政治职业管理历史

PoliticalLives

Chroniclingpolitical

careersandadministrative

histories

Thepubliclife-privatelifedivisionpreoccupiesAustralian

politicalbiography

-perhapsnotpeculiarlyso,butcertainlyindistinctiveterms.A

consideration

ofthefutureofpoliticalbiographymightusefullybeginbyexploringthis

division,andaskingnotsomuch'whichsideoftheargumentisright?,but

seekingtoidentifywhatisinvestedintheissue,andhowitreflectstheuses

to

whichweseektoputpoliticalbiography.Suchaconsiderationmighttapdirectly

intochallengingthewaysweconstructideas,policies,problemsandsolutions

byimaginingalternativeapproaches,particularlywithreferencetothemessuch

leadership,representationandpower.

AsTimRowsenoted,reflectingonthemanywaysinwhichitiseasyfora

biographertodisappoint,thereceptionofhisNuggetCoombs:Areforminglife

(2002),andhisconcentrationonthe'public'Coombs,promptedanalmosticonic

despairfromAllanPatience.4ItisalmostasifAustralianmalenessencompasses

aseemingsoullessness,'Patiencedespaired,'orthatitpossessesan

unknowable

andperhapsstonyheart,likethecontinentitself.'Wherewasthe'private'

Coombs,oratleastasenseofwhatmotivatedhim,explainedhisvaluesand

accountedfortheintersectionbetweenhiscareerandotherfacetsofhislife?

Ontheothersideoftheargument—anddealingspecificallywithpolitical

biography一JamesWalter(2002)hasemphasisedthenecessarilypublicfocus

ofthegenre,dealingasitmustwith'howpeopleaffectinstitutionsand

institutionalchange?•Further,Walterarguedthatbecauseofthedirectimpact

ofthepoliticalsphereonourlives'wewanttounderstandnotonlyleaders

but

typesofleadersJ.'Politicalbiography',heasserted,'withitsgeneral

aimsof,elucidatingleadership,philosophyorinstitutions,haspurposesbeyond

the

individuallife,.Thereis,then,analmostdidactic,categoricalimperative

toaconcentrationonthepublicdimensionofpoliticallives,particularlygiven

a,recentemphasisonexploringthepublicrhetoricof'socialnarrativesJthat

are,takenassocentraltopoliticalinfluence.Walterconcludedthesecomments,

in,anessayonPaulHasluckas'citizenbiographer’,byendorsingJudithBrett,

viewinherstudyofMenziesthat'thepublicmanistherealmanandthetask

istoreadhischaracterwherewefindit-inpubliclife'.

Iamnotsurewhether,inofferingthisassessmentinRobertMenziesfForgotten

People,Brett(1992)wasrecommendingageneraltheoremoraccountingfor

35

specificcharacteristicsofhermaninhiscontext:themostsubtleofher

chapters

inAustralianLiberalsandtheMoralMiddleClass(2003)dealswithafusion

ofpublicandprivatearoundtheconceptof4soundfinance*andthefigure

ofJoseph

Lyons—astudywhichdealsnotsomuchadiscretedomainofpublicrhetoric

butwithintersectingsocialnetworks,'citizens'movementsJanddiscursive

shiftsineconomicsandmoralinjunction.But,eitherway,wehaveapolarity:

bluntly,ontheonehand,apersistentdisappointmentatthefailureof

Australian

biographytopushbeyondthepublicsurfaceofthesubject;ontheother,an

injunctionthatitisprimarilythepublicdomainofthesubjectthatisthe

essential

concernofthepoliticalbiographer.Whatshouldwedowiththesecontending

approaches?

Inthesebriefcomments,Iwanttobeginbysurveyingcurrentsofdebatein

reviewsofpoliticalbiographies,seekingtodevelopageneralsenseofuseand

expectationsurroundingthegenrewithoutgettingcaughtupincursory

assessmentsofindividualintentionandperformance.Thisquickscanconfirms

afairlyevenly-balanceddivisionbetweenreviewerswhoregretpageswasted

onyearsoutsidepoliticaloffice,andthosewhojudgethatthebreathless

details

ofcareerobscuredanunderstandingofthesubject.Nocriticwasmorescarifying

onthisissuethanRodneyCavalier(2001),reviewingDavidDay'sJohnCurtin:

