“By almost every measure, Americans’ direct engagement in politics and government has fallen steadily and sharply over the last generation, despite the fact that average levels of education- the best individual-level predictor of political participation-have risen sharply throughout this period.” Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard University, wrote these words in his 1995 article, “Bowling Alone.” The article focuses upon America’s depletion of what he calls “social capital,” a combination of civic engagement and mutual trust. This depletion, he argues, is detrimental to the quality of democracy in America, for as people work together less, they come to depend on laws to fill societal needs. His claims about decreasing social capital certainly have merit, but while his article focuses mostly upon potential causes of this decrease, Putnam neglects to address ways to attract people towards building social capital. Rather than focus upon the reasons why people choose not to participate in democracy, Americans should focus upon how to make democracy something people want to participate in, not because they have to, or because they should, but because democracy is genuinely interesting and relevant to their lives. Democracy needs to be marketed to people of the 21st century.
Businesses such as Coca-Cola rely heavily upon marketing, as companies expect that people will not buy the same outdated products year after year. Instead, industry survives by packaging products in new and inventive ways to attract a society that is constantly changing. In contrast to American capitalism, people assume that American Democracy should be attractive to people as it is, and that if Americans are not participating as actively as in the past, something is “wrong” with the citizens. Putnam cites changes in American society as “adverse trends,” counting among them a general mistrust of the government, urban sprawl and mobility, and television. He goes on to claim that, “High on America’s agenda should be the question of how to reverse these adverse trends in social connectedness, thus restoring civic engagement and civic trust” (9). However, what Putnam neglects to address is the feasibility of reversing societal norms. Rather than force society to revert to a past era, the “adverse trends,” Putnam mentions could benefit rather than harm society, if used innovatively.
Marketing social capital is one way in which this can occur. The precedent for changing the image of government and civic life is not new. In fact, that was how American democracy began: as an appeal to those dissatisfied living under a monarchy. In the early colonial period, Americans sought to attract people to their new settlements by promoting what was different in the new colonies. Land was advertised, as it was a commodity that could be purchased by any white male. This was attractive to colonists, as it presented a shift from the English mode of land ownership, which was generational. Alexis de Tocqueville comments upon this in his book, Democracy in America, when he says, “it was the law of inheritance which caused the final advance of equality…when the law ordains equal shares…the sons of a great landowner…cannot expect to own the same lands: their wealth is bound to be composed of different elements than his” (TQ 51-53). While this was a shift in tradition, that, according to Tocqueville, “breaks that intimate connection between family feeling and preservation of the land,” (53), the willingness to look at and market land differently ultimately led to greater equality within the democracy. Americans could have viewed this as an “adverse trend,” but instead, marketing allowed the nation to achieve greater equality, and ultimately benefit from its accessibility.
The concept of making Democracy accessible is possible in 21st century America as well. While the right to own land is no longer new or innovative, there is still a need to make Democracy accessible to more people. One method of accessibility appears in Jeffery Stout’s article, “Blessed are the Organized,” in which he reflects upon the power of organization in a democracy. He claims that, “Democracy...is a way of life, not a formula to be preserved like jelly"( 3). As such, the organization of democracy needs to change to reflect society. Previously, information concerning voluntary organizations and town meetings was located in newspapers; however, with less people reading the entire newspaper today, easier access to information could greatly aid those in search of opportunities for civic engagement. Information about organizations and meetings in the format of a movie advertisement, for example, could make Democratic activities more accessible to modern Americans- clear, concise, and available. Stout’s claim that people are attracted to accessible leaders could also make voluntary organizations and town meetings more likely to generate interest and social capital. He writes, “There is a way to begin. Do a preliminary power analysis. Talk to one institutional official in your community. Then talk to another. Search out potential leaders…reach out to professional organizers for help"(285). His suggestion is that Americans would benefit by treating organizations in a more official manner. Professionals can help to make organizations more organized, and therefore more accessible.
