Book Review: Private Crusades and Public Problems: The Sociological Heritage of Joseph Gusfield by S. Bernardin
| Author | Nikolaos Zahariadis |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740221125435 |
| Published date | 01 November 2022 |
| Date | 01 November 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
Book Review
Bernardin, S. Ed. (2022). Private Crusades and Public Problems: The Sociological Heritage of Joseph Gusfield (in French).
Rennes: University Press of Rennes. pp. 277. €25, ISBN 978-2-75358250-7.
Reviewed by: Nikolaos Zahariadis , Rhodes College, Memphis, TN, USA.
DOI: 10.1177/02750740221125435
Why do some problems become public problems while
others do not? What are the mechanisms that link the web
of thematic details to public attention? These are deceptively
easy questions to ask but very hard to answer. Revisiting the
work of noted sociologist Joseph Gusfield, Stève Bernardin
and his colleagues offer some answers in this erudite collec-
tion of essays. The main argument is that public problems are
intentionally designed constructions of social narratives,
meaning that public problems are never just social problems
but rather someone’s ideas of pointing to and framing of spe-
cific issues. Moreover, intentionality implies purposeful actor
behavior, which necessitates, in the public policy arena, con-
tests for meaning, social standing, and political power.
The authors derive three mechanisms from Gusfield’s
work that link social problems to public attention. They use
them in a series of vignettes drawing on mainly French
cases, but also European and American ones, to explore
how campaigns for public attention unfold across a highly
diverse tapestry of issues from drugs and the abolitionist
movement to protection of animals and the use of pesticides.
It is an impressive array of research, well organized themat-
ically, that makes interesting theoretical arguments. But it
should have perhaps embedded the findings more explicitly
into the broader public policy literature to attract the attention
of a wider scholarly audience.
The book is divided into three parts which correspond to
the three thematic mechanisms linking private campaigns
and public problems. The first is dramaturgy, the idea that
constructing public problems fosters what Gusfield calls
symbolic crusades. Groups aiming to publicize their cause
do so by creating narratives with heroes and villains and by
linking what may often be private behavior, such as alcohol-
drinking, to an adverse social outcome, drunk-driving. To do
so, they rely less on rational conversations about causes and
effects and more on affect-priming epithets. For example,
they are not “drunk drivers,”they are “drunk driving
killers.”Once the epithet sticks, it makes no difference
whether it’s true or not. It’s a public issue that has to be
addressed because society cannot allow killers on the loose.
In this way, language and morality are two very important
tools in the arsenal of successful crusading groups. True to
Gusfield’s conceptualization, the authors reinforce the point
that status politics rather than social class is the main
source of success. For example, it is not enough to be a
member of the elite to raise attention to the issue of
slavery. One also has to have close links and impeccable cre-
dentials with the community of the predominant religion if
slavery is to be addressed as a moral issue.
The second mechanism is problem ownership. It is
perhaps the most original contribution from a political
science point of view, even if it is written by a sociologist!!
Most policy groups struggle mightily to claim ownership of
specific issues, such as treatment of animals, quality of air
in interior spaces, drugs in schools, etc. The political benefits
of such appropriation of issues are twofold. First, “owning”a
problem means one gets to define its characteristics, framing
its limits and narratives in a way that advances a group’s
agenda. Second, appropriation of a problem by a specific
group implies the group also gets to define, to an extent,
the solution and the actors to be involved. In other words,
owning a problem by a private, non-governmental, group,
biases the policy process in favor of that group by giving a
non-public entity the power, if not moral authority, to
shape the public agenda.
The third mechanism is distancing, which is a relational
concept. It encapsulates the idea of shaping the dominant dis-
course in one’s favor. It is about fragmenting the opposition
and positioning the narrative in a favorable light. If drama-
turgy is about the nature of ideas and issue ownership
about the appropriation of ideas, distancing is about the
battle of ideas. Behind this concept hides a simple point:
winning a policy argument depends as much on the argu-
ment’s strength as it does on the opposition’s weakness.
Such weakness can be shaped politically when issues move
from one area to another, for example, when the use of pes-
ticides moves from being an agricultural to becoming a health
issue. Fragmenting the opposition and redefining the problem
space enables some groups or institutions like the mass media
to obstruct some events from becoming public problems or
facilitate the emergence of others.
Kudos to the editor for maintaining a tight theoretical
framework around which the case studies are built. Even
more appealing is the conclusion, which pulls everything
together. Rare are those edited volumes that return back to
Book Review
American Review of Public Administration
2022, Vol. 52(8) 586–587
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
To continue reading
Request your trial