Alife(2000).CavalierallegedDaypaidnoattentiontothevitalissuesof

factional

andpoliticalmanagementthatCurtinconfronted:pagesthatshouldhavebeen

devotedtotheenormityofthosechallenges,Cavalierobjected,weregiven

insteadto4neuritisandChristmas?.Day,forhispart,hasadvocatedmoving

beyondthetraditional,top-heavy,politicalbiographyJtounderstand

emotional

andpsychologicalissues,andmorefundamentallyprivateissuesofshame,guilt

anddependency.Cavalierwasnotconvinced.Day's'endproduct',hejudged,

wasnotapoliticalbiography.Rather,thefacileattentiontothesocialand

politicalforcesdrivingbothsidesofpolitics,,Cavalierswiped,'ismore

akinto

writingwordsforballoonsinacomicstrip,picturesnotsupplied'.

Itcan,then,getnasty.Anditcanalsoseemthatpoliticalbiography,insuch

a

debate,isallocatedthefairlymeagreroleofconfirmingapublicrecord(a

role

perhapslikethatnotedofrecentliterarybiographies,where—presumably

undercommercialpressure-adetailedintellectualengagementwiththe

subject

giveswaysimplytoachronicleofworksandpersonalities).Whatisatstake

in

thesedisputes?Twothings:acontinuinginterrogationofthepoliticaldomain

itself-onethatmightbeattunedtohowthissphereiscreated,andchanges

in

itsdynamism,ratherthanbeingtaken-as-a-given;andanopportunitytoassess

theconceptsofpublicandprivateasthey,too,areproductsofsocialand

political

change,withafairdegreeoftrafficbetweenthem.AsKayFerreshasobserved,

seekingespeciallytoincorporateconceptsofgenderintothecustomarydomains

ofbiography,thegenreitself'canbeacatalystofdisputeanddisagreement

aboutthepublicinterest[whatdefinesit,andisencompassedbyit]aswell

as

36

adocumentofpubliclivesandcareersy.Whatquestions/opportunitiesmight

Australianpoliticalbiography,andthepoliticalscientistswhouseit,be

missing

inthiscategoricalpreoccupationwiththepublic-privatedivide?

iPoliticallives,,arecentBritishacademicreviewerregretted,werebecoming

an

over-workedgenre,reflecting'afetishfortheins-and-outsofthepolitical

class

andmovingawayfrominterestsintheeventsandideasthathaveshapedmodern

society'.Incontrast,TroyBramson(2003),reviewingoneofthetwobiographical

studiesofBobCarrthatemergedinearly2003,greetedtheWestandMorris

book(2003)as'awelcomeadditiontotheburgeoningfieldofAustralian

political

biographyJ.Thisgrowingfieldwasdefined—inpartbyitssubjects,such

as

Carr—lessbyideologyorcommitmentandmorebythemechanismsof

leadership,ambitionandpersonality(BramsonsavouredCarr'sadmissionthat

'tobeagoodleaderyoumustoccasionallybeagoodbutcher,).Thissense

of

politicsseemstoprovidethespaceinwhichAustralianpoliticalbiography-

asaconcept,anexerciseandacommodity一flourishes,almostdespiteitself.

AllanPatience,thistimewelcomingJennyHockingJsstudyofLionelMurphy

(1997)(explicitlysub-titled'apoliticalbiography',withoutreally

explaining

why)aswarrantingimmediateplacement'inthevanguardofAustralianpolitical

biography',prefacedhisreviewbydefiningthecontextforsuchstudiesthus:

"Australianpoliticsisbestunderstoodintermsofmeretriciouspopulism.Its

factionalelitesandcliquespubliclyparadetheirpretensionstoegalitarianism

whilebehindthescenestheymostlypracticeamindlessadversarialism,

boyo-cronyismandpaybackpolitics,.Withthisasanassumptionaboutwhat

definesthepolitical-andwiththeinevitabledialecticsandexplanatory

resourcesitestablishes(outsiders/insiders,numbersmen,levellers,etc.)一

we

mightbegintowonderwhethertheendproductofAustralianpoliticalbiography

isindangerbeingpredeterminedbythepoliticalprocessesitpurportsto

describe.