Beyond accessibility, attempts to market democracy to the 21st century must also consider the role of tradition. This was a concern during the Second Great Awakening, a period of religious reform in America. During the 19th century, the church was the moral institution for the majority of Americans, and was the center for social capital, being the local meeting place and platform for discussion. However, the democratic effectiveness of religion decreased due to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as well as religious restrictions on who could run for political office. The Second Great Awakening was a movement that allowed religion to be more appealing and effective in a democratic society. Changing how people viewed the traditional institution ultimately made religious practices more democratic, focusing on the power of the individual to choose God. This emphasis upon the spiritual power of the everyman transferred into law as well. Citizens pushed legislatures to repeal laws that restricted people’s right to hold office based on their religious beliefs. While the Second Great Awakening could also have been an “adverse trend” in social capital, making religion more individualistic and less traditional, it instead changed how people perceived religion. Churches gained significantly higher participation, became more democratic, and America as a nation was fundamentally changed. Considering this phenomenon, altering methods of generating social capital to reflect a changing society can ultimately have positive effects despite changes in tradition.
Thinkers such as Walt Whitman explored the role of tradition and preservation. Whitman himself wrote in his, “Democratic Vistas,” “The old undying elements remain…the task is to successfully adjust them to new combinations, our own days” (766). He explains that tradition will always hold a role, but it is important not to lose sight of progress. There is a “Third Stage” (769) of democracy to pursue, beyond literacy and universal suffrage. He comments that even with the triumph of rights, “the main things may be entirely lacking” (760). In many ways, America today must develop what it lacks, for despite a general level of equality and enumerated rights, America has not yet reached the “third stage” Whitman calls for. However, while Whitman sees the future in literature, novels are no longer the media of choice for Americans. To flourish within a culture of television, movies, internet, and music, Democracy must follow Whitman’s own advice and alter traditional forms of addressing the people. President Barack Obama understood this when he used text messaging and twitter to update voters about his presidential campaign. Voluntary associations, even those marketed to older people, have begun to grasp the idea of marketing to a media-driven populous. For example, the Lion’s Club uses the internet as a means to gather people around the globe in online service clubs, where people from vastly different locations can talk and plan service projects together. Such effective use of media and intellect can help democracy remain relevant, while not losing the values of the past.
The 19th century provides another example of the importance of utilizing technology for the benefit of democracy. In this period, Manifest Destiny caused Americans to spread westward across the continent, and democracy was forced to address the new immensity of The United States. America rose to this challenge with the invention of trains. In William Cronon’s “Rails and Water,” he writes, "The railroad thus became the chief device for introducing a new capitalistic logic to the geography of the Great West"(81). Among these changes were the intensification of business competition amongst railroads and the springing up of industry in America to support the railroads. The widespread railroads also forced new methods of statistic-taking, record-keeping, and business management, because old, small-business methods did not work on such a large scale. The railroads changed the concept of time as well, for as transportation became more quick and regular, people valued schedule and efficiency more and more. People ran on schedules and in turn, the busy, schedule-driven life of the American was born. Information about voluntary organizations, meetings, and news could no longer travel simply by horse and carriage or by word of mouth. Information and exchange of goods took on new importance in the way people participated in democracy. While the American people were at first apprehensive about the invention of trains, they found the benefits within the new, and expanded democracy to suit their society.
There has been similar apprehension over the popularity of television and the internet. Putnam argues extensively against the dangers of television, claiming that “television has made our communities…wider and shallower” (8). However, this claim neglects to address the quality of television programming. As Carol Armstrong claims in her “Bowling Alone,” review, “[Putnam] fails to examine underlying motivations for watching television or what role television content plays”(4). What this means for marketing democracy is that better television programming could help civic engagement if it attracted or alerted people to ways to be involved. Robert Bellah touches upon this somewhat in his article, “Democracy means Paying Attention.” The article addresses American society today, and the notion that people divide their time amongst many tasks, rarely focusing on a single idea or activity of meaning. He claims that the internet and television are areas in which people pay attention, but in a negative manner, limiting time for more important activities. However, this phenomenon could benefit democracy. Television and the internet are here to stay, and people pay attention to them. In that respect, use of the space by government or community organizations could inform people of their events and organizations in much the same way Coke or Pepsi advertizes to its audience.
The precise method in which American address the decline in social capital is yet to be determined. The reasons why 21st century Americans generate social capital to a lesser extent than previous generations are not entirely clear. However, it is possible to assess what draws people to organizations and activities and to seek to overcome whatever their misgivings may be by filling other needs. The past has set a precedent, and the future holds possibilities in the way of organization, using negatives for benefit, and harnessing the media. In this way, participation in elections, but also community life can flourish. Change may be inevitable, but it does not have to harm democracy. In fact, a little change could be exactly what Democracy needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment