Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Baiocchi.2008 Political Ethnography
Baiocchi.2008 Political Ethnography
The
Bl
Oxfo
SOC
So
17
©
J
10.
053
No
1
0
155?
Orig
o39?Ethnos
urnal
ackw
51-9020
2007
cio
vem
1111/
inal
?
O
rd,
l?
o ber
gel
CT
UK
j
yArt
.lohe in
17Publ
C
m2007
icl hoioPolis
the
51-9020.
oAut
pmil
es
ishing
at
pass rn ©
2007
Lt
2007
d .00053.
Blac xkw ellPublishing Ltd
Abstract
In the social sciences, there is renewed attention to political ethnography, a research
method that is based on close-up and real-time observation of actors involved in
political processes, at times even extending the definition of these processes to move
beyond categories of state, civil society, and social movements. This article examines
the emergence of political ethnography from a number of disciplinary locations,
such as political science, the cultural turn in sociology, and anthropology, and shows
the value of this new approach for understanding how politics work in everyday life.
Introduction
Political ethnographies are a relative novelty for the social sciences. They
are new in that there is today a resurgence of ethnographic studies that
deal with the formal province of political sociology or political science:
states, nations, social movements, political culture, and revolutions. In the
last 15 years, these have included studies like Lancaster’s (1988) ethnography
of Managua neighborhoods during the revolution; Brown’s (1997) study
of AIDS activism in Vancouver; Auyero’s (2001) study of Peronist networks
in Argentina; Lichterman’s (1996) ethnography of forms of activist com-
mitment; Eliasoph’s (1998) study of political apathy; Wood’s study of
faith-based community networks (2002); and Glaeser’s (2000) study of
police officials in postreunification Germany, among many others. It has
also included special issues of journals like the Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography special issue on the ‘Far Right’, and two issues of Qualitative
Sociology dedicated to political ethnography. As an indicator of the novelty
of these studies, the introduction to the special issue of Qualitative
Sociology1 by Auyero (2006, 257) states that ‘politics and its main protagonists
(state official, politicians, and activists) remain un(der)studied by ethnography’s
mainstream’. A set of reflections in States and Societies, the political sociology
newsletter, has practitioners of political ethnography reflecting on the
challenges of ‘risking inconvenience’ by undertaking ethnography and
justifying and publishing such work in a subfield whose mandate is to
© 2008 The Authors
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
140 The Ethnos in the Polis
‘study the “big” world of power and institutions, not the “small world”
of everyday interaction between ordinary people’ (Lichterman 2005a, 1–2).
Yet such ethnographies have been around for a long time, even if not
always prominently recognized as central to sociology and allied disciplines.
In anthropology, concerns with forms of authority and power date to the
founding of the discipline, and are the analytical focus of many studies in
the post–World War II period. In addition to the Manchester school
ethnographies, like Epstein’s Politics in an Urban African Community (1958),
postwar investigations of clientelism and ‘pathological’ social formations,
like Banfield’s Moral Basis of a Backward Society (1958) or Lewis’s Five
Families (1959), are essentially political ethnographies. In sociology, under
the guise of community studies, since the 1930s scholars have engaged in
direct observation of neighborhood activists, political networks, and the
day-to-day life of politics. Many of the most famous such studies, such as
Robert and Helen Lynd’s Middletown studies (1929, 1937), Hunter’s study
of Atlanta (1953), or Vidich and Bensman’s study of Candor, New York
(1956), had strong, if not explicit ethnographic components. The Lynds,
for example, emulated the ‘approach of the cultural anthropologist’ (1929,
3) in describing the modes of behavior that prevailed in Muncie, Indiana.
It is clear that ethnography, ‘close-up, on-the-ground observation of
people and institutions in real time’ where the investigator detects ‘how
and why agents act think and feel’ (Wacquant 2003, 5, cited in Auyero
2006) can offer special insights for the study of politics. If we think of the
study of politics broadly as the study of societal power (its distribution,
reproduction, and transformation) and the structures, institutions, move-
ments, and collective identities that both maintain and challenge it, the
ethnographic gaze can mean any one of the following:
1 Studying politics, defined as the events, institutions, or actors that are
normally considered ‘political’ (e.g., social movements, or states), but in
an ethnographic way: at a smaller scale and as they happen. We call this
version ethnographies of political actors and institutions.
