DRAMATURGY AND POLITICAL MYSTIFICATION:POLITICAL LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES

John F. Welsh

Pittsburg State University

Mid-American Review of Sociology, 1985,Vol. X, No. 2:3-28

A Critical Dramaturgy of Politics

A major concern of political sociology is with thesocial processes by which political power is convertedinto authority. This general phenomenon can be vieweddramaturgically since authority is a form of impressionmanagement attempting to make rational and legitimate asociety's distribution of political power, especiallywhen the many are subjugated by the few. From asociological standpoint, there exists no natural ornecessary rights of a group of powerful individuals tocontrol the lives of others, the transformation of powerinto authority is a social process which involves bothpolitical ideologies and a technology facilitating themobilization of support and loyalty of a sector of thepopulation which finds itself under the power of aregime. When the transforma.tion of power into authorityis attempted in hierarchical or class societies thereoften occurs the resistance of those whose domination isbeing made "legitimate." It is characteristic of suchsocieties that the dramatization of authority, ifconfronted with the actuality of resistance or the threatof resistance, will rely heavily on processes ofmystifying the social relations based upon class andpower.

This paper presents an analysis of certain processeswithin the political system of the United States whichaim at the transformation of power into authority andwhich do so with the added intention and consequence ofmystifying the social relations of class and power. Thepaper thus presents a perspective which can be called a

-3-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

critical dramaturgy in that it allows the reader tounderstand and challenge the fraudulent legitimations ofpolitical power. Particularly, the paper will present anexamination of some of the processes through which theUnited States political system attempts to present itselfas possessing structures of full participatio~ andauthentic democracy, while it excludes many categor1es ofpeople from participating in the social construc~ion ofpolitical and economic reality. Put most succl~c~ly,this paper demonstrates that the United States polltlcalsystem's claim of democracy and full participation is notmatched by the actuality of its performance. For thepurposes of this analysis, the contradict~on between ~hestate's democratic presentation of 1tself and 1tsprocesses of excluding categories from participation willbe viewed as a technique of class domination. Insocieties with a democratic ethos and an elitist.practice, the Hobbesian problem of order is e~acerbated.The elite's problem of maintaining its dominat10n can beaccomplished in a variety of ways. Force will work -­for a while. Monetary inducements will work for awhile. In the United States it is a dramaturgicaltechnology which affords the state the ability toconstruct a fraudulent social reality in which the massesare conned into believing that they do effectivelyparticipate in the process of political reality con~t:uc­tion, while the system militates against such part1c1pa-

tion at every turn.The fraudulent conversion of power into authority as

practiced by the dominanL socio~political forces in theUnited States constitutes a, mystification of thecharacter of American political life in that the objec­tive outcomes of the state's presentation of self as asystem permitting democratic participation is ~o~ matc~edby its performance. The method of immanent crltlq~e ~111be employed as a means of exposing this contra~1ct10n.The argument will be supported by demonstratlng ~hemystifying aspects of the dramatization of aut~o~ltyfound in (1) the democratic ideology, (2) pol1t1caldebates, (3) the American cult of personality, (4) thestate's current pseudo-critique of bureaucracy and (5)the symbolic generation of patriotism. The .p~perconcludes by offering some comments about the cond1t1onsof political demystification in the United States and how

-4-

Political Mystification

dramaturgical analysis can contribute to the creation ofa more authentic politics.

The False Politics of the Capitalist State

Almost universally in utility. Some classical andcontemporary sociological theorists venerate the state asa functional requ~site for social order. Others regardthe state as a necessary, though inefficient, means forthe achievement of social goals. Others, such as Weber(1958) and Mannheim (1941), even regard the state as theapotheosis of society and the moving force behind themodernization process of developing societies. Criticalperspectives in sociology, however, have not applaudedthe state's existence and operation but have tended toview it as an apparatus through which large segments ofthe population are controlled, pacified and exploited forthe purposes of a privileged social class. At worst,even given the failures of the various socialist revolu­tions to overthrow alienated social life-worlds, someMarxist sociologists still see the seizure of state powerby those categories excluded from full participation inthe social construction of reality as only a transitionalphase on the road to a fully participatory socialistlife-world. In this writer's view, the state is to beviewed as alienated social power itself and must bedismantled simultaneously with the overthrow of elitecontrol of the means of production and processes ofcommunication, if the capacity to fully participate inthe social construction of reality is to be returned tohuman agents. The extension of democratic participationto every realm of human activity does destroy the statein that the split between political freedoms andunfreedoms in other realms of life is repaired.

The critical view of the state as a social agent hasemphasized that the state has always existed not for thebenefit of the totality of society, but instead for theprivate gain of categories within society. Marx, forexample, noted 'that not only did the state exist asalienated social power, but also served as an executivecommittee to direct the interests of the capitalistclass. It must be made obvious that the American state,serving the interests of privileged social ~ategories,

has an interest in maintaining the impression of the

-5-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

identity of state and society. If this impression can besuccessfully maintained the fewer the challenges to itsrole in directing the social processes of everyday life.The use of dramaturgy is particularly useful as thelegitimacy of the state continues to decline in the u.s.More naked forms of political control are difficult touse in a putatively democratic society, although theseexist as well. The identity of the state with society isa mystification of political life even in ,the so-cal~ed

"democratic" societies and must be exposed as a practl.ceof the sociology of fraud. If departures from thedemocratic presentation of the American state can bedemonstrated by showing the exclusion of categories fromparticipation in the process of American pol~t~cal li:e,the fraudulent character of American po11tl.cal ll.febecomes apparent and a process of demystification hasbeen initiated.

