmodernism', Past & Present, 131 (1991), 217-218; R. Price, 'Languages of revisionism: historians and popular politics in nineteenth-century Britain', Journal of Social History, 30 (1996), p. 246. See also D. Nicholls, 'The new liberalism - after Chartism?', Social History, 21 (1996), 330-342, p. 331. For a critique based on the US experience, see J. Appleby, L. Hunt and M. Jacob, Telling the Truth About History. London: Norton, 1994.
15. 10 B. D. Palmer, Descent into Discourse: the Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990; L. Stone, 'History and postmodernism', Past & Present, 131 (1991), 217-218; R. Price, 'Languages of revisionism: historians and popular politics in nineteenth-century Britain', Journal of Social History, 30 (1996), p. 246. See also D. Nicholls, 'The new liberalism - after Chartism?', Social History, 21 (1996), 330-342, p. 331. For a critique based on the US experience, see J. Appleby, L. Hunt and M. Jacob, Telling the Truth About History. London: Norton, 1994.
16. 10 B. D. Palmer, Descent into Discourse: the Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990; L. Stone, 'History and postmodernism', Past & Present, 131 (1991), 217-218; R. Price, 'Languages of revisionism: historians and popular politics in nineteenth-century Britain', Journal of Social History, 30 (1996), p. 246. See also D. Nicholls, 'The new liberalism - after Chartism?', Social History, 21 (1996), 330-342, p. 331. For a critique based on the US experience, see J. Appleby, L. Hunt and M. Jacob, Telling the Truth About History. London: Norton, 1994.
17. 10 B. D. Palmer, Descent into Discourse: the Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990; L. Stone, 'History and postmodernism', Past & Present, 131 (1991), 217-218; R. Price, 'Languages of revisionism: historians and popular politics in nineteenth-century Britain', Journal of Social History, 30 (1996), p. 246. See also D. Nicholls, 'The new liberalism - after Chartism?', Social History, 21 (1996), 330-342, p. 331. For a critique based on the US experience, see J. Appleby, L. Hunt and M. Jacob, Telling the Truth About History. London: Norton, 1994.
18. 11 J. Epstein, 'The populist turn', Journal of British Studies, 32 (1993), 177-189.
19. 12 P. Joyce, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class, 1848-1914. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 1, 12, 17-18.
20. 13 J. Lawrence, 'Class and gender in the making of urban toryism 1880-1914', English Historical Review, 108 (1993), 629-652, especially pp. 630-632.
21. 14 Lawrence and Taylor, 'The poverty of protest', p. 12.
22. 15 F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, translated by R. Harris. London: Duckworth, 1983. The original text was published in 1916.
23. 16 Joyce, Visions of the People, pp. 17-18.
24. 17 N. Kirk, 'The continuing relevance and engagements of class', Labour History Review, 60 (1995), 2-15.
25. 18 S. S. Friedman, 'Making History: Feminism, Narrative and Desire', in D. Elam and R. Wiegman, eds, Feminism Beside Itself. London: Routledge, 1995, 11-53, p. 13.
26. 19 R. Berkhofer, 'The challenge of poetics to (normal) historical practice', Poetics Today, 1988, extract reprinted in K. Jenkins, ed., The Postmodern History Reader. London: Routledge, 1997, p. 149.
27. 19 R. Berkhofer, 'The challenge of poetics to (normal) historical practice', Poetics Today, 1988, extract reprinted in K. Jenkins, ed., The Postmodern History Reader. London: Routledge, 1997, p. 149.
28. 20 H. Kellner, Language and Historical Representation. London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989, pp. vii-viii, 9.
29. 21 M. Bevir, 'Are there perennial problems in political theory?', Political Studies, 42 (1994), 662-675.
30. 22 Aristotle, Politics, Book VII, translated by T. A. Sinclair. London; Penguin, 1962, ch. 3.
31. 23 J. Rawls, Political Liberalism. New York; Columbia University Press, 1993, p. 45. I am grateful to Nick Buttle for alerting me to this and the preceding reference.
32. 24 For a classic example of the 'core ideas' approach, see B. C. Parekh, The Concept of Socialism. London; Croom Helm, 1975. For a more nuanced version, see M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: a Conceptual Approach. Oxford; Clarendon, 1996. The classic 'tension between two extremes' approach may be found in W. H. Greenleaf, The British Political Tradition: Volume II: the Ideological Heritage. London: Methuen, 1983.
33. 24 For a classic example of the 'core ideas' approach, see B. C. Parekh, The Concept of Socialism. London; Croom Helm, 1975. For a more nuanced version, see M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: a Conceptual Approach. Oxford; Clarendon, 1996. The classic 'tension between two extremes' approach may be found in W. H. Greenleaf, The British Political Tradition: Volume II: the Ideological Heritage. London: Methuen, 1983.
