Anthropology and the Revolving Door Policy in Western Society

Anthropology has taken, what seems to be, an inadvertent back seat to the other social sciences. The “soft” sciences, as they have often been called, began their assent into academia with the burgeoning of the Enlightenment. They ploddingly evolved through the mid 1800's; incorporating the more entrenched scholarly pursuits into their methodology. Literary studies, which at the time included historiographies, were mined and harvested to imbue the social sciences with the impression of both brevity and an established academic legacy. Couple this with philology, etymology and a general level of appreciation for the cultural, political and social histories of Classical Greece or Rome and the social sciences were off to a running start.

Two of the emerging fields of cultural studies were sociology and anthropology. They are often confused as near synonyms of each other, which leads to a misunderstanding of their core pursuits. This confusion has led to the amalgamation of their meanings and has gradually ushered a death knoll of sorts for the prosaic application of anthropological theory on modern society. What do we make of the apparent semantic differences between the two sister disciplines of cultural studies: sociology and anthropology? Moreover, how can we salvage the waning importance of anthropological analysis?

In a broad sense anthropology encompasses a study of all characteristics of human societies, including social relationships and evolutionary origins. The focus of anthropology is generally concerned with small groups in a homogenous historical context. Anthropology delves into the folkways, mores and myths insofar as they influence and shape social and cultural structures. Creation myths and cosmologies are the bread and butter of anthropology. Sociology, on the other hand, focuses on larger macroscopic social relationships which tend to involve economics and psychology. The intertwining of 2 or more social sciences within a sociological paradigm allows for a greater frequency of use among academics and journalists. By default anthropology attempts to clarify and describe the underpinnings of a societal framework. Furthermore, it employs those underpinnings to illustrate how cultural institutions are governed. Sociology enumerates the cultural institutions and their formation but with a narrower foundation.

What follows is an attempt put anthropology back on the roadmap of relevance by applying it's cultural diagnostic tools. This exploration will hopefully peel back the layers of the the revolving door policy underpinnings in modern politics. The revolving door policy is the Godhead of a closed circuit, almost plutocratic system by which professionals meander in and out of public service after intermittent appointments either as lobbyists, think tank policy wonks or as CEO's of banks and multinationals. The Godhead of the revolving door policy is, of course, not limited to the exemplars last mentioned. There are many different permutations of the 3 points on the triangle but one steadfast position is that of government. Fundamentally, the revolving door policy is about gift giving, homage and relationship building. From the seminal theoretical work done by Marcel Mauss in his early 20^th century book “The Gift”, it will become clear how similar the mechanics of the (chief) “Big Man” in primitive-preliterate society and modern day revolving door “Big Men” truly are.

Marcel Mauss was the nephew to one of the pillars of anthropology, the Frenchman Emile Durkheim. Mauss' book, "The Gift", chronicles how human relationships are developed, solidified and sustained through mutual gift-giving. This form of gift-giving, where the recipient and the benefactor gain no material or monetary advantage from the artifacts which are bestowed, is referred to as “mutual reciprocity” in anthropological jargon. Mauss employed in his study a cross-cultural methodology, noting gift-giving practices of Polynesians, Northwest Native Americans and Melanesians.

European feudal society has a striking resemblance to this mutual reciprocity, albeit the Lord wielded a sovereign hegemony over the power structure which was not the case in preliterate egalitarian societies. The analogy is, however, still valid. Through a prism of a somewhat romanticized nostalgia, the feudal state indentured the serfs to toil and harvest the Lords estates. The Lord would excise a tax on a portion of the serfs harvest and in exchange the Lord would pledge to defend the serfs in the event of an attack from interlopers. Harkening back to the French Ancien Regime of the 15^th through the 18th centuries, one can observe a classic example of primitive relationship building. The social sciences deem this type of asymmetrical relationship building clientelism.

Clientelism at its core is an exchange of goods, services or tribute for political or social support. Imbedded in the clientelism is an explicit or implicit mandate of quid-pro-quo. Again, in preliterate societies the egalitarian balance precludes an explicit asymmetry. A term which is often used incorrectly as a synonym for clientelism is cronyism. Cronyism shares the tendency of gift-giving but differs from clientelism in the degree it skews the symmetrical balance of the relationships.

