On a related topic to the politicians and performance: when I was reading the article “Deference and Maternalism” by Rollins instead of looking just at the case study that was being examined in the piece I thought of how politicians and the electorate fill out both those roles.
The relationships of deference between politicians and their electorates tend to be an attempt at a kind of symmetrical deference. By portraying themselves as the ‘common man’(or woman) politicians are trying to associate themselves with the identities of the people that they wish to garner the support of. This kind of ceremonial activity is usually very different from the way they would act towards the ‘common man’ if they were not politicians. This kind of forced change from asymmetrical deference to an attempted projection of symmetrical deference is very intriguing to me. Many Americans want a president who is like them, as many people said during the 2000 election they would vote for George W. Bush because he was someone “Who they could sit down and drink a beer with.” Aside from the irony of him being a recovering alcoholic, this statement calls into question the idea that rulers should be superiors to the average person.
One of the reasons that I believe Barack Obama was so successful in his campaign for president in this cycle was his fusion of symmetrical and asymmetrical deference. He portrayed himself both as someone who could associate with the average person, but also as someone who is smart and capable, someone who we owe deference to. His sincerity in the moments of symmetrical deference and recognition of general cynicism in the asymmetrical deference situations propelled him forward as both an elite and someone who understand common problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
it would be interesting to compare how different countries want to see their leader. in east and central european countries, there is still a lingering desire for a "strong leader," even if that leader makes decisions that aren't in the best interest of the people. it seems to be part of the communist hangover. even now, many would completely reject a "common man" and favor someone who is perceived to be entirely elite and separate from common society. you might think they would not want a leader like the communist leaders - ie, a common man. but many don't (less now - this was more true in the 90's/early 00's) ... it's just an interesting difference in the many types of democracies (or "democracies") across the world.
Post a Comment