The Adjustments Between Individuals

What is society? What does that word describe?

The first dictionary definition I ran across describes society as, “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.”

Without over thinking it, that sounds about right. A society is a group of people. They may be in the same physical place, and they may have some means of communicating with each other. They may share certain values or have other characteristics in common.

Those are details over which reasonable people are right to quibble, but the fundamental concept is the same: a society is a group of people.

But what if that fundamental concept is a myth? An oversimplification, or, perhaps a convenient lie? What if society is not a group of people?

Well, then, what should we conceive it to be?

In his 1925 book the Phantom Public, Walter Lippmann argued that we ought to “think of society not as the name of a thing but as the name of all the adjustments between individuals and their things.

That is to say, society is not a group of people – it is a group of relationships. Relationships between people, between objects, between issues. A complex web describing how each person interacts with the word, and by extension, how we interact with each other.

As Lippmann bemoans:
We have been taught to think of society as a body, with a mind, a soul, and a purpose, not as a collection of men, women and children whose minds, souls and purposes are variously related. Instead of being allowed to think realistically of a complex of social relations, we have had foisted upon us by various great propagative movements the notion of a mythical entity, called Society, the Nation, the Community.

In Lippmann’s account, the error of taking society to be Society is more than an issue of semantics, and it is more than an innocent oversimplification. A theory of democracy which personifies society as a coherent whole, rather than a network of individuals and relationships, is not only mistaken – it is dangerous.

In post-World War I America, Lippmann looked out and saw the challenges of an increasingly globalized, centralized and professionalized world:

To defend themselves against the economic powers of darkness, against the great monopolies or a devastating competition, the farmers set up great centralized selling agencies. Businessmen form great trade associations. Everybody organizes, until the number of committees and their paid secretaries cannot be computed. The tendency is pervasive.

The concern, of course, is not necessarily with the centralization per se. Rather:

The men who make decisions at these central points are remote from the men they govern and the facts with which they deal. Even if they conscientiously regard themselves as agents or trustees, it is a pure fiction to say that they are carrying out the will of the people. They may govern the people wisely. They are not governing with the active consultation of the people.

Whether these people are elected, appointed, or otherwise endowed with power makes little difference in the end. Those with power are the ones who have power – everyone else is left out.

Yet the myth of Society, allows this to be so. A democratic people would never accept a king imbued by God – but they will accept government anointed by Society.

The people have spoken, they say. They cheer in victory or moan in disagreement, but the sentiment is the same. It is the Will of The People.

But “The People” is not a collective whole. Society has no unified will – and the myth that it does only allows those in power to falsely view themselves as benevolent actors of the people.

It would be impractical to do away with representative government, but what would it look like, I wonder, if we could divorce ourselves from this collective notion? If we could see society not as a unitary object, but as a messy web of relationships? If we truly saw our elected officials not divinely as the Voice of People, but as individuals themselves – given power not by social fiat, but simply for necessity’s sake.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Rain

Silent, at first,
Mists in the morning sky.

The world wakes,
Dewy-eyed.
Fresh and cold and clean.

The sun hides
From the colorless in-between.

A deep exhale,
Roaring now through the empty streets.

Empty? Not empty -
A river -
A splash, a shout,
A blur of broken images.

A dull rumble,
The prolonged sigh.

Joy and grief,
Death and birth,
Intertwined.
The tumultuous darkness.

The sun wins once more -
clean carnage left behind:

A million little diamonds
Shining neath the sky.

Flowers bloom.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

The Gift of Not Giving

One thing most people don’t need is more stuff.

While there are, of course, many members of our society in desperate need of basic items, but those of us fortunate to have a middle class lifestyle generally have more than we need already.

I’ll save a diatribe on luxury goods for another day – stuff, you see, is a category all of its own.

It’s not a new pair of shoes or the latest gadget. It’s those miscellaneous items you don’t know what to do with but which you can’t bring yourself to throw out because they’re still in good condition or you hope they might be useful someday.

I have a whole box of miscellaneous wires.

I have a plastic lizard I’ve had since I was 10.

I have old protest signs, tchotchkes from miscellaneous events and many, many things that I’m not quite sure where they even came from.

There might be things I need, but I don’t need more stuff.

And yet…

I’ll be out and about town and I’ll see something that makes me think of someone. Wouldn’t they enjoy that? I think. Wouldn’t that be a nice gift? And then I get distracted. In a bout of temporary insanity, I mysteriously transform into the consumer capitalism wants me to be, and all I can think about is how I should really spend money on this random, ultimately worthless item that isn’t worth the tree needed for its packaging.

