Presence, Power, and Performing Political Representation

• In Event: Performing Political Representation

Abstract

This presentation focuses on a specific setting of political representation: when representers and represented are present in the same physical space (‘The Square’), when they encounter each other directly; it deals with what happens when representation and face-to-face participation come together or co-occur. This focus matters because we miss something crucial about political representation if – as is standard – it is understood as being defined by the literal, physical absence of the represented (such as ‘the people’ in the idea of democracy as rule by the people). We miss the ways in which representers make (perform) their claims to speak or stand for others if (some of) the ‘others’ are there. We miss how participation and representation – often contrasted as opposing models of democracy – are entangled, with real consequences for all involved. And we miss subtle dimensions of how claimants and audiences of representation are empowered or disempowered by the setting, staging, and scripting of physically proximate encounters.
The paper has four aspects. The first clarifies concepts (presence, performance, encounter) and describes the terrain they make when brought together. The second explores through the concept of ‘The Square’ performances and power in the relevant spaces. The third briefly introduces illustrative examples to put more flesh on the bones of the conceptual discussions. The final section considers the idea of a ‘democratic encounter’ in the context of physical co-presence of representer and represented.
The nature and consequences of performing representation in The Square are distinctive from more familiar contexts where there is not physical co-presence between representers and represented. It is a space where you cannot speak about or for without also speaking to. Physical co-presence heightens the sense of contingency and uncertainty (how will these people react to each other, on the spot and in real time?). Depending on such factors as the arrangement of spaces within the Square, and the terms of entry, representative claims can be ‘read back’ directly to claimants (‘You’re standing up for me? Well, I’m right here, and I say you’ve got no idea!’). Physical co-presence heightens awareness of the stakes of presentation and performance (triumph and humiliation may be visited quickly and with challenging intensity in real time). The ‘showing doing’ may be shown up as being done poorly or ineffectively. In principle, the Square is a space of ‘mutual vulnerability’ (as when speakers engage directly with audiences - Goodman 2021), where ‘inherently unpredictable’ encounters unfold (Wilson 2017), and where address and its reception hang in the balance. Optimistic democrats might hope it is a space of ‘justification and information exchange’ (Rosanvallon 2011), but there are no guarantees.
These reflections are built on the account of political representation as the contingent product of representative claims (Saward 2010), rather than a formal and complete product of election outcomes. According to this perspective, representation arises primarily by virtue of its being done – practiced, performed, claimed. Representative roles and relations gain a presence in our politics because myriad actors make claims to speak for others (and about and for themselves), and some of these claims are accepted or tolerated by members of relevant constituencies and audiences. The ecology of representative claims (and responses to them) consists of a range of claims about who stands or speaks for or symbolises whom or what, and to what effect, across varied institutionalised and non-institutionalised settings. Specifically, a representative claim has several tightly linked components – makers of claims, the subject of the claim (the person, group or thing that represents), the object (a characterisation of the person, group or thing represented), the referent (an idea of the thing represented apart from a specific characterisation) and the audience.

Author

• Michael Saward, University of Warwick