The extent to which the capitalist state representsand serves the interests of society must be consideredvariable. What is also variable is the extent to whichthe total population of a society is permitted toparticipate in the social construction of state policies.Systems of political control which have presented

- h h It t t- "themselves as democratic, often Wl.t t e represen a l.veor "parliamentary" appendage, claim to possess structu::esof full participation. When incidences of the exclusl.onof social categories from full participation occur theseare viewed as historical or situational necessities" t~e

p~~sonal failures or. errors of role incumbents, ornon~ntagonistic'contrad1.ctions which 'will be overcome by'the 'continued and improve.d operation, of the .stateapparatus. From the standpoint ofa critical dramaturgy,political systems may be able to solve the problem oforder in such circumstances through giving off expres- I

sions of full participation. Of course, the threat offorce is still an extremely important means ofmaintaining state legitimacy and power, particularly inEastern societies but certainly not limited to the East.In the Western capitalist democracies, the sociology offraud has emerged as the primary means of maintainingstate power and of the maintenance of its legitim~cy.

Thus solVing the legitimation crisis for the Amerl.canstat~ has become a struggle for the control of minds andthe consciousness of the American people (Habermas, 1974;

-6-

Political Mystification

Mueller, 1973; Elder and Cobb, 1983). The increase intechnological sophistication in the means of communica­tion, marketing and advertising, coupled with thecentralization of media ownership and control, constitutethe material base for the capitalist state's managementof consciousness by symbolic means (Schiller, 1971; 1973;1978).

Class societies have always entailed unequal powerrelations and have always developed ideologies which havefunctioned to mystify these power relations for thepurposes of maintaining asymmetrical processes of theconstruction of social life-worlds. Capitalistsocieties, as they accumulated and concentrated wealthand power, developed elaborate mechanics by which unequalpower relations would appear equal and which would appearto allow the maximum political participation of theircitizens regardless of class status. Further, capitalistsocieties have always developed political practiceswhich, in fact, favor certain social classes orcategories at the expense of others and, again, havedeveloped elaborate mechanics to make these practicesappear to favor all social classes. Thus, in thecapitalist states the fundamental political contradictionis that between their natures as class dominatedsocieties and their presentation of self as instrumentsof democratic participation.

What is crucial in balancing this contradiction andthereby maintaining the asymmetrical social and politicalprerogatives, is the seizure by the superordinate socialclass or its agents in the' state of the means ofproducing social knowledge. In seizing the processes ofcommunication, symbolic interaction and reality' construc­tion, the superordinate social class is relativelyassured of its ability to maintain its hegemony. InCapital Marx (1972) showed how the fetishism ofcommodities mystified labor's domination by capital andin his various political writings elaborated themechanics of ideological control which were operative atthe time to prevent full working class participation inthe state. Gramsci (1971) and Lukacs (1971) alsodeveloped concepts aimed at explaining and demystifyingthe contradictions of the capitalist state. Of course,the theoretical and practical interest Marx, Gramsci andLukacs had in political mystification was in

-7-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

understanding and challenging the process by which thesuperordinate class preempts and controls the critiqueand challenge subordinate social categories tend toadvance in opposition to unequal class and power rela­tions. The political problem of the superordinate classis maintaining the impression of democratic participationin the face of a multitude of possible disruptions andpenetrations of this presentation of self.

In attempting to further elaborate on these andother problems of the modern capitalist state, the rela­tively recent work of Marcuse (1964), Piccone (1978) andLuke (1978) have contributed to a dramaturgical critiqueof American political life. In his famous "one­dimensionality thesis," Marcuse describes the essentiallytotalitarian nature of advanced capitalism. Ideologicalcontrols are so effective that alternative politicalpossibilities seem impossible and irrational even tothose who would most benefit by them. Thus, capitalistsociety exists largely without internal opposition.However, the oppositional movements of the 1960s andearly 1970s seemed to contradict and invalidate Marcuse'shypothesis. Upon reflection, Piccone has affirmed moderncapitalism's totalitarian nature but has argued that itoperates in a different way than that described byMarcuse.

Marcuse argued that capitalism historically hadopposition but managed to co-opt it and feed off it,becoming stronger and more ideologically impregnable inthe process. After all, the phenomenal existence of so­cial opposition is the' f i rs t : evidence of the state'-sbenevolence, tolerance· _and a ccourrt.ab i.Ld t.y and it is aneffettive mask o£ an essentially totalitarian nature.Piccone argued that such a process, if continuedindefinitely, causes problems for the capitalist state;the main problem being that without opposition the realtotalitarian nature of advanced capitalism would becomeapparent to the general populace. The danger lies in thefact that the system's ethos of full participation,tolerated opposition and social negativity is blatantlycontradicted by exclusion, repression and conformism,thus adumbrating a possible political cataclysm. Picconeargued that one-dimensional society has passed and thatmodern capitalism has entered an era of "artificialnegativity." What has occurred is that the system needs

-8-

rII,IIII

I

It

I

Political Mystification

to absorb negativity and opposition, as well as sociallydramatize them, in order to maintain ideologicalcontrols, but this opposition and negativity have beenexhausted in the politically pacified late 1970s and1980s. One-dimensional society was faced with a crisis.The solution: the system needed to create its ownnegativity. Consequently, the American state, utilizingthe technologies of theater, me~ia, marketing and eventhe stage of the United States Congress on several occa­sions, has attempted to create the impression that theredoes exist negativity and, thereby, participation. TheWatergate episode, the consumer movement, theCongressional expose of the "excesses" of the FBI and theCIA and other dramatic exposures are examples of thisartificial negativity. So, the dramaturgy of falsenegativity, opposition and participation serve theinterests of the state and the ruling class by attemptingto persuade the public to believe the thesis and realityof one dimensionality -- that modern capitalism existswithout opposition. But once the process is viewed fromthe standpoint of a critical dramaturgy, the nonidentitybetween the public performance and public claim becomesobvious. Artificial negativity is a fraud on the part ofthe American State and media to convey impressions ofparticipation, opposition and accountability, resultingin the management of the consciousness of the Americanpopulace.

