Retssikkerhed som rationalitetsmyte: Administrativ praksis inden for det sociale klagesystem

The Notion of Legal Rights as a Rationalized Myth: Administrative Proceedings in the Social Appeals System The social appeals system is expected to safeguard the legal rights of Danish citizens, a task it shares with other bodies that deal with complaints about public decision-making. However an ethnographic inquiry into the actual proceedings of the appeals system reveals that this objective is rather ambiguous. The notion of legal rights does not provide officials with a common set of guidelines regarding the criteria for social casework. This is illustra-ted in the article by a case concerning the rights of immi-grants to choose a permanent residence. The case was followed in two different organizational settings, regional and national. Different conceptions of the basic goal of the appeals system seem to prevail in these settings. At the regional level, emphasis is on safeguarding the (human) rights of individuals. At the national level, more attention is paid towards securing a general state of legal unifor-mity. The concept of legal rights therefore fails to offer a sociological understanding of the administrative procee-dings of the appeals system. The article suggests that the notion of legal rights may instead be seen as a rationalized myth, a term taken from the new institutionalism. As such, legal rights do not refer directly to actual proceedings, but are exceedingly important in explaining and legitimizing the presence of the appeals system in more general societal terms

PÅ GYNGENDE GRUND: Udfordringer ved den multilokale forskningsmetode

George E. Marcus has introduced the notion of a multi-sited ethnography as an attempt to deal methodologically and analytically with anthropological fieldwork in a postmodern era. This article discusses some of the crucial challenges of this approach. Particular attention is paid to the various ‘tracking strategies’ suggested by Marcus, e.g. “following the conflict”. A study of an institutional complex of complaint boards, established to secure the legal rights of social clients in Denmark, works as an empirical illustration. It is shown how the idea of “following the conflict” helped to organise the research process. However, this tracking strategy contained some difficulties of its own, and the principle of multi-locality highlighted unexpected aspects of the “conflicts” between state and citizen. This prompts reflection upon the sort of knowledge than can be gained from doing ethnographic fieldwork. The article concludes by suggesting multi-sited ethnography as an important and promising tool in anthropological research. Most importantly, it helps the ethnographer to consider and handle the unpredictability of fieldwork in a structured and yet flexible manner. &nbsp

INTRODUKTION

INTRODUKTION &nbsp

Introduktion: ARBEJDETS ANATOMI

Der hersker almindelig enighed om, hvad begrebet arbejde dækker over. Vi mener at vide, hvad der refereres til, når nogen spørger os, „hvad vi laver“. Og vi kender hver især dusinvis af mennesker med stillinger, hvis indhold vi mener at have begreb om – men hvor vi hurtigt ville komme til kort, hvis vi blev bedt om at forklare, hvad disse personer rent faktisk foretager sig. Det hænger sammen med, at arbejdsbegrebet har en „institutionaliseret“ karakter. Spørgsmålet, hvad arbejde som socialt og kulturelt fænomen betyder, er ikke noget, vi almindeligvis tænker over. Det er nærmere noget, vi tænker med. På linje med andre institutionaliserede begreber snyder den entydige forestilling om arbejde, fordi der under dække af kategorisk klarhed findes en mangfoldighed af betydninger og forståelser