Xiang Biao and Insa Lee Koch, Professor of British Culture at the Universität St.Gallen (HSG), discuss how people in working-class communities in the United Kingdom tend to perceive corruption as a moral failure of institutions and individuals in positions of power rather than as a technical or bureaucratic problem. Koch argues that this perception stems from mistrust and disillusionment with the political system, which is viewed as corrupt and self-serving. She also explores the concept of a ‘popular political ontology’, which refers to the way people in these communities think about power and politics. She argues that this ontology is characterised by a personalised and moralised understanding of corruption, which differs from the more abstract and systemic understanding of corruption found in academic and political discourse.

The conversation also touches on Biao’s concept of “double alienation”, which refers to the way in which people in these communities feel disconnected from both the state and the market. This sense of alienation is a key driver of perceptions of corruption and the desire for a more inclusive and participatory form of politics. During the conversation, Koch emphasises the importance of listening to and understanding the perspectives of people in working-class communities, rather than imposing solutions or theories on them from the outside. She argues that this approach is essential for building a more inclusive and democratic politics that takes into account the concerns and experiences of all citizens.

The conversation also touches on the idea of ‘grounding’ as a way of thinking about politics and society. Koch argues that this approach highlights the importance of linking abstract ideas and concepts to the concrete experiences and concerns of people in different contexts. Overall, the conversation offers a nuanced and insightful examination of corruption and its relationship to power, politics, and society.

Koch questions the foundations of the ‘Common Concerns’ approach. This is a critical conversation. Can we really speak to people using these new concepts, or are we merely reinforcing the very systems we claim to criticise?