The False Politics of Dramaturgy

Having La i.d the intellectual g roundwo rk.. .for .acritical dramaturgical apprehension of the sociology offraud of American politics, it is essential todemonstrate some of the concrete mechanics through whichthe political consciousness of the American populace ismanaged. The ethos of a democratic society is full andequal participation. In modern capitalist "democracies"political participation has been reduced largely tovoting for candidates at various times so that theincumbents of political roles can represent the will ofthe people. Thus, the American state bases itsdemocratic presentation of itself not on participationper se, but on the right of the adult to vote for asu.rrogate participant. Of course, Rousseau, Marx and the

-9-

_Mid-American Review of Sociology

anarchists unmasked the fraud of the externalization andalienation of the particular and general will in thisform of representation. The alienation of direct self­participation adumbrates the complete loss of participa­tion (Michels, 1959). Yet other problems remain. E~enif the system concedes that it is not fully democrat1:,but representative, it can claim that participation 1Spossible at the level of elections. The syst:mvindicates itself on that basis. Whatever the1rtheoretical and political limitations, the anarchistswere the first to effectively unma~k the democraticpresentation of the state by attacking this argument.Put succinctly, an individual is nevertheless a slaveeven if s/he has the prerogative of choosing a master.By presenting itself as a "democracy" based on therepresentation due to voting of citizens (and ~here~ychanging the historical meaning of democracy, wh1ch. 1nthis instance is an example of a process dramaturg1stscall an "aligning action," a behavior designed to evadethe embarrassment of an unmasking) the state evades theissue of political power and its opposition to fullparticipation. That one chooses a pa~tic~l~r o~pressorin great biennial spectacles is not a JUst1~1~at10n .foroppression or the alienation of dec1s10n-mak1ng.Democracy, real democracy, must be based on the. symbolicinteraction, reciprocity, equality and good fa1th of so­cial persons. It precludes the alienation of theparticular and general will. "Representative democracy".is tbepoliti~al equivalent of abdicating one's pre~oga­tives to contribut~ to the meaning of a soc1allysignificant policy. Voting, then, in a rep~esentativesystem must be understood as a significan~ departure ~romthe historical meaning of democracy. Aga1n, there eX1stsa discrepancy between the public claim and the public

performance.However the departures of the current meanings of

democracy f~om its historical meaning is only a ~i~ ofthe iceberg of political mystification. The m~s~1f1~a­tion of voting as an instance of meaningful part1c1pat10nperpetuated by and for the state's maintenance and exten­sion of class domination is made even more apparent whenone considers the well-documented and well-reasonedstudies of political processes and the structure ofpolitical power in the United States. Those researchers

-10-

riII!!I

I

II

Political Mystification

who have not been blinded by the ideological fetters ofthe capitalist state have simply said farewell toconservative and pluralistic models of the empirical na­ture of American political life. The studies of Mills(1956), Oppenheimer (1982) and Hunter (1953) remainclassic sociological works indicating the fraud in theAmerican state's claim of democracy at both the communityand societal levels. The more recent studies by Domhoff(1967, 1971, 1979, 1983), Baran and Sweezy (1966),McConnell (1966), Miliband (1978) and Parenti (1977,1978) have also affirmed the existence of unequalpolitical power relations and elite control which negateclaims of democracy and pluralism. The concern of all ofthese studies as they relate to a critical dramaturgy ofpolitics is with how the formal, official structures,putatively containing opportunity for real participation,relate to actual processes of containing opportunity forreal participation and relate to actual processes ofdecision making and policy implementation. All of thementioned studies demonstrated that the official struc­tures serve as formal means through which power elitespresent policies which were actually made in secrecy andserving particular class interests as policiesconstructed openly in a participatory manner for thepublic good. The official structures "rubber stamp"decisions already made by the power elite. Voting andthe spectacles in the House and Senate are dramaturgicalpresentations which create the impression of publicagency in such analyses. Further, they function togenerate loyalty and support for such policies regardlessof their objective political consequences. The ultimatespectacle of the President signing bills Lnt,o law masksthe real, class politics of policy making and implementa­tion.

Of course, the loss of democracy and the illusion ofparticipation and accountability again constitute thesociology of fraud. While the entire political structureof the current phase of capitalist society is furthercompounded by the growth of bureaucracy and thetechnostructure, both of which are unelected and largelyunaccountable, the primary point is that the state'sdemocratic presentation of itself, the public claim, isnot matched by its public performance, a mystification itis able to achieve through the fraudulent mechanics of

-11-

Mid-American Review of Sociology Political Mystification

system. The preselection of candidates by corporate andpolitical action committees' contributions institute thefirst great restraint on political debate.