Cronyism is a tendency to promote friends, family and other semi-familial relationships through the ranks of political or governmental office. These people often are appointed to their positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. As in the Ancien Regime, the French were well aware of the political benefits of cronyism. So much so they coined the term which we most use today when referring to cronyism: nepotism. It is derived from the French word for nephew and should be nothing new to those familiar with Renaissance politics. Machiavelli's magnum opus, “The Prince”, was based on Cesare Borgia of the notorious Borgia family. Cesare's father/uncle, Pope Alexander VI , was the second true patriarch and architect of this politically savvy dynasty. He was the “nephew” to Pope Callixtus III, who launched the dynasty in the 15^th century. Nevertheless, the exploits of Cesare's tutelage under his father are the bedrock of the infamous credo: “the ends justifies the means.” Cronyism is by design an asymmetrical relationship. The patron or the bestower of the “gift” (position) can requisition a heavier loyalty tax from the recipient because the bestower commands greater clout in the particular political system.

Returning to our original premise; what can anthropology bring to light about gift-giving as way of promoting and solidifying relationships within the Godhead of the revolving door policy? The crux of the analysis lies with an incorporation of the two principles of relationship building through gift-giving: clientelism and cronyism. These two are melded into a closed circuit of mutual reciprocity on a small intimate participant scale. In the short term, the bestower gains a small advantage within the quid-pro-quo balance. However, as the players float effortlessly from commercial appointments to governmental positions and back again in that closed loop, the gains and losses are mutually shared. The “gift” is shared through the tributes which are paid to the various institutions either in valuta or in kind. The bestower's prestige or influence is bolstered by the gift and allows him/her to subsequently bolster the prestige or influence of the recipient. In this way gift-giving to a “Big Man” in preliterate societies is not that dissimilar to gift-giving to an “ex-politician” or “ex-banker” in modern Western society.

ENDA: Why LGBT's and Straights Should Care.

A few months ago a U.S. Senate committee passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. Thursday the Senate voted 64-32 to approve ENDA. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a LGBT grassroots organization and think tank, monitors the progress on range of LGBT issues one of which is the ENDA. On its website the group keeps a running tally of Senators who are “evolving” their viewpoint in favor of EDNA legislation. The bill would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — protections that are, as yet, not explicitly guaranteed under federal statutes.

It seems as if an American social paradigm shift is accelerating when it comes to issues concerning civil rights and equality. You might think that it's just an academic exercise conducted for and by legal scholars and lawmakers. If that's true, then as evidence you would surely invoke both The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as landmark pieces of legislation guaranteeing equal treatment as an American citizen under the constitution. The former ensures equal civic rights to all Americans which was spearheaded by fundamental civil rights being granted to African-Americans in the America. The latter endows equal opportunities and anti-discrimination measures to Americans with physical and mental handicaps.

If you thought the premise of anti-discrimination was merely an enforcement question of laws and statutes already on the books, then you would be dead wrong. The inherent nature of intricate legalese prohibits generalizations and “blanket” uniform coverage under the law.

The recent advancements of same sex marriages as well as the dismantling of the Defense of Marriage Act has sent the centrists, leftists and right wingers down a rabbit hole that appears to be bottomless. One of the newest and simultaneously longest running bills which would protect equality in the workplace is gaining notoriety and traction in all three camps. The bill in question is the Employment Nondiscrimination Act: ENDA for short.

What exactly is ENDA; why has it taken almost 30 years to pass and what is its shared pedigree with other landmark civil rights bills? Here is a guided tour through the rabbit hole of civil rights legislation as it pertains to ENDA.

Assuming the momentum continues and it passes Congress, the bill would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. An issue, as yet, not explicitly guaranteed under federal statutes.

Of course, there are numerous labor laws which have been adopted to ensure protection of civil rights which are already on the books. However, Stetson Law School assistant professor, Jason Bent, says ENDA addresses issues other laws don’t.

“...The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only covered certain categorical things. Right, it covers race, national origin, and religion and so other things. But that sort of set the tone. It now, if you want to extend protections to another class; some other defined by some other characteristic. If you want to protect them from private discrimination then you need a separate piece of legislation.”

