Tired of Talking When No One is Listening

This week's readings appear to challenge the participatory theorists in Pateman's article who encourage community-level involvement as a source for democratic skills and "training" for the national arena. Unlike the participatory theorists, the authors state that voluntary associations don't actually provide us with the sort of political practice and good-citizen-like qualities that are assumed to evolve from group engagement. This typically occurs because of the lack of debate and face-to-face deliberation that we would expect from this voluntary sphere.

The Eliasoph and Theiss-Morse & Hibbing articles illustrate possible reasons for the minimal amount of group discussion such as homogeneity of members, fear of causing confusion or discouragement, hesitance to bring up competing views due to the possibility of disagreement and discomfort, etc. I agree that discussing politics (or religion) can cause some uneasiness within a group; and bringing up issues in which there are no solutions can be upsetting. But I think one of the main things that I have personally experienced in a group setting is that people become unmotivated and deterred from speaking up, because others simply do not listen. In Eliasoph's "Avoiding Politics" there were examples of newcomers who asked questions or brought up issues of race or the effectiveness of some of the group's ideas, and another member would simply disregard it and shift the conversation back to fund raising and money, a more concrete and convenient way to contribute to a social problem.

People are also taught to follow the leader. Possibly, members are hesitant to question a group leader's rules or the routine of the group itself. Why speak up and probe a group's ways of doing things when a majority will not care to listen when they are already comfortable and familiar with their procedures and abilities? This may be why bureaucrats, teachers, and childcare givers mentioned in Eliasoph's "Where Can Americans Talk Politics" are more likely to deliberate - they are leaders (or at least in charge within their own occupation). So as leaders they have the power to question and criticize; they know that their followers or members of their group or workplace are there to listen to what they have to say. Eliasoph also mentioned how in comparison to the mainstream volunteers, members of institutionally-based groups were more likely to feel empowered and discussed their fears and issues often - rather than feeling as if no one were listening to them, they felt that they had their institutions to hear their "complaints."

So how come these volunteers are less likely to participate in national-level politics? Maybe it is due to the same reason - no one is listening. They may feel that their complaints, worries, and issues will not be heard in the midst of so many other national concerns. Much like the blog entry below, people are not so nice that they will keep their own concerns and criticisms to themselves because they don't want to offend the rest of the group - they simply may be too exhausted of talking and not being heard.