Howsden et ale (1977), for example, discuss therol~s of. the debate participants and the role of theaud1ence 1n the political process of the debate. Given'the spectator nature of· the debate audience one canwonder about the sociological sophistication of viewingpassivi~y as a form of action and, thus, question whetherthe aud1ence has any role in the process whatsoever. Thecritical dramaturgical analysis of the political debatefocuses not solely on the limited role of the audiencebut also on the process of fraud in the structure of th~debate itself. Hall (1975) has suggested that the debateas a form of dramatic action permits the operation of twoprocesses which have a direct bearing on the debate as amystifying process of American political life. First,the debate is an excellent technology for the control ofinformation. Certainly, the candidates as debateparticipants wish to control the format and content ofthe topics, and the questioning within the debate contextfor the purpose of providing a convincing performance tothe audience that slhe is the more meritorious candidate.Howsden et ale suggest that this is done in four ways:

the electoral system. The reality of American politicallife, as clearly established by the conflictsociologists, the Marxists and the anarchists, is thatpolitical definitions of reality are elaborated in thename of the people by those at the apex of a pyramidalpower structure. If the process of communication is two­way, the only sense in which this can be said to be thecase is that the upward flow of communication, in theform of voting, public opinion polls, or letters are noteffective input but are instead cues utilized by theelite for the purposes of the management of the cons­ciousness of the people in order to maintain and extendthe legitimacy of the state's power.

The False Politics of the Political Debate

An advertising poster of Simon and Schuster Bookspromoting its recently published political works callspolitics America's "most exciting spectator sport."Unintentionally, this marketing slogan poses a trenchant~ritique of American political life. A spectator is notone who participates fully in reality construction butone who passively observes and consumes the constructedreality. One mechanism through which the spectator na­ture of American political life is maintained is thepolitical debate. There was recently a process ofpresidential selection and the debate, as usual, wasviewed as a means of (1) candidates transmitting informa­tion to the voters about their capabilities andqualifications for a particular' office and (2) allowingthe _public to examine the ~an~jdates and their positionson the issues so that the voters can make intelligentchoices for new administrations and, it is assumed, a newpackage of programs and policies. Viewing the politicaldebate as dramatic action has been discussed by Hall(1975), Edelman (1964), Gusfield (1966) and Howsden etale (1977). These analyses, for the most part, leave thecritical dimensions of the dramaturgy of the pol1ticaldebate undeveloped. From the standpoint of a criticaldramaturgy, the political debate is a mechanism whichpermits the state a democratic presentation of itself.In particular, debates give off expressions ofnegativity, opposition and choice, but actually functionto mystify the one-dimensional character of the political

-12-

1.

2.

3.

Controlling and preparing for specific ques­tions asked by specifically invitedindividuals, which functions to assure thedeb~t~rs that they will not be surprised byquest10ns ~o which they' cannot provide accurateand rational answers. It also 'assures theabsence of hecklers.

The prohibition of immediate audienceparticipation, which serves to maintain theone-way flow of political directives and theasymmetrical prerogative to define politicalreality.

The exclusion or limitation of face-to-faceinteraction of the debators, which functions tominimize . the element of surprise whichcontinually looms as a threat to the debators'communication of rationality and accuracy.

-13-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

The Cults of Corrupt Personality

4. Limited access to the backstage, which allowsfor strategy, structuring and rehearsing theperformance.

Second, Hall has noted that the debate as politicalaction serves to create the symbolic mobilization ofsupport. The debator has the paradoxical problem ofmaintaining an impression of negativity or uniqueness forthe other candidate(s) and of conveying a perspectivewhich is sufficiently vague in order to maximize poten­tial categories of supporters. Intentionally, room isleft for the imputation by the audience as to what thecandidate does or does not support. Hence, the politicaldebate cannot be a forum for the addressing of seriouspublic issues, it can only serve as a shopping mall forthe presentations of selves or styles of particularcandidates. Any claim to negativity, opposition orchoice among substantial alternatives cannot besubstantiated by the American form of political debate.

It is also significant to note that not only doesthe debate erect obstacles to negativity and oppositionon the level of the positions of candidates, it disallowsquestions of the legitimacy of the system itself. Neverin a significant public forum will one encounter theserious consideration of a question of whether the systemis functioning as it claims or whether the system shouldbe dismantled. Oblations to the system are many, butquestions concerning the legitimacy of the system aredefined as being outside the realm of rationality andpossibility. Obviously, it Lsvra t i.onaL to assume t.hat,the system is really participatory. and really allowsnegativity. 'After all, the state permits voting and"free speech," doesn't it? Suggestions that voting isstructurally meaningless and that speech is corporatelycontrolled seem outside the realm of rational politicaldiscourse. Any argument publicly advanced suggesting apolitical sociology of fraud seems to those who are takencaptive by the captains of political consciousness assimply the ravings of a "lunatic fringe .. "

Political Myst{fication

can begin to see some of the contradictions of thesystem's democratic presentation of itself and itsproclivity for repressing or evading reciprocity,negativity, participation, and questions of legitimacy.Yet, the consideration of voting and political debates asobstacles to an authentic politics and its socialconstruction is merely a beginning. It is important tocontinue to examine the political system's sociology offraud by next addressing processes of how the staterecovers from penetrations or unmaskings of itsdemocratic presentation of itself.

Goffman (1959:141) noted that, "A basic problem formany performances ... is that of information control; theaudience must not acquire destructive information aboutthe situation that is being defined for them." If thepolitical problem of the "American state is themaintenance of the impressions of democracy, participa­tion, negativity, accountability, etc., the unmaskings ofthe mystifications pose a problem of order and control.The system must, therefore, possess technologies to whichit can resort to recapture its "face" or reestablish itsdemocratic impressions. Force is always a possibilityfor maintaining order and is certainly in the repertoireof the American state's responses to unmasking of itsdemocratic presentation' of self. Attica, Chicago 1968,Kent State, and Jackson State are a few examples of onlythe recent flexing .of the American state's muscle on seg­ments of its own population. Other examples include theMiami riots in the early 19805 and the police violencedirected against American socialists. and communists whoparade on May Day. However, the state's use of violenceis discriminate and seems to be restricted to situationswhich are not likely to unmask further its democratic andtolerant presentation' of self.

