Difference between revisions of "Category:Normative ambivalence"

From Global Informality Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===The normative ambivalence of double standards: ‘us’ vs ‘them’===
[[Category: Cluster]]
Preface by Alena Ledeneva
The double standards applied to ‘us’ and to ‘them’, to insiders and outsiders, differ considerably depending on the context, but a common pattern is the ambivalent nature of belonging: enabling but also constraining. Entries in this category explore the identity-based forms of belonging and solidarity. The perspective of normative ambivalence is grounded in the fundamental divide into ‘us’ and ‘them’, based on identities and the associated play of inclusion and exclusion.
 
 
Among the four modes of human interaction discussed in this volume – redistribution, solidarity, market, and domination – solidarity may sound the least contentious. Yet the comfort of belonging, of sharing an identity, also means the exclusion of others, and double standards for ‘us’ and for ‘them.’ Kinship and local communities reward members with a safety net and support, but also limit individual rights. Social networks in so-called open access societies are declared open, yet are equipped with hidden social filters. The double standards applied to ‘us’ and to ‘them,’ to insiders and outsiders, differ considerably depending on the context, but a common pattern is the ambivalent nature of belonging: enabling but also constraining. The modern transformation of identity politics reveals the traps of belonging and the unintended consequences of strong ties, often resulting in conformity and cohesion not necessarily conducive to openly declared freedoms and values.
 
Entries in '''Part Two''' explore the identity-based forms of belonging and solidarity. The perspective of normative ambivalence is grounded in the fundamental divide into ‘us’ and ‘them,’ based on identities and the associated play of inclusion and exclusion. It enables us to reveal the open secrets of identities, shaped by lineage, community or consumption (whether religion, music or art) as well as multiple identities emerging in complex societies with their constellations of coexisting rural, urban, local and global mind-sets. The entries are organised by strength of obligation within social circles, termed the lock-in effect: from the traditional grip of kin ties and observance of customary laws to the more modern norms of reciprocity and belonging; from traditional values to forms of self-expression; from norms generating conformity to those that generate non-conformity and protest.
 
'''Chapter 3''', Conformity: The Lock-in Effect of Social Ties|, assembles evidence of the ambivalence of the informal lock-in effect that identities, associations and solidarities can produce. In his [[Group identity and the ambivalence of norms|'''introduction''']], Eric Gordy points to the ambivalent nature of identities. These are neither imagined communities nor social facts. They are both socially construed perceptions of shared culture, history, and memory, and linked to concrete historical and social phenomena. Informal practices enhance the perception of shared belonging to a group, but can also undermine it. In [[Organic solidarity and informality|'''conclusion''']], Christian Giordano offers a variety of theoretical paradigms of solidarity, and points out that informality together with its specific coalitions, networks and personalised relationships has a questionable, if not notorious reputation. These aspects are often regarded as premodern or dysfunctional because they foster or serve as the foundations for social phenomena such as friends’ favouritism, nepotism, cronyism, patronage and corruption. Yet they are also the enactment of identities, solidarities and so-called social capital. Thus it is not enough to distinguish between functional and dysfunctional associations, good and bad networks, positive and negative social capital; it is essential to see the substantive ambivalence of personal relationships (Part One).
 
'''Chapter 4''', The Unlocking Power of Non-Conformity: Cultural Resistance vs Political Opposition, focuses on the informal practices associated with non-conformism and cultural resistance. It explores the grey zones between cultural resistance and political protest by illustrating – somewhat provocatively – what informality means for actors in terms of creativity, innovation and self-expression. Practices of cultural resistance and non-conformism can be aligned with Barbara Misztal’s conceptualisation of informality as freedom (Misztal 2000). In his [[The grey zones between cultural and political|'''introduction''']], Peter Zusi highlights an important distinction between cultural resistance and political opposition. Whereas opposition implies a tug-of-war or a zero-sum game, with the advantage of one coming at the disadvantage of the other, resistance by contrast does not operate through clear dichotomies but is multivalent and poly-directional, while its forms of expression are often complex or informal.
 
Accepting that various forms of resistance are more common than political opposition, [[Ambiguities of accommodation|'''Jan Kubik''']] takes issue with the ambiguities of accommodation, resistance and rebellion. Why do people not challenge political systems that they do not accept and want to see reformed as often as might be expected? Why does accommodating quiescence prevail most of the time and why is open rebellion so infrequent? How does opposition express itself? The ambivalent discovery in this chapter is that informality unlocks the potential for innovation, talent-development and freedom for self-expression. Cultural resistance to the classical schools has for example been the impetus behind many of Russia’s major contributions to the global cultural scene: the Silver Age, modernist avant-garde, musical innovation, non-conformist art in the 1960s, among others.
 
Yet informality also produces freedom within the constraints that allow for the evolution of the classical schools though artistic repossession and accommodating symbiosis. In these contexts, the simultaneously subversive and supportive role of informal practices is best understood by reference to functional ambivalence (Part Three). The focus on normative ambivalence in Part Two enables us to envisage how informal channels serve in practice to enact both inclusion and exclusion, conformity and non-conformity, accommodation and resistance, thereby resulting in both lock-in and unlocking effects. 
 
The remaining questions include: Can identities that are non-divisive, and not diminishing the other, be as strong as those that are divisive? On what basis can non-divisive identities rest or be construed? Which constraints are particularly conducive to creating shortcuts? And how do certain types of political and economic constraints correlate with forms of innovation, risk-taking and talent-development? Finally, the theme of fluidity of multiple identities leads to the challenge of measuring normative ambivalence and assessing its role in re-shaping solidarities and cohesion in complex societies.

Latest revision as of 12:52, 28 April 2020

The double standards applied to ‘us’ and to ‘them’, to insiders and outsiders, differ considerably depending on the context, but a common pattern is the ambivalent nature of belonging: enabling but also constraining. Entries in this category explore the identity-based forms of belonging and solidarity. The perspective of normative ambivalence is grounded in the fundamental divide into ‘us’ and ‘them’, based on identities and the associated play of inclusion and exclusion.

Retrieved from "https://www.in-formality.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Normative_ambivalence&oldid=5330"