Onequestionwemightconsider,then,iswhethersuchaninterdependence

betweencharacterisationsofAustralianpoliticsandthebiographicalinterest

in

Australianpoliticiansisaltogetherhealthy.Aquickreplymightbe:'well,

that,s

howAustralianpoliticsis:acceptit’.AreviewerofMargaretSimons'essay

on

MarkLathaminMay2004suggestedthatLathammightbe'thankedforthe

rebirthofthepoliticalbiographyJinAustralia一theindividualtrajectory

ofa

WestiebecomingaWhitlamprotegeandembodyingthenewvalues,morality

andexperienceofaspirationalAustralia.Foramoment,Lathampeculiarly

embodied/celebrated/createdapowerfulnexusofbiography(publicandprivate)

andpolitics.YetlookwhathadhappenedtohimbyOctober,asanelectionrun

onhasty,superficialpolicies,uncontestedassertionsandthe

'leadership-as-trust'

refrainclaimedhimcompletelyasitsvictim.

37

Butisitassimpleasthat?Mightotherlessonsbedrawnfromthewaysleaders

inhabitwhattheycall'publiclife'—initselfaveryrevealingformulation,

one

whichmightbecontrastedtoanolderconceptof'publicoffice'initscoupling

ofapersonalizedethicalpledgetolivethedutiesofhighofficethroughan

assumedcontinuumbetweenleaderandpeople,yetwhichinturnallowsan

oftenveryconvenientdeparturefromtheconventionsofaleader?s

responsibility

forthearcane,messy,complexandhiddenprocessesofgovernment,ofoffice

('Iwasnottold…，'Ididnotknow…').Howmightwedefinethepublic

domain

ofleadershipinthewakeoftheHuttonInquiryinBritainlorACertainMaritime

Incident!inAustralia?AsRichardSennetthasalreadysuggested,the'public',

perhapsespeciallyasitisdefinedbyandaroundpoliticians,isnotas

unchanging,

self-evidentorstraight-forwardasweliketothink:thefirstcallfora

biographer

mightbetoensurethattheyexplorethekindofhistoricalnuancesshapinghow

thatsphereisconstructedincontext.

Solongaseachsideofpoliticalbiography(thespaceandgameofpoliticson

the

onehandandtheidentificationofthebiographicalsubjectontheother)remain

somutuallyreinforcingandjustifying,thereisunlikelytobemuch

reconsiderationofeither.Solongasthequestionsaskedofoneareprettymuch

thesameasthequestionsaskedoftheother,wehaveastasis,ifnotastalemate.

Archetypes,asNealBlewetthasobserved—fromavantagebothinsideand

outsidethedomainofpolitics一areperhapspredestinedtodominatepolitical

biographyandevenautobiography,attheexpenseofprivateselves*andall

thattheymightrepresent.

Howmightwemoveonthissituation?First,perhaps,bycloselyscrutinising

theassumptionsweworkwith.GrahamLittle(1988)notedthatthe'ragefor

strongleadership'duringthe1980s—hewasreferringtoThatcher,Reagan

andFraserinparticular一reflectedthedistinctroleofsuchpoliticiansas

moral

guidesthroughtheuncertaintiesoftheage’.Thesefiguresrepresenteda

politics

that,Littlesuggested,tookon'whattherestofushavegivenupon,orare

makingamessof'(Little1988).Inthatcontext,inapoliticalculture

overshadowedbythestrainedboundariesofexpectationsandrightsfromthe

1970sbutnotyetenmeshedintheambiguitiesofglobalisationandreconstruction

ofthe1990s,theprejudicesofsuchleadersweretheirstrengths,andthecontrol

theyexercisedonpoliticalagendasremediedthealienationexperiencedamong

thosewhosupportedthem.Butareweinthesameplacenow?Whatkindsof

questionsmightwenowbringtoassessmentsofthelinkbetweenthe'public'

ofthepoliticianandthe'private'ofthosewholooktothemforleadership

theexperienceof'middleAustralia?assurveyedbyMichaelPusey(2003),for

example?Lamentsatthefailureofcontemporarypoliticalleadership—its

careerism,evasionsofresponsibilityandpopulism一arewidespread.Butto

whatextentdosuchcharacterisationsofpoliticsandleadershipneed

accommodatechangesinpoliticalagendas(postmaterialism,thepoliticsof

identityratherthanidentitypolitics,issuesthatnolongerfitwith

ideological

continuums,andsoon)orthemorefundamentalwaysinwhich,soWendy

Brown(1995)argued,auniversalisedliberalentitlementprojecthasproduced

itsowninherentcontradictionsinindividualisednormativeidentity?Itis

exactly

inaskingsuchquestionsthatpoliticalbiographymightserveasacatalystin

rethinkingwhatwemeanbypublicandprivateinthefirstplace.