More significant in terms of efficacy of maintaininga benevolent, democratic presentation of self is theattribution of system failures or unmaskings of thebenevolent, democratic presentation of self to thepersonal qualities of the public officials involved.This technique of symbolic management can beappropriately called the American version of the "cult ofpersonality." The conservative dramaturgical analystshave noted that the personification of issues is a partof the American political system, but they have failed to

TiI

It

ti

IIII

IIIII

I

political process of American life isthe critical dramaturgical viewpoint, one

When theexamined from

-14- -15-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

see the sociology of fraud in such. When the state'sdemocratic, accountable presentation of itself isunmasked, equilibrium is reestablished through theattribution of the contradiction to the flaws of theindividual role incumbents. What results is that thepolitical system or the state structure itself isexonerated of all blame. Norman Birnbaum (1971:41) notedthat Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin maintained theSoviet "cult of personality" by blaming the terror on thepersonality of Stalin rather than on the socio-politicalstructure of the Soviet Union. The Soviet cult ofpersonality was thus a technology through which thesystem's failures were spared scrutiny by those whosuffered them. The United States, however, utilizes thissame technique of keeping the system safe from theoccasional unmaskings of its democratic, accountablepresentation of itself.

The historical and social reality of Watergate is aperfect example of the dramaturgy and sociology of fraudof the American "cult of corrupt personality." Withoutexonerating the man, a critical dramaturgical approach tothe events of Watergate views Richard Nixon as somethingof a scapegoat or fall guy. The Watergate unmasking hasbecome socially defined as not a failure of the system,but merely the criminal activities of a nefarious man anda few of his nefarious friends. The question of theaccountability of the system in its totality has not beenraised except, again, by the "lunatic fringe." Yet, fromthe standpoint of a critical dramaturgy it must be asked:What sort of s ocLo-ihLs t.o r Lca L formation produces eventslike , _Waterg~te . and _ the . totality of unashamedMachiavellian machinations .surroundi.ng it? It is poorsociology, at the very least, to think that the events ofWatergate were somehow unconnected to the broaderpolitical events in the United States. Except for thesociology of fraud, the individuals in charge of thepolitical processes of the American state are poorsociologists (not that this bothers them) because thisseparation has been successfully accomplished.

There have been no major structural changes withinor even challenges to the state itself as a result of theunmasking of the Watergate events. Again, the system canreassert its democratic presentation of self byattributing responsibility for criminal activities to

-16-

Political Mystification

individual role incumbents within the state, in this case~ixon. and Company, and not to the structure of the system1tself. If anything, the events of Watergate haveresulted in an effacious vindication of the state sinceit managed to police itself so effectively that it couldeven dispose of a criminal president. Yet thismystification prevents questioning the criminalit; of theState itself. In essence, the same process operated withregard to the engagement in Vietnam the "loss" ofVi~t~am, the Iranian revolution, the' recent hostagecr1S1S and the tragedies in Lebanon. Failuresc~ntradictions, unmaskings are attributed to poor deci~S10ns on the part of technocrats or advisors, and not tothe contradictions and structures of the state itself asit attempts to protect its democracy and the continuationof capitalist and imperialist exploitation.

The False Politics of Bureaucratic Self-Criticism

.In the current series of crises encountered by theAmer1can state, the contradiction between bureaucracy anddemocracy as competing forms of social organization loomsas a primary issue in the departure of American societyfrom a fully participatory paradigm of reality construc­tion. Of course, the state has attempted to intervene inorder to reestablish the equilibrium this particularcr1S1S has ~hreatened. However, again the state hasutilized a dramaturgical technology in order to con thepopulace into believing it is attempting to resolve the~risis in' :avo: of accountability and democracy,- while1ts const1tut1on of t~~ crisis has had the oppositeeffect: that of reinforcing bureaucracy and destroyingdemocracy. In mass societies, of course, the bureau isthe primary unit of social organization. The bureau isan effective technology by which an elite can control andmanipulate.the behavior.of the mass of people utilizingthe techn1cal and ep1stemological superiority of anadministrative cadre. The contradiction betweenbureaucracy and democracy, again may' be reduced to 'thequestion of the exclusion of categories of people fromparticipation in the processes of reality construction.

Mainly due to rumblings from below, in the forms of"tax revolts" and an apprehension of the emergence of anunhappy consciousness on the part of the subject

-17-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

populace, various agents at the apex of the power struc­ture of the state have initiated a pseudocritique ofbureaucracy. A concerted symbolic effort has been madeby presidential aspirants, governors, senators, corporateleaders and even military leaders to convey a concernwith the growth of the "bureaucracy" of the state."Bureaucratic excesses" have generally been blamed forwhat is in reality a fiscal crisis of the state(O'Connor, 1973) and the state wishes to convey to thepopulace a desire to debureaucratize the operations orfunctions of the state apparatus. The. political present­ments of the Republicans and Democrats both haveattempted to convey the impression of a desire to reducethe state's interference with the private lives ofindividuals and create a sort of capitalism with a humanface. In fact, the current attempt at "debureaucratiza­tion" is not debureaucratization but an effort to reducethe federal deficit and hopefully avoid both a continuingcrisis of capital a c cumuLa t.Lon and underconsumption.Reagan seems most serious in limiting the capacity offederal bureaus to control the predations and excesses ofcorporate capital.

