The Band-Aid Effect

Eliasoph laments that the front stage and back stage politics of civic voluntary groups have reduced political participation in changing the actual policies themselves. In an effort to reduce discouragement, she argues that these groups are becoming band-aids rather than solutions to large-scale policy issues. For example, she notes that instead of attacking the funding policies of the school district with decrepit and outdated resources, parents would rather have a bake sale in order to raise money. These groups, while doing good for the community, really have a “dark side”. Group members are affected by personal interest, and the ability to see immediate results. Would there time be better spent by publically campaigning for legislation to help the homeless? Or is their time better spent ladling soup at the local shelter? Eliasoph mentions that the group works more as independent contractors than as a collaborated effort. I think it is a safe argument that these voluntary organizations can create a general good for their community; however, by stifling political conversation, it hurts a long term solution.

I found the passage about the racist teacher the most telling of this hesitance to expressing real issues. It was as if the report of a “real” problem burst the safety bubble of the group. By pretending to claim ignorance to these real issues, the groups were able to maintain a “feel good” atmosphere. The focus was not on how can we end this problem, but rather on what is the best way to bandage the issue. When the group was confronted with a real issue (someone brought backstage politics to the front stage arena) it used it’s safety valve: we will channel that to the appropriate authorities. They would rather pass the problem along, creating homogenous results, than deal with the problem head on. It is easier for the groups to claim ignorance of a problem than actually tackle the problem head on.

I am curious in how this relates to our discussion in class on the reasons for why people choose to participate in national politics over local politics. These articles seem to suggest an entirely opposite result in describing civic participation. Is there any type of correlation between the two?