G05 - Critical Institutionalism: Bringing Critical Social Theory into the Study of Institutions I
Date: Jun 2 | Time: 01:30pm to 03:00pm | Location:
Chair/Président/Présidente : Susan Spronk (University of Ottawa)
Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Peter Graefe (McMaster University)
Session Abstract: Over the past three decades, historical institutionalism has redefined how scholars explore the intersection of politics and institutions in a host of ways, utilizing a host of methods. But theoretically and ontologically, historical institutionalists have remained rather cautious, drawing heavily on positivist and pluralist approaches dominant in fields like political science. This panel will feature a variety of papers that utilize critical social theory and an approach to social science rooted in critical realist or interpretivist ontologies to explore the politics of institutions, the institutionalization of politics, and institutions as a site of political struggle. The different contributions will highlight how inequalities in social power affect and sometimes determine how and when politics and institutions intersect as well as shed light on just how such political struggle over, within, and against institutions actually plays out. Contributions to this panel will both advance ‘critical institutionalism’ as a distinct approach to studying institutions as well as provide concrete examples of the variety of ways it can be carried out in concrete terms, both theoretically and methodologically. Panel I takes up these issues more theoretically and methodologically. Panel II pursues them through specific empirical investigations.
Critical Institutionalism: Bringing the Social Back In: Dennis Pilon (York University)
Abstract: What makes institutions operate as they do? What holds them together as strategic sites of social power? What factors or forces lead them (or force them) to change? For over three decades different varieties of new ‘institutionalists’ have struggled to answer such questions, unhappy with privileging either the structural (determinant) or individual (agency) level of analysis. Critical institutionalism seeks to add a new and much needed social focus to the literature on institutionalism, arguing that much existing work lacks an explicit theory of society and its social relations. Where many institutionalists see society on the one hand and institutions on the other, critical institutionalism maps institutions themselves as sites of social struggle, and, at best, temporary manifestations of social power. The paper will review the inter-disciplinary development of the various new institutionalisms to help situate how and why critical institutionalism will advance our understanding of institutions, both in terms of their maintenance and reform, as well as utilize a concrete case study – the reform of western national voting systems – to demonstrate its concrete efficacy as an approach.
An Interpretive Institutionalism and Taking Politicians Seriously: Kate Daley (Indepedent Researcher)
Abstract: Interpretive approaches to the study of politics have been growing in popularity. This growth has coincided with both increased interest in the use of narrative research methods, and the diversification of new institutionalisms. Mark Bevir and R.A.W. Rhodes advance an interpretive approach to political science that focuses on situated agency, and explains persistence and change through changes to situated agents' webs of beliefs in response to dilemmas. While they intentionally contrast their methodological framework to institutionalist approaches, interpretivism and institutionalism are not as oppositional as they might initially appear. In this paper, I argue that Bevir and Rhodes' work can be used to develop a form of "interpretive institutionalism" that can facilitate the study of political institutions and explain political change through engagement with the individuals who make it. First, I argue that it is conceptually defensible to develop an "interpretive institutionalism" based on Bevir and Rhodes's philosophical approach, despite their likely objections. Second, I argue that an interpretive institutionalism is useful, and can be methodologically operationalized to be a valuable tool for explaining political outcomes. In particular, I identify three of Bevir and Rhodes's concepts that can be used as complementary lenses through which to view political decisions through a research project: tradition, dilemma, and webs of beliefs. Third, I suggest that this approach is particularly useful for studying decisions made by politicians, and that it helps highlight the value and importance of taking what politicians say seriously, though not at face value.
Contentious Institutions and Party Orders: Rethinking American Party Scholarship: Adam Hilton (Mount Holyhoke College)
Abstract: The last decade has witnessed a resurgence of scholarly interest in American political parties. In the years since the UCLA School’s publication of The Party Decides, political scientists, sociologists, and historians have returned to fundamental questions concerning what parties are and under what conditions they change. In this paper I offer a new framework for understanding parties and party change over time. Engaging with but going beyond the historical-institutionalist literature, I argue that parties are best be understood as contentious institutions, which are shaped by dynamic intraparty conflict and competition that unfolds across five distinct but interrelated dimensions: institutions, interests, ideologies, issues, and identities (what I call “the Five I’s”). Empirically, the content and configuration of these dimensions at any given historical moment constitutes a party order. A party orders perspective makes a valuable theoretical step, not only in synthesizing many of the complementary insights of recent party scholarship, but also in gaining greater analytical traction on some of the most persistent puzzles and substantive questions regarding American party politics.