There exists a false politics in the critique ofbureaucracy by agents within the capitalist state. It isnot a real critique but a pseudocritique. In the firstplace, the bureaucratic self-criticism has beenengendered by those at the apex of the bureaus and hasbeen aimed at those lower level functionaries in theoperation .of the everyday re~lity of state power. It isinteresting to note that the critique of bureaucracyplaces the blame for the contradiction betweenbureaucracy and democracy/accountability on those who donot control the bureaus and who cannot respond or fightback. Yet, what is crucial is that the bureaucraticself-critique completely ignores the whole question ofhierarchy, one of the requisite rules of bureaucraticorganization. The basis of the contradiction betweendemocracy and bureaucracy is that the bureau possesses agreater ability to create social reality because of itscontrol of the processes of communication and legitima­tion. Democracy demands the full participation which thebureau and its hierarchial structure negates.

The fraudulent character of the bureaucratic pseudo­self-criticism becomes readily apparent when it is made

-18-

Political Mystification

clear that completely external to the critique is theissue of hierarchy itself. The state has attempted againto utilize a technique of symbolic management in order toreestablish a democratic, participatory and ac£ountablepresentation of self. Actually, the bureaucratic self­critique fuels what it purports to negate. While thepublic prophecy of the critique of bureaucracy is anaffirmation of accountability and increased citizenparticipation in the affairs of state, the bureaucraticself-critique's public performance is based on increasedcentralization, increased efficiency, increased technicalrationality and increased competence or merit on the partof the power structure's role incumbent. All of theseare bureaucratic values and have served historically tonegate the values of participation, accountability anddemocracy. Apparently, promises to cut taxes by catchingwelfare cheaters and reducing the number of "parasitic"lower level functionaries involved main~y in programs ofsocial assistance and protecting the environment areintended to convey the impression that the citizen willthen move out of the surplus population and truly becomea participant in the construction of political reality.While the public prophecy and the public performance ofthe bureaucratic self-critique is certainly disjointed,the state's fraudulent machination will probably work ifit can deliver the goods and cut the taxes of a criticalsector of the population. But this is hardly identicalto a process of debureaucratization.

It must be made visible that the state's critique ofits bureaucracy is a fraud intended to sYmbolicallymanage the consciousness Of the subjected Ame~ican

populace, and thus co-opting its commonsense critique ofpolitics and politicians. To this point, however, thefraud is by no means being publicly demystified.National political figures use the term "bureaucracy" asa symbol with negative connotations in order to presentthemselves as publicly accountable. The particularincumbents of the roles in the state's power structureuse the symbol to evade responsibility for policy andprogram failures, while political aspirants symbolicallyassault the incumbents for their extension of thebureaucratic apparatus. Lacking from the politics or thedebate over bureaucracy are the relative socio-historicalorigins or bases of its emergence and extension, and the

-19-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

rI

·1i

Political Mystification

Such supplies of loyalty are tested mightily asdisemployment increases, corporate concentrationcontinues, inflation persists, health costs soar, educa­tion systems deteriorate and cities decay. All theseare masked by patriotic spectacles. Patriotic politicsobscures class antagonisms and domestic failures. Thepublic dramaturgy of military ventures eclipses theprivate tragedies of crime, poverty, illness and despair.In a class society, dependent upon state coercion andfraudulent polLtical dramaturgy, patriotism is amechanism of ideological social control. It encouragesthe abandonment of critical thinking and it collapses theantagonism between state and society, class and class.

The political system of the United States, whichprotects the interests of a privileged social class, hasbeen faced with a crisis of legitimation which it managesthrough the adoption of a dramaturgical technology. Thedramaturgical technology of the American state is gearedtoward conveying the impressions and appearance ofdemocracy, equity, accountability. and participation,while its objective operation, when viewed from thestandpoint of a critical dramaturgy, is contrary to thesepublic presentations of self. The attempt has been madeto demonstrate some of the specific techniques in thecurrent political milieu the state uses to convey thesefraudulent presentations of self. A few concludingremarks on these. attempts may be in order t.o formalizetheir relationship to a critical.dramaturgical analysis.

While states have undoubtedly always made appeals totheir populations for in-group solidarity and/orpatriotism, the dramaturgical technology of the Americanstate is a marked departure from these appeals atprevious historical junctures~ Perhaps the state isinherently an oppressive institution. Perhaps oppressionand its maintenance through fraud have always existed asconcomitants of state power. Even so, the criticaldramaturgical perspective insists that the advancedcapitalist societies, particularly the United States,have developed this technology to such a sophisticateddegree that it bears little resemblance to earlier

real, human consequences of how it has helped toperpetuate an alienated social life-world which functionsto reduce large segments of the population to the statusof mere things to be managed for the purposes of profit

and control.

The False Politics of Patriotism

Periodically the legitimacy of a crisis-ridden statecan be renewed by military adventures and by resort topatriotic panics. Appealing to vital interests of thenation can curb the self-critical process. Argentina caninvade the Falkland Islands and Britain can respond:both win short term bursts of patriotic loyalty. TheReagan administration won considerable unthinking loyaltyby its invasion of Granada. The U.S.S.R., scarcelylikely to invade the United States, is presentedcontinuously as a clear and present danger. Opportunistand jealous of its own safety, the U.S.S.R. has beenvery careful to challenge only political opposition incountries close to and far weaker than itself. TheU.S.S.R. uses the "Great Patriotic War" to replenishlegitimacy for a crisis-ridden economy.