Interestingly,intheremarksquotedabove,NealBlewettwentontosuggestthe

neednotnecessarilyformoreintimate,privatereflectionsby/onpoliticians

but

for'granderpublicmyths'thatmightanchorpoliticallivesinmeaning.Seen

fromthisperspective,perhapsthepublic-privatedistinctionisnotitself

especiallyuseful:thepointismoreaboutthekindsofquestionsweseekto

answerthroughit.Itissignificantthatoneofthemostconsistentlyfavourably

reviewedrecentAustralianpoliticalbiographiesisPaulStrangio,sstudyof

Jim

Cairns,KeeperoftheFaith(2002):thataspectsofthatbookmostoftenpraised

centreonStrangio,ssuccessinbalancing,withbothcomplexityanddignity,

Cairns'politicalfailureandhisintellectualintegrity.Itisnotthatwe

arebeing

askedtoseeaprivateCairnsbehindthepublicface,butthat,inpowerfulways,

thebookpromptsanexplorationoftheevolutionofidentityinshifting

political,

personalandsocialcontextsthatmakesuchdivisionsseemsuperfluous.

Similarly,

partofthesuccessofMarilynLake,sstudyofFaithBand1erhasbeenidentified

inthesubtletywithwhichLakeregisteredthecoststoBandler,spersonaand

poweramidthetransitionfrom'thepoliticsofpersuasion,to'thepolitics

of

representation';andfromdiscoursesofequalrightstothoseoflandrights

(2002).

Thisleadstomysecondpoint.Whathasbeenrecentlydescribedas'the

biographicalturn'inthesocialsciencesoffersaperspectiveontheseissues

throughanincreasinginterestinquestionsof:reflexivity,individualisation

and

agencythatreflectbothstructuralandhumanistlevelsofanalysis;and,the

constructionratherthandeconstructionofsubjects,premisedonunderstanding

specific,enablingcontextsofactionandamountingtomorethantherealization

ofidentitiesorpathologiesinidentitiesandpsychologies.Theconceptof

reflexivityregisterstheinherentlysocialnatureoftheself:itsbasisin

exchange;

itsembodimentingestureanddisposition.StuartMacintyrenoticedthese

featureswellinhisstudyofSyme,DeakinandHiginbotham,demonstrating

howtheirpoliticalalignmentswereinmanywaysreinforcedbypatternsof

sociability,comportment,manners一whatmightbetermedtheirhabitus\an

embodied,enactedandmutualsubjectivity(1991).JudithAllenachieved

somethingsimilarinherstudyofRoseScott(1994).Itissignificantthata

biographicalapproachfiguressoprominentlyinrecentstudiesofwomenin

Australianpolitics,andperhapsespeciallyof'conservative'women(Michael

McKernanJsBerylBeaurepaire(1999);MargaretFitzherbertJsLiberalWomen

(2004),directlytestingandchallengingthepublic/privatedivideasitfigures

inthelivesofthosewho,experientiallyorphilosophically,mightbemost

assumedtobeitssubjects.Suchcodesofsociabilityareperhaps

easiertodecipher

inVictorianandEdwardiancontexts,andamongmultiplesubjects,andaway

fromtherelentlesslymasculiniseddomainoftoppoliticalleadership.Butwe

needsuchanapproach一afullcontextualisationofpoliticalmannersand

agency

-ifwearetounderstandthecurrentdomainofpoliticsandofpoliticians,

and

tomakesenseofhowwegothere.

