Difference between revisions of "Vernaculars of informality"

What do ‘beans for the kids’ in Kinshasa, ‘a glass of wine’ in Paris, and ‘little carps’ in Prague have in common? ‘Variations in local cuisine’ may spring to mind, and rightly so. However, they are also ways of referring to informal economic practices - described by many as corruption or bribery - in each of these places. And as with regional variations in cuisine, informal economic activities come in many culturally diverse guises and with many different labels which reflect local customs, histories, and practices. Language, in short, is a constitutive part of all semi-and illegal practices, as well as the models of informality through which scholars have studies them. What, then, can expressions and euphemisms like these tell us about the way informal economic and political activities are practiced and understood in different cultural and institutional contexts?

What do ‘beans for the kids’ in Kinshasa, ‘a glass of wine’ in Paris, and ‘little carps’ in Prague have in common? ‘Variations in local cuisine’ may spring to mind, and rightly so. However, they are also ways of referring to informal economic practices - described by many as corruption or bribery - in each of these places. And as with regional variations in cuisine, informal economic activities come in many culturally diverse guises and with many different labels which reflect local customs, histories, and practices. Language, in short, is a constitutive part of all semi-and illegal practices, as well as the models of informality through which scholars have studies them. What, then, can expressions and euphemisms like these tell us about the way informal economic and political activities are practiced and understood in different cultural and institutional contexts?

Academics, policy-makers, and third sector actors have until recently paid very little attention to local vocabularies of informality, preferring instead universal definitions of corruption which take little account of the socio-economic or cultural difference across time, space, and context (Haller and Shore 2005<ref>Haller, Dieter and Shore, Cris. 2005. Corruption: anthropological perspectives. London: Pluto Press.</ref>). Paying attention to the use of local idioms for informal practices can provide a fruitful method for questioning such ‘one model fits all’ approaches to investigating informal activities by allowing for a nuanced, case-specific approach to the phenomena. Because they often take place in the ‘grey zones’ which exist between the legal and illegal, and the moral and immoral, language and gesture are important vehicles for expressing that which must remain unsaid (Brković 2015<ref>Brković, Čarna. 2015. ‘Management of ambiguity: favours and flexibility in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Social Anthropology/Antropologie Sociale, 23(3):268-282.</ref>). Taking local expressions and uses of language seriously can thus provide greater insight into the ‘knowing smiles’ and ‘open secrets’ (Ledeneva 2011<ref>Ledeneva, Alena. 2011. ‘Open Secrets and Knowing Smiles’, East European Politics and Societies, 25(4): 720-736.</ref>) through which various forms of official and unofficial exchanges operate, as well as the spaces of ‘productive ambivalence’ created by such transactions (Stan 2012<ref>Stan, Sabine. 2012. ‘Neither commodities nor gifts: post-socialist informal exchanges in the Romanian healthcare system’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18(1): 65-82.</ref>). As such, they can be an effective tool for studying not only the socio-economic and political context in which these practices take place, but the manner in which the economy itself is imagined, expressed, and contested by policy-makers and citizens alike. Finally, by situating vernacular idioms within their wider communicative context of embodied expressions – including gestures, jokes, local forms of gift-giving, and kinship idioms – we can appreciate the particularity of different traditions and language ideologies that shape the ways in which people act, and make valuations and judgments (Henig and Makovicky 2016<ref>Henig, David and Makovicky, Nicolette. (eds.) 2016. Economies of Favour after Socialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>; Lambek 2010<ref>Lambek, Michael. 2010. Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action. New York: Fordham University Press.</ref>).