This appears to say that the hastening zeitgeist of total equality is only impeded by the verbiage of the particular Acts and statutes. Specifically, the LGBT community would receive implicit and explicit protection in the workplace as it pertains to sexual orientation and gender identity. How you express those ideals in a working environment is the crux of the debate and the centerpiece of the legislation.

Alfred Kinsey, the full-time biologist and part-time sexologist, in his seminal research and books on the sexuality of males and females revealed that pigeonholing sexuality is a slippery slope. His bell curve scale detailed the false tenacity of orthodox sex role definitions. The scale he developed had completely homosexual on one end with its polar opposite, completely heterosexual, on the other end. The conclusion he drew is that a small minority of people fall into either extreme. In other words, the majority of us are all a combination of both ends. The scale doesn't address bisexuality or transsexuality as such but the gist of the argument is clear.

This brings up an interesting conundrum. What if sexual discrimination in the workplace isn’t limited to the LGBT community? Felipe Souza-Rodriquez is the co-director of Get Equal, a grassroots advocacy group which provides LGBT communities a forum in which to tell, receive feedback and discuss their stories about job discrimination. He said, as the law stands now, even heterosexuals could fall victim to discrimination on the job based on “perceived” sexual orientation or gender identity.

”Discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation is where people...who are straight, but people think they are gay, bisexual or lesbian and then they often get fired. So, I mean we're talking about the full spectrum of everyone. Even straight people who are discriminated the quote/unquote look gay.”

The current language in the bill allows for some dubious escape clauses and loopholes. Occasionally employers make assumptions regarding workers’ sexual orientation. As stated earlier, this is what some call perceived orientation. Daniel Tilley, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida says this concept plainly highlights the shortcomings of the bill.

”...they give a wide berth for employers to discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity if they're not just a religious institution but religiously affiliated. So if you're a religiously affiliated hospital you could fire a gay groundskeeper or a trans(exual) doctor. And this is troubling for a number of reasons. One, those obviously have no...those positions have no relation whatsoever to a particular religion. But secondly, those exemptions don't exist in other civil rights laws.”

The transgender community has been brought to the forefront, principally, because of ENDA’s use of the term “gender identity.” Staff attorney of the New York City based Transgender Legal and Education Fund, Noah Lewis, says the uncanny high rate of transgender job discrimination will be addressed if ENDA is enacted.

”transgender people face extraordinarily high rates of discrimination. Nine out of ten transgender people report experiencing harassment or discrimination on the job. Nearly half have been fired or denied promotion or not hired because of being transgender. One out of four transgender individuals have lost a job simply because they're transgender. So this is just a question of basic fairness. No one should be fired simply for being gay or transgender.”

Before the St Pete Pride event this year, Steve Kornell, a St. Pete city council member, commented on a remark by Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s. Rubio had said he would not support ENDA because it would give preferential treatment to a certain group of people. Kornell rejects that statement out of hand. He says minorities can’t be given their rights.

”Gay people and the people covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, especially African-Americans, and other minorities don't have to be given their rights. They're entitled their rights by the (US) constitution; which says that all men are created equal. And to me that definition should include all people. And does include all people to me. And certain groups have fought to deny people their rights. So that's all people are asking for. They're not asking for preferential treatment. That's laughable. That's just not true.”

There are numerous other civil rights issues being debated in the public forum, like many of the amendments laid out in the US Bill of Rights. Unlawful search and seizure, freedom of the press and free speech, right to bear arms as well as abortion, euthanasia and dominion over ones body, along with gender identity and sexual orientation are all portions of a redistricting of America's psychosocial map. This psychosocial map is slowly being conjoined through a zeitgeist of inclusion and equality for all Americans. In this way an otherwise worrisome journey down the rabbit hole feels more like a pleasant stroll down an unfamiliar country lane.


Shortly after the Senate voted to approve ENDA, president Obama released a statement commending the Senate and appealed to the House of Representatives to do the same.

“I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law. On that day, our nation will take another historic step toward fulfilling the founding ideals that define us as Americans.”