Entering the System

Next article FreeEditor’s NoteEntering the SystemCyrus Ernesto ZirakzadehCyrus Ernesto Zirakzadeh Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreJoining a political order is seldom a straightforward process. More commonly, it is a prolonged struggle for most of the parties involved. Even in self-proclaimed modern democracies, the extension of the right of participation in politics to new populations (and, therefore, the incorporation of new voices and viewpoints into discussions of public affairs) creates moans and groans, disappointments and fears. As a result, almost no one is completely happy with the seemingly unproblematic process known as “inclusion.” Those who previously had ruled alone do not easily give up their privileges. Having stakes in the way decisions are made, the incumbents seldom welcome the newcomers at the table with open arms and an unworried, carefree spirit. Instead, they often build constitutional barriers and devise cultural traditions to insure that their ways of judging continue to dominate political discussions and continue to triumph wherever decisions are officially made. Meanwhile, to gain access to formal places of debate and to levers of power, those who had been excluded from political institutions often pay a price. They must reconsider who they are and what they want. Acceptance always feels partial. Worries about betrayal of principles and ambitions abound, as former comrades in arms make charges of cooptation.The articles in this issue of Polity look at entrance into politics as an ongoing, contentious, and often painful process, in which deceits, triumphs, compromises, and rituals of reconciliation have effects that few foresee. As the authors teach us, when a new group enters an institutionalized political system, it can feel as if the heavens momentarily disappear.***The opening article examines one of the earliest political stories in the history of Western thought: the entrance of non-farmers into the political life of Ancient Greece. Rachel Templer reflects on how established Athenian leaders attempted to contain the implications of non-aristocratic participants in politics through the construction of disciplined, regimented notions of citizenship, manliness, and love. Using a variety of interpretative techniques common among classicists but less widely known to political scientists, Templer offers fresh insights into the rhetorical moves in Pericles’ funeral speech, and into the types of novel political activity that the speech attempted to hide if not disparage. These occluded practices of lot and rotation, Templer contends, are the stories of classical politics that today’s proponents of democratic diversity should remember.Like Templer, Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Leah Wright Rigueur are curious about how those who already enjoy access to power attempt to silence new voices and, conversely, how outsiders attempt to close ranks in their battles for greater political access. The co-authors look at United States politics in the early twenty-first century and describe methods of shaming and expulsion that African Americans and Caucasian Americans employ to discredit and silence deviant political voices within each racialized group. They find that advocates of structural racism whose skins are light colored and advocates of racially blind politics whose skins are non-white are marked as traitors by leaders of racialized communities. Such policing, the authors imply, inhibits frank discourse about prevailing social conditions and impedes the transformation of America’s unhealthy race relations.The unequal opportunity for women in present-day political orders is the theme of the third article. Dorit Geva argues that citizenship rights for women in the United States continue to diverge from those of men due to long-standing societal beliefs about healthy intra-familial divisions-of-labor. The assumption that men and women should perform different roles within a healthy nuclear family had prevented American women from having the same standing as potential draftees. These beliefs about domestic arrangements, Geva contends, are not necessarily universally held by the population at large in the United States, especially since the late 1960s. However, key figures in the judicial and executive branches of the federal government do take the myths of an appropriate division of household labor—that is, of care giving and wage earning—seriously. The failure of women to have equal standing with men in the conscription process is yet another illustration of how, in American politics, the state largely determines what “equality” means in practice.Susan Burgess looks at ongoing efforts to achieve equal political standing by yet another population that because of sexual practices is deemed “second-class” in the United States: gay men. Often, commentators attribute the slow but steady increase in the rights of gays to serve in the military as a sign of an enlightened federal state forging ahead, despite the resistance of less progressive groups in society. Against this celebration of the liberal state, Burgess proposes a counter narrative, according to which changes in the views of American citizens at large compelled a reluctant state to extend rights to an excluded population. To illustrate her point, Burgess looks at changing plot lines and character portraits in James Bond films. The popularity of the films suggests that popular opinion about the character traits of gays was, in fact, ahead of the policies of state leaders. The public, reasons Burgess, through popular art, forged more inclusive visions of membership in a democratic state and prompted inclusion. Conversely, the state (and the interests in defends) has tried to contain pressures to redefine the characteristics of gays and to reassess their abilities as citizens.The final article in this issue looks at the constitutional arrangements that are invented to convince pre-existing political elites to share in governance. Adam Seagrave examines the heavy philosophic work that is necessary to justify what some might view as unprincipled power grabs and to keep the prior compacts worthy of reverence. He patiently dissects James Madison’s philosophic defense of federalism as a method for the reconstruction of United States politics. The article follows the refinement of Madison’s novel argument about “layered social compacts” through a series of constitutional crises during the first century of America’s political history. Seagrave concludes that Madison’s thinking illustrates the ongoing relevance of social-contract theory for the purpose of political re-founding in general and, more particularly, for the assessment of competing claims about states’ rights and federal sovereignty in the United States today.***Sometimes, a single issue gives a good feel for the overall spirit of a journal. So, is this issue typical? Over the past four years, Polity has increasingly published works in comparative politics and international relations. In fact, over the past year about 30% of the journal’s articles have been in those two areas. That statistic suggests that this issue is atypical.Yet, in other ways, this issue is quite representative. All five articles, although they sometimes cross standard subfields, fall largely in the subfields of political theory and American politics—two of Polity’s long-standing strengths. Three of the articles (by Templer, Geva, and Burgess) systematically look at aspects of gender—an increasingly important research area within the discipline of American political science and a research area that the editorial team at Polity has been trying to promote. The five articles also illustrate the journal’s openness to diverse styles of argumentation and traditions of disciplinary research. The contributors to this issue include scholars formally trained in history, sociology, and the classics. In one piece, popular art is treated as an important source of evidence about political trends and orientations (as well as a constituent element of democratic politics). Finally, all the authors are concerned not only with learning more about their research topics, but with the topics’ relationship to contemporary affairs. The authors clearly want their knowledge, findings, and conjectures to matter in a practical way.In short, the issue captures much of the intellectual flavor that makes Polity a distinctive scholarly outlet. The journal makes available rigorous research that will reach readers beyond the borders of a single subfield (or even a single discipline!). It publishes path-breaking research that not only arrives at original and unexpected conclusions, but explains how those conclusions relate to what other scholars are discovering and arguing. And it offers politically relevant research that explicitly links academic debates to the practical concerns of citizens.If you are currently working on a manuscript with such aspirations for breadth, originality, and relevance, Polity may be a promising venue for your work. Next article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Polity Volume 47, Number 2April 2015Entering the System The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2015.8 Views: 47Total views on this site Copyright © 2015, Northeastern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article

Political science · Public Administration