Volunteers suppress principled political talk because it seems unseemly

Evidence

Talking about a special favor from one specific politician who might be able to get one particular individual to have his company donate a few items erased the principle of political justice that Charles had tried to raise, about corporations’ obligation to the community. ”Requesting” was okay, but holding companies accountable was not. Asking politely was okay, quietly negotiating behind-the-scenes was acceptable; but raising a matter of principle and trying to discuss it publicly was considered unseemly. … The point is that allowing political conversation in their meetings would have given a different meaning to volunteers’ work, even if volunteers had kept on doing exactly the same tasks. But volunteers assumed that talking would not itself produce knowledge or power. — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics, 276

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader civic apathy literature (Eliasoph’s own thesis) and to Hochschild/Polletta on why political talk gets suppressed in everyday settings. — connects to: Citizens express political ideas privately yet avoid public political engagement — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 1; Political concern exists but is silenced by informal etiquette in group contexts. — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 97; Volunteers themselves restrict political talk to preserve their civic faith — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 192 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Volunteers frame political talk as morally exclusionary of ordinary less-eloquent people. #complicates (0.72) — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 102