The United States has been constantly involved inmilitary adventures since World War II. U.S. troops aredeployed globally. U.S. troops are sent to every placewhere capitalist peace is threatened. The displays ,ofmilitary technology and firepower in Korea, Vietnam,Lebanon and Central America continue to bemuse andent~rtain ~iewers in the evening news. The secretmaneuvers- ·-0f t.he c. I ..A..p:r::oducenewsworthy events aroundthe world. These escapades compromise Democratic andRepublican opposition alike.

Great patriotic spectacles in the United Statesgenerate still more patriotism. Campaigns, Fourth ofJuly parades, Olympic victories (and heart-breakingdefeats), as well as state and national centennials orbicentennials refresh the fading flower of patrioticloyalty. Loyalty oaths, loyalty investigations, foreignspies caught and displayed in handcuffs, songs andanthems sung at sports events as well as pledges ofallegiance every morning in every classroom teach anuncritical patriotism. Crime is also a great restorativeof state authority.

Demystification and the Prospects for anPolitics

Authentic

-20- -21-

Mid-American Review of Sociology

political attempts at the sociology of fraud. Consider,as an example, the time, money and effort that not onlythe state, but the large corporations, military andfoundations expend in ~arketing the system itself. ~o~aythis is a 3 billion dollar sector of the advert1s1ngindustry. The ideology of marketing is that a need mustbe created in individuals through the technology ofdramaturgy. Since these "false needs," as Marcuse (1964)calls them are created not through processes of symbolicinteractio~ but through the manipulation of symbolicmanagement, they are manifestations of the sociology of

fraud.While political science and conservative po~itical

sociology have always been concerned with market1ng t~enecessity of elitist state control within the academ1csphere the marketing process has emerged through mass

, "b f i.c i t ffcommunications to present the image of the ene 1C1encontent and character of the American state, an obviousattempt at presenting itself to the mass society .w~ichgoes beyond the traditional methods of PO~1t~calsocialization. Marketing the system has the dlst1nctintention of making certain that the people believe thatthe state, despite an occasional unmasking, really. ~oespermit negativity, participation and accountab1l1ty.Political loyalty in such a society is thus a tenuous,precarious, even false loyalty as it is .not t~espontaneous expression of patriotism of the publlC ~u~ 1Sinstead staged and magnified through advert1s1ng,marketing and public relations technologies by ~he sta~e,the corporations, the military and foundat10ns wh:chpackage political reality for the- unrefl.e.xive. consumpt1.o:nby the masses. . .

The concluding argument of this paper 1S that 1£ anauthentic political reality can be created it must be~inwith a process of demystification; the democrat1c,accountable, negative and participatory "expressionsgiven off" by the American state must be unmasked .andsomehow this unmasking must be a participatory projectitself involving those social groups who are excludedfrom participation in the social constructi~n. ofpolitical reality. The task of a politica~ly cr1t1caldramaturgy is to point to a process of re~l:ty construc­tion that is fully human, social and part1c1patory. Itis obvious to the critical dramaturgist that the

-22-

Political Mystification

technology employed by the American state to maintain itsequilibrium in the face of its legitimation crisis isdependent upon definite socio-historical circumstances.An effective process of demystification, therefore, willnecessarily have something to say about the social basesof the dramaturgical society, particularly the processesof capitalism, statist bureaucracy and the centralizationof the means of communiation.

It is the political task of a critical dramaturgy towork out the concrete political actions through whichparticipatory, authentic social life-worlds can emergeand be maintained. If inauthenticity in the politicalsphere is defined by feigned participation, then anauthentic politics can be created and maintained only byfull, real participation. Concretely, then, the criticaldramaturgist must doubt that a fully participatory socialreality can be obtained through the acquisition and useof state power, or through the pseudocommunication of themass media,. particularly its electronic forms.

Critique and challenge must be directed at theinstruments of political mystification, but the errors ofthe Luddites (Thomas, 1970) must be avoided. An excel­lent example of a neo-Luddite critique of politicalmystification is Jerry Mander's Four Arguments for theElimination of Television (1978). Mander believes thatthe fraudulent politics of contemporary America can beovercome by the simple abolition of television. It isclear that television has served as an istrument ofpolitical mystification and that it perhaps can onlydistort'the process of social and political knowledge.However, the overthrow of fraudulent dramaturgy requiresnot merely the abolition of certain instruments ofmystification but the transformation of the social rela­tions of communication, property and power. Until theseare accomplished simplistic critiques such as Mander'swill remain reactionary utopias.

The politics of a critical dramaturgy aims at afundamental social transformation and emphasizes thatrevolutionary opposition must entail the full participa­tion of individuals using free, undistorted andnonrepressive communication if a qualitatively bettersociety is to be created. All obstacles to self,society, praxis, community and knowledge must be overcomeby the reciprocal exchange of significant symbols in the

-23-

Mid-American Review of SociologyPolitica~ Mystification

1979 The Powers That Be. New Yoik: Random House.

1983 Who Rules America Now? Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

1971 The Higher Circles: The Governing Class inAmerica. New York: Vintage Books.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

IL:The Symbolic Use of Politics. Urbana,The University of Illinois Press.

Domhoff, G. W.1961 Who ~ules America?

Prentice-Hall.

Edelman, M.1964

social construction of everyday life. At base, therevolutionary who wishes to utilize a critical dramaturgyto dismantle fraudulent social life-worlds and theirprocesses of construction can do nothing more than lendexpertise to those who seek it and to encourage thestruggle through symbolic interaction' and drama.Ultimately the revolutionary project must be of thespontaneis~ and exemplary forms, as advanced by Bakunin(1971), Fanon (1963) and Cohn-Bendit (1968): Witho~t.thecritical dramaturgical analysis of Amer1can pol1t1callife and its axiological consequences forrevolutionaries, politics will continue to be a"spectator sport."

