The insides and outsides of parliamentary politics Endre Dányi Guest Professor for the Sociology of Globalisation Faculty of Social Sciences, Bundeswehr University Munich e.danyi@unibw.de Introduction to a special issue of Social Studies of Science on parliamentary practices Last saved on 13 October 2019 Abstract This introduction to a special issue on parliaments identifies a tendency in STS to look for politics either inside or outside mainstream democratic institutions. Summarising the insights of the four contributions to the special issue, the introduction argues that – in light of current challenges to dominant modes of doing politics across the globe – the task for STS scholars is neither to renew faith in what is happening in various legislatures, nor to look for alternatives elsewhere. Rather it is to carefully explore how their multiple insides and outsides are being connected, and what possibilities those connections offer as we continue to navigate spaces defined by the Panopticon and the Parliament as the twin diagrams of modernity. Key words: parliament, politics, democracy, panopticon, diagram, ruins, representation The late 18th century was a turbulent period on both sides of the Atlantic. During the years of the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, there was no shortage of proposals for a new social order, the rules of which were to be defined by reason, rather than by God or the Monarch. One of the most well-known of such proposals is Jeremy Bentham’s design for the perfect prison – the Panopticon. The description of the circular building, with several floors of well-lit cells positioned around a darkened inspection tower, first appeared in a series of letters in 1787 and was amended in 1790 and 1791 (Božovič 1995). As Bentham had explained in minute detail, the disciplinary effect of his panoptic – literally all-seeing – architecture was supposed to lie in the rendering of all cells and their inmates visible while keeping the inspector invisible, thereby generating a sense of continuous surveillance (Bentham 1995 [1787]). In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Bentham tried to acquire political support for the construction of several panoptic structures in England. Initially, the British government was enthusiastic, but after several rounds of negotiation the relevant ministry abandoned the project (Schofield 2009). Nevertheless, the Panopticon became a central trope in politics and political thought, most notably in Michel Foucault’s analysis of modern, disciplinary societies (1977). What fascinated Foucault in Bentham’s design was not so much the Panopticon as an actual building, but the Panopticon as a diagram, that is, a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form, ready to be deployed in almost any setting (Deleuze 1986). Indeed, as Bentham had claimed, the Panopticon was envisioned as a prison, but it could have just as well been used for ‘guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the -1- idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing in any branch of industry, or training the rising race in the path of education’ (Bentham 1995 [1787]: 34). According to Foucault, the development of panoptic structures across various domains in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in Europe and North America constituted the dark side of ‘the explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative régime’ (Foucault 1977: 222). Disciplines operated as a ‘counter-law’; identifying and tracing them required a shift of social scientific attention from the usual sites and institutions of politics to seemingly apolitical processes and practices (Barry et al. 1996), including the regular workings of experimental science. Accordingly, in the 1970s and 1980s several STS scholars provided rich ethnographic accounts of the ways in which laboratories operate like quasi-panopticons, rendering all kinds of cells and their inmates visible (Knorr-Cetina 1984; Latour & Woolgar 1986 [1979]; Law 1994; Lynch 1993) while keeping scientists invisible, maintaining their status as ‘modest witnesses’ (Shapin & Schaffer 1985; Haraway 1997). While Foucault’s argument has been very productive in STS and a number of related fields, it has also drawn attention away from parliamentary, representative regimes, even though they were being organised at the very same time as panoptic structures, and often through the very same means. In fact, while continually revising his design for the Panopticon, Bentham was also busy working on a blueprint for the perfect Parliament. He saw the rupture caused by the outbreak of the French Revolution as an excellent opportunity to put his theory of a wellordered society into practice, and in 1789 he began to outline a new rule of orders for the revolutionary assembly (Palonen 2012; Schofield 2006). Similar to the ideal prison, in his drafts the ideal legislature was envisioned as a circular building, except that this time it was the centre that had to be rendered fully visible while everything around it had to remain invisible (Bentham 1999 [1791]). In this sense, the Parliament was conceived as the exact inverse of the Panopticon, in which a relatively small number of elected representatives were to be kept under continuous surveillance by the multitude of citizens. Accordingly, Bentham specified not only the manner in which Members of Parliament (MPs) were supposed to dress, debate and decide on a variety of topics, but also how parliamentary events were supposed to organise democratic politics into a spectacle (Ezrahi 2012) – with the active involvement of administrators, stenographers and newspaper reporters, among other actors. The French Revolution took a different turn than Bentham had imagined; his concepts of a well-ordered society were side-lined and his blueprint for the revolutionary assembly was almost forgotten. However, in the early 19th century his rule of orders was translated into English and used as an important reference during the British parliamentary reform of 1832 and the establishment of the new Palace of Westminster (Schofield 2006). To this day, Bentham’s take on ‘good politics’ continue to shape parliamentary practices, not only through the written and unwritten customs of the House of Lords and the House of Commons (Crewe 2005; 2015), but also through the use of various technologies of publicity in the Assemblée Nationale (Gardey 2012), the symbolic expression of transparency in the renovated Reichstag (Foster 2000), and the everyday lives of elected representatives in the US Congress and the European