34. 24 For a classic example of the 'core ideas' approach, see B. C. Parekh, The Concept of Socialism. London; Croom Helm, 1975. For a more nuanced version, see M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: a Conceptual Approach. Oxford; Clarendon, 1996. The classic 'tension between two extremes' approach may be found in W. H. Greenleaf, The British Political Tradition: Volume II: the Ideological Heritage. London: Methuen, 1983.
35. 25 R. Barker, 'A Future for Liberalism or a Liberal Future?', in J. Meadowcroft, ed., The Liberal Political Tradition: Contemporary Reappraisals. London: Edward Elgar, 1996, pp. 177-197, p. 184.
36. 26 For discussion of this approach see R. Barker, 'A Future for Liberalism or a Liberal Future?', p. 184.
37. 27 A. W. Sparkes, Talking Politics: a Wordbook. London: Routledge, 1994. See also, J. Street, 'Political culture - from civic culture to mass culture', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1993), 95-113, pp. 100-102.
38. 27 A. W. Sparkes, Talking Politics: a Wordbook. London: Routledge, 1994. See also, J. Street, 'Political culture - from civic culture to mass culture', British Journal of Political Science, 24 (1993), 95-113, pp. 100-102.
39. 28 For further discussion of this issue see J. Scott, 'Women in history II: the modern period', Past & Present, 101 (1983), p. 156. For an opposing view see J. Rendall, Introduction to J. Rendall, ed., Equal or Different: Women's Politics, 1800-1914. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, pp.1-27.
40. 28 For further discussion of this issue see J. Scott, 'Women in history II: the modern period', Past & Present, 101 (1983), p. 156. For an opposing view see J. Rendall, Introduction to J. Rendall, ed., Equal or Different: Women's Politics, 1800-1914. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, pp.1-27.
41. 29 A detail from the original title page of 1651, depicting the sovereign's body composed of thousands of tiny human figures, can be seen on the title page of the Penguin Classics edition of 1985. T. Hobbes, Leviathan. London; Penguin, 1985.
42. 30 G. Stedman Jones, 'The determinist fix: some obstacles to the further development of the linguistic approach to history in the 1990s', History Workshop Journal, 42 (1996), 19-35, pp. 28-29.
43. 31 This approach has been fruitfully applied to the long-standing debate over the 'post-war consensus' in British politics. See J. Marlow, 'Metaphor, intertextuality and the post-war consensus', Politics, 17 (1997), 127-133, pp. 131-132 and J. Marlow, Questioning the Post-War Consensus Thesis. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. See also, M. Worton and J. Still, eds, Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester; Manchester University Press, 1990, and Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, ch. 8, 'Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis Within Discourse Analysis'.
44. 31 This approach has been fruitfully applied to the long-standing debate over the 'post-war consensus' in British politics. See J. Marlow, 'Metaphor, intertextuality and the post-war consensus', Politics, 17 (1997), 127-133, pp. 131-132 and J. Marlow, Questioning the Post-War Consensus Thesis. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. See also, M. Worton and J. Still, eds, Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester; Manchester University Press, 1990, and Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, ch. 8, 'Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis Within Discourse Analysis'.
45. 31 This approach has been fruitfully applied to the long-standing debate over the 'post-war consensus' in British politics. See J. Marlow, 'Metaphor, intertextuality and the post-war consensus', Politics, 17 (1997), 127-133, pp. 131-132 and J. Marlow, Questioning the Post-War Consensus Thesis. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. See also, M. Worton and J. Still, eds, Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester; Manchester University Press, 1990, and Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, ch. 8, 'Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis Within Discourse Analysis'.
46. 31 This approach has been fruitfully applied to the long-standing debate over the 'post-war consensus' in British politics. See J. Marlow, 'Metaphor, intertextuality and the post-war consensus', Politics, 17 (1997), 127-133, pp. 131-132 and J. Marlow, Questioning the Post-War Consensus Thesis. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996. See also, M. Worton and J. Still, eds, Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester; Manchester University Press, 1990, and Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, ch. 8, 'Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis Within Discourse Analysis'.
47. 32 The phrase was used by Ricoeur. For an illuminating discussion see Michael Freeden's contribution to this volume, pp.301-321.
48. 33 The importance of a text's relations with other texts is, of course, one of the general preoccupations of Quentin Skinner, J. G. A. Pocock and the 'Cambridge School' of political philosophy. A major implication of Skinner's work is that the problematic nature of the relative importance to be ascribed to different ideological utterances forces the historian to discover as precisely as possible which texts questioned, rather than reinforced the mentality of a period. But the Cambridge methodology differs from that presented here, in that it is still ultimately concerned with the 'great works' of political philosophy. See Q. Skinner, 'On Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas', reprinted in J. Tully, ed., Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge: Polity, 1988, pp.29-67.
49. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
50. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
51. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
52. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
53. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
54. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
55. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
56. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
57. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
58. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
59. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
60. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
61. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
62. 34 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1989; G. Eley, 'Edward Thompson, Social History and Political Culture: the Making of a Working-Class Public, 1780-1850', in H. J. Kaye and K. McLelland, eds, E. P. Thompson: Critical Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 1990, pp.12-49; G. Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century', K. M. Baker, 'Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas' and D. Zaret, 'Religion, Science and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth Century England', all in C. Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp.289-339, 181-211, 212-235; J. Vernon, Politics and the People: a Study in English Political Culture, 1815-1867. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; D. Zaret, 'Petitions and the 'invention' of public opinion in the English revolution', American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 1497-1555. On the USA see M. P. Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access: Women's Politics in Nineteenth Century America' and M. Schudson, 'Was there ever a Public Sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American Case', both in Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere; M. Schudson, 'Historical Approaches to Communications Studies', in K. B. Jensen and N. Jankowski, eds, A Handbook for Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communications Research. London: Routledge, 1991, pp.175-189. The point that the Habermasian approach involves an empirical argument is very often overlooked. See, for example, R. Blaug, 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, 45 (1997), 100-117, which, despite its title, does not consider this dimension. For a brief commentary, see A. Chadwick, 'A communication on R. Blaug's 'Between fear and disappointment: critical, empirical and political uses of Habermas', Political Studies, (1997), 661-662.
63. 35 Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access'. See also Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures'.
64. 35 Ryan, 'Gender and Public Access'. See also Eley, 'Nations, Publics and Political Cultures'.
65. 36 S. Herbst, Politics at the Margin: Historical Studies of Public Expression Outside the Mainstream. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
66. 37 Herbst, Politics at the Margin, p. 2.
67. 38 Herbst, Politics at the Margin, pp. 22-23.
68. 39 Herbst, Politics at the Margin, p. 30.
69. 40 J. A. Hall, 'Ideas and the Social Sciences' in J. Goldstein and R. O. Keohane, eds, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change. London: Cornell University Press, 1993, 31-54, pp. 41, 49. Original emphasis.
70. 41 Social historians have been surprisingly reticent in this area. For use of Bakhtinian theory, see, however, M. W. Steinberg, '"A Way of Struggle": Reformations and Affirmations of E. P. Thompson's Class Analysis in Light of Postmodern Theories of Language', British Journal of Sociology, 48 (1997), 471-492. See also, R. Williams, Marxism and Literature Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1977, pp. 38-42.
71. 41 Social historians have been surprisingly reticent in this area. For use of Bakhtinian theory, see, however, M. W. Steinberg, '"A Way of Struggle": Reformations and Affirmations of E. P. Thompson's Class Analysis in Light of Postmodern Theories of Language', British Journal of Sociology, 48 (1997), 471-492. See also, R. Williams, Marxism and Literature Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1977, pp. 38-42.
72. 42 There is some debate over the authorship of the Bakhtin circle essays. The controversy, which dates back to 1973, centres upon whether Medvedev and Volsinov signed works which were originally written by Bakhtin. The murky politics of the Stalin period have rendered the issue irresolvable in the eyes of Morris, the editor of a recent anthology, who argues that the strongest evidence supports the view that all three authors provided significant contributions. This essay conforms to this line by referring to each article by its original signatory. See P. Morris, ed., The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Volosinov. London: Edward Arnold, 1994, pp. 1-5.
73. 43 V. N. Volosinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929), translated by L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1973, p. 86. Original emphasis.
74. 44 From M. M. Bakhtin, 'The Problem of Speech Genres' (1952-53) reprinted in Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, translated by V. W. McGee, edited by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin, University of Texas Press, 1986;
75. passage reprinted in Morris, ed., The Bakhtin Reader, pp. 81, 87.
76. 45 M. M. Bakhtin, 'Discourse in the Novel' (1935), reprinted in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, translated by M. Holquist and C. Emerson, edited by M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981, pp. 291-292.
77. 46 M. Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics. London: University of Illinois Press, 1964, pp. 130-131. It should be stated that Edelman does not appear to have been influenced by the Bakhtin school. There are no references to their work in the text.
78. 47 Politics emerges as a force for the emotional involvement of the mass, a site on which 'hopes and fears or 'psychological tensions' and 'inner problems' are projected, which presents only 'threats' or 'reassurances', but which results in 'a remarkably viable and functional political system.' Thus the meanings of political symbols are to be found deep within the psyche of individuals and simultaneously in the society where they function. Edelman, Symbolic Uses of Politics, pp. 8, 9, 13, 15.
79. 48 Edelman, Symbolic Uses of Politics, p. 115.
80. 49 Edelman, Symbolic Uses of Politics p. 123-24.
81. 50 Edelman, Symbolic Uses of Politics, p. 133.
82. 51 This contrasts with administrative and bargaining styles of language, which often provoke resentment among the mass audience, a sense that they are being excluded from the decision-making process, as, indeed, they are. Edelman, Symbolic Uses of Politics, pp. 138, 151.
83. 52 H. White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.