In the latest blog from our Legislatures in Uncertain Times conference, Alex Prior (University of Leeds) discusses the use of ‘narrative’ as a means of strengthening parliamentary engagement.
1 – Understanding and conceptualising engagement
Parliamentary engagement could be strengthened through a more comprehensive approach to engagement, and to narrative. There exists no stable definition of engagement across Parliament, or even across single departments. Individual staff members experience inconsistency towards engagement within their own job role. Definitions of engagement are fluid and inconsistent, and vary from one task, staff member, or department to the next. This creates difficulty in quantifying (and conceptualising) ‘success’; how does Parliament want citizens to engage? And what constitutes engagement?
This project offers a critique of traditional, unidirectional definitions of political engagement. Much political science literature assumes engagement to be encapsulated by (1) an institution ‘reaching out’, or (2) citizens ‘speaking back’. Quantifiers for the first definition are largely associated with the potential ‘reach’ of an institutional message; it is entirely misleading to describe them as engagement per se. In this context, what is referred to as engagement is actually broadcasting; one-way communication that prioritises quantity over quality, obscuring the nature and temporality of the interaction.
The second definition refers to a set of behaviours that include voting, party membership and petition signing. Though these acts represent an indispensable form of participation, they fall short of political engagement. This PhD project incorporates these two definitions, focusing on the dynamic between them: a consistent and meaningful dialogue between citizens and their institution(s). In emphasising consistency, meaningfulness, and dialogue, this project proposes narrative as one of the most promising means for strengthening engagement.
2 – Engagement and narrative; building an analogy
Political representation, democratic milestones, and the human impact of legislation have all been offered by Parliament as ‘stories’, to showcase its historical (and continued) relevance to citizens. This project aims to further unpack these narratives, advocating their inclusion into a new parliamentary engagement policy. An innovative visual analogy – based on fractals – illustrates the interplay between narrative and engagement.
A Sierpinski Triangle; a well-known fractal pattern in which the general structure mirrors its individual parts.
Fractals perfectly analogise the interplay between narrative and engagement; they illustrate why narratives are engaging. This is not the first fractal analogy within social science; the most recent is Shaul Shenhav’s Analyzing Social Narratives (2015). However, Shenhav’s primarily structural approach downplays “the inherent agency of human actors” (Krebs et al., 2017, p.3), i.e. the importance of the reader. Barthes once argued that “a narrative cannot take place without a narrator and a listener (or reader)” (1975, p.260); without acknowledging the reader, there is no ‘narrative’ to study. A fractal analogy for narrative must take account of this.
Crucial to the appeal (and success) of a story is the reader’s self-identification within a broader context, for which fractals provide a visual shorthand. Consider the Sierpinski Triangle above, and the green circle; zooming in on any part of the Sierpinski Triangle reflects its overall structure. Within a fractal, individual elements are structured and magnified. Narratives structure individual moments but also magnify them, alluding to grand, universal stories. A narrative, like a fractal pattern, is a ‘transfiguring mirror’ (Nietzsche, 1993, p.23); therein lies its appeal.[1]
3 – Fieldwork objectives; exploring stories
The research methodology makes use of quantitative (questionnaires with closed and open questions) and qualitative analyses (focus groups, elite interviews and discourse analysis). The fieldwork originally intended to explore narrative in two ways. Firstly, the manner in which research participants related their degree of political engagement through telling personal stories. The second intention was to gather viewpoints on Parliament’s use of storytelling thus far, shedding light on its effectiveness.
Parliamentary storytelling was generally described in positive terms; as a means for rendering the political process ‘human’, and facilitating personal connection to it. Moreover, certain Select Committee reports were described by the participants as effective applications of storytelling (Communities and Local Government Committee, 2017; Petitions Committee, 2016). Regarding the Petitions Committee report, one participant (a parliamentary staff member) cited the submission of personal stories by the public – i.e. engagement through narrative – as crucial to the successes of the inquiry.
These themes speak to a central strength of narrative; its conduciveness to empathy (Verovšek, 2016; Benjamin, 2006; Nussbaum, 2001; Arendt, 1958), or what Walter Benjamin describes, rather beautifully, as the “reader see[ing] himself living this written life” (2006, p.372). However, the focus groups also facilitated problematisation of certain narratives, such as female suffrage:
P5: …I find it interesting that Parliament as a body celebrates [the Suffragettes] […] if that happened now, we’d be very, you know, the MPs would be very anti-that, if there were women blowing up houses, throwing bricks […] but […] because it was a hundred years ago it’s like “ah yeah, they were all amazing” …
Similarly, on abolishing the slave trade:
P2: “…what about all the years when Parliament didn’t abolish slavery? What about all the slavers that actually were here, and were Members themselves?” […] one has to be a little bit careful about the idea that…things change, if laws change with that…does that necessarily mean that Parliament was an engine of progressive change?
What the above extracts demonstrate is that narratives are (and must be) dialogic, dynamic and contextualised; they do not ‘speak for themselves’. This reinforces the theoretical framework of the project – emphasising the importance of the subjective listener/reader – as well as validating the use of focus groups to dissect these concepts.
4 – Fieldwork findings: ‘imagined paraphrasing’ and ‘rhetorical conversation’
One of the most intriguing elements highlighted by the fieldwork was a particular form of mimesis that we will call ‘imagined paraphrasing’. Mimesis, a narrative device, refers to a direct presentation of speech. Frequently a participant would adopt a voice that was not their own, ‘quoting’ a sentiment that they did not necessarily share, but did accept as a theme within popular opinion:
Unless you go out of your way to choose [to study] Politics you will never know anything about it. And then “oh it’s too confusing, I can’t be bothered now, it’s too confusing, there’s too much to learn”.
Furthermore, there were several instances of what can be referred to as ‘rhetorical conversation’. One participant (and sometimes several) would recognise another participant’s ‘imagined paraphrasing’, and engage with it in the same tone:
P4: I think a lot of feedback tends to be “is there any point in this?”
P2: “Where’s it going?”
P4: “Where’s this going?” you know, “is this going to be another 20 minutes out of my day?”
P2: “Shoved in a drawer, nothing will happen”.
Another example is provided below:
P3: …don’t make the connection or they think it’ll make no difference, you know, “politicians are all the same”.
P1: “Doesn’t matter who gets in, in power”
A conversation is thereby simulated; the narrative that the conversation refers to does not necessarily have any adherents within the focus group. Nevertheless it is accepted – by the participants using these narrative devices – as a social reality. The above extracts are representative in that when ‘imagined paraphrasing’ and ‘rhetorical conversation’ were used, their tone was almost always negative.
Both of these devices demonstrate the relevance of narrative as a medium for communicating perceived realities within political engagement. They also validate a fractal analogy, since they represent a broader narrative through simulating a single element (an indicative voice or conversation). Fieldwork research highlighted general positivity in theory towards parliamentary engagement through storytelling. However, in practice a more joined-up approach appears essential; communicating stories, rather than simply advertising their existence. The presentation of parliamentary stories must not be treated as an ‘end point’ of engagement policy, but instead form part of a consistent, meaningful dialogue.
Notes
Alex Prior is a PhD student in the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds, where his research focuses on political engagement and the role of Parliament. His work investigates the usefulness of narrative and storytelling in conceptualising politics and encouraging participation. You can follow him on Twitter: @VoterEngagement
[1] Appeal is not synonymous with enjoyment. The public narratives underlying the 2009 expenses scandal, for example, are not necessarily enjoyed by the sections of the public that accept (and reinforce) them, but they are appealing inasmuch as they ‘make sense’ of a situation.