The Bureaucratic Production of Difference

Front matter

THE BUREAUCRATIC

PRODUCTION OF DIFFERENCE

Julia M. Eckert (ed.) The Bureaucratic Production of Difference

Contents

The Office Ethos and Ethics in Migration Bureaucracies!

Julia AE CIE PR RE E EE

Keeping Numbers Low in the Name of Fairness Ethos and Ethics in a Swiss Asylum Administration Eauro:Affolter -siie cn ee pipe ee le TRE es

Conclusion

While acknowledging the myriad constraints, diverse goals and contradictory logics bureaucrats are entangled in, as well as the possible influence of personal and public morals (Fassin 2015), the point here is to refocus attention on the ethics of office. Dynamics born of relations between ethos and ethics, and their impact on bureaucratic practice, have not been adequately addressed in recent literature on the anthropology of bureaucracy or policy. Too focussed on either rule-orientation or discretionary freedom, many approaches have overlooked the way interpretations of the commonweal shape bureaucratic practice. We stress that such interpretations cannot be considered extra-bureaucratic ethical concerns, but are intrinsic to the profession (see also Bierschenk and Olivier de Sardan 2014: 12-13; Lentz 2014). Certainly, situations exist where orientation towards the public good is not of great importance in the conduct of public servants; in such situations many factors possibly contribute to a minimalidentification with the job (see, e.g. Bierschenk 2014: 222). In many other situations, however, viewing oneself as a public servant who serves a public good is fundamental to the way people conduct their work. This holds true, I would claim, in such diverse situations as in the Indian police service (Eckert 2005), among Ghanaian public servants (Lentz 2015) or in the situations explored in the contributions to this volume. However, where such orientations hold sway and how they develop or diminish is an empirical question. Differences might arise not only in accord with the states in question and the historical moments of analysis, but also in different areas of state administration. Ethos and ethics are highly contextual, and so is their relevance for bureaucratic practice.

Atthe same time, attention to the ethos and ethics of office is as essential to understanding bureaucratic practice as attention to extra-bureaucratic expediencies. The notion of the office, of professionalism in civil service, even of ubiquitous laments about failure, corruption or inadequacy confirm the relevance of the ethics of office to understanding the work of bureaucracies. They define the ways a commonweal is best served and delineate its moral community. Furthermore, differentiating between the ethos and ethics of bureaucracies and investigating the dynamics that arise from their relations can provide insights into institutional and legal change. Bureaucrats' quotidian struggles to align ethos and ethics, or to justify their divergence, bring about incremental changes that sometimes need normative acknowledgement to effect legal reform.

Affolter, Laura. 2016. Taking Decisions in a Swiss Asylum Administration. ‘Institutonal Habitus’ and Patterns of Practice. Manuscript, on file with the author.

Arendt, Hannah. 1968. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Bear, Laura, and Nayanika Mathur. 2015. Introduction. Remaking the Public Good - A New Anthropology of Bureaucracy. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 33(1): 18-34.

Bierschenk, Thomas. 2014. Sedimentation, Fragmentation and Normative Double-Binds in (West) African Public Service. In Thomas Bierschenk and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, eds, States at Work. Dynamics of African Bureaucracies. Leiden: Brill: 221-247.

Bierschenk, Thomas, and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan. 2014. Studying the Dynamics of African Bureaucracies. An Introduction to States at Work. In Thomas Bierschenk and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, eds, States at Work. Dynamics of African Bureaucracies. Leiden: Brill: 3-34.

Cancik, Pascale. 2004. “Selbst ist das Volk” - Der Ruf nach “Volkstümlichkeit der Verwaltung” in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Der Staat, 43: 298-327.

De Genova, Nicholas. 2016. The ‘Crisis’ of the European Border Regime. Towards a Marxist Theory of Borders. International Socialism. A Quarterly Review of Socialist Theory, [online] 150, available at: http.//isj.org.uk/thecrisis-of-the-european-border-regime-towards-a-marxist-theory-ofborders/ [accessed 6 Jan 2017.

Du Gay, Paul. 2000. In Praise of Bureaucracy; Weber, Organisation, Ethics. London: Sage.

Eckert, Julia. 2005. The Trimurti ofthe State. Sociologus, II: 181-217.

Eckert, Julia. 2012. Theories of Militancy in Practice. Explanations of Muslim Terrorism in India. The Social Science History Journal, 36(3): 47-72.

Fassin, Didier. 2009. Les économies morales revisitées. Annales Histoire, Sciences sociales, 6:1237-1266.

Fassin, Didier. 2012. Toward a Critical Moral Anthropology.. In Didier Fassin, ed., A Companion to Moral Anthropology. Oxford: Wiley: 1-17.

Fassin, Didier. 2015a. Can States Be Moral? In Didier Fassin, ed., The Heart of the State, London: Pluto, ix-xi.

Fassin, Didier. 2015b. Introduction. Governing Precarity. In Didier Fassin, ed., The Heart of the State. London: Pluto: 1-14.

Gill, Nick. 2009. Presentational State Power. Temporal and Spatial Influence Over Asylum Sector Decisionmakers. Transactions, 34: 215-233.

Graeber, David. 2015. The Utopia of Rules; on Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. New York: Melville House.

Gupta, Akhil. 2012. Red Tape. Bureaucracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India. Durham: Duke University Press.

Handelman, Don. 1981. Introduction. The Idea of Bureaucratic Organization. Social Analysis, 9: 5-23.

Handelman, Don. 2004. Nationalism and the Israeli State. Oxford: Berg.

Herzfeld, Michael. 1992. The Social Production of Indifference. Exploring the Symbolic Roots of Western Bureaucracy. New York: Berg.

Hoag, Colin. 2011. Assembling Partial Perspectives. Thoughts on the Anthropology of Bureaucracy. PoLAR, Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 34(1): 81-94.

Heyman, Josiah. 1995. Putting Power in the Anthropology of Bureaucracy. The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico-United States Border. Current Anthropology, 36(2): 261-287.

Hull, Matthew S. 2003. Government of Paper. The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hussain, Nasser. 2007. Beyond Norm and Exception: Guantanamo. Critical Inquiry, 33(4): 734-753.

Klockars, Carl. 1980. The Dirty Harry Problem. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452: 33-47.

Lentz, Carola. 2014. “I Take an Oath to the State, Not the Government”. Career Trajectories and Professional Ethics of Ghanaian Public Servants. In Thomas Bierschenk and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, eds, States at Work. Dynamics of African Bureaucracies. Leiden: Brill: 175-204.

Lipsky, Michael. 1983. Street Level Bureaucrats. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. 2009. Practical Norms. Informal Regulation Within Public Bureaucracies (in Africa and Beyond). In Tom De Herdt and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, eds, Real Governance and Practical Norms in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Game of the Rules. London: Routledge: 19-62.

Osborne, Thomas. 1994. Bureaucracy As a Vocation. Governmentality and Administration in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Journal of Historical Sociology, 7(3): 289-313.

Schlichte, Klaus and Joel Migdal. 2005. Rethinking the State. In Klaus Schlichte, ed., The Dynamics of States. Aldershot: Ashgate: 1-40.

Swedberg, Richard. 2005. The Max Weber Dictionary; Key Words and Central Concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Weber, Max 1919. Politik als Beruf. München und Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot.

Wedel, Janine R., Cris Shore, Gregory Feldman and Stacy Lathrop. 2005. Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 600: 30-51.

Keeping Numbers Low in the Name of Fairness Ethos and Ethics in a Swiss Asylum Administration