Theory, Method and British Political Life History

Abstract

The British tradition of political life history has six conventions: ‘tombstone’ biography, separation of public and private lives, life without theory, objective evidence and facts, character and storytelling. I describe each in turn and review the main debates in the tradition before turning to the swingeing critique by ‘the interpretive turn’. Postmodernism deconstructed grand narratives by pronouncing the death of the subject and the death of the author. I outline an interpretive approach that reclaims life history by focusing on the idea of ‘situated agency’: that is, on the webs of significance that people spin for themselves against the backcloth of their inherited beliefs and practices. I explore, with examples, the implications of this approach for writing life history, stressing the different uses for biography open to political scientists. I end with some brief thoughts on why the British tradition of political life history has proved resistant to change.

But why do we need politicians? A critical review

“…Firstly, while all of these authors provide explicit or implicit answers as to why politicians are demonised and what we can do about it, the voices of politicians themselves are largely absent from this debate. Consequently, and here I agree with Hay (2007, p. 162 (Rhodes, 2012;Arklay et al, 2006). This is a sad, and ultimately detrimental, disciplinary oversight, as life history writing can, despite its Lincoln was vilified in his lifetime in much the same way that politicians are today even though he is now immortalised as one of democracies greatest heroes.…”

The Case for Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in British Political Studies: New Labour's Political Memoirs and the British Political Tradition

“…Nor for that matter can we ignore the courses exclusively dedicated to teaching political biography in UK social science departments (see Thornton, 2011). This challenges the view of a former Cabinet Office civil servant, repeated by Rhodes, that while there are many ministerial biographies, autobiographies, memoirs and diaries, ‘few are much use to the student of Whitehall’ (James, 1999, p. 252; compare Rhodes, 2012, p. 164).…”

“…Rhodes' (2012) reflections on the role of biography certainly add depth to this debate, but he is too swift to impose seemingly irreconcilable, binary distinctions – that of the ‘modernist empiricist’ and the ‘interpretivist’– the former shunning political memoirs, leaving the latter to act as the champion of the biographic method. Before questioning this stance, some definitional clarity is required.…”

“…This article, while ostensibly a review which explores the memoirs of six major figures from the New Labour era, also reflects on the contribution made by the genre of memoirs and political autobiographies to the study of British politics. In so doing, it takes issue with the claim made by R. A. W. Rhodes (2012) in this journal issue that there is a tendency among political scientists in general, and UK political scientists in particular, to neglect political biographies or ‘life histories’ on the grounds that memoirs have little to offer the empirical study of politics. Contra Rhodes, the view presented here is that biography has made a tangible, yet often understated, contribution to the field of political studies in Britain.…”

Executive governance and its puzzles

“…Life history can be a tool for answering broader questions in the study of politics that go beyond the life itself; they are not just chronological narratives (Walter 2002, Rhodes 2012a. Often the uses of biography are cast in general terms.…”