Parliament (Wodak 2009). Similar to panopticism, Bentham’s ideas associated with parliamentarism cannot be confined to particular buildings or governments; they live as much in architectures and infrastructures as in speeches and legal documents. Rather than constituting the ‘the bright side’ of disciplines, they suggest a particular economy of darkness and brightness, and so deserve social scientists’ renewed attention. *** -2- In STS, parliaments first entered the list of interesting sites as a metaphor, in Bruno Latour’s discussion of the ‘Parliament of Things’ (Latour 1993; 2004, see also Harman 2014), and then as containers of diverse political practices, put on display in the impressive Making Things Public exhibition (Latour & Weibel 2005). In the spirit of laboratory studies, the latter systematically explored the material conditions of political representation, from buildings through sociotechnical apparatuses to various political bodies (human and nonhuman alike), but also initiated a particular research agenda for STS. As Latour (2005) explained in the introduction to the exhibition catalogue, the main aim of this agenda was to shift focus from the subjects to the objects of democratic politics, that is, to the issues, problems, matters of concern that parliaments and other political institutions grapple with, with varying degrees of success. The research agenda briefly introduced in Making Things Public was further elaborated in a special issue of Social Studies of Science, published in 2007. Combining insights from American pragmatism and political theories on agenda-setting, Noortje Marres (2007) argued that attending to the formation of specific issues and their publics was central to the understanding of the modern democracies. Based on a Dutch case study, Gerard de Vries (2007) then outlined how such an object-oriented perspective related to other strands of research on politics in STS, most notably to studies on expertise in democratic settings (Collins and Evans 2002) and the extension of participation in scientific decision-making (Jasanoff 2003; Wynne 2003 – for an overview, see Brown 2015). Finally, in his reflection on de Vries’ paper, Latour (2007) outlined a methodological strategy to follow the life-cycle or trajectory of various issues through distinct stages of ‘the political’: the formation of new associations, the development of relevant publics, the integration of those publics into the machinery of government, deliberation and bureaucratic implementation. Parliaments are undoubtedly part of the trajectory, but according to this scheme they account for only one political stage among others – presumably the least interesting one, since important decisions are assumed to be made elsewhere, outside the usual theatres of democratic politics (see Asdal & Hobæk 2016; Dányi 2012). This special issue takes inspiration from Marres, de Vries and Latour’s object-oriented approach, but also diverts from it. It concentrates neither exclusively on practices contained by parliamentary structures nor on particular issues that merely pass through legislatures, but on the parliament as a diagram that connects the insides and outsides of parliamentary politics in interesting and often surprising ways. In their contribution, Kristin Asdal and Bård Hobæk (2020) revisit Max Weber’s work on parliamentary procedures in order to show that legislatures are more than dull apparatuses that receive and process already formed issues. Explored through of the case of whaling in Norway, they demonstrate how legislatures actively shape issues and do issue-politics, often over decades. Asdal and Hobæk’s analysis thus also complicates the temporality associated with a singular life-cycle and examines what ‘issue-pasts’ are being made present during the legislative process, and how. An additional temporal logic associated with the parliament as a diagram is the legislative cycle, punctuated by regularly held elections. In their multi-sited ethnography Stefan Laube, Jan Schank and Thomas Scheffer (2020) compare parliamentary settings in Austria and Germany in order to foreground not so much particular issues as the development of various ‘positions’ on them. Although issue-specific positions tend to be linked to individual MPs, they are typically the products of a lengthy, typically text-oriented negotiation within party factions – a process that takes place inside the legislative machinery but remains almost entirely invisible to the general public. Laube and his colleagues mobilise Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss’ study on invisible work to argue that the invisibility of position-making is constitutive: it helps not only to solidify issues, but also to legitimize positions by attributing them to MPs while concealing the expert work of assistants and staff advisers. -3- While rendering distributed issue-processing practices in Parliament invisible explains why we, as spectators of plenary sessions, feel that MPs are the main political actors, according to Jenni Brichzin (2020) it is equally important to realise that participation in public debates is only one among several work modes within the legislature. Others take place in various committees and include skilful ways of connecting some issues to others, sending them higher or lower on the political scale, delaying them or speeding them up, settling them or making them more conflictual – in other words, engaging with them as matters of concern. This sense of matter and materiality is defined not in opposition to ideas, but as the ‘stuff’ of politics (Braun and Whatmore 2010) that depends on law, science and popular narratives as resources. Indeed, parliaments as diagrams are very good at imposing themselves onto other domains and regions. After being challenged by colonial empires in the 19th century and totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, it is tempting to see parliamentary structures as constituting a common ground across the globe: a set of shared values that favour public deliberation, welldefined procedures, a standardised way of handling issues and an equal treatment of all votes and opinions. However, as Endre Dányi and Michaela Spencer (2020) point out, even the most benign and well-intended claims of commonness imply violence, making it difficult to account for – not to mention learn from – practices and cosmologies that do not fit a Western, universalist scheme of democratic politics. Based on their fieldwork in Germany and the Northern Territory in Australia, Dányi and Spencer examine parliamentary sites and situations where the