“Sometimes Good People Do Bad Things”: Personal Ties, Role Conflict, and the Defense of Corrupt Politicians

• In Event: The Sociology of Corruption.

Abstract

Political corruption is a pervasive problem in the U.S. that has reduced living standards, eroded trust in government, and fueled populist backlash. Previous research shows that corrupt officials often use bribery, misinformation, fear, and relational work to build support and suppress political opposition. However, these studies do not explain why constituents who disapprove of corruption, gain little from it, lack fear, and are well-organized often struggle to stop it.

Drawing on nine months of ethnography, 40 interviews, and extensive archival research in “Shale County”—an Appalachian community with a long history of political corruption that mobilized for change—this paper examines the forces that impede reform movements. It shows that reformers were greatly constrained by their close personal ties to and cultural affinities with officeholders, who were regarded as “good people” despite their misconduct. They were also limited by their distrust of outside investigators and fear of harming the community’s reputation.

While prior studies focus on corrupt officials’ coercive power over constituents, this analysis highlights how social ties, moral criteria for distinguishing between “good” and “bad” people, broader social conflicts, and efforts to protect community reputation can limit constituents’ power to confront officeholders. It also shows that social networks, which typically facilitate mobilization, can impede movements when activists are embedded in relationships with the very actors they seek to hold accountable. Overall, these findings support Foucault’s theory of “capillary power,” which construes power as diffuse, disembodied, and woven into norms and roles, not simply exercised through coercion, manipulation, and clientelist exchange.

Author

• Philip George Lewin, Florida Atlantic University