Mythirdandfinalpointmightseemlikeadvertising,butisaboutsomething

more.TheAustralianDictionaryofBiographyispreparingtoreleasetheaugust

ADBasafully-searchable,integratedwebsite.Itiseasytogetdistractedon

websites,asevidentinanattempttodefinethepoliticalspherethroughthe

still

incomplete,experimentaltest-siteoftheADBOnline',asearchbypolitician

gives

us1611matchestoindividualentries;politicsgivesus1233;politicalgives

1910;

publicservantgivesus1482.Ofthe50linkstotheuseoftheword

'frustration',

9aretopoliticians;ofthe161to'compromise',68aretopoliticians;of

the275

to'ambition',52areto'politicians,;7ofthe33(20%)examplesof'envy'

areto

politicians,asopposedto9ofthe94(or10%)to'compassion'and16ofthe

142

to'wisdom'.Alargemajorityofthementionsof'oratory'aretopoliticians

whatwillbetheskillthatdominatesaswemoveintothemorecontemporary

period?Ofthe556mentionsof'radical',politiciansfigureasalargeminority

amongadiversemix,buttheyaccountfortheclearmajorityof'conservative'.

Andsoon.

Butbeyondthisrandomsample,Iwanttosuggestamoreimportantpoint.A

resourceliketheADBOnline,asitevolves,isnotjustatechnicaltoolto

dowhat

wedoanywaybutmoreefficiently;ithasthecapacitytoshapeandenablenew

researchagendas,andeventobeanagentinrecastingquestionsthatare

appropriatetothechanginginterestsandquestionswewillbringtobiography.

Initsfirstrelease,laterthisyear,forexample,asearchonEdmundBarton

will

takeyoutotheADBentryitself,thenontolinkedresources(guidestorelevant

papers,collections,sources),onesuchlinkbeingtothedigitisedBartonpapers

attheNationalLibraryofAustralia,includingitemsrangingfrom

correspondence,diariesandphotographsthroughtonewspapercuttingsand

menus.AsthecapacityoftheADBOnlinedevelopsthroughtolinkstoother

collectinginstitutions—suchasScreenSoundAustralia,theNationalMuseum

-imaginewhatmightbedoneto'embody'thelivesofpoliticalfigures,not

justasindividualsbutasfigureswhocanbecontextualisedintheirnetworks,

theiropportunities,theirexperiences,theirgestures,memberships,

friendships,

eventheirgeographiesandmobility.But,asIsaid,thisisnotjustatechnical

resource.Theinformationage,asManuelCastellsnoted(forgoodorill),is

one

inwhichpeopleproduceformsofsociabilityratherthanfollowmodesof

behaviour'.Sotheinformationage,andthenewmodesofbiographyitwill

encourage/requireustoproduce,mightallowustoexplorethehistoryofsuch

formsofsociability-again,refiguringoursenseoftherelationbetweenthe

ExpandingTheRepertoire:Theory,

MethodandLanguageinPolitical

Thisessayposesthreequestions.Whyisbiographyisolatedfromepistemological

debatesinpoliticalscience?Arebiographersconfinedtothearchiveandthe

toolsofthehistorian?Howdoweexplainourstory?Biographersconfrontmany

issuesspecifictotheirparticularartform(seeforexamplePimlott1994,

169-61

andthechaptersbyArklayandBoltoninthisvolume).Buttheycanalsoconfront

coreissuesoftheory,methodandlanguagecentraltotheenterpriseofpolitical

science.Yet,whetherwelookatbiographythroughthespectaclesofeither

mainstreamorpost-modernpoliticalscience,bothdismissbiography.

Asanapproachinmainstreampoliticalscience,biographyiscriticisedbecause

itlacksanalyticalrigouranddoesnotofferlaw-likegeneralisations.For

example,

Blondel(1969,5)hasconsistentlyarguedthatbothhistoricalandcasestudy

methodsarelimitednotonlybylackofdatabutalsobytheirinabilitytocompare

andexplainsystematicallythestructureandbehaviourofgovernments.The

casemethodissuitablefordescribinguniqueeventsandgreatmenbutitdoes

notallowgeneralisations.Itdoesnotprovideguidelinesbywhichtoabstract

fromrealitythe“critical"elementswhichwouldprovidethematerialfor

comparisonsonalargescale，(Blondel1981,67).Inasimilarvein,James(1992,

254)notesthemanyministerialbiographies,autobiographies,memoirsand

diaries'areoftennotmuchusetoastudentofWhitehallJ.Inthejargonof

social

science,quantitative,middle-rangeanalysisisnomotheticsis—thatis,

it

issystematicandfostersgeneralisations—whereasbiography(orcasestudies

orahistoricalnarrative)isidiographicanalysis-thatis,itisdescriptive,

focusing

ontheunique(Riggs1962,11).

