Abstract
An abundant literature studies the political thought of “ordinary citizens” qualitatively, but cross-national comparative studies are rare. To begin identifying cultural differences, this article focuses on the U.S. and Argentina, two countries that are opposite in many respects, while homogenizing the age, family situation, income, and metropolitan residence of the respondents. On one hand, the analysis shows two elements (that we call ideologemes) common to both countries: the vision of the public sphere of mothers who have experienced downward social mobility, and the recurrent reference to the breaking of a previously extant social covenant. On the other hand, it shows differences in a basic axis of discursive organization: In Argentina, personal experience is tied to political events and historicized, while in the U.S., discourses about society are predominantly articulated in terms of spatial categories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Adorno, T., et al. (1950). The authoritarian personality New York: Norton.
Alexander, J., et al. (Eds.) (1987). The micro-macro link Berkeley: University of California Press.
Baxandall, M. (1972). Painting and experience in fifteenth century Italy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Cerulo, K. (1999). Deciphering violence: The cognitive structure of right and wrong New York: Routledge.
Demazière, D., & Dubar, C. (1997). Analyser les entretiens biographiques Paris: Nathan.
Espeland, W. (1998). The struggle for water: Politics, rationality and identity in the American Southwest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Esping-Anderson,G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Gramsci, A. (1973). Selection from the prison notebooks. In Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith (Eds. & Transl.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don't. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lane, R. (1962). Political ideology. New York: Free Press.
Norris, P. (Ed.) (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pharr, S., & Putnam, R. (Eds.) (2000). Disaffected democracies: What's troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sewell, Jr., W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.
Sigal, S., & Kessler, G. (1996-97). Comportements et reprèsentations face à la dislocation des régulations sociales: L'hyperinflation en Argentine. Cultures et Conflits, n. 24–25: 35-72.
Wagner-Pacifici, R. (1994). Discourse and destruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weintraub, J., & Kumar, K. (Eds.) (1997). Public and private in thought and practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wright, E. O. (1985). Classes. London: Verso.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Larson, M.S., Sigal, S. Does “The Public” Think Politically?: A Search for “Deep Structures” in Everyday Political Thought. Qualitative Sociology 24, 285–309 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010644123221
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010644123221