Academics, policy-makers, and third sector actors have until recently paid very little attention to local vocabularies of informality, preferring instead universal definitions of corruption which take little account of the socio-economic or cultural difference across time, space, and context (Haller and Shore 2005<ref>Haller, Dieter and Shore, Cris. 2005. Corruption: anthropological perspectives. London: Pluto Press.</ref>). Paying attention to the use of local idioms for informal practices can provide a fruitful method for questioning such ‘one model fits all’ approaches to investigating informal activities by allowing for a nuanced, case-specific approach to the phenomena. Because they often take place in the ‘grey zones’ which exist between the legal and illegal, and the moral and immoral, language and gesture are important vehicles for expressing that which must remain unsaid (Brković 2015<ref>Brković, Čarna. 2015. ‘Management of ambiguity: favours and flexibility in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Social Anthropology/Antropologie Sociale, 23(3):268-282.</ref>). Taking local expressions and uses of language seriously can thus provide greater insight into the ‘knowing smiles’ and ‘open secrets’ (Ledeneva 2011<ref>Ledeneva, Alena. 2011. ‘Open Secrets and Knowing Smiles’, East European Politics and Societies, 25(4): 720-736.</ref>) through which various forms of official and unofficial exchanges operate, as well as the spaces of ‘productive ambivalence’ created by such transactions (Stan 2012<ref>Stan, Sabine. 2012. ‘Neither commodities nor gifts: post-socialist informal exchanges in the Romanian healthcare system’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18(1): 65-82.</ref>). As such, they can be an effective tool for studying not only the socio-economic and political context in which these practices take place, but the manner in which the economy itself is imagined, expressed, and contested by policy-makers and citizens alike. Finally, by situating vernacular idioms within their wider communicative context of embodied expressions – including gestures, jokes, local forms of gift-giving, and kinship idioms – we can appreciate the particularity of different traditions and language ideologies that shape the ways in which people act, and make valuations and judgments (Henig and Makovicky 2016<ref>Henig, David and Makovicky, Nicolette. (eds.) 2016. Economies of Favour after Socialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>; Lambek 2010<ref>Lambek, Michael. 2010. Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action. New York: Fordham University Press.</ref>).

In other words, euphemisms allow people to talk about corruption in terms of morally positive actions such as sharing, tipping, or even charity. Some expressions – such as ‘beans for the kids’ – appeal to the charity of the victim by claiming a bribe will be passed onto someone else. Indeed, across the globe, many euphemisms draw on local traditions of food provisioning and cooking, as the entries on ‘feeding’ in Russia ([[kormlenie]]) and ‘eating’ in Tanzania (''kula'') in this encyclopaedia show. In Kenya you might be stopped by traffic policemen and asked to contribute to ‘tea for the elders’ (''‘chai ya wazee’'' in Swahili). In North Africa, you may be stopped and asked by the traffic police to sponsor their next ''kahwe'', or coffee. In Turkey, the police would rather you give them ‘cash for soup’ (''çorba parası'') - soup is traditionally eaten at the end of a night of heavy drinking. The phrase ‘a fish starts to stink at the head’ (''‘balık baştan kokar’'') also comes from Turkey, reminding us that petty bribes at street-level are often matched by greater corruption at the top of organizations and institutions. In the same vein, Mexican officials looking to earn a kickback for arranging a business deal will demand they are given ‘a bite’ (''una mordida''). This seemingly universal use of metaphors which connect petty corruption with food indicates the degree to which such practices are connected to both a pragmatic need for survival, as well as an obligation to share or distribute a windfall with friends and relatives.

In other words, euphemisms allow people to talk about corruption in terms of morally positive actions such as sharing, tipping, or even charity. Some expressions – such as ‘beans for the kids’ – appeal to the charity of the victim by claiming a bribe will be passed onto someone else. Indeed, across the globe, many euphemisms draw on local traditions of food provisioning and cooking, as the entries on ‘feeding’ in Russia ([[kormlenie]]) and ‘eating’ in Tanzania (''kula'') in this encyclopaedia show. In Kenya you might be stopped by traffic policemen and asked to contribute to ‘tea for the elders’ (''‘chai ya wazee’'' in Swahili). In North Africa, you may be stopped and asked by the traffic police to sponsor their next ''kahwe'', or coffee. In Turkey, the police would rather you give them ‘cash for soup’ (''çorba parası'') - soup is traditionally eaten at the end of a night of heavy drinking. The phrase ‘a fish starts to stink at the head’ (''‘balık baştan kokar’'') also comes from Turkey, reminding us that petty bribes at street-level are often matched by greater corruption at the top of organizations and institutions. In the same vein, Mexican officials looking to earn a kickback for arranging a business deal will demand they are given ‘a bite’ (''una mordida''). This seemingly universal use of metaphors which connect petty corruption with food indicates the degree to which such practices are connected to both a pragmatic need for survival, as well as an obligation to share or distribute a windfall with friends and relatives.

==Notes==

==Notes==