Churches and Civic Skills

One topic that came up in three of the four readings was the potential of civic activity at the local level (such as church attendance) as a corrective factor for participation. In Beyond Seas: A Resource Model of Political Participation, Brady et. al. write that people gain civic skills as an adult by preforming skill-acts at work. Skill-acts include writing a letter, going to meetings where decisions are made, planning/chairing a meeting, or giving a presentation/speech. It seems logical to me that people who have the opportunity to participate in such ways at work would feel more comfortable participating in campaigns and preforming other civic duties. People who aren't in this kind of environment (grocery store associates, janitors, etc.) would most likely be out of their element if they were to engage in civic activity. Since the kinds of jobs that allow for civic engagement are more available to those with at least a high school diploma, civic activity gained through church involvement is a leveling factor according to Brady et. at. (because SES doesn't impact church attendance or involvement).

In The Big Tilt: Participatory Inequality in America, Verba et. al. also put forth the claim that religious activity can be a corrective factor for participation in helping to offset the impact of socioeconomic advantage. However, they view the role of the church as acting as a collective voice for the disadvantaged. They renege this idea when they claim that, "the center of gravity of the religious agenda in politics today is a conservative concern with social issues... there is no reason to expect American religious institutions to...[bring] to the attention of public officials the economic needs and preferences of the disadvantaged." (pg H-23) I believe that it would be dangerous for the church to start advocating economic policy for those of lower SES because along with their economic policy they would most likely have a social agenda. If this was the case, they wouldn't be a true mouthpiece for the disadvantaged, but instead, they would be using them to advance their own agenda.

I do understand the value of using organizations like churches as a way to promote civic engagement (like put forth by Bradly et. al.) but I do think this can be taken too far. Mill puts forth the idea of participating in the 'government' of the workplace. This would involve transforming the superior-subordinate relationship into a relationship of equality with managers. I think that if this idea were ever implemented, it would hurt us more economically than it would help politically.