On Leviathan’s Tail: Anthropological Studies of Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats

Q3 Social Sciences
Aleksandra Zakharova, Alexandra Martynenko
{"title":"On Leviathan’s Tail: Anthropological Studies of Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats","authors":"Aleksandra Zakharova, Alexandra Martynenko","doi":"10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-59-11-47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article precedes a selection of papers written as a result of the seminar on the anthropology of bureaucracy in modern Russia. The text offers a brief overview of the development of research into bureaucracy, where studies are mainly made in a polemic with Max Weber’s model of the “ideal” bureaucracy. It considers the most significant works that preceded the emergence of an interest in bureaucracy on the part of social scientists, written in the fields of political science and sociology and united by the method of participant observation. The authors pay attention to the difficulties in distinguishing the anthropology of bureaucracy as an independent field, which, on the one hand, is integrated into political anthropology and on the other hand, tends towards the social studies of professions. The article suggests understanding the anthropology of bureaucracy primarily as a certain viewpoint focusing on how management is implemented and how the “state” is reproduced and felt within bureaucratic institutions. The authors distinguish several popular areas in the field of social research into bureaucracy: critical works analyzing primarily the structural violence of bureaucrats against citizens through client classifications, bureaucratic arbitrariness, etc.; works that focus on the moral and affective aspect of bureaucracy, including the moral dilemmas of employees and their feelings; works devoted to the material world of bureaucracy, where documents become important participants in social interaction; research on the experience of interaction with bureaucracy as a client. In addition, the article provides an overview of existing studies (mainly) of the street-level Russian bureaucracy, performed using anthropological methods within the boundaries of different disciplines.","PeriodicalId":52194,"journal":{"name":"Antropologicheskij Forum","volume":"229 1-2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antropologicheskij Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-59-11-47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article precedes a selection of papers written as a result of the seminar on the anthropology of bureaucracy in modern Russia. The text offers a brief overview of the development of research into bureaucracy, where studies are mainly made in a polemic with Max Weber’s model of the “ideal” bureaucracy. It considers the most significant works that preceded the emergence of an interest in bureaucracy on the part of social scientists, written in the fields of political science and sociology and united by the method of participant observation. The authors pay attention to the difficulties in distinguishing the anthropology of bureaucracy as an independent field, which, on the one hand, is integrated into political anthropology and on the other hand, tends towards the social studies of professions. The article suggests understanding the anthropology of bureaucracy primarily as a certain viewpoint focusing on how management is implemented and how the “state” is reproduced and felt within bureaucratic institutions. The authors distinguish several popular areas in the field of social research into bureaucracy: critical works analyzing primarily the structural violence of bureaucrats against citizens through client classifications, bureaucratic arbitrariness, etc.; works that focus on the moral and affective aspect of bureaucracy, including the moral dilemmas of employees and their feelings; works devoted to the material world of bureaucracy, where documents become important participants in social interaction; research on the experience of interaction with bureaucracy as a client. In addition, the article provides an overview of existing studies (mainly) of the street-level Russian bureaucracy, performed using anthropological methods within the boundaries of different disciplines.
利维坦的尾巴:官僚机构和官僚的人类学研究
本文是现代俄罗斯官僚制度人类学研讨会的论文选集。文中简要概述了官僚制研究的发展历程,其中的研究主要是在与马克斯-韦伯的 "理想 "官僚制模式的论战中进行的。它探讨了在社会科学家对官僚制产生兴趣之前的最重要的作品,这些作品是在政治学和社会学领域撰写的,并采用了参与观察法。作者注意到了将官僚制人类学作为一个独立领域加以区分的困难,一方面,它被纳入了政治人类学,另一方面,它又倾向于职业的社会研究。文章建议将官僚制人类学主要理解为一种特定的观点,侧重于管理是如何实施的,以及 "国家 "是如何在官僚制机构中再现和感受到的。作者区分了官僚制社会研究领域的几个热门领域:主要分析官僚通过客户分类、官僚专断等方式对公民实施结构性暴力的批判性著作;关注官僚制的道德和情感方面的著作,包括员工的道德困境及其感受;致力于官僚制物质世界的著作,其中文件成为社会互动的重要参与者;关于作为客户与官僚制互动体验的研究。此外,文章还概述了在不同学科范围内使用人类学方法对俄罗斯基层官僚机构进行的现有研究(主要是)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antropologicheskij Forum
Antropologicheskij Forum Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信