The Veil of Bureaucracy: How Officials Evade Partisan Politics in Participatory Settings

IF 1.8 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Social Currents Pub Date : 2021-07-19 DOI:10.1177/23294965211028846
Meaghan Stiman
{"title":"The Veil of Bureaucracy: How Officials Evade Partisan Politics in Participatory Settings","authors":"Meaghan Stiman","doi":"10.1177/23294965211028846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In theory, participatory democracies are thought to empower citizens in local decision-making processes. However, in practice, community voice is rarely representative, and even in cases of equal representation, citizens are often disempowered through bureaucratic processes. Drawing on the case of a firearm discharge debate from a rural county’s municipal meetings in Virginia, I extend research about how power operates in participatory settings. Partisan political ideology fueled the debate amongst constituents in expected ways, wherein citizens engaged collectivist and individualist frames to sway the county municipal board (Celinska 2007). However, it was a third frame that ultimately explains the ordinance’s repeal: the bureaucratic frame, an ideological orientation to participatory processes that defers decision-making to disembodied abstract rules and procedures. This frame derives its power from its depoliticization potential, allowing bureaucrats to evade contentious political debates. Whoever is best able to wield this frame not only depoliticizes the debate to gain rationalized legitimacy but can do so in such a way to favor a partisan agenda. This study advances gun research and participatory democracy research by analyzing how the bureaucratic frame, which veils partisanship, offers an alternative political possibility for elected officials, community leaders, and citizens to adjudicate partisan debates.","PeriodicalId":44139,"journal":{"name":"Social Currents","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/23294965211028846","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Currents","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965211028846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In theory, participatory democracies are thought to empower citizens in local decision-making processes. However, in practice, community voice is rarely representative, and even in cases of equal representation, citizens are often disempowered through bureaucratic processes. Drawing on the case of a firearm discharge debate from a rural county’s municipal meetings in Virginia, I extend research about how power operates in participatory settings. Partisan political ideology fueled the debate amongst constituents in expected ways, wherein citizens engaged collectivist and individualist frames to sway the county municipal board (Celinska 2007). However, it was a third frame that ultimately explains the ordinance’s repeal: the bureaucratic frame, an ideological orientation to participatory processes that defers decision-making to disembodied abstract rules and procedures. This frame derives its power from its depoliticization potential, allowing bureaucrats to evade contentious political debates. Whoever is best able to wield this frame not only depoliticizes the debate to gain rationalized legitimacy but can do so in such a way to favor a partisan agenda. This study advances gun research and participatory democracy research by analyzing how the bureaucratic frame, which veils partisanship, offers an alternative political possibility for elected officials, community leaders, and citizens to adjudicate partisan debates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
官僚主义的面纱:官员如何在参与式环境中逃避党派政治
理论上,参与式民主被认为是赋予公民在地方决策过程中的权力。然而,在实践中,社区的声音很少具有代表性,即使在平等代表权的情况下,公民也往往因官僚程序而被剥夺权力。借鉴弗吉尼亚州一个农村县市政会议上的枪支射击辩论案例,我扩展了关于权力如何在参与式环境中运作的研究。党派政治意识形态以预期的方式推动了选民之间的辩论,其中公民参与集体主义和个人主义框架来影响县市政委员会(Celinska 2007)。然而,第三个框架最终解释了该条例的废除:官僚框架,一种对参与性过程的意识形态取向,将决策推迟到没有实体的抽象规则和程序。这一框架的力量来自于其去政治化的潜力,允许官僚们逃避有争议的政治辩论。无论谁最善于运用这一框架,不仅能使辩论去政治化,以获得合理化的合法性,而且能以有利于党派议程的方式做到这一点。本研究通过分析掩盖党派之争的官僚框架如何为民选官员、社区领袖和公民裁决党派辩论提供另一种政治可能性,推动了枪支研究和参与式民主研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Currents
Social Currents SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Social Currents, the official journal of the Southern Sociological Society, is a broad-ranging social science journal that focuses on cutting-edge research from all methodological and theoretical orientations with implications for national and international sociological communities. The uniqueness of Social Currents lies in its format. The front end of every issue is devoted to short, theoretical, agenda-setting contributions and brief, empirical and policy-related pieces. The back end of every issue includes standard journal articles that cover topics within specific subfields of sociology, as well as across the social sciences more broadly.
期刊最新文献
Returning from Prison to a Changed City: How Does Gentrification Shape the Employment and Housing Opportunities of Returning Citizens? Fight the Power? How Black Adults’ Racial Capital Associates With Their Political Activities Rent Burden and Demographic Change Among Veterans: A Research Brief “A Future for White Children”: Examining Family Ideologies of White Extremist Groups at the Intersection of Race and Gender The Impacts of Landscape Loss on Industrial Communities: Solastalgia in Coal Regions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1