Legitimacy, legitimation and the attendant ramifications are complex and highly problematic issues with which philosophers have been long concerned. In recent times, however, while mainstream reasoning has ossified, the âofficialâ philosophy of science has remained, as Martin Heidegger (1962) would say, as little philosophical as possible. Instead of asking questions of legitimacy, perhaps in order to survive in the age of legitimacy crisis, it tends to content itself with general description, abstract analysis and elucidation. Clearly, a dispassionate analysis of what happens on the ground is badly needed.
The ethnographic study of these issues is a relatively recent but promising development. Pioneered in the mid-1990s by a small group of scholars (Pardo 1995, 1996 and contributors in Pardo ed. 2000), anthropological reflection on the issues raised by the complex dynamics of legitimacy and legitimationâof ordinary peopleâs morality and actions ; of the law, its production and application ; of politics and governance âhas gradually grown into a sophisticated debate (Pardo ed. 2004; Pardo and Prato eds 2011 and 2018). Anthropologists, qualitative sociologists, economists and jurists have contributed to the empirically grounded analysis of the ramifications of conflicting moralities , the corresponding ideas of legitimacy and the attendant ambiguities (Pardo 2000a).
In this field, we need to thread carefully. As Prato points out in her chapter, we need to understand Max Weberâs theory of legitimacy in its complexity (1978 [1922]). We also need to be mindful of the unsolicited measure of perspectivism in it, probably traceable to the broader problem of a prejudicial view identified by some (Eisen 1978) with the Puritanical schema, and in his definition of morality and rational conduct (Brubaker 1992; Pardo 1996: Chap. 7 and 2000a: 4). We need to acknowledge fully the culturally specific economics of âstrong continuous interactionâ between material and non-material aspects of existence in the ways people define their motives, make choices and interact with others (Pardo 1996: 11 ff.). And we need to understand, with Weber , that the authority to rule depends on recognition of rulersâ legitimacy across society (Pardo 2000b).
As today, the âfundamental accordâ between the ruling Ă©lite and the rest of society so accurately theorized by Gaetano Filangieri (1783â1788) appears to be both more needed and more chimerical than ever, the question arises: how much more governance failure before legitimacy is withdrawn and, consequently, democracy is jeopardized? This question needs urgent answers, for worldwide governance and the law are seen to failâin some cases comprehensivelyâthe democratic contract (Birnbaum et al. 1978; Stankiewicz 1980), as they fail to meet the challenge posed by the need to establish a working relationship between formal law and peopleâs cultural requirements (Aristotle 1962: 4.5).
In its 2010 Report on âThe Stateâs Legitimacyâ, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identified four sources of legitimacy. They are âInput or process legitimacy, which is tied to agreed rules or procedure; output or performance legitimacy, defined in relation to the effectiveness and quality of public goods and services; shared beliefs, including a sense of political community and beliefs shaped by religion, traditions and âcharismaticâ leaders; and international legitimacy, i.e. recognitions of the stateâs external sovereignty and legitimacyâ (OECD 2010: 9). This might be a little too wordy, but it does make interesting points. Echoing Weberâs analysis, the Report claims that these different sources interact and that no state relies on a single source. At its core, it reminds us directly of Pardoâs anthropology of legitimacy (2000a; see also Pardo and Prato 2011), as it argues that the international community should pay âmuch more attention to aspects of legitimacy that derive from peopleâs shared beliefs and traditions, and how these play out in a specific political and social contextâ (OECD 2010: 10).
This means recognizing not only that legitimacyâits sources and the attendant processes of legitimationâis an extremely complex âcategoryâ but also that its contours may change over time alongside changes in peopleâs values and moral expectations. It has happened, instead, that abetted and aided by national and international pressures thatâhowever unsolicitedâthreaten to grow, the earlier-mentioned failures have often generated malignant changes in the law that deeply pollute individual and associated life. As Aristotle warned, it might not be wise to pass lightly from old laws to new laws. Rightly, he believed that this would be a sure way of weakening the âinner essence of Lawâ (1962: 5.8), which can have dire, unforeseen consequences. In the present global climate, as poverty increases, multiplies and spreads across the unprivileged social board, ânaturalâ solidarity withers and predatory values spread, as do abuse and corruption. So, day by day, these âdire consequencesâ appear less unforeseeable. We do not mean to labour the point, but it seems to us as obvious as urgent that they and their causes need to be understoodâempirically.
While staying healthily suspicious of abstract thinking, one does not need to obsess about fieldwork to recognize that credible answers can only be inspired by the in-depth knowledge of the reality on the ground (Pardo and Prato 2017). This volume is a modest contribution to a ten-year project that is developing through intensive meetings and publications on the empirical and theoretical complexities of these processes.1 It should be read as a coherent collective endeavour to demonstrate the epistemological significance of ethnographic knowledge gained, classically, through long-term field research to our understanding of the growing gap between the rulers and the ruled, a gap which in many cases has dangerously grown into a chasm.
Back in 2016, we thought that in the current global situation the application of the ideas articulated in the cited literature might stimulate a robust exchange of ideas, that it might help to develop further an ethnographically based reflection on this thorny topic. So, we worked out an intellectual programme and applied for funding to organize a full-time six-day workshop on Erosions of Legitimacy and Urban Futures: Ethnographic Research Matters, which took place the following September in a secluded Sicilian venue , Italy.2
We invited 12 fellow anthropologists and qualitative sociologists at different stages of their careers from across the world, who specialize in urban research. Mindful of the pitfalls of narrow empiricism and unjustified abstraction (Leach 1977: xvi ff.; Harris 1986: Chap. 1), they share our commitment to an ethnographically based analysis. Empirically cognizant of the difference that often exists between what people say and what they do in their private and public lives, of the apparently contradictory Aristotelian ideal of the law as an impersonal, emotionally neutral and intrinsically wise entity and of the continuing significance of the concept of the superiority of the moral law to the written law (Aristotle 1962: 3.16), we wanted to attract descriptive analyses of actionsâlegal and not-strictly legalâthat at grassroots level may be regarded as legitimate and of policies and rulersâ actions that do not break the law but may be regarded as illegitimate. From fieldwork experience, we knew that much is often worked out at local social and cultural levels, regardless of official views. Would this play out comparatively?
Having pointed out that people do not necessarily regard as legitimate what is convenient or as illegitimate what is not convenient (Pardo 1995, 2000a), we also asked that attention should be paid to the impactâeconomic, social and politicalâof these actions, of the criminalization of behaviours that are regarded as legitimate at the grassroots and of the legalization of actions that are regarded as reprehensible and illegitimate in the broader society. Throughout the workshop, engaged debate based on comparative reflection benefited from regionally diversified ethnographic knowledge from East Africa, Canada, Europe, the Far East, India, Latin America, the Middle East and the USA, and helped to chart new theoretical directions on âlegitimacy and urban governanceâ as a locus of ethnographic research that matters to our urban futures (Prato 2009; Prato and Pardo 2013; Hannerz 2015; Pardo et al. eds 2015; Pels 2015; Krase and DeSena 2016).
As the papers were circulated the previous June and read in advance, we all brought to the workshop the major points in our analysis. Benefiting from participantsâ wide-ranging ethnographic and analytical field and from their different experiences and skil...