Ifwetakeoffourmainstreamspectaclesandwearthoseofpostmodernism,the

critiqueofbiographyisevenmorewithering(ifthatispossible).Thecontrast

betweenthemainstreampoliticalscienceandthepost-modernprojectissharp

(seeBernstein1991).Theformerstrivesaftersimplificationandsuccessive

approximationstoagiventruth.Thelatterrejectssuchtruthclaims,accepting

therearemultiplerealitiesandnofoundationsforassertingthesuperiority

of

oneinterpretationoveranother.Thus,Rosenau(1992,118and120-21)includes

aconstructivistandcontextualisttheoryofreality,inwhichrealityistreated

asalinguisticconvention,amongthecorebeliefsofpostmodernism.Inother

words,'totheextentthatthemindfurnishesthecategoriesofunderstanding,

therearenorealworldobjectsofstudyotherthanthoseinherentwithinthe

mentalmakeupofpersons，(Gergen1986,141).Moreover,'[i]flanguageitself

is

relativeandevenarbitrary,andiflanguageistheonlyrealityweknow,then

realityis,atmost,alinguistichabit'.'Therearenoindependently

identifiable,

realworldreferentstowhichthelanguageofsocialdescriptioniscemented，

(Gergen1986,143).So,<allknowledgeclaims(allfacts,truths,andvalidity).

StanleyFish(1991,13-15)statesthedilemmaforbiographersneatly.Heargues

therehasbeenashiftfromadiscourseoftheselfasaconscioussubjectendowing

theworldwithmeaningtoadiscoursewhichexplainsmeaningastheproduct

ofepistemes,paradigmsorstructuresbeyondthegraspoftheconscioussubject.

Theselfis'dissolved',soithenotionofanintentionalactorwithahistory

and

biographymustdissolvetoo'.Anybiographyassumes'notionsofagency,

personhood,causeandeffect*thatbothgovernourreadingsandarecontested

andcontestable.Whatpricethebiographyofanintentionalactorinthis

post-modernworld(andonthisargumentinhistoriographyseeJenkins1995

andcitations)?

Iwanttocontestboththemainstreamandpost-moderncharacterisations.I

defendbiographicalstudiesbyarguingthataninterpretiveapproachdeploying

thenotionsoftraditions,beliefs,anddilemmasandusingthetoolsofthe

historian,thephilosopherandtheanthropologistcanprovideanalytical

narrativesanddiagnosticgeneralisationswithoutmakingtruthclaims.

Inowturntoeachofmyquestions.First,Ilookatapossibleinterpretive

theoreticalapproachtobiography,focusingontheworkofMarkBevir(1999).

Second,Ilookatmethods,focusingonculturalethnographyandusingthe

insightsofCliffordGeertz(1973).Third,Iexaminetheroleoflanguageand

formsofstorytellinginwritingnarratives,focusingonHaydenWhite(1973).

Idonotclaimanyoftheseauthorsprovidetherightanswer.Idoarguethese

aremajorissuesthatbiographerscanaddress.

Interpretativeapproachesbeginfromtheinsightthattounderstandactions,

practicesandinstitutions,weneedtograsptherelevantmeanings,thebeliefs

andpreferencesofthepeopleinvolved.AsJohnStuartMill(1969[1840],119-20)

remarked:

ByBentham…menhavebeenledtoaskthemselves,inregardtoany

ancientorreceivedopinion,Isittrue?AndbyColeridge,Whatisthe

meaningofit?Theonetookhisstandoutsidethereceivedopinion,and

surveyeditasanentirestrangertoit:theotherlookedatitfromwithin,

andendeavouredtoseeitwiththeeyesofabelieverinit…Bentham

judgedapropositiontrueorfalseasitaccordedornotwiththeresult

ofhisowninquiriesWithColeridgetheveryfactthatanydoctrine

hadbeenbelievedbythoughtfulmen,andreceivedbywholenations

orgenerationsofmankind,waspartoftheproblemtobesolved,was

oneofthephenomenatobeaccountedfor.

Interpretiveapproachesaretypicallybasedonphilosophicalanalysesofmeaning

inaction.Meanings