problem of un/commonness plays a central role, including a traditional Yonglu ceremony, and argue that if parliaments want to avoid reproducing the injustices associated with colonialism and totalitarianism, they need find good/better ways of recognising and incorporating uncommonness. *** Why is it important to revisit parliamentary practices now, more than a decade after the introduction of the object turn in STS-informed research on politics? The answer is closely related to the turbulent period we are currently witnessing, again on both sides of the Atlantic. Whereas the 1970s and 1980s were about the identification of the ‘dark sides’ of modernity and 1990s and early 2000s were about the promotion of democratisation and increased participation, the 2010s have raised several questions about the strength and adequacy of democratic politics itself vis-à-vis such complex problems as climate change, growing inequality and mass migration. It might be tempting to propose entirely new schemes for our collective life, but as Philip Manow (2010) reminds us, the ruins of previous social orders are unlikely to disappear; through their discursive-material presence they continue to shape our political practices in subtle yet persistent ways. As the four contributions to this special issue argue, the task for social scientists in general, and STS scholars in particular, is neither to simply renew faith in what is happening inside parliaments, nor to look for alternatives outside them. Rather it is to carefully explore how their multiple insides and outsides are being connected, and what possibilities those connections offer as we continue to navigate spaces defined by the Panopticon and the Parliament as the twin diagrams of modernity. Acknowledgements This special issue started as a panel on parliamentary practices at the 2014 STS Conference in Graz and continued to take shape at the 2016 EASST/4S meeting in Barcelona. The contributors are grateful to Alejandro Esguerra, Delphine Gardey, Kerry Holden and Emil -4- Urhammer for the inspiring discussions over the years, as well as to Andrew Barry, Lucy Suchman and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the papers. References Asdal, Kristin and Bård Hobæk. 2020. “The modified issue: Turning Around Max Weber and Ordinary Political Institutions.” [This volume.] Asdal, Kristin, and Bård Hobæk. 2016. “Assembling the Whale: Parliaments in the Politics of Nature.” Science as Culture 25 (1): 96–116. Barry, Andrew, Thomas Osborne, and Nikolas Rose. 1996. Foucault and Political Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bentham, Jeremy. 1999 [1791]. Essay on Political Tactics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bentham, Jeremy. 1995 [1787] “Panopticon or the Inspection House.” In Miran Božovič (ed.) 1995. The Panopticon Writings. London and New York: Verso Books. Božovič, Miran. 1995. The Panopticon Writings. London and New York: Verso Books. Braun, Bruce, and Sarah Whatmore. 2010. Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life. Minneapolis: MN: University of Minnesota Press. Brichzin, Jenni. 2020. “Materialisations from political work.” Social Studies of Science. [This volume.] Brown, Mark B. 2015. “Politicizing Science: Conceptions of Politics in Science and Technology Studies.” Social Studies of Science 45 (1): 3–30. Collins, Harry M. & Robert Evans. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience”, Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296. Crewe, Emma. 2015. The House of Commons. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Crewe, Emma. 2005. Lords of Parliament. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Dányi, Endre. 2012. Parliament Politics: A Material-Semiotic Analysis of Liberal Democracy. PhD thesis. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Dányi, Endre and Michaela Spencer. 2020. “Un/common Grounds: Tracing Politics Across Worlds.” Social Studies of Science. [This volume.] Deleuze, Gilles. 1986. Foucault. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. de Vries, Gerard. 2007. “What Is Political in Sub-Politics?: How Aristotle Might Help STS.” Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 781–809. Ezrahi, Yaron. 2012. Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, Norman. 2000. Rebuilding the Reichstag. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin Books. Gardey, Delphine. 2015. Le Linge Du Palais-Bourbon. Paris: Le Bord de l’Eau. Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseª: Feminism and Technoscience. New York and London: Routledge. Harman, Graham. 2014. Bruno Latour: Reassembling the Political. London: Pluto Press. -5- Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins & Robert Evans, ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies’”, Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 389–400. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. Kronberg: Pergamon. Latour, Bruno. 2007. “Turning Around Politics: A Note on Gerard De Vries’ Paper.” Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 811–820. Latour, Bruno. 2005. “From realpolitik to dingpolitik, or how to make things public.” In: Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (eds.) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 14–31. Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno, and Peter Weibel. 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986 [1979]. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Laube, Stefan, Jan Schank and Thomas Scheffer. 2020. “Constitutive Invisibility: Exploring the Invisible Work of Staff Advisers in Political Position Making.” Social Studies of Science. [This volume.] Law, John. 1994. Organizing modernity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lynch, Mike. 1997. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manow, Philip. 2010. In the King's Shadow. Cambridge: Polity. Marres, Noortje. 2007. “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759– 580. Palonen, Kari. 2012. “Parliamentary Procedure as an Inventory of Disputes: A Comparison Between Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Erskine May.” Res Publica Revista De Filosofía Política 27: 13–23. Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and The Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schofield, Philip. 2009. Bentham: A guide for the perplexed. London & New York: Continuum. Schofield, Philip. 2006. Utility & Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wynne, Brian. 2003. “Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002)”, Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 401–417. -6-