2 Studying routine encounters between people and those institutions and
actors, encounters normally invisible in nonethnographic ways (e.g., the
encounter between organized social movements and nonparticipants; or
the encounters with state bureaucracies or welfare agencies). We refer
to this version below as encounters with formal politics.
3 Studying other kinds of events, institutions, or actors altogether, that
while invisible from nonethnographic vantage points, are of consequence
to politics in some way (e.g., apathy, or nonparticipation in social
movements). Below, we call this the lived experience of the political.
Many political ethnographies do not exclusively fall into one or the
other category; instead, we use these categories as a heuristic device. The
first category might more readily come to mind as constituting political
ethnography, but we make the argument that the second and third
© 2008 The Authors Sociology Compass 2/1 (2008): 139–155, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00053.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The Ethnos in the Polis 141
versions are also important. The first version includes studies of social
movements, revolutions, civil society organizations, although ‘under the
microscope’, detailing the experiences and processes taking place in those
institutions or among the actors in question (Auyero 2006). For example,
Lichterman’s (2005b) account of various protestant volunteering and advocacy
projects shows that group customs that invite reflective and critical discussion
contributed to the formation of successful external ‘bridges’ or ties.
The second and third versions might be less readily considered political
ethnography, but are just as important in the insights they provide about
politics. The second version, encounters with formal politics, moves away from
the inner workings of recognizable actors and institutions in politics, like states
and social movements, and toward their boundaries. These ethnographies
principally include studies of encounters with states or state bureaucracies
as well as the study of the blurry boundaries between those formal institutions
and informal politics, such as the ‘grey zones’ of clandestine political
activity (Auyero 2007) or participants at the edge of social movements
(Wolford 2005). The third version, the lived experience of the political, takes
the broadest definition of what constitutes the political. Objects of study
include studies of apathy, instead of engagement, or of conversations at sites
ordinarily thought to be nonpolitical. But in these cases, the ethnographer
then makes the analytical link to political culture, or nation, or another
relevant political process. In this latter definition, it is not that political actors
as understood by the discipline may have fuzzy boundaries examined up
close, but that the everyday in itself becomes a politically relevant site,
whether or not recognizable ‘political actors’ are present. Navaro-Yashin
(2002), provides a an example of this style of political ethnography, where
fashion shows and sporting events, among other mundane places, become
sites where the political can emerge through discourse, actions, or both.
Political ethnographers often make the claim that the ethnographic gaze
calls into question many of the assumptions of traditional political studies,
and that this can call for a significant retheorization. The advantages of
political ethnography, as alluded to in this introduction, are multiple. The first
advantage is that ethnographic studies of politics can provide an understanding
of how state, national, or global actions play themselves out on local stages
(Burawoy 2000; Scott 1986). Another advantage is that practices in the
political realm can be examined. Questions such as how do people (not)
get involved in politics can be answered by studying how individuals
negotiate their actions in regards to political issues in their everyday lives
(Auyero 2003; Eliasoph 1998). Finally, both of these advantages get back
to the idea of the lived experiences of the political. Where previous studies
of politics used broad strokes to paint a picture of political life, political
ethnography allows the researcher to bring up the mundane details that
can affect politics, providing a ‘thick description’ where one was missing.
In this sense, ‘political ethnography provides privileged access to its processes,
causes, and effects’ of broader political processes (Tilly 2006, 410).
© 2008 The Authors Sociology Compass 2/1 (2008): 139–155, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00053.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
142 The Ethnos in the Polis
topics and observed how talk naturally occurred, coding it for frames.
While neither study was ethnographic, they were both very much concerned
with individual acts of meaning-making, which will become important
for subsequent ethnographies.
government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The nationalist parties, Hansen
claims, used narratives based in the moral superiority of (middle-class)
Hinduism, separating their moral high ground from the lower classes and
other religions, in particular Islam. For example, the Hindu parties used
the construction of a temple in Ayodhya as a means to foster a national,
moral community. A brick drive was started where towns collected bricks
and performed a ceremony around them before being sent to the temple
site. The drives were most successful in areas with high Muslim populations.
Religious antagonism was used here as a means to foster a nationalism
based most strongly on Hinduism, relegating non-Hindu Indians as second-
class citizens. Here, national parties use everyday experiences with others
such as Muslims or lower-class people as a means of mobilizing support for
Hindu nationalism. Glaeser (2000) examines the creation of East and West
German identities among the police forces in postunification Germany.