Cohn-Bendit, D. and G. Cohn-Bendit .1968 Obsolete Communism: The Left-W1ng

tive. New York: McGraw~Hill.

Barun, P., and P. Sweezy1966 Monopoly Capital: An Essay on

Economic and Social Order.Monthly Review Press.

Birnbaum, N.1971 Toward a Critical Sociology.

.. Oxford University Press.

The

Grove

Life.

New York:

IL:

Lnt.e rna t.Lona.I

Beacon Press.

Everyday

German Critique

New York:

in

York:

New

Boston:

New

-25-

The Presentation of SelfGarden City, NY: Anchor.

The Wretched of the Earth.Press.

Legitimation Crisis.

Prison Notebooks.Publishers.

1975

Elder, C., and R. Cobb1983 The Political Uses of Symbols.

Longman.

Goffman, E.1959

Gramsci, A.1971

Gusfield, J.1966 Symbolic Crusade. Urbana,

University of Illinois Press.

Fanon, F.1963

Habermas, J.1974 "The Public Sphere."

1:49-55.

New

York:

Alterna-

ed.

New

Explorationsin a ModernUniversity of

the AmericanNew York:

Dolgoff,Sam

-24-

The Politics of Elite Culture:in the Dramaturgy of PowerAfrican Society. Berkley, CA:California Press.

REFERENCES

Bakunin on Anarchy.York: Vintage.

Cohen, A.1981

Bakunin, M.1971

Hamilton, R.1972 Class and Politics in the United States. New

York: Wiley.

Mannheim, K.1941 Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction.

New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Howsden, J., S. Grove and E. LaBeff1977 "A Dramaturgical Approach to Political

Debate: Machiavelli Unchained." Paperpresented at meetings of the SouthwesternSociological Association, Dallas, Texas,April.

ed.W.W.

York:

York:

Oxford

New York:

New

New

Sociological

York:

State.

New

Techniques of ModernEnglewood Cliffs, NJ:

Left Bank Books.

Realities.

-27-

Seattle:

Political Mystification

"Capital: Se Le c t Lons;" in Robert Tucker,The Marx-Engels Reader. New York:Norton and Company.

"The Dramaturgy of Politics."Quarterly (2):216-241.

The Power Elite.University Press.

Political PersuasionElectronic Campaigns.Prentice Hall.

The Fiscal Crisis of theSt. Martin's Press.

Marx, K.1972

Merelman, R.1969

Miliband, R.1978 The State in Capitalist Society.

Basic Books.

Mills, C. w.1956

Michels, R.1959 Political Parties. New York: Dover Books.

McConnell, G.

1966 Private Power and American Democracy. NewYork: Knopf.

Nimmo, D.1970

Nimmo, D.,.and J. Combs1983 Mediated Political

Longman.

O'Connor, J.1973

Oppenheimer, F.1982 The State.

TfIf!

f

IIj

II·,t

I

of

Artifi-of

"A Symbolic Interactionist AnalysisPolitics." Sociological Inquiry 42:35-75.

Community Power Structure: A Study of Deci­sion Makers. Chapel Hill: The University ofNorth Carolina Press.

-26-

One-dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideologyof Advanced Industrial Society. Boston:Beacon Press.

"Culture and Politics in the Agecial Negativity." Telos 35:55-72.

History and Class Consciousness: Studies inMarxist Dialectics. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress.

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Televi­sion. New York: Quill.

Mid-American Review of Sociology

Hall, P.1975

Hunter, F.1953

Lukacs, G.1971

Luke, T.1978'

Mander, G.1978

Marcuse, H.1964

Thomas, M.1970 The Luddites. New York: Schocken.

1973 The Mind Managers. Boston: Beacon Press.

1978 Communication and Cultural Domination. NewYork: Pantheon.

Sorel, G.1950 Reflections on Violence. Chicago: Free

Press.

Mid-American Review of Sociology

Considering the adequacy of federallyauthorized and state implemented community­based long-term care programs, this researchexamines the characteristics of these programsmost conducive to elderly persons living in theleast restrictive environment that their healthwill allow. Results suggest that serviceavailability and population explain asignificant proportion of the adequacy of theHome- and Community-Based Services program inKansas.

D. Ann Squier

University of Kansas

Mid-American Review of Sociology, 1985,Vol. X, No. 2:29-54

HOME-AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES:ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM ADEQUACY*

~ -r

-:~~ -f:

New:.,;

-r::~

St. -<~

>!<i

-1;-

~~ $:q

Telos A.. ~

:;J?I

Empire.

Edition.

New York:

Democracy for the Few. 2ndYork: St. Martin's Press.

"The Crisis of One-Dimensionality."35:43-54.

Mass Communications and AmericanBoston: Beacon Press.

1978 Power and the Powerless.Martin's Press.

Parenti, M.1977

Piccone, P.1978

Schiller, H.1971

Weber, M.1979

~

.'~

1~

1Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpre-1tive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of ~

_~alifornia Press. ~~,~

J·iil.~

~

'1:;.-~

-1

This study investigates the relationshipgovernmental decentralization to state-implementedadministrated health and social service programsfurnishes a detailed analysis of such a program.decent ra Lfaat.Lon of Medicaid has occurred in responsetwo factors, the rising costs of health care andincrease in the elderly population. The resultthe creation of the Home- and

ofandandTheto

thewas

*This paper earned the author a SRPP Student Paper Awardpresented by the Gerontological Society of America at theannual meeting in New Orleans in November, 1985.

-28- -29-