In our discussion of the "equalizing" effects of the Internet today, several people brought up anecdotes of how they participated in politics over the web--crafting e-mails, e-signing a petition, commenting on a blog, donating to a campaign online, etc. Taking into account the Gladwell article in the New Yorker, we might worry that participating in politics has now become too easy, which lowers the value of this participation.
Way back when there were only hand-written or typewriter-typed letters that could only be sent by snail mail to Congressmen, one's effort to participate in politics was obvious and (from a participatory theorist approach) applauded. Today, these same sorts of letters can be written, sent, and received in a matter of minutes (or even seconds, if you're a quick typist!), which makes them effortless and arguably less worthy of our approval. Certainly the speed of this correspondence is preferable for those who are making legitimate contributions to our democratic society, but does it not also raise the bar for the types of political participation that actually matter?
Politicians undoubtedly receive innumerable e-mails each day that are basic copy-and-paste replicas produced by those in charge of listservs, sent out en masse by citizens who were particularly enraged or inspired by a political appeal. While these sorts of pre-written letters were around before the days of the Internet, the effort it took to write, seal, stamp and send these letters likely rendered them more impactful to the politicians who received them, and perhaps even demonstrated that many Americans took whatever issue to be of at least mild importance. This is not the case today, where a very small group of people can easily send a ridiculous number of e-mails to a politician very easily, under the guise of mass support. To the extent that politicians understand this possibility, the policy issue being discussed in these letters may or may not make their way onto the political agenda. In short, the online nature of these participatory acts--in that they are easy to carry out--have made these acts less valuable.
Unfortunately, the decreased value of these acts have not encouraged more people to participate, at least not the types of people we would hope. Rather, the more valuable participatory acts--those that require more effort, such as participating offline in a rally or protest, voting at an actual voting booth instead of taking an online poll, attending an honest-to-goodness community meeting in real time and space--are now too much for the ordinary American, when other, easier options are available. Before, when these were the only options available, even though many people still didn't participate, the effectiveness of participation was clearer. As Alan brought up in class, one must sort through the radical, uneducated comments on blogposts to get to the well-articulated ones, yet all of these comments have the same weight in terms of political participation. As a consequence of giving people more voice, we simply get more noise.
To break through this noise, one must commit higher acts of participation to get a single message across. The drastic increase in campaign spending is a good example--in order to compete, you have to work harder to raise and spend money. And just as is apparent with campaign spending, the same sorts of people are excluded from this participation. At least a few decades ago, if people wanted to get involved and have an impact, they knew how to do it. Now, despite the notion that the Internet has made involvement easier, this low-level involvement is less effective and therefore less valuable. Perhaps this decrease in value can help explain why the Internet has not had the "equalizing" effect one might have anticipated.
Citizen Competence in American Democracy
Monday, December 6, 2010
Not pessimistic, just reserved.
Anna's inclusion of the New Yorker article is extraordinarily relevant. Having read the article before, I kept having those same thoughts while reading Schlozman. The Internet is often seen in popular thinking as the great equalizer, but I think Schlozman convincingly shows that we should be hesitant to make such claims. I don't think Schlozman is as pessimistic as Marianne believes, however. The research is very tempered and reserved with its findings, and the researchers consistently make it clear to the reader that the Internet is still a young institution and that the true effects may not yet be discernible. Marianna contends that the Internet does in fact increase participation, and uses Facebook to make that point. I feel the researchers would agree with that point. Their data showed that among the young (Facebook users), political participation did increase via the Internet.
What causes the most attention is the lack of equalizing effects that the Internet has on SES. The authors argue that the Internet is a cheaper, easier, and more convenient access entry to politics than many traditional venues, yet level of participation on the Internet is positively related to SES, and therefore participation off the Internet. The Internet increases participation it seems, only among those who are already participating. An important finding of theirs that drives this point home is the difference between online and offline participation. The authors found that of those who participate online, 87% of them also participate offline, but of those who participate offline, only 57% of them also participate online. It seems that the Internet is some sort of threshold, or important designator of participation. Those who use the Internet, are more likely to participate in anything, regardless of venue.
How do we combat this inequality that is reflected in Internet use? The researchers hypothesize that as the older generations are replaced by younger generations, Internet use will become more equalized and the participation gaps won't be as evident. If we are going to reach those lower on SES measures, however, more action is needed besides waiting for people to get older. Teaching younger students about Internet use, possibly during social studies or government classes, and especially at lower SES school systems, could further facilitate the shrinking in participation gap. The authors make it clear that people don't participate because "[t]hey can’t; they don’t want to; and nobody asked" -- Let's ask.
What causes the most attention is the lack of equalizing effects that the Internet has on SES. The authors argue that the Internet is a cheaper, easier, and more convenient access entry to politics than many traditional venues, yet level of participation on the Internet is positively related to SES, and therefore participation off the Internet. The Internet increases participation it seems, only among those who are already participating. An important finding of theirs that drives this point home is the difference between online and offline participation. The authors found that of those who participate online, 87% of them also participate offline, but of those who participate offline, only 57% of them also participate online. It seems that the Internet is some sort of threshold, or important designator of participation. Those who use the Internet, are more likely to participate in anything, regardless of venue.
How do we combat this inequality that is reflected in Internet use? The researchers hypothesize that as the older generations are replaced by younger generations, Internet use will become more equalized and the participation gaps won't be as evident. If we are going to reach those lower on SES measures, however, more action is needed besides waiting for people to get older. Teaching younger students about Internet use, possibly during social studies or government classes, and especially at lower SES school systems, could further facilitate the shrinking in participation gap. The authors make it clear that people don't participate because "[t]hey can’t; they don’t want to; and nobody asked" -- Let's ask.
Reducing Participatory Inequality
Many of our readings, today and in the past, focus on reducing the inequalities of our political system. Whether through institutions such as local councils or mediums like the Internet, authors seem concerned about access to the government and political efficacy for lower income citizens. When we started class, we seemed to agree that while no one should be forced to become politically active, there should not be any barriers in place for those who wish to participate.
I think that as that semester has progressed, authors have disagreed about what constitutes a barrier to participation. Some believe it is only something that actually keeps people out (when money counts for influence), while others define it more broadly as anything that might influence one's political action. In other words, how much should the government do in order ensure an equal playing field for all? Regulate biased media? Increase the quality of civics education in schools? Require or deemphasize volunteering?
Perhaps in asking these questions, we can get distracted from the reality of our civic life. Many citizens simply do not have the time or desire to participate in political life regularly. It seems unrealistic to expect widespread action, as the social networking article suggests. While it is certainly beneficial if the Internet increases political awareness, those who wish to have an impact will have to engage in more "costly" (time, money, labor) ways of participation,
"The revolution will not be tweeted"
A short note in light of this discussion about the potential for the Internet to mobilize political participation. For some light reading on the subject, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a really interesting piece in the New Yorker, more anecdotal than Schlozman, Verba and Brady, but similarly expressing doubt in the ability of the Internet to revolutionize political participation and action.
Comparing contemporary forms of what might be considered social or political action to activism during the Civil Rights Era, Gladwell explains,
"Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires...In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro."
Comparing contemporary forms of what might be considered social or political action to activism during the Civil Rights Era, Gladwell explains,
"Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires...In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro."
Participation Regardless of Power
In the article by John Gaventa, he introduces the dimensions of power. First being, the power of the pluralists, mentioned by Robert Dahl and Nelson Polsby, where "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would otherwise not do". In participation the key concept is the interest of the individual to engage themselves in the things they care about the most. Dahl categorizes the activists as homo politicus and the non-activists as homo civicus. These distinctions become important in the way citizens interact in politics. Those who are homo civicus prefer to use their time and money in more efficient ways. Gaventa becomes frustrated that people don't participate if there are no power constraints, then what is holding them back? Therefore, Gevanta believes that A has no power over B because B has different interests which makes the relationship between A and B irrelevant.
The second approach of power is that non-participation is attributed to "ignorance, indifference, and shiftlessness of the people". Here the main concept is that "whoever decides what the game is about also decides who gets in the game". This creates an exclusion of certain individuals meaning that they cannot participate unless they are recognized and invited to express their opinions. This brings forth the importance of power where power is relevant in order to participate and have a voice in politics. This cannot be the case because if these people are feeling excluded and neglected then they would voice their opinions and challenge these powers. Their interests would be heard and action would take place.
The third power is when "A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests". This third power allows for the consideration of "social forces and historical patterns". The interest of people change and shift all the time so how do we get people to participate in a non-chaotic manner?
Power seems as though once established by the elites it is difficult to change it in favor of the powerless people. It seems as though the people who hold the most power will affect the political system regardless of the needs of citizens, according to Gaventa. The third power seems reasonable because if citizens feel that their interests are threatened then they will challenge the the opposing power to change policies that will benefit their interests. I do not feel that people are excluded or neglected but some people do not feel the urge to engage in politics because they have better things to do with their money and time. People who want to participate can participate regardless of how much power they possess.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Institutional reform
The Gaventa and Fung pieces discuss the implications of participatory empowerment in combatting chronic quiescence and political inequality. In terms of international relations, power is defined primarily by its first dimension, or the by the ability of A to get B to do something. Dahl and Polsby extend relative gains or losses in power to the political arena. Those who are kept from the game are homo civicus, while those who participate in the decision-making process are homo politicus.
The question that Gaventa seeks to answer is why do those who are effectively barred from participation, or politically silenced, refrain from standing up for their political rights?
In short, he argues that “internalization of roles or false consensus lead to the acceptance of the status quo”. The exertion of power goes even further to include a dictation of “necessities, possibilities, and strategies of challenge”.
I think Gaventa is arguing that power is institutionalized just like anything else. Once indoctrinated it is very difficult to change political thoughts and attitudes. It is the same theory for why a battered wife will rarely leave her abuser. Her needs, preferences and positive outlets have been manipulated to the point where the status quo is an accepted part of life.
The Fung piece highlights empowered participation in the case of a Chicago school that was driven by a common educational vision, and strategy implementation for reform. But this form of democratic participation is subject to the “institutional terrain”. While I personally believe marketization and new public management solutions were dismissed too quickly, Fung defines an ‘accountable autonomy’ that is observable in both his case studies. I really enjoyed Fung’s argument and support for accountable autonomy but I was trying to see how it would tie in to our class model of the citizen in terms of competency.
He frames his defense of competency (with increased participation) in terms of his Chicago case study so I first questioned the transferability of his findings, amidst a vast collection of “institutional terrains”. The skills required are “spatial, functional…and skill-specific”. The confidence is placed wholly in the aggregate and fails to recognize much competency at the individual level. To me it sounds like we could use a distinction between democratic, political, and reform participation because it would affect the robustness and subsequently, competence.
The question that Gaventa seeks to answer is why do those who are effectively barred from participation, or politically silenced, refrain from standing up for their political rights?
In short, he argues that “internalization of roles or false consensus lead to the acceptance of the status quo”. The exertion of power goes even further to include a dictation of “necessities, possibilities, and strategies of challenge”.
I think Gaventa is arguing that power is institutionalized just like anything else. Once indoctrinated it is very difficult to change political thoughts and attitudes. It is the same theory for why a battered wife will rarely leave her abuser. Her needs, preferences and positive outlets have been manipulated to the point where the status quo is an accepted part of life.
The Fung piece highlights empowered participation in the case of a Chicago school that was driven by a common educational vision, and strategy implementation for reform. But this form of democratic participation is subject to the “institutional terrain”. While I personally believe marketization and new public management solutions were dismissed too quickly, Fung defines an ‘accountable autonomy’ that is observable in both his case studies. I really enjoyed Fung’s argument and support for accountable autonomy but I was trying to see how it would tie in to our class model of the citizen in terms of competency.
He frames his defense of competency (with increased participation) in terms of his Chicago case study so I first questioned the transferability of his findings, amidst a vast collection of “institutional terrains”. The skills required are “spatial, functional…and skill-specific”. The confidence is placed wholly in the aggregate and fails to recognize much competency at the individual level. To me it sounds like we could use a distinction between democratic, political, and reform participation because it would affect the robustness and subsequently, competence.
The Digital Divide
The Schlozman, Verba, and Brady article ended with what I thought was an unexpected conclusion. Internet usage seems to be one of the most obvious mechanisms by which to increase political participation in America. However, the article concludes on a rather uninspiring note, as it does not seem to be the case that the internet will decrease the gap in participatory inequality with respect to politics. On the one hand, inequality in America is definitely too severe to be corrected through just one medium. It may take a variety of different factors over the course of many years to bridge such a vast gap in participatory equality - if ever. Yet, on the other hand, the authors seem to downplay the impact the internet has had upon the electorate. They tend to reference social networking sites constantly, such as Facebook; yet they underestimate the importance of accessibility to public officials like President Obama. Had it not been for the internet, who is to say that the election would have turned out in exactly the same way? My guess is that it would have been a different race entirely, as Obama targeted the young voting population through a medium that they were already extremely familiar with. He knew his target audience - and he exploited their strengths in order to win the election. The older generations, on the other hand, are essentially clueless when it comes to technology. While there are some exceptions, I know from personal experience that even our parents are less than competent when it comes to things like the internet, laptops, and (unfortunately) cell phones. Yet, they are more than willing to learn - so why is it that a younger generation that is extremely learned when it comes to technology is not so willing to learn about our own political environment? That difference is not accounted for in the article, but it is important to distinguish between the older and younger generations with respect to political motivation. Therefore, the article's conclusion may not be as surprisingly as I initially thought because we tend to use the internet for personal use only, which unfortunately does not include political material. If adults were more technologically inclined, I would assume they would use it for more practical purposes that would, in turn, increase political participation. For instance, many parents may find it difficult to get to the polls on time due to various external factors. If voting could somehow become available on-line, maybe parents who would not have had time to vote otherwise could have the opportunity to do so. Another problem voting on on-line could ameliorate is the number of students who did not receive their absentee ballots on time in the last election. Most of my friends who are not residents of Virginia did not, in fact, receive their absentee ballots on time (or in some cases at all). Thus, though they wanted to participate, they were not able to due to a problem that could be easily solved through the internet. It would be difficult to create a system that would be secure enough to ensure no one from the outside could tamper with the system - but in the long run, wouldn't it be worth it?
The article specifically refers to the ways in which the internet could reduce the barriers to political activity among all citizens, yet they their findings are more or less inconclusive. The internet does lower the cost of accessing information, as it is extremely abundant on the internet. However, a lot of that information is biased and may lead to more Free Rider problems as individuals start to pick up on certain viewpoints exposed in blogs, etc. Then there is the issue of the actual cost of the internet - which is obviously not cheap. Those in lower socio-economic households may not have a computer, much less the internet. Therefore, the internet has the potential to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Yet, even households that do have a computer and internet access may not be benefitting from it because they do not know how to use it properly. In this sense, there are many barriers to internet usage in general - the cost of a computer, the cost of internet, and the cost of learning how to use them simultaneously - that make older generations steer clear of the technological world. Yet, for the younger generations, does the internet act as a symbol of socio-economic status? Being able to afford a computer and the internet is one thing - being taught how to use them is entirely separate, as it is typically something that is taught in schools with enough money to have computers or laptops. Ultimately there are many advantages to the internet, but these advantages cannot be realized unless access to the internet is equal for all citizens. Therefore, the internet as a political component is inextricably tied to the economic divide. Without a solution to the latter, the former may never reach its full potential. But how?
Trust in the future
This week I focused on the article of Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba and Henry E. Brady because I have a different point of view. I think they are too pessimistic about the role of Internet. I really think that Internet -blogs and social networks- is very positive in helping citizens to participate in the democracy because I think about the future.
The article seems to suggest that political participation online isn't very serious -the authors give the example of the Obama's fan page on Facebook where the comments are not really interesting. Of course I agree with them, the improvement brought by Internet does not take place in Facebook, but I believe that Facebook can help us to participate in democracy. My example for that is the application that Facebook created for the 2010 elections. On the day of the elections, I guess that most of you noticed it, a special application appeared on the “home page” of the website where you could click to show to your friends that you have voted. I think this is a good example of how Facebook, without creating a very serious debate about the elections, can help the users to go to vote. It creats a “social control” so that you want to show the others that you vote, as every good citizen.
Of course I agree that this element only worked for the young who are the large majority of the users of Facebook. In their article, the authors explain that improvement of the political participation thanks to blogs and social networks can only be seen with the new voters, and that it doesn't affect the older population. I agree, but we have to think about the future: our generation that today tends to be influenced by blogs and social networks is going to be the next older generation, and I think that we will continue throughout our life to use Internet as a tool for political participation. Another argument that we can read in the article to explain that Internet is not a real tool to improve participation in democracy is that there is still a digital gap, and that many people don't have access to Internet. Moreover, it is not only a question of access, but also a question of time. Some manual workers for example won't have time to spend hours reading the news or using social networks. But here again, I think that we should have trust in the future: the access to Internet is going to be more and more easy as the technology improves. For example, a large majority of the Americans now have cell phone, and some estimations explain that in a few years, every cell phone will have an Internet connexion.
To conclude, I agree with the authors that Internet today seems to be a tool only for people who used to be active in democracy, and that the same inequalities remain. But I do believe that in the future the inequality of access will be reduced, and that the skills our generation learn today -using blogs and social networks as a way to participate- will remain in the future.
Tweets vs. Votes?
In the Schlozman, Verba and Brady reading, the scholars posit that while the internet has long been heralded as an equalizing and democratizing force within the political sphere, it in actuality will likely not change the preexisting trends regarding participatory inequalities in the US. However, one effect that they do assert as possibly changing the nature of political participation is the ability of social networking sites to attract a younger set of voters who otherwise would most likely not have participated. Scholzman et al. quite rightly approach this new type of “participation” with skepticism, stating that while encouraging political contact within the youthful set, it does not represent the same level of participation that working for a campaign or voting would embody. As I am in agreement with both of these statements, I find it troublesome that the younger “generation” often relies on online, surface level political tools to form and communicate their political perspectives; and as a result, I find myself wondering what this trend will inevitably lead to when this group begins to replace previously dominant segments of voters. Is it simply a factor of youth that encourages younger voters to use the internet and social networking site inordinately more than other participatory forms? Or it is a function of our “digital generation”, as scholars have referred to it, which makes us predisposed to rely on digitally mediated forms of discourse?
To demonstrate this concern Scholzman et al. ask questions such as; “when middle-aged, will those now in their twenties announce their divorces on social networking sites?”. This concern, though more personally related, speaks to a larger anxiety that the scholars (and frankly, myself) have about the direction that political participation may move in the coming years. Will our generation, so reliant on Facebook and Twitter, turn to these outlets for political information and eventually for political participation? And if so, what effects will this have on both the quality and distribution of political participation? Surely the quality of political participation on a social networking site lacks much in comparison to physical involvement with a campaign, and additionally, with the steady maintenance of a “digital divide” as discussed by Schlozman et al, it is clear that many segments of society will still be left out of the political sphere. While it is certainly possible that technological advances and policy changes may alleviate some of these concerns about access to what is now becoming an important political tool, currently there remains a vast chasm between the groups of society who can “afford” to participate, and those who cannot.
Overall, being a user of social networking sites myself, I simply cannot imagine the future of political participation lying within the confines of Facebook. This being said, I believe that for many voting segments, this may be exactly what happens. However, I do think that it is important to understand and analyze, as Schlozman et al. do, the notion that this new technology is not a “cure all” for political participatory flaws, and that in many ways it most likely cannot present a feasible solution for the inequality of participation in the US.
To demonstrate this concern Scholzman et al. ask questions such as; “when middle-aged, will those now in their twenties announce their divorces on social networking sites?”. This concern, though more personally related, speaks to a larger anxiety that the scholars (and frankly, myself) have about the direction that political participation may move in the coming years. Will our generation, so reliant on Facebook and Twitter, turn to these outlets for political information and eventually for political participation? And if so, what effects will this have on both the quality and distribution of political participation? Surely the quality of political participation on a social networking site lacks much in comparison to physical involvement with a campaign, and additionally, with the steady maintenance of a “digital divide” as discussed by Schlozman et al, it is clear that many segments of society will still be left out of the political sphere. While it is certainly possible that technological advances and policy changes may alleviate some of these concerns about access to what is now becoming an important political tool, currently there remains a vast chasm between the groups of society who can “afford” to participate, and those who cannot.
Overall, being a user of social networking sites myself, I simply cannot imagine the future of political participation lying within the confines of Facebook. This being said, I believe that for many voting segments, this may be exactly what happens. However, I do think that it is important to understand and analyze, as Schlozman et al. do, the notion that this new technology is not a “cure all” for political participatory flaws, and that in many ways it most likely cannot present a feasible solution for the inequality of participation in the US.
Friday, December 3, 2010
A Bottom-Up Political Movement? Probably Not.
This week’s readings seem largely to explore a bottom-up approach (or possibility) to political participation. Perhaps – and I could be wrong – the readings suggest that a viable solution to our problem of political inertia is to “give back” political power to the rank-and-file citizen, or at least some of the power over localized policy issues. By exploring the possibilities of an empowered citizenry who influence the political leadership at the municipal level (Fung), we may be able to extract broader implications and possibilities at higher levels of government. Certainly there is comfort in the fact that the parents in “Reform Strategy” were able to reshape the political construct as it relates to schools, neighborhood safety, and general quality of life issues. What I see as important in the Fung chapters is a similar yet milder form of revolutionary ideology that has shaped and reformed governments throughout history. I mean simply that a few citizens saw themselves and their children as jeopardized by the status quo, and their strongly ingrained common cause toward social reform drove a change in the designs of the political landscape. Seen in this way, it is very possible for the social needs and, more importantly, the demands of the citizen to compel the political actors…at least at the local level.
If citizens do have the agency to transform the power relations between themselves and their elected officials, why doesn’t this happen more often at the national level? Several reasons come to mind – large bureaucracies, distance from politicians, differences in depth and knowledge of information about policy issues and initiatives, political and social inertia, and a belief that everyone’s voice needs to be heard. All of these factors may be seen as problems stemming from the sheer size of our government. Certainly our government must strike a balance between what it would like to do and what it can do, but as of yet we have not found a viable connector between the various horizontal power strata. As the gap between the horizontal layers of our society increase, the voices from the bottom become more difficult to hear. It is honorable to desire that all voices be heard, but it is simply not feasible. Furthermore, attempting to bridge the gap between the disconnected citizenry and the plugged-in power-elite becomes all at once more difficult and burdensome as the issues become more complicated, more costly, and more important globally.
If citizens do have the agency to transform the power relations between themselves and their elected officials, why doesn’t this happen more often at the national level? Several reasons come to mind – large bureaucracies, distance from politicians, differences in depth and knowledge of information about policy issues and initiatives, political and social inertia, and a belief that everyone’s voice needs to be heard. All of these factors may be seen as problems stemming from the sheer size of our government. Certainly our government must strike a balance between what it would like to do and what it can do, but as of yet we have not found a viable connector between the various horizontal power strata. As the gap between the horizontal layers of our society increase, the voices from the bottom become more difficult to hear. It is honorable to desire that all voices be heard, but it is simply not feasible. Furthermore, attempting to bridge the gap between the disconnected citizenry and the plugged-in power-elite becomes all at once more difficult and burdensome as the issues become more complicated, more costly, and more important globally.
Dodge Bless America
After our discussion on responsible spending this week I started to think about the relationship between public and private commercial sectors. We came to the conclusion that programs that promote responsible spending rarely turn up. And more rarely do they originate from within the federal or state levels of government. The claim that citizens are identified as consumers, or agents to carry out macro and microeconomic goals is certainly very plausible, especially in times of uncertainty or recession. But I argue that the trend from within the government is slowly shifting to policy that promotes more responsible spending from the individual, while still embracing consumerism as one of many tools that work in conjunction toward economic recovery.
While we may not see the Ad Council air commercials that are targeted at responsible spending, there is very specific legislation and policy that actually inhibits some of the worst types of ‘irresponsible spending”. For example, federal legislation actually raised the threshold that financial institutions must meet to qualify someone for a mortgage. There is specific legislation that can be tied to this policy…plus federal monetary policy had previously been aimed at raising interest rates, which actually slows growth but ensures more stable and financially sound growth.
Commercial entities have been free-riders since the 1950s in terms of piggy-backing off the patriotic connotations associated with spending. We talked a lot about car companies in class so I wanted to give an example from another commercial sector. The only one I could think of was the Brett Farve Wrangler commercial that referenced American “Value” in a heap of denim…so I went back to the drawing board with cars.
The Dodge (Challenger) commercial of 2010 is the perfect example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o
In one very emotional minute, it conveys American strength and freedom through a throwback car model. One of the most recent comments on the video says “Dodge Bless America”. If the federal government has told us that spending is patriotic, private companies have figured out that it is profitable to tell us which brands and products are more patriotic. I’m not saying this clears all charges pending against the government with responsible spending. But the symbiotic relationship that private entities have picked up exacerbates the effects and makes it harder for a fresh look on responsible spending to become indoctrinated.
While we may not see the Ad Council air commercials that are targeted at responsible spending, there is very specific legislation and policy that actually inhibits some of the worst types of ‘irresponsible spending”. For example, federal legislation actually raised the threshold that financial institutions must meet to qualify someone for a mortgage. There is specific legislation that can be tied to this policy…plus federal monetary policy had previously been aimed at raising interest rates, which actually slows growth but ensures more stable and financially sound growth.
Commercial entities have been free-riders since the 1950s in terms of piggy-backing off the patriotic connotations associated with spending. We talked a lot about car companies in class so I wanted to give an example from another commercial sector. The only one I could think of was the Brett Farve Wrangler commercial that referenced American “Value” in a heap of denim…so I went back to the drawing board with cars.
The Dodge (Challenger) commercial of 2010 is the perfect example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o
In one very emotional minute, it conveys American strength and freedom through a throwback car model. One of the most recent comments on the video says “Dodge Bless America”. If the federal government has told us that spending is patriotic, private companies have figured out that it is profitable to tell us which brands and products are more patriotic. I’m not saying this clears all charges pending against the government with responsible spending. But the symbiotic relationship that private entities have picked up exacerbates the effects and makes it harder for a fresh look on responsible spending to become indoctrinated.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Consumers as Citizens
In class we discussed consumers as citizens but I don't think it is a condition that makes good citizens. Everyone is obligated by necessity to consume goods no matter their financial situation. Of course others consume more than others but as Laura said in class"no one can opt out from being a consumer". This is the case for all Americans. There is no other way but to consume goods whether you like it or not unless you are self-sustainable.
The other problematic view about consumption is that many people believe that the government is trying to "seduce" and "encourage" the public to spend more if they want to be good citizens. I don't believe that the government is being malicious but instead is being very pervasive. They are very subtle about the way they offer incentives. This does not mean that they are forcing the public to spend more but to make spending a little cheaper. Nowadays many people are suffering from heavy debt and therefore the government is trying to help them out by offering these incentives. Consuming goods is not a condition for being a good citizen but it is a necessity that we all face. We have to spend to survive and live a decent life.
Income Inequality and the Economy
One moment that struck me in Lizabeth Cohen’s talk at the Miller Center was her three images of the pies and the different classes’ portions of it. The argument was that everyone can improve if the pie simply grows in size. Even if the percentage of the pie that the upper class received was slightly smaller, they would still be better off because the pie doubled in size. This policy was espoused by the government and there seemed to be a movement towards equality. In her article, Cohen states that “between 1941 and 1944, family income rose by over 24 per cent in constant dollars, with the lowest fifth gaining three times more than the highest fifth, essentially doubling the size of the middle class” (p210). Everyone clearly benefited. Indeed, the so-called Consumer’s Republic “stood for an elaborate ideal of economic abundance and democratic political freedom, both equitably distributed” (p214) and lasted from the 1940s until the 1970s. The United States was extremely prosperous during this period and there was tremendous growth.
Reading about this time period made me think of an editorial by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. In it, he describes how the “richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income” which is a rather striking amount. What makes it especially alarming is that it is “up from almost 9 percent in 1976”. In fact, “from 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.” We have therefore been moving towards a more unequal society for quite some time. I would argue that the results have not necessarily been positive especially in this recession (though perhaps my viewpoint has been affected by the incredibly depressing Peck article. I particularly like how Peck ends the article by pointing out some possible positive outcomes before crushing them and basically saying that nothing good will come of this recession).
This inequality does matter as it affects the economy but more importantly to this class, it would affect government attentiveness and responsiveness. The Bartels article describes how the government is much more likely to listen to the high income voters than low income voters. If we are concentrating wealth into the hands of a few, then presumably fewer people will have a voice in the government. I imagine that the one percent that controls 24 percent of the income would have some extra money to donate to campaigns and influence politics. Regardless, if wealth is more evenly distributed, then politicians will be forced to listen to all people, or at least a larger percentage. I think this is much healthier for a democracy and ultimately leads to better policies and results. However, it does not seem likely that there will be a change to this income inequality in the near future; simply look at the huge Wall Street profits or the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 percent. Still, it might be a good idea to think about how to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest citizens.
Equality in the political representation
The readings for this week were really interesting for me, as a student coming from France, a « socialist country ».
Bartels explains in the first part of his text that the low middle class opinion is not represented by their senators:« views of the constituents in the upper third of the income distribution received about 50% more weight than those in the middle third”. Why? The most common assumption is that they don't vote and participate, so politics don't have to listen to them. For me this is really unfair, because the system is built in order to prevent them from participating and after we blame them for non participating. Indeed, the elite shaped the system so that you are more likely to participate if you have more money. In one of the first discussion class, we focused on money, time and civil skills as factors of participation in democracy. Nearly all of us agreed on the fact that money was the most important determinant to participate in democracy. In a system based on money (participation in campaigns..) how can we blame the low middle class if they don't participate?
Bartels suggests at the end of his essay that these people should non the less continue to vote. On the one hand a vote is a voice of course, so they must vote because it is the better way for them to express their opinion. On the other hand, the problem is that if they elect a candidate who doesn't promote their ideas when he is elected, can they really do something in order to punish him? If they voted for the democrats, they could vote for the Republican, but maybe it will be worst...
As a conclusion, I think that the low middle class in this biased system has not enough weight, and no means to change that.
While reading the article of the Financial Times, I was thinking about the differences between the U.S. and France, a « socialist country ». I think that in France, even if low middle class are still under-represented, they have more weight than in the US. In my opinion, it is not the social system that allow the low middle class to have more weight in democracy, but the political system. First, as France has a pluri-party system, if the middle class vote for a candidate that only listens to their voice when he is running for office and forget them when he is in office, they can “punish” him at the next elections by voting for another candidate (maybe from a smaller party). Moreover, as the campaigns are financed by the state, having money doesn't really matter if you want to help during the campaigns. The most important to participate seems to have time, but once again this is linked with the economic situation: if you have a good job you can afford to have time...at the end, we face the same problems.
"It's the economy, stupid"
I’d have to echo a few of the other comments previously posted and say this is one of the more depressing series of articles we’ve read thus far. (First because of the Atlantic article is not very encouraging for 4th years entering the job market and adulthood at that.) Further, linking together the principle points made by each author, from Bartels who summons some empirical evidence for the unresponsiveness of politicians to the lower (and middle) classes and then from the other authors who demonstrate the growing economic disparities in this country and its consequences, the ultimate conclusion is not a hopeful one. In a later chapter Bartels cynically refers to a “debilitating feedback cycle linking the economic and political realms” suggesting that as disparities continue to grow, political policies will increasingly reflect the interests of fewer Americans while reinforcing the existing disparities. Thus not only did this week’s articles paint a sorry picture of America today as we slowly make our way out of the Great Recession, but also of the America of the future. So much for the American Dream.
And in the midst of this Great Recession and a recent election that centered largely on the economy, the articles were especially timely. So much so, that who to blame and how to fix the economy, the joblessness, the country, etc. was a lively, if hotly debated, topic at my Thanksgiving dinner table. Everyday citizens, politicians and economists alike all seem to have an opinion. The Reagan Era, the Clinton Era, the wars, NAFTA, China, lack of innovation, unions, Wall Street, the sub-prime mortgage market, under-regulation – some complex amalgamation of all these circumstances, each compounding the other, is likely to blame.
In light of the points that Bartel raises about policies generally favoring wealthier Americans, I couldn’t help but think of the Bush Era tax cuts for the top 2% of income-earners. I wouldn't suggest that this policy is to blame for our current economic ills, but it seems a near-perfect example of a policy that directly favors the wealthiest Americans and is also, by and large, supported by the Republican party – also a trend Bartels verified. Since the tax cut is to expire at the end of the year, the lame-duck Congress is posed to debate and decide on its extension, a politically charged decision for those in Congress as well as the Obama administration. Purportedly, a majority of Americans favor extending tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. I cannot think of a worse policy that better reflects The State We’re In: a sincere and seemingly widespread disillusionment about the wealth disparities in this nation the lack of political will to challenge those disparities. The argument goes that cutting this tax bracket a break will stimulate the economy (via the trickle-down effect) and thus is many ways also a reflection of the Democrat vs. Republican take on economic policy. But for the most part, this policy did not prove the to be the cure-all solution to our economic woes by stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Politics and economics aside though, it undoubtedly seems a policy whereby Congress is more responsive to higher income Americans than to lower income Americans.
And in the midst of this Great Recession and a recent election that centered largely on the economy, the articles were especially timely. So much so, that who to blame and how to fix the economy, the joblessness, the country, etc. was a lively, if hotly debated, topic at my Thanksgiving dinner table. Everyday citizens, politicians and economists alike all seem to have an opinion. The Reagan Era, the Clinton Era, the wars, NAFTA, China, lack of innovation, unions, Wall Street, the sub-prime mortgage market, under-regulation – some complex amalgamation of all these circumstances, each compounding the other, is likely to blame.
In light of the points that Bartel raises about policies generally favoring wealthier Americans, I couldn’t help but think of the Bush Era tax cuts for the top 2% of income-earners. I wouldn't suggest that this policy is to blame for our current economic ills, but it seems a near-perfect example of a policy that directly favors the wealthiest Americans and is also, by and large, supported by the Republican party – also a trend Bartels verified. Since the tax cut is to expire at the end of the year, the lame-duck Congress is posed to debate and decide on its extension, a politically charged decision for those in Congress as well as the Obama administration. Purportedly, a majority of Americans favor extending tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans. I cannot think of a worse policy that better reflects The State We’re In: a sincere and seemingly widespread disillusionment about the wealth disparities in this nation the lack of political will to challenge those disparities. The argument goes that cutting this tax bracket a break will stimulate the economy (via the trickle-down effect) and thus is many ways also a reflection of the Democrat vs. Republican take on economic policy. But for the most part, this policy did not prove the to be the cure-all solution to our economic woes by stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Politics and economics aside though, it undoubtedly seems a policy whereby Congress is more responsive to higher income Americans than to lower income Americans.
Citizen = Consumer
Overall, the Peck reading was pretty depressing. It turns even more depressing, however, when combined with the Cohen video and reading. When trying to draw positive side-effects from the economic meltdown, Peck says that it may lead to "a necessary end to an era of reckless personal spending." This spending is, however, the very thing that Cohen argues has been the underpinning not only of the entire structure of our economy, but of our conception of citizenship as well. Cohen argues that in order to avoid post-war depression, concerted efforts were made to reorganize the economy based on an idea of "consumers as citizens" - the idea that someone who always strives to buy the next best thing is doing good for the nation as a whole. This conception of citizens now underwrites much of our economic existences and even our political pursuits.
Contemporary American conservatism is largely borne out of an idea that the market can organize society better than the government can. The conservative view of the market, however, is made up of two jointly all-powerful groups: producers who provide supply and consumers who each provide demand based on their own preferences and interests and, in aggregate, support the most efficient and beneficial expenditures of capital. This economic aspect of citizens as consumers is an aspect that has been largely overlooked, even in this class. As Cohen demonstrates, it is impossible to separate the conceptions of consumer and citizen while obtaining any full conception of either.
As a result of this tie between citizen and consumer, however, one of the main beneficial side-effects of the economic downturn turns out to simply be another bad omen of the economy's weakness and a sign that the problems with the economy may not be saved by simply enacting a stimulus or tax cut, but could require a full societal effort to refound our economy, and our society, on a radically different conception of the economic role of a citizen.
Contemporary American conservatism is largely borne out of an idea that the market can organize society better than the government can. The conservative view of the market, however, is made up of two jointly all-powerful groups: producers who provide supply and consumers who each provide demand based on their own preferences and interests and, in aggregate, support the most efficient and beneficial expenditures of capital. This economic aspect of citizens as consumers is an aspect that has been largely overlooked, even in this class. As Cohen demonstrates, it is impossible to separate the conceptions of consumer and citizen while obtaining any full conception of either.
As a result of this tie between citizen and consumer, however, one of the main beneficial side-effects of the economic downturn turns out to simply be another bad omen of the economy's weakness and a sign that the problems with the economy may not be saved by simply enacting a stimulus or tax cut, but could require a full societal effort to refound our economy, and our society, on a radically different conception of the economic role of a citizen.
Shifting Citizen Consumerism
After reading Cohen's essays on the citizenship aspect of consumerism, the new event, "Small Business Saturday" came to mind. The event has a website, and is sponsored by (suspiciously) American Express: http://smallbusinesssaturday.com
The event was heavily publicized on Facebook, but surprisingly received little coverage elsewhere. The lack of publicity could indicate a lack of turnout, which further supports the hypothesis that consumers are becoming more global-minded and detached from their local communities. Nonetheless, here's one I found.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/small-business-saturday-hopes-holiday-shopping-local/story?id=12255389
While Cohen documents the push to buy more goods in general during times of economic recession, it seems the push we're hearing now in this Great Recession is one differentiated on local v. national lines. Large, profitable, corporate chains are now seen as the enemy, where they once were seen as signs of American prosperity. As the two websites argue, though, local businesses are the backbone of American industry, thus making it our civic duty to support them.
If we take what Peck says about the decline in entrepreneurship in Generation Y, however--along with Luce's description of business foreclosures--if these small businesses fail to make their estimated end-of-year profits this year, they may be gone for good. These small, local businesses may fail and then there will be no new effort to replace them. Rather, the nationwide chain businesses, or even only-online stores, will grow to claim an even larger share of national profits in the coming years.
This growing inequality between local and national businesses has the potential to further exacerbate the problems we've already seen from a decline in civic engagement. When citizens fail to perceive themselves as residents of certain neighborhoods--their homes as merely houses (Cohen 219)--but rather as residents of a state or the nation at-large, community bonds are broken. One no longer has a responsibility to one's neighbors, and only relates to the government on a larger scale, potentially making local and state governments obsolete. These isolating effects do not lend themselves well to the collective spirit that is part of our democratic ideal.
The event was heavily publicized on Facebook, but surprisingly received little coverage elsewhere. The lack of publicity could indicate a lack of turnout, which further supports the hypothesis that consumers are becoming more global-minded and detached from their local communities. Nonetheless, here's one I found.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/small-business-saturday-hopes-holiday-shopping-local/story?id=12255389
While Cohen documents the push to buy more goods in general during times of economic recession, it seems the push we're hearing now in this Great Recession is one differentiated on local v. national lines. Large, profitable, corporate chains are now seen as the enemy, where they once were seen as signs of American prosperity. As the two websites argue, though, local businesses are the backbone of American industry, thus making it our civic duty to support them.
If we take what Peck says about the decline in entrepreneurship in Generation Y, however--along with Luce's description of business foreclosures--if these small businesses fail to make their estimated end-of-year profits this year, they may be gone for good. These small, local businesses may fail and then there will be no new effort to replace them. Rather, the nationwide chain businesses, or even only-online stores, will grow to claim an even larger share of national profits in the coming years.
This growing inequality between local and national businesses has the potential to further exacerbate the problems we've already seen from a decline in civic engagement. When citizens fail to perceive themselves as residents of certain neighborhoods--their homes as merely houses (Cohen 219)--but rather as residents of a state or the nation at-large, community bonds are broken. One no longer has a responsibility to one's neighbors, and only relates to the government on a larger scale, potentially making local and state governments obsolete. These isolating effects do not lend themselves well to the collective spirit that is part of our democratic ideal.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Great Stagnation: An Identity
In the article The Crisis of the Middle-Class America, Edward Luce states that many Americans have become pessimistic about their future especially about their children's future regarding the economy. The economy has been on the decline for these past years which slowly creates the stagnation of income. Many middle-class families find it hard to make ends meet to the point that "easy money has turned into debt".
The major problem of this economic "depression" is because of the access to cheap debt and financing which attract many Americans. This results in foreclosures and the possession of heavy debt. The Freeman's find it hard to believe that their current situation will never change regardless on how much they try. They have good jobs but this is not enough for them to step on the ladder and climb higher. They will always be part of the middle-class. The Great Stagnation "which started in January 2002 and ended in December 2007, the median US household income dropped by $2,000 - the first ever instance where most Americans were worst off at the end of a cycle than at the start". The decline in income has had dramatic effects which has jeopardize financial stability and has caused the possession of heavy debt. This is what is happening to many families nowadays. The debt has skyrocketed that they do not know how long it will take to pay off.
The most saddening outcome of this economic downpour is that someone with an education can be seen working in different places just to make ends meet. Education seems to become a burden in the sense that going to college requires a lot of money and many people cannot afford to send their children off to college. America seems to be turning their dreams of economic prosperity into debt, instability, and fear. This new era of economic decline has caused many Americans to think about their current situation and face reality of foreclosure and bankruptcy but this is not to say that there is no hope. The creation of new jobs and opportunities for aid can help the American people get back up on their feet and face their current situations and make it better. The importance of technology can help the American people because it will create new jobs and make things easier on them. This is just a temporary face and will soon get better.
Innovation, the cure to the recession?
Don Peck argues in "How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America" that the key to economic growth is innovation. "Some laid-off employees become entrepreneurs, working on ideas that have been ignored by corporate bureaucracies, while sclerotic firms in declining industries fail, making way for nimbler enterprises." This is certainly not a new idea and seems intuitively correct, so one has to wonder how the Obama administration would respond to such an assertion. Many opponents to the bailouts of the auto industry cited such arguments. Get rid of the old and make room for the new, they said, but the Obama industry seems torn between saving the old while hoping to find room for the new.
The Obama administration, like many democratic administrations before it, has been heavily involved in attempting to regulate/spur the economy, but the actions the administration both appear to agree and disagree with the idea of innovation spurring the economy. Why then would the administration both advocate for new technologies, green energies, etc. while fighting tooth and nail to keep the struggling auto industry afloat? How can innovation happen without making room for such new technologies?
In order for this economy to recover, new jobs must be created, in order for new jobs to be created, new business, ventures, enterprises must be created. The best source of these new jobs: new technologies and green initiatives. Several news articles touted how impressed Obama was of Japan's technological advances at a recent trip to the country and he stated later how behind the United States was. I agree, Mr. President, we are behind, so out with the old, and in with the new.
The Obama administration, like many democratic administrations before it, has been heavily involved in attempting to regulate/spur the economy, but the actions the administration both appear to agree and disagree with the idea of innovation spurring the economy. Why then would the administration both advocate for new technologies, green energies, etc. while fighting tooth and nail to keep the struggling auto industry afloat? How can innovation happen without making room for such new technologies?
In order for this economy to recover, new jobs must be created, in order for new jobs to be created, new business, ventures, enterprises must be created. The best source of these new jobs: new technologies and green initiatives. Several news articles touted how impressed Obama was of Japan's technological advances at a recent trip to the country and he stated later how behind the United States was. I agree, Mr. President, we are behind, so out with the old, and in with the new.
Short-term loss for long-term gain
Both Peck and Luce attest to the stagnation of incomes within the middle class that has slowly separated any connection to the top third over the past 15-20 years. The real problems had been masked due to the availability of cheap debt and financing. But the Great Recession of 2008 unveiled the implications of a growing wealth disparity. Peck asserts that recessions tend to level the playing field. A man who once wore a suit to work in the morning now has to work the Saturday night shift at Walmart. Peck and Luce and Bartels believe in the reality of political consequences that result from these gaping economic wounds that linger despite a return to normalcy.
What I liked about the Bartels piece was the reference to not only primary income, but effective access to collective resources in determining actual representation (both ideological and responsiveness). But to me the fundamental problem lies again in both economic disparity and the lack of a relatively higher baseline infrastructure. And this is where his case study on Katrina fits in. Local authorities told residents to evacuate or write your SSN on your arm in permanent ink so that the body could be identified. But those without the access to individual and collective resources had no avenue for evacuation. Would a "city of utmost necessity" work? Bartels seems to think so with many caveats...especially America's insatiable appetite for luxury. Can the recent push nationwide for self-sustainability somehow advance or inhibit this dream? Peck discusses the fluid face of the American labor industry. How flexible is the American worker today?
"But however high the tide of economic forces may rise, we are not condemned to wait behind our levees for disaster to engulf us. Imperfect as they are, the processes and institutions of American democracy provide us with consequential choices". Peck and Luce say that higher natural unemployment may be the norm but political actions and consequences can alter social and cultural norms. Or will changed norms as a result of the recession have to expedite the political action we need to eliminate political equality?
What I liked about the Bartels piece was the reference to not only primary income, but effective access to collective resources in determining actual representation (both ideological and responsiveness). But to me the fundamental problem lies again in both economic disparity and the lack of a relatively higher baseline infrastructure. And this is where his case study on Katrina fits in. Local authorities told residents to evacuate or write your SSN on your arm in permanent ink so that the body could be identified. But those without the access to individual and collective resources had no avenue for evacuation. Would a "city of utmost necessity" work? Bartels seems to think so with many caveats...especially America's insatiable appetite for luxury. Can the recent push nationwide for self-sustainability somehow advance or inhibit this dream? Peck discusses the fluid face of the American labor industry. How flexible is the American worker today?
"But however high the tide of economic forces may rise, we are not condemned to wait behind our levees for disaster to engulf us. Imperfect as they are, the processes and institutions of American democracy provide us with consequential choices". Peck and Luce say that higher natural unemployment may be the norm but political actions and consequences can alter social and cultural norms. Or will changed norms as a result of the recession have to expedite the political action we need to eliminate political equality?
Money Makes the World Go 'Round (Unfortunately for Democracy)
In Larry Bartels’ “Unequal Democracy” writing he cites evidence that US Senators pay little to no attention to lower income sects of society, a trend that he suspects is applicable to the entirety of the US government. This claim obviously came as no surprise to me, as we have been often discussed the ways in which lower socio-economic strata of society are ignored by the government. However, what did come as more of shock to me, and what I find to be most depressing, was his assertion that even when lower income citizens inform themselves and participate politically (by voting), they remain almost completely unheeded. He evidences this claim by referencing the fact that in a previous election 60% of the “low income” voting bracket did indeed vote, though according to his Senatorial research their opinions were still not listened to by representatives. As if this information was not disheartening enough, Bartels further finds in his research that even when participatory acts are controlled for between the two economic groups, Senators maintain their exclusive focus on the middle to upper class sections of the electorate. As a result, his research makes relatively clear the idea that political representatives seem to represent their most affluent constituents, not because of any participatory differences between socio-economic groups, but instead because of a focus on possible campaign contributions (as the satisfaction of wealthier constituents are seen as more profitable for their campaign).
This hypothesis is not only discouraging in relation to America’s broad ideals of democracy (which many American citizens maintain to be the nation’s foundation), but is discouraging which respect to what our class has been discussing over the past months as well. We have asserted time and time again in class discussion, blog posts and midterm papers, that with more access to knowledge and a more robust participatory spirit, the lower strata of the US can not only voice their concern more effectively, but that these concerns will be heeded by representatives. According to this reading, however, this statement is utopian at best. In Bartels’ opinion, the best way for lower classes to effect change (even after becoming educated and participatory) is to “indirectly” affect the government through non-voting participation. I, for one, find this conclusion to be unacceptable for a nation that is supposedly founded on equality of citizens.
This statement then leaves us with the question of how exactly we can make lower socio-economic sects more politically efficacious. Up until this point in the semester I would have without a doubt argued for the empowerment of the group through education and civic skill acts. However, now I can’t help but feel that the only way to fix this problem lies on the side of the government itself. If money is the only way to be heard by representatives, it is clearly impossible for these “poor people”
to acquire enough money to gain political efficacy simply for the purpose of being listened to. Therefore I believe that the responsibility lies in the hands of the government that made the choice to ignore segments of the population to begin with. I cannot claim to have a plan laid out to bring about this change, but it seems that changes in how campaign contributions affect reelection, or caps on the amount of money that private donors can contribute could alleviate some of the pressure put onto politicians to cater to wealthier constituents. Generally, Bartels clearly brings to light one particularly dramatic problem with the image of citizen equality that pervades so much of our national rhetoric, and I believe that this problem inherently demonstrates a need for reform on the side of the government, not the citizens.
This hypothesis is not only discouraging in relation to America’s broad ideals of democracy (which many American citizens maintain to be the nation’s foundation), but is discouraging which respect to what our class has been discussing over the past months as well. We have asserted time and time again in class discussion, blog posts and midterm papers, that with more access to knowledge and a more robust participatory spirit, the lower strata of the US can not only voice their concern more effectively, but that these concerns will be heeded by representatives. According to this reading, however, this statement is utopian at best. In Bartels’ opinion, the best way for lower classes to effect change (even after becoming educated and participatory) is to “indirectly” affect the government through non-voting participation. I, for one, find this conclusion to be unacceptable for a nation that is supposedly founded on equality of citizens.
This statement then leaves us with the question of how exactly we can make lower socio-economic sects more politically efficacious. Up until this point in the semester I would have without a doubt argued for the empowerment of the group through education and civic skill acts. However, now I can’t help but feel that the only way to fix this problem lies on the side of the government itself. If money is the only way to be heard by representatives, it is clearly impossible for these “poor people”
to acquire enough money to gain political efficacy simply for the purpose of being listened to. Therefore I believe that the responsibility lies in the hands of the government that made the choice to ignore segments of the population to begin with. I cannot claim to have a plan laid out to bring about this change, but it seems that changes in how campaign contributions affect reelection, or caps on the amount of money that private donors can contribute could alleviate some of the pressure put onto politicians to cater to wealthier constituents. Generally, Bartels clearly brings to light one particularly dramatic problem with the image of citizen equality that pervades so much of our national rhetoric, and I believe that this problem inherently demonstrates a need for reform on the side of the government, not the citizens.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Recession and Political Participation
In his article, How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America, Don Peck writes about how the economic recession will affect our generation. I wish to expand on his thoughts and question how the economic recession will affect the ability of our generation to be good citizens. Peck writes that the National Association of College and Employers found that job offers to graduating seniors declined by 21% last year and are projected to decline 7% this year. As a result of the recession 10% of young adults have moved back in with their parents as a result of the recession. I personally know several people who graduated from college without a job, moved back in with their parents, and got a temporary job in the service industry (waiter, sales associate, etc.)
Earlier in the semester we read about how people can gain civic skills from their job (such as ability to speak publicly, and write letters). However, this only applies to white collar jobs. People generally don't have the opportunity to learn these skills through jobs in the service industry. Will the fact that many graduating seniors fail to get jobs in careers of their choice and instead work part time as sales associates or don't work at all affect their civic skills? Can these people make up for these missed civic skills later on in life, or will they be able to retain what they have learned in college? I don't really know the answer to this question. I have a feeling, however, that this recession will affect how young adults who are unemployed after college participate in politics.
Does our Government Owe Us for Being Americans?
Of all of our readings, this week's were the most depressing. Declining wages, unemployment, underemployment all appear to significantly affect the depth of political representation and access to crucial resources. While this does not surprise me - I think we have all figured this out by now - it does have serious implications for American democracy. I have long believed that access to resources (such as education, home loans, etc.) is something that should be earned. Never a fan of handouts, I've often wondered why it should be the responsibility of the government to fix the economic disparities prevalent in America. However, I now find that my conservative assumptions are not a one-size-fits all approach to governance. Our government has increasingly become incapable, perhaps unwilling, to take care of those most in need, including those who've exhausted themselves attempting to achieve success. The inability of hard-working folks to improve their circumstances despite their tireless efforts should spark the government and the citizenry into action. When college graduates cannot find employment, when career workers are being laid-off, when families can't pay the mortgage, or take care of their dependent children, the government does have a responsibility to step in. When those who follow all the rules and work for years to achieve the American dream are still capable of drowning, something is not right. And to make it worse, the "Haves-turned-have-nots" are also in danger of losing, according to Bartels, political participation. It may be too easy to look at our poorer citizens and say "better them than me", but what happens when "me" becomes "them"?
But we still cannot blame the government entirely. A new generation of entitled Americans who believe they deserve it all would probably disgust most of our WWII generation grandparents, who were willing to give up everything when called upon by their government. We have become a culture of expectations. We are changing our identity and our beliefs. Indeed we are a nature of consumers content with our attempts and desires to keep up with the Jones'. Does the government have a responsibility to ensure our necessities only, or should they also provide for our frivolities as well? Is a roof over our heads, food on our tables, and clothes on our backs enough? Or are we also including in our demands for assistance a flat-screen television, a brand new car, and wages beyond our skill? While we have the right to demand equality, security, and representation from our government, perhaps we also have the responsibility to not spend beyond our means, to expect our children to go to JMU instead of Harvard, to drive a 5 year old care instead of a brand new one...
If we look at citizenship and political participation as something to be earned instead of given to us, when we have exhausted, as some certainly have, all of our own options to make our lives better (this may not mean better-off), then we may begin to demand that our government provide for us, or at a bare minimum, make up the difference.
But we still cannot blame the government entirely. A new generation of entitled Americans who believe they deserve it all would probably disgust most of our WWII generation grandparents, who were willing to give up everything when called upon by their government. We have become a culture of expectations. We are changing our identity and our beliefs. Indeed we are a nature of consumers content with our attempts and desires to keep up with the Jones'. Does the government have a responsibility to ensure our necessities only, or should they also provide for our frivolities as well? Is a roof over our heads, food on our tables, and clothes on our backs enough? Or are we also including in our demands for assistance a flat-screen television, a brand new car, and wages beyond our skill? While we have the right to demand equality, security, and representation from our government, perhaps we also have the responsibility to not spend beyond our means, to expect our children to go to JMU instead of Harvard, to drive a 5 year old care instead of a brand new one...
If we look at citizenship and political participation as something to be earned instead of given to us, when we have exhausted, as some certainly have, all of our own options to make our lives better (this may not mean better-off), then we may begin to demand that our government provide for us, or at a bare minimum, make up the difference.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The (College) Kids Are Alright
My post for this week stems from a topic that was brought up on Monday about the variation that can occur throughout different college students, and how this may be a particularly troublesome flaw within the work of Kam and Palmer. As I brought up in class, to assume that every individual fitting into the “college” category is necessarily the same type of student or citizen is a bit overbroad. Kam and Palmer use this categorization to demonstrate that our college system may not be accomplishing its widely assumed goal: to make its students more fully educated (and generally, better) citizens for the nation. I beg to differ on this conclusion. While I make no argument that the collegiate experience cannot be improved, or that it will automatically make each student a model citizen, I do believe that the institutional nature of universities and colleges allows them to make available resources and opportunities that most people would never encounter without attending college. For this reason I believe that going to college has the potential for vastly increasing one’s value as a citizen, if only because it allows any individual to access new environments, interact with driven and highly educated individuals, and to learn their own efficacy within a system.
Though these benefits are available for everyone who attends college they are not necessarily utilized by everyone, and in my opinion this trend is what leads to results like those of Kam and Palmer. However, in my opinion this is no reason to disparage the collegiate system as it is currently. People may choose not to take advantage of the resources available to them, for it is often easier to “coast” through commitments, and as a result many people do just that. Still, I believe that this would happen in any system, and that no matter how many changes are introduced, some students will always find the easy way out. It sounds disheartening, but in fact it’s just reality. My point is that while some students will always shirk the responsibilities and therefore not be as affected by their experience, others will take advantage of the opportunities available in college, and will indeed become better citizens as a result. Further, I believe that this will be the case regardless of the system in place, and that therefore Kam and Palmer should not assume that college’s inability to yield and 100% success rate makes it a failure.
This being said, I do agree fully with Kam and Palmer’s assertion that the most influential time frame in each individual’s life is most likely their elementary school years. I believe that if a change is truly to be made with regards to making citizens more participatory and civic spirited, the change is to be made in elementary schools, where standardized testing and “tracked” students create an environment that discourages critical analysis and debate. We also discussed ways by which this could possibly be brought about, and though we heard some decidedly negative results about the past efforts in France, I would love to see some attempts at making these crucial early years of education more open and discussion oriented.
Though these benefits are available for everyone who attends college they are not necessarily utilized by everyone, and in my opinion this trend is what leads to results like those of Kam and Palmer. However, in my opinion this is no reason to disparage the collegiate system as it is currently. People may choose not to take advantage of the resources available to them, for it is often easier to “coast” through commitments, and as a result many people do just that. Still, I believe that this would happen in any system, and that no matter how many changes are introduced, some students will always find the easy way out. It sounds disheartening, but in fact it’s just reality. My point is that while some students will always shirk the responsibilities and therefore not be as affected by their experience, others will take advantage of the opportunities available in college, and will indeed become better citizens as a result. Further, I believe that this will be the case regardless of the system in place, and that therefore Kam and Palmer should not assume that college’s inability to yield and 100% success rate makes it a failure.
This being said, I do agree fully with Kam and Palmer’s assertion that the most influential time frame in each individual’s life is most likely their elementary school years. I believe that if a change is truly to be made with regards to making citizens more participatory and civic spirited, the change is to be made in elementary schools, where standardized testing and “tracked” students create an environment that discourages critical analysis and debate. We also discussed ways by which this could possibly be brought about, and though we heard some decidedly negative results about the past efforts in France, I would love to see some attempts at making these crucial early years of education more open and discussion oriented.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Education: Just what is it good for?
I found this week’s readings particularly salient for college students, raising important questions about the role of education, particularly of higher education, as well as the content of our education. Especially in the current era in which public education is becoming less affordable and less accessible and the gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is wider than at any other time in American history, and still, fewer people are engaged in politics, it seems necessary to merge these realities and think about them as interreleatled phenomena. Debates about just what our education system is doing and for whom are pressing discussions. (I strongly recommend this piece in the American Scholar that sheds some perspective on this gap that is not only economic, but cultural in so many ways that higher education creates in this country, not exactly found in substantive empirical data, but whose arguments are worth considering. Its author explains how "Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers.")
But the articles we read for this class provided some empirical grounding for claims that education cultivates a wide range of civic engagement activities, Campbell reaffirming, but adding additional variables to the sorting model and Kam and Palmer further complicating the causality between education and civic engagement. Though the correlation is evidently a complex one and overall the readings suggest that education is perhaps not the absolute universal solvent, I do not believe undermines the importance of quality education. Perhaps what these readings can do is help pinpoint just what policy-makers should look to when thinking about educational reform. Should it be increasing access to college for a greater number of Americans? Improving civic education in public schools? Or perhaps taking a more holistic approach to what primary and secondary education does in low-income communities, such as Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone who focuses on not only students, but their families within the specific community or Harlem, and starts his programs with children at a very young age.
Lipman’s piece was the most provocative and while I’m not convinced there is a direct relationship between U.S.’s power alignment and its education policy (since schools vary across the country and she doesn’t compare this surveillance-era education to past eras), I think she excites the debate about the role of education for citizenship. If it does turn us into better citizens, what does this better citizen look like? Is it someone who votes and volunteers and participates in politics in some capacity? Or, is it someone who (also) supports the U.S.’s neoliberal aim for economic domination. The current push to increase education in the math and sciences is ridden with language about the U.S. competing with other nation’s in a globalized era. Policy makers often seem to cite China’s prowess in math and sciences, as if suggesting we need to turn citizens into an army of competitors on the global market and contribute to the U.S.’s GDP as well as its defense industry. If we talk about education as the universal solvent or great equalizer, certainly it means increasing the participation of citizens in the marketplace, and therefore increasing their
overall well being and quality of life as well as that of their family and descendants. How this helps the U.S. economy overall seems like a secondary function, but not the primary goal. Nonetheless, I agree that our definition of good citizenship, promoted through education in a variety of ways discussed in these articles, should encompass more than economic participation.
But the articles we read for this class provided some empirical grounding for claims that education cultivates a wide range of civic engagement activities, Campbell reaffirming, but adding additional variables to the sorting model and Kam and Palmer further complicating the causality between education and civic engagement. Though the correlation is evidently a complex one and overall the readings suggest that education is perhaps not the absolute universal solvent, I do not believe undermines the importance of quality education. Perhaps what these readings can do is help pinpoint just what policy-makers should look to when thinking about educational reform. Should it be increasing access to college for a greater number of Americans? Improving civic education in public schools? Or perhaps taking a more holistic approach to what primary and secondary education does in low-income communities, such as Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone who focuses on not only students, but their families within the specific community or Harlem, and starts his programs with children at a very young age.
Lipman’s piece was the most provocative and while I’m not convinced there is a direct relationship between U.S.’s power alignment and its education policy (since schools vary across the country and she doesn’t compare this surveillance-era education to past eras), I think she excites the debate about the role of education for citizenship. If it does turn us into better citizens, what does this better citizen look like? Is it someone who votes and volunteers and participates in politics in some capacity? Or, is it someone who (also) supports the U.S.’s neoliberal aim for economic domination. The current push to increase education in the math and sciences is ridden with language about the U.S. competing with other nation’s in a globalized era. Policy makers often seem to cite China’s prowess in math and sciences, as if suggesting we need to turn citizens into an army of competitors on the global market and contribute to the U.S.’s GDP as well as its defense industry. If we talk about education as the universal solvent or great equalizer, certainly it means increasing the participation of citizens in the marketplace, and therefore increasing their
overall well being and quality of life as well as that of their family and descendants. How this helps the U.S. economy overall seems like a secondary function, but not the primary goal. Nonetheless, I agree that our definition of good citizenship, promoted through education in a variety of ways discussed in these articles, should encompass more than economic participation.
Political Participation from TFA
McAdams measure levels of service/civic participation based on participation in the Teach for America program. His findings describe the effects of "felt efficacy" and "collaborative activities" as important determining factors for future involvement. I think it is reasonable to extend this conclusion to other service involvement as well. Anytime a person feels responsible for change or connected with a social group, they are likely to enjoy that feeling and desire its replication.
However, I think the study brings up our previous conversations about the value of civic involvement and its correlation to political participation. In terms of citizen competence, we have primarily been concerned with people's involvement in political activity, rather than all volunteering or community participation. Thus, we might be concerned by the tables in the study that show less participation in "institutional politics" than in "civic activity" or "social movements", but encouraged by the statistic that 92 percent of the subjects voted in the last presidential election.
I'm not convinced that the results of the study bode ill for service activities and their effects in general. The actual work performed by TFA members could be valuable enough on its own merits that the lack of increase in service later might not matter. More generally, I believe civic participation matters to communities, states, and the country as a positive social good such that it should be encouraged regardless of whether or not it makes individuals more politically active.
TFA and whether it's Effective
I found the McAdam and Brandt article on Teach for America to be interesting but I’m not sure I buy all their conclusions. The authors allude to this, but “virtually all accepted applicants are already highly engaged citizens” (p966). All applicants that are accepted already have a college degree and clearly must be motivated to be involved with the community if they are applying for TFA. Even if the rate of current service activities of TFA graduates is a little below the dropouts or non-matriculant, it is still significantly higher than the average American population. Additionally, it seems to be only the 15% of TFA members with a negative experience that create the gap. The “satisfied graduates are indistinguishable from [the] other subjects” in terms of current service/civic participation. I’m not sure then that I would be too critical of TFA since the work they are doing is often stressful and certainly not easy. I would argue that teaching in a poor, inner-city school is much tougher than other service activities which could include things like working a bake sale. The fact that some TFA members burn out or are unsatisfied is not all that surprising.
However, the Kam and Palmer article as well as the Lipman article have made me consider whether or not TFA is an effective way to change the system for the better. Kam and Palmer argue that “preadult experiences and predispositions” influence the likelihood of pursuing higher education. They posit that it is less education but rather family background that influences people the most. Parents pass on values and “can transmit the importance of education to their children”. Kam and Palmer seem to minimize the effect of school on students’ decision to attend college and argue that they students were already predisposed to attend. If this is the case, then TFA would not really have much of an impact on students. If family is the most important factor, then it does not really matter if the teacher is amazing or mediocre. The focus would have to be on improving parents first through programs rather than focus on educating children.
Lipman’s article too would appear to be rather ambivalent as to whether or not TFA could have an effect. Lipman seems to make a systemic argument about education. It is not so much the teachers’ fault but rather the system that is intent on punishments and surveillance. Teachers have to “learn not to speak up against practices many privately abhor” for example. If TFA teachers have to follow the system based on test scores (like No Child Left Behind), then there is not much they can do. However, there is some hope. Lipman states that “a turn toward an equitable education that promotes critical thought and democratic public action is urgent” and would make a difference. One of TFA’s tenets is creating an equal opportunity for all regardless of race or the school district one lives in. Perhaps TFA members could help work to change the system for the better from within. At least with Lipman’s article there is a possibility for teachers to make a difference.
The Effect of Education
Civic Engagement and Education: An Empirical Test of the Sorting Model, Campbell discusses the effect that education has on the individual. However, Kam and Palmer take a different approach, and discuss the role of the individual in higher education. These two articles lead us to the big question: Does education really have a role in political participation, or is there something innate about students who attend higher education that makes them more likely to be politically active? Although both articles made excellent points, I am more inclined to agree with Kam and Palmer.
However, my critique of both Campbell and Kam and Plamer is that higher education is more complicated than the articles suggest. It is too diverse to be viewed in terms of "college attendees" and "no college". Colleges range from ivy league schools, to schools with very low selectivity. The level of learning and academic rigor is not equal at all higher education institutions. If Kam and Palmer are correct, then they should be able to take two students at very different types of colleges, control for race, SES, gender, background, etc., and find that the students have similar levels of political participation. However, if the students levels of participation differs significantly, then it can be inferred that there is something about the institution that shapes the individual.
I also find it slightly problematic that both articles lump everyone into the same group with out looking at the effect of things like SES, race, and major. As Kam and Plamer briefly mention in the their conclusion, higher education is extremely heterogenous. I would be interested in looking at specific groups within higher education, and comparing educational attainment to political participation. For example, for Latino's, attending college may have a different effect than it does for blacks, Asians, or white Americans.
However, my critique of both Campbell and Kam and Plamer is that higher education is more complicated than the articles suggest. It is too diverse to be viewed in terms of "college attendees" and "no college". Colleges range from ivy league schools, to schools with very low selectivity. The level of learning and academic rigor is not equal at all higher education institutions. If Kam and Palmer are correct, then they should be able to take two students at very different types of colleges, control for race, SES, gender, background, etc., and find that the students have similar levels of political participation. However, if the students levels of participation differs significantly, then it can be inferred that there is something about the institution that shapes the individual.
I also find it slightly problematic that both articles lump everyone into the same group with out looking at the effect of things like SES, race, and major. As Kam and Plamer briefly mention in the their conclusion, higher education is extremely heterogenous. I would be interested in looking at specific groups within higher education, and comparing educational attainment to political participation. For example, for Latino's, attending college may have a different effect than it does for blacks, Asians, or white Americans.
Factor to Compel Political Participation: Long-Term Thinking
I found this week's articles to be enlightening and quite surprising since I have always assumed only positive implications of education. The Kam and Palmer article explains how higher education is a proxy for preadult experiences, not necessarily a cause of political participation. Seeing that their results placed a focal point on socialization and the growth of characteristics that can emerge from socialization, similar to what Mark said, maybe we should foster these qualities at an earlier age in primary and secondary schools. Somehow encouraging students to think with a long-term mindset may compel them to be more politically active as they grow up, seeing that people who contemplated going to college (most likely for the long-term benefits of getting a good job, being able to raise a family, etc.) were also ones who were more likely to engage in civic participation (which can foster long-term benefits for those they service, for themselves through voting, for personal fulfillment, etc.). Maybe thinking about the far future is a factor that propels individuals to acquire higher education as well as to participate in the political sphere.
How exactly we are to instill the importance of planning or considering the future is beyond me, but from my personal experiences in high school, we were never told about the long-term benefits our community service hours would create for those we were volunteering for or how they would help ourselves in the long run. It was assumed that the students understood why community service hours were important, but then seeing how individuals would try their best to obtain the easiest types of service or even manipulate household chores to count as service hours prove otherwise. I remember a faculty member being extra generous and giving us double the hours we actually worked to set up for a career fair because the facility had no air conditioning and we were working in a hot and uncomfortable environment. It seems like these required service hours are not taken seriously or given much attention because long-term benefits are not illustrated to show what an impact students can actually make for others and themselves. I feel that this simple change will lead student to think further into the future and maybe compel them to be more politically involved.
How exactly we are to instill the importance of planning or considering the future is beyond me, but from my personal experiences in high school, we were never told about the long-term benefits our community service hours would create for those we were volunteering for or how they would help ourselves in the long run. It was assumed that the students understood why community service hours were important, but then seeing how individuals would try their best to obtain the easiest types of service or even manipulate household chores to count as service hours prove otherwise. I remember a faculty member being extra generous and giving us double the hours we actually worked to set up for a career fair because the facility had no air conditioning and we were working in a hot and uncomfortable environment. It seems like these required service hours are not taken seriously or given much attention because long-term benefits are not illustrated to show what an impact students can actually make for others and themselves. I feel that this simple change will lead student to think further into the future and maybe compel them to be more politically involved.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Education Hurting…Not Helping?
We have focused extensively on the importance of both information and knowledge this semester. Inevitably, any discussion of knowledge and information contains at least minor references to the role of education in the dissemination of information and the formation of good citizens within the democratic society of America. We have discussed, how despite reforms, the education system in this country remains largely unequal across social and economic groups and geographic locations.
As I read the articles this week, I could not help put question if democracy and education are at odds with one another. Perhaps we should be asking if the effects of education contradict the goals of democracy. We often hear arguments that greater education will lead to more effective participation and the emergence of a better informed citizenry. However, maybe there is an inverse relationship between education and the establishment and maintenance of a healthy democracy. I have many family members and friends who are or have been teachers--ranging from the elementary to collegiate levels. One interesting topic of conversation that arises is the curriculum taught in schools. Generally, the consensus I hear is that there needs to be a greater focus on both math and science. These sentiments are increasingly and regularly echoed and reinforced in the media and popular culture (Example: Video of how to encourage your daughter to excel in math and science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf5BLio6qGQ). Yet after reading Pauline Lipman’s “Politics by Other Means: Education Accountability and the Surveillance State,” I began to wonder if society’s push for math and science has minimized the emphasis on the study of subjects—like government or ethics--that allows for debate and free thought. Lipman argues that free thinking and discourse is “undermined by educational processes driven by standardized education.” To me, there seems to be an impasse between what society deems as necessary and appropriate--standardized testing and a focus on math and science—and what is required to promote democratic characteristics and effective citizens.
Additionally, Lipman addresses the role education plays in the “racialization of the enemy.” Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Lipman argues that American authority via the government has reduced civil liberties and democratic privilege based on the platform of ensuring security. Although I believe Lipman takes her critique of government action and the American quest for unilateralism too far, I think her underlying concern about the power of education in the greater realm of American society and politics is valid. Ultimately, the domestic and international environments which shape American policy and life affect the state of public education. In part as a result of the overreliance on standardized testing and the stigmas attached to “failing schools,” the country has isolated minority children (particularly blacks and Latinos). We have been taught that education is key to participation, but from what I see, it appears that public education may be a contributor to disenfranchisement. Furthermore, the focus on passing standardized tests in order to “compete for resources” limits the bounds of education. Since teachers are scrutinized over whether their students pass state tests, they have little incentive or desire to become engaged in their profession beyond the minimum standard. Instead of shaping the future democratic leaders of our country, teachers simply cover standardized material without addressing other important issues not required by mandated tests.
Ultimately, the issues and controversies surrounding education that were addressed in this week’s readings are important to the future of American democracy. Obviously, there are some problems with the way public education addresses learning and standardized curriculum, but there are really no easy answers. The bottom line is that teachers are very influential in shaping the future leaders of our country. Yet if their state mandated practices in the classroom breed “fear, suppression…and dissent,” teachers are/will be unable to impart important lessons to the next generation of democratic citizens.
As I read the articles this week, I could not help put question if democracy and education are at odds with one another. Perhaps we should be asking if the effects of education contradict the goals of democracy. We often hear arguments that greater education will lead to more effective participation and the emergence of a better informed citizenry. However, maybe there is an inverse relationship between education and the establishment and maintenance of a healthy democracy. I have many family members and friends who are or have been teachers--ranging from the elementary to collegiate levels. One interesting topic of conversation that arises is the curriculum taught in schools. Generally, the consensus I hear is that there needs to be a greater focus on both math and science. These sentiments are increasingly and regularly echoed and reinforced in the media and popular culture (Example: Video of how to encourage your daughter to excel in math and science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf5BLio6qGQ). Yet after reading Pauline Lipman’s “Politics by Other Means: Education Accountability and the Surveillance State,” I began to wonder if society’s push for math and science has minimized the emphasis on the study of subjects—like government or ethics--that allows for debate and free thought. Lipman argues that free thinking and discourse is “undermined by educational processes driven by standardized education.” To me, there seems to be an impasse between what society deems as necessary and appropriate--standardized testing and a focus on math and science—and what is required to promote democratic characteristics and effective citizens.
Additionally, Lipman addresses the role education plays in the “racialization of the enemy.” Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Lipman argues that American authority via the government has reduced civil liberties and democratic privilege based on the platform of ensuring security. Although I believe Lipman takes her critique of government action and the American quest for unilateralism too far, I think her underlying concern about the power of education in the greater realm of American society and politics is valid. Ultimately, the domestic and international environments which shape American policy and life affect the state of public education. In part as a result of the overreliance on standardized testing and the stigmas attached to “failing schools,” the country has isolated minority children (particularly blacks and Latinos). We have been taught that education is key to participation, but from what I see, it appears that public education may be a contributor to disenfranchisement. Furthermore, the focus on passing standardized tests in order to “compete for resources” limits the bounds of education. Since teachers are scrutinized over whether their students pass state tests, they have little incentive or desire to become engaged in their profession beyond the minimum standard. Instead of shaping the future democratic leaders of our country, teachers simply cover standardized material without addressing other important issues not required by mandated tests.
Ultimately, the issues and controversies surrounding education that were addressed in this week’s readings are important to the future of American democracy. Obviously, there are some problems with the way public education addresses learning and standardized curriculum, but there are really no easy answers. The bottom line is that teachers are very influential in shaping the future leaders of our country. Yet if their state mandated practices in the classroom breed “fear, suppression…and dissent,” teachers are/will be unable to impart important lessons to the next generation of democratic citizens.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)