The Political Fiction of Ward Just: Class, Theories of Representation, and Imagining a Ruling Elite uses three theoretical frameworks of representation—literary, political, and diplomatic—to demonstrate how the upper-class status of the ruling elites in Ward Just’s political fiction influences the way they govern. He illustrates how Just’s ruling elites develop a coherent “upper class” form of consciousness that limits their ability as elected officials to adequately represent the interests of all the nation’s citizens domestically—especially the poor and working class—and their ability as diplomats to adequately represent the interests of the nation as a whole internationally. In his conclusion, the author offers suggestions for ways to make our ruling elites more representative of the interests of the working class and underprivileged groups at home and more sensitive to the cultures of the countries in which they serve abroad.
Оглавление
David Smit. The Political Fiction of Ward Just
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Notes
Literary Representation
Theories of Class Representation
Notes
Representing the Development of Ruling-Elite Consciousness
Fulfilling One’s Potential: Exiles in the Garden, 2009
Theorizing Power: Rodin’s Debutante, 2011
Political Representation
Theories of Political Representation
Notes
Representing the Few
The “People” as an Abstraction: Jack Gance, 1989
Representation as Public Relations: In the City of Fear, 1982
Staying Elected: “The Congressman Who Loved Flaubert,” 1990
Notes
Diplomatic Representation
Theories of Diplomatic Representation
Representing the Idea of America
The Political is Personal: The American Ambassador, 1987
Class Conditioning: A Dangerous Friend, 1999
Contract Work: Forgetfulness, 2006
Note
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index
About the Author
Отрывок из книги
Many people helped me with this book, and so I would like to express my gratitude:
To Beverly Millard, head librarian of the Waukegan Historical Society for supplying me with photocopies of the Society’s material on Ward Just and a copy of Ward’s talk at the annual meeting of the Friends of Lake Forest Library on April 28, 1985: “The Fictional Life.”
.....
In describing the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and consultants as they go about the job of governing, Just portrays the degree to which these characters consider their responsibilities and obligations to the conflicting demands of their larger public, consisting of a host of competing constituencies, citizens at all levels—national, state, and district—including members of their own and the opposing political party, special interest groups, and those voices not often heard in the tumult of election campaigns and the drafting of legislation. In Just’s imaginary, the “representatives” of the people have a complex relationship with the “represented”: Just’s representatives generally only consider those who have easy access to them: donors and fellow officials. They rarely consider their larger constituencies, and when they do so it is primarily as a means of gaining support in an election or of placating a particular interest group that feels that its needs have been slighted. For all practical purposes, in doing their jobs, Just’s representatives seem barely aware that the poor and working class exist at all.
Finally, diplomatic representation deals primarily with how foreign service elites should represent the idea and interests of the country, issues similar to those related to domestic policy. On the one hand, diplomats represent the country in a number of obvious ways. They are in effect symbols of the country at ceremonies recognizing the relationship between countries, and they engage in what R. P. Barston (1988, 2) calls the “tasks” of diplomacy: keeping the channels of communication open between nations by “listening, preparing the ground for initiatives, reducing friction, and contributing to orderly change,” and more substantive tasks such as “explaining and defending national policy, negotiating, and interpreting the policies of receiving governments.” Much of this work is largely a matter of interpreting America’s foreign policy to the representatives of those nations affected by these policies. In these matters diplomats are allowed a certain amount of flexibility and leeway.