Basing his study on a Potsdam and Köpenick police station, Glaeser uses
interviews and observation to see how Germans use space, language, and
actions to identify and deal with the change to a unified German state. As
opposed to studies that look at how citizens manage this divide, Glaeser
instead looks at police officers, showing how people who represent the state
come to terms with their employment position in regards to national identity.
Eliasoph (1998) uses political ethnography to understand why individuals
try to remove themselves from voicing political beliefs in public venues.
Eliasoph examines this problem from a number of sites – PTA meetings,
a local bar, and even an environmental activist group – to see how
individuals created communities, but without overtly politicizing those
communities. Perhaps the most odd example of this came from the
environmental movement studied. This group used tactics of individualizing
the problems of environmental damage as a way to create change. Instead
of utilizing political discourses on the environment, individuals learned to
‘speak for themselves’, focusing on the self and one’s own reasonings, all
the while trying not to speak for others in the community (Eliasoph 1998,
207–8). The result was a difficulty in debating with public officials, who
used science and technical information to oppose the activists’ goals and
interest-based demands. Politics, Eliasoph argues, has now taken a turn in the
public sphere where it is increasingly difficult to actively engage in direct
politics using a language of moral right. Now public political discussions
tend to focus on individualized, interest-based reasonings of political beliefs.
Auyero’s investigation of ‘political clientelism’ among the urban poor
in Villa Paraíso, a shantytown on the outskirts of Buenos Aires is also
exemplary. Based on extensive fieldwork among the poor and local
brokers, Auyero investigates the meaning of these networks and exchanges.
Clientelism has long been a theme for political scientists who observed
that, as an asymmetrical relationship, perpetuates the social standing of
both patron and client, and is sometimes seen as something akin to ‘false
consciousness’. But by observing it closely and unpacking its meanings for
© 2008 The Authors Sociology Compass 2/1 (2008): 139–155, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00053.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
146 The Ethnos in the Polis
site in West Bengal, for example, an area dominated by the Communist Party
(CPI-M), and where the poor are dependent on party elites, participation in
local village councils did not directly impact major decisions, but the polit-
ically charged atmosphere meant that acts of impropriety or embezzlement
came to light and occasioned political responses by the dominant party.
Contexts of justification
Political ethnographies are a largely interdisciplinary affair. Even a cursory
look at citations in the ethnographies in this review will attest to a lively
debate across and against disciplinary and area-study boundaries. But political
ethnographers often write from within disciplines that vary in their
evaluations of what constitutes an acceptable contribution to knowledge or
science. According to the standards of positive science, which exert influence
in political science and sociology, ethnographies are at a disadvantage:
they can be lacking in terms of representativeness, reliability, and replicability
(Burawoy 1998, 26). Here we briefly review disciplinary trends in how
political ethnographers justify their theoretical contributions.
In political science, where ethnographic methods are relatively rare,
ethnography is often deployed as a means of providing a contextualized
‘value added’ to studies on politics (Bayard de Volo and Schatz 2004; Fenno
1986). There appear to be two main ways in which this ‘value added’ is
given: through historicizing and contextualizing the ethnographic case
(Laitin 1986; Pereira 1997; Rubin 1997; Schatz 2004), and by using
ethnography in a mixed methods approach, where the multiple methods
are generally used to test some middle-range theory relevant to the case
(Bayard de Volo 2001; Laitin 1986, 1998; Pereira 1997; Stokes 1995).
Political scientists that use a mixed methods approach often combine
ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with survey data (Laitin 1998;
Pereira 1997; Stokes 1995). This is generally done as a way to improve
the validity of a study (Bayard de Volo and Schatz 2004, 270). Tying
ethnographic case data with either large national surveys or of surveys of
the population being studied helps create results that speak not only to the
particularities of the site, but also to a broader spectrum. In some cases,
the ethnographic data become less important to the whole narrative, and
the distinctiveness of ethnographic insights less central to the theoretical
© 2008 The Authors Sociology Compass 2/1 (2008): 139–155, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00053.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
150 The Ethnos in the Polis
Conclusions
We concur with the evaluations of others who have examined the field,
and agree that political ethnography can bring unique insights and that
© 2008 The Authors Sociology Compass 2/1 (2008): 139–155, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00053.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The Ethnos in the Polis 151
Short Biographies
Gianpaolo Baiocchi (PhD 2001: University of Wisconsin) writes on
politics, culture, and theory. His most recent book, Militants and Citizens:
The Politics of Participation in Porto Alegre, was published by Stanford
University Press.
© 2008 The Authors Sociology Compass 2/1 (2008): 139–155, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00053.x
Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
152 The Ethnos in the Polis
Notes
* Correspondence address: 240 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
Email: gp_baiocchi@mac.com.
1
To be published as an edited volume.
2
A small sampling of non-English works follows. In Portuguese, see Zaluar (1994) and Goldman
(2003); in French, see Abeles (1989) and Briquet (1997); in Italian, see Gribualdi and Musella
(1998) and Bassi (1996); in Spanish, see Isla and Taylor (1995) and Marcos (2006); in German,
see Heidemann (2002) and Amborn (1993).
3
General theory is used here as a foil of middle-range theory. Middle-range theorizing, made
popular by Merton ( [1949] 1967), follows the belief that older, grand theories were too
encompassing for empirically based social scientists to test. Less explanatory and grandiose
theories, based on particular contexts and settings, are offered as a better epistemological base
for social scientific research. General theory (or grand theory) does not specify the exact places
where the theory can or should be applied. It crosses contexts, settings, individuals, and
institutions.
References
Abeles, Marc 1989. Jours Tranquilles En 89. Ethnologie Politique D’Un Département Français.
Paris: O. Jacob.
Amborn, Hermann 1993. ‘Handlungsfähiger Diskurs: Reflexion und Aktionsforschung.’ Pp.
129– 150 in Grundfragen der Ethnologie, edited by von Wolfdietrich Schmied-Kowarzik and
Justin Stagl. Berlin: Reimer.
Arias, Desmond 2006. Drugs and Democracy in Rio de Janeiro. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina Press.
Auyero, Javier 2001. Poor People’s Politics: Peronist Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Auyero, Javier 2003. Contentious Lives: Two Argentine Women, Two Protests, and the Quest for
Recognition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Auyero, Javier 2006. ‘Introductory Note to Politics under the Microscope: Special Issue on
Political Ethnography I.’ Qualitative Sociology 29: 257–259.
Auyero, Javier 2007. Routine Politics and Collective Violence in Argentina: The Gray Zone of State
Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, Robert Jr. 1974. Radical Urban Politics: The Alinsky Approach. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo 2005. Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto
Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Banfield, Edward C. 1958. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bassi, Marco 1996. I Borana: Una Società Assembleare. Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.
Bayard de Volo, Lorraine 2001. Mothers of Heroes and Martyrs: Gender Identity Politics in Nicaragua
1979 –1999. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bayard de Volo, Lorraine and Edward Schatz 2004. ‘From the Inside Out: Ethnographic
Methods in Political Research.’ PS: Political Science and Politics 37: 267–271.
Bellah, Robert 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (with
Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton). Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Briquet, Jean-Louis 1997. La Tradition en Mouvement. Clientélisme et politique en Corse. Paris:
Belin.
Brown, Michael P. 1997. RePlacing Citizenship: AIDS Activism and Radical Democracy. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Burawoy, Michael 1991. Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burawoy, Michael 1998. ‘The Extended Case Method.’ Sociological Theory 16: 4 –33.
Burawoy, Michael 2000. Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and Imaginations in a Postmodern
World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chatterjee, Partha 2004. The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in most of the
World. New York: Columbia University Press.
Corbridge, Stuart, Glyn Williams, Manoj Srivastava and Rene Veron 2005. Seeing the State:
Governance and Governmentality in India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Donham, Donald L. 1999. Marxist Modern. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Eliasoph, Nina 1998. Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, Arnold Leonard 1958. Politics in an Urban African Community. Manchester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
Fenno, Richard F. 1986. ‘Observation, Context, and Sequence in the Study of Politics.’ American
Political Science Review 80: 3 –15.
Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, William A., Bruce Fireman and Steven Rytina 1982. Encounters with Unjust Authority.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Gay, Robert 1994. Popular Organization and Democracy in Rio De Janeiro: A Tale of Two Favelas.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Glaeser, Andreas 2000. Divided in Unity: Identity, Germany, and the Berlin Police. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Goldman, Marcio 2003. ‘Os Tambores dos Mortos e os Tambores dos Vivos. Etnografia,
Antropologia e Política em Ilhéus, Bahia.’ Revista de Antropologia 46: 445–476.
Gribualdi, Gabriela and Luigi Musella 1998. ‘Il Processo alla Clientela. Il Caso di Napoli Nelle
Inchieste Giudiziarie Degli Anni.’ Novanta Quaderni Storici 1: 115 – 142.
Gupta, Akhil 1995. ‘Blurred Boundaries: The Discourse of Corruption, the Culture of Politics,
and the Imagined State.’ American Ethnologist 22: 375 – 402.
Gutmann, Matthew C. 2002. The Romance of Democracy: Compliant Defiance in Contemporary
Mexico. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hansen, Thomas B. 1999. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Heidemann, Frank 2002. ‘Über die Langlebigkeit von Ethnischen Konflikten und die Onto-
logisierung von Gewalt: Ein Rückblick auf den Singhalesen-Tamilen Konflikt in Sri Lanka.’
Münchner Beiträge zur Völkerkunde 7: 175–186.
Hunter, Floyd 1953. Community and Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Inda, Jonathan X. 2005. Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality, and Life Politics.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishiing.
Isla, Alejandro and Julie Taylor 1995. Terror e Identidad en los Andes. El Caso del Noroeste
Argentino. Cusco, Peru: En Revista Andina, diciembre.
Kerkvliet, Benedict J. 2005. The Power of Everyday Politics: How Vietnamese Peasants Transformed
National Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kornblum, William 1974. Blue-Collar Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laitin, David D. 1986. Hegemony and Culture: Politics and Religious Change among the Yoruba.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laitin, David D. 1998. Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lancaster, Roger N. 1988. Thanks to God and the Revolution: Popular Religion and Class Consciousness
in the New Nicaragua. New York: Columbia University Press.
Law, John 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
Lewis, Oscar 1959. Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Lichterman, Paul 1996. The Search for Political Community: American Activists Reinventing
Commitment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lichterman, Paul 2005a. Risking inconvenience. States and Societies: Newsletter of the Political
Sociology Section of the ASA.
Lichterman, Paul 2005b. Elusive Togetherness : Church Groups Trying to Bridge America’s Divisions.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd 1929. Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American
Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.
Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd 1937. Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.
Mahmood, Saba 2005. Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marcos, Dolores 2006. Asedio a la Democracia. Facetas del Autoritarismo en el NOA. Tucumán,
Argentina: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.
McAdam, Doug 1988. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merton, Robert K. [1949] 1967. ‘On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range.’ Pp. 39–72
in Robert Merton, ed. On Theoretical Sociology: Five Essays, Old and New. New York: Free
Press.
Mische, Ann 2006. Partisan Publics: Contention and Mediation across Brazilian Youth Activist Networks.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Navaro-Yashin, Yael 2002. Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ong, Aihwa 2003. Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Ong, Aihwa 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Pereira, Anthony W. 1997. The End of the Peasantry: The Rural Labor Movement in Northeast
Brazil, 1961–1988. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pun, Ngai 2005. Made in China: Women Factory Workers in a Global Workplace. Durham,
NC/Hong Kong: Duke University Press/Hong Kong University Press.
Rubin, Jeffrey W. 1997. Decentering the Regime: Ethnicity, Radicalism, and Democracy in Juchitán,
Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Schatz, Edward 2004. Modern Clan Politics:Tthe Power of ‘Blood’ in Kazakhstan and Beyond.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Scott, James C. 1986. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford 1988. ‘Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant
Mobilization.’ International Social Movement Research 1: 197–217.
Stokes, Susan C. 1995. Cultures in Conflict: Social Movements and the State in Peru. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Suttles, Gerald D. 1968. The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Taussig, Michael T. 1997. The Magic of the State. New York: Routledge.
Taussig, Michael T. 1980. The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Tilly, Charles 2006. ‘Afterward: Political Ethnography as Art and Science.’ Qualitative Sociology
29: 409 – 412.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt 1993. In the Realm of the Diamond Queen: Marginality in an Out-of-the-Way
Place. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vidich, Arthur J. and Joseph Bensman 1958. Small Town in Mass Society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Vincent, Joan 1990. Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions, and Trends. Tucson, AZ: University
of Arizona Press.
Wacquant, Loïc 2003. Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wedeen, Lisa 1999. Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary
Syria. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Werbner, Richard P. 1984. ‘The Manchester School in South-Central Africa.’ Annual Review of
Anthropology 13: 157–85.
Wolford, Wendy 2005. ‘Agrarian Moral Economies and Neoliberalism in Brazil: Competing
Worldviews and the State in the Struggle for Land.’ Environment and Planning A 37: 241– 261.
Wood, Richard L. 2002. Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zaluar, Alba 1994. Condominio do Diabo. Revan, Rio de Janeiro: Editora da UFRJ and Editora
de Janeiro.