What Do We Call an ‘MP’? On Categories of Thought in the Anthropology of Parliaments

Abstract

This article questions what social scientists mean by the term ‘Member of Parliament’ (‘MP’) and explains that they tend to associate it with a universal conception of parliamentary representation. The author starts to present the rationale behind this presupposition, which lies in the resistance of legislative studies to interpretive approaches, and shows its limits. He then defends the necessity of extensive scientific knowledge of deliberative assemblies to distinguish the vernacular meanings of the notion of ‘MP’ from its analytical meaning. Finally, he takes the example of his own research in France to show the concrete difficulties of a singular conception of parliamentary representation and to expose the virtues of using empirical-based ideal types to overcome them.