Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
politics, people are often as concerned about how they sound as about what they
actually say. Far from being a palliative, a symbolic compensation for a structural
lack of power, talking politics actually gives tangible life to the public sphere, even
though it may seem that many people watch or read the news to reassure themselves
that the public sphere remains far from their own lives. She also notes that it is
important to discover how both membership of civic associations and the media
influence political discussion and political displays. In later studies, Eliasoph (1998)
and Eliasoph and Lichterman (2003) show how cultural and collective representations
enable groups to develop a style of interaction that acts as a social and ideological
filter. Eliasoph and Lichterman studied one group of environmental activists operating
in a suburban setting where engagement could be seen as socially courageous. This
group consequently used the language of expressive individualism and personal
empowerment 'to
affirm
social responsibility and public-spiritedness, rather than to
subordinate them to self-centred expression' (Eliasoph and Lichterman, 2003: 748).
By contrast, a group of Country and Western devotees, known as 'the Buffaloes',
occupying a social space - a bar - that political scientist Robert Putnam would see
as a potential generator of social capital, frequently appeared to be '
irrational
,
excitable
,
wild
and
passionate
' (Eliasoph and Lichterman, 2003: 760). They exhibited
a group style the authors termed 'active disaffiliation', often breaking the moral code
with racist or sexist jokes, teasing and often citicizing serious discussion as getting
on the 'high horse'. There was to be no hypocrisy among the Buffaloes while engaged
in social events, no false pretences or feigned political correctness. They were to be
authentically themselves. Eliasoph and Lichterman concluded (2003: 782) that through
examining culture in interaction it can be seen that 'people always make meanings
in specific social settings, in relation to each other as they perceive each other'.
Political talk occurs in many contexts but is tailored to context and by the culture
of interaction pertaining in everyday life. Thus Eliasoph and Lichterman write:
A study of culture in interaction offers a more systematic method for analyzing
the 'tone' of these groups. Thus, the bar patrons and the suburban activist group's
styles were not just not neutral, transparent conveyors of cultural meanings.
Neither were they just pro- or antidemocratic. The concept of culture in interaction
operationalizes an insight from students of public life such as Dewey (1927),
Mead (1934) and others that meaning and practice - or 'content and form' -
are intertwined, creating varied kinds of openings for members to become
democratic citizens.
(2003: 783)
In an interesting discussion of Eliasoph's work on political talk and everyday life,
Liebes (1999) identifies various cases where people do enter into political conversations
about the state of the world, without necessarily engaging in the political activist
practice of trying to change it through lobbying, protest, negotiation, campaigning,
and so on. Of course, discussion and reflection are a form of action, and conversation
and dialogue are a core component of a healthy democracy and human sustainable
development. Liebes suggests that political talk is framed or constrained by the
degree to which a society is politicized. For example, Israel is a more politicized
society than America, and Northern Ireland is more politicized than England. In
many countries the traditional mainstream media probably reflects rather than
determines the political agenda and terms of debate, although with the advent of
