In discussing the class status of Just’s protagonists, I focus on an issue raised by William Dow (2009, 221): how novelists cannot avoid “reifying” their own class interests. I examine the degree to which Just’s characters fairly or accurately represent their upper-class status and whether Just, intentionally or not, presents these characters as positive models of their class or as a subtle critique of the inadequacies of the class. I conclude by arguing that Just’s imaginary provides us with a reasonable basis for understanding the abstract structure of elite power and suggests ways to further the cause of social justice.
Political representation raises issues about how a ruling elite or governing class of a democratic nation can be said to “represent” the interests of the larger public, including the poor, the working class, the marginalized. There is a vast literature in political science about how America’s government officials do or should represent their constituents at the national level. The key work that often provides a framework for the arguments about political representation is Hanna Pitkin’s classic philosophical investigation, The Concept of Representation. Pitkin (1967, 232–33) argues that for the idea of representation to have “substantive content” there must be a two-way street of influence: the represented should be able to influence their representatives, but representatives should still be able to exercise their own personal judgment and influence those who are represented, in effect building support for their policies. The people should not be “merely passive recipients” of government actions but “capable of action and judgment, capable of initiating government activity, so that the government may be conceived as responding to them,” and government officials representing the people should be in a “constant condition of responsiveness, of potential readiness to respond.”
Of course, the difficulty is in the details of how this two-way street of influence might actually function. Using Pitkin’s work as background, I survey the literature on political representation, which in the case of the United States means finding the appropriate metaphor for a person “acting for” or in the interests of someone else, the most common metaphors being the trustee or delegate relationships, and I make the case that we should evaluate representatives on the basis of how well they are attuned to the needs and interests of all their constituents and how well they respond over time to those needs and interests, which might include seeking to shape the views of their constituents and build consensus on particular issues, testing ideas for policies through polling and the media.
In describing the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and consultants as they go about the job of governing, Just portrays the degree to which these characters consider their responsibilities and obligations to the conflicting demands of their larger public, consisting of a host of competing constituencies, citizens at all levels—national, state, and district—including members of their own and the opposing political party, special interest groups, and those voices not often heard in the tumult of election campaigns and the drafting of legislation. In Just’s imaginary, the “representatives” of the people have a complex relationship with the “represented”: Just’s representatives generally only consider those who have easy access to them: donors and fellow officials. They rarely consider their larger constituencies, and when they do so it is primarily as a means of gaining support in an election or of placating a particular interest group that feels that its needs have been slighted. For all practical purposes, in doing their jobs, Just’s representatives seem barely aware that the poor and working class exist at all.
Finally, diplomatic representation deals primarily with how foreign service elites should represent the idea and interests of the country, issues similar to those related to domestic policy. On the one hand, diplomats represent the country in a number of obvious ways. They are in effect symbols of the country at ceremonies recognizing the relationship between countries, and they engage in what R. P. Barston (1988, 2) calls the “tasks” of diplomacy: keeping the channels of communication open between nations by “listening, preparing the ground for initiatives, reducing friction, and contributing to orderly change,” and more substantive tasks such as “explaining and defending national policy, negotiating, and interpreting the policies of receiving governments.” Much of this work is largely a matter of interpreting America’s foreign policy to the representatives of those nations affected by these policies. In these matters diplomats are allowed a certain amount of flexibility and leeway.
On the other hand, because they are aware of the tenuousness of international relations, foreign service officers also understand that they may need to represent a higher calling than simply advancing and defending the interests of their own nation: they may also need to promote peace and cooperation between nations or some vision of a stable world order. Diplomats may consider politicians and the public in general as amateurs who take the idea of national sovereignty too literally and carry it to extremes. As a result, diplomats often think of themselves as committed to a larger vision of the international order, which often necessitates their curbing the nationalist and imperialist impulses of those who govern individual nation-states.
Because of the limits of their upper-class status, Just’s foreign service elites represent only a limited range of “ideas” about America—its capitalist system and preoccupation with technology—and their class status often influences them to put their family and class interests above those of their home country or even their personal vision for a stable and harmonious international order.
The Political Fiction of Ward Just then is divided into three sections, each containing two chapters. In the first chapter of each section, I summarize the theoretical issues involved with a particular form of representation: how or in what sense fiction can represent social class, how or in what sense the elected officials of a nation can represent their constituents, and how or in what sense diplomats and foreign service officers can represent their countries. I go on in the first chapter of each section to argue that as a novelist and short story writer Ward Just is uniquely qualified to create characters whose lives illustrate that form of representation. In the second chapter of each section, I analyze two or three novels—in section two I analyze two novels and one short story—pointing out how Just’s upper-class representatives are conditioned by their class status to act as they do and the manner in which they represent their constituents and their nation.
The first section is about “Literary Representation.” Chapter 1 deals with “Theories of Class Representation,” and the second chapter, titled “Representing the Development of Ruling-Elite Consciousness,” analyzes two of Just’s novels that treat the developing consciousness of elite young people: Exiles in the Garden and Rodin’s Debutante.
The second section is devoted to “Political Representation.” Chapter 3 deals with “Theories of Political Representation,” and the fourth, titled “Representing the Few,” examines three of Just’s works that illustrate how various government officials consider their constituents: the two novels In the City of Fear and Jack Gance, and the short story, “The Congressman Who Loved Flaubert.”
The third and final section deals with “Diplomatic Representation.” Chapter 5 deals with “Theories of Diplomatic Representation,” and chapter 6, “Representing the Idea of America,” illustrates how in three novels Just’s American diplomats and foreign service officers represent their nation. The novels are The American Ambassador, A Dangerous Friend, and Forgetfulness.
In the conclusion, I consider the value of literary criticism of class representations in fiction, and how such criticism can contribute to the cause of social justice by encouraging us to think of ways to make our ruling elites more responsive to the “will of the people.” Just’s characters in particular can encourage us to think about ways to make our ruling elites more sensitive to the needs of their constituents and the means with which they try to impose America’s values and interests on the rest of world. I suggest that the best way to make our politics more representative of the country as a whole is Stanley Aronowitz’s conception of a large social movement dedicated to making the country more democratic. I end with a summary of