So I try to have an intervention with myself. Is it really something the person needs? Perhaps they would be glad to receive a gift, but in a year, would they find it in a dusty corner and find themselves straining to remember where it came from?

Nobody needs that.

But rather than just walk away, my new strategy is this: I tell people what I don’t get them.

I’ll see something amazing that my niece would love – a person-sized dinosaur, perhaps – and I’ll text my sister. I didn’t just buy this for you!

Sometimes I’ll take a picture.

And ultimately, this accomplishes everything it needs to – the person knows you were thinking about them, you mutually enjoyed the item’s existence, and then you moved on. No space or money wasted. It’s very environmental.

I like giving practical gifts, sure, but stuff?

Who needs it.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

What is the Primary Goal of Higher Education?

What is the core purpose of higher education? To educate, perhaps, but education to what end?

Tisch College Dean Alan D. Solomont answered that question today in a new op-ed reflecting on the White House Summit on Civic Learning and National Service which, as I mentioned, my office recently hosted.

As his op-ed describes:

While the [1947 Truman Commission on Higher Education for Democracy] stated that educating for democracy “should come first … among the principal goals for higher education,” today, society asks colleges and universities to prepare individuals for jobs in a cost-effective and accessible way. That is an important mission in a global economy, but there is a striking gap between 1947 rhetoric and today’s more narrow focus on education for individual economic success.

To modern sensibilities perhaps the idea of “education for democracy” sounds quaint, or perhaps simply idealistic. We’re living in a rough-and-tumble global economy. We face a skills gap. A wage gap. We are desperately trying to adjust to rapidly shifting industries and we are painfully aware that at any moment jobs might go overseas.

Education for democracy might be nice, but workforce development means survival.

There is a reasonableness to that argument, yet it feel oddly hollow and uncompelling.

Nearly half of all young people have no college experience, and, unless we want to consider making higher education free and accessible to all, than it is simply unconscionable to maintain a system that serves to improve economic prosperity for select participants.

Education for democracy – which everyone should have access to from Kindergarten right on up – has a different vision.

This approach imagines a society where everyone has the awareness to see and understand society’s problems, and everyone has the agency to do something about it. A society where people of differing views can hold civil conversations, pushing each other to be better and working to co-create solutions.

Education for democracy isn’t about improving the life of one student, or improving the lives of select students. It is about enriching all our lives, it is about actively, fundamentally, and collectively improving our communities.

The idea is neither quaint, nor idealistic. Indeed – education for democracy is about survival.

If we every hope to be the Just, Free, and Equal society we aspire to be, we must educate our young people not only to espouse these views, but to demonstrate them.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Overthinking Letter Closings

I have a very distinct memory of being taught in grade school that one ought to properly close a letter with the claim, “sincerely.”

I went with the term for awhile but ultimate dropped it because every time I finished a letter I thought to myself, “Really? Did I really mean everything sincerely?”

For sixth grade that felt like a high bar.

Of course, checking your sincerity is ultimately for the best – if you are not sincere about the contents of your letter, that ought to call in to question your whole purpose in writing it.

But, having something of a penchant for hyperbole, I also found myself overly concerned with little details. If I sincerely wrote “I will always remember…” then decades later suffered from dementia, would that negate the whole sincerity of the letter I had innocently penned as a child?

I found this very concerning.

So perhaps you can understand why I stopped using the term. My intentions were sincere, but, I suppose, I didn’t feel comfortable holding myself to that sincerity indefinitely.

Years later, I noticed I had slipped into a seemingly casual replacement: thanks.

Particularly in the workplace this expression seemed apt. I was often asking people to do things and I was, generally speaking, sincerely thankful for their attention to the matter. And I am, have no doubt, all in favor of thanking people.

But this closing, too, came to wear on me.

I started signing off with “thanks” on most correspondence. Not only when I had something to be thankful for, but when those I was writing to probably ought to be thanking me, or when thanks, frankly, had nothing to do with it.

Not only did this make the “thanks,” seem shallow, the habit began to strike me as one of those things that would today make some click-bait list of things women ought to stop doing in the work place.

That is to say, I said thanks as a way of diminishing myself.

While women, of course, can do whatever they damn well please in the workplace and beyond, I did find myself drifting from thanks as my go-to sign-off. Thanks should be reserved, I decided, for times when I am particularly thankful for something.

For the last many years, I have settled on “best,” as my general sign-off. I like that it is positive, yet appropriately vague.

When I am feeling particularly meaningful, I upgrade this to, “all the best.

I’m not really sure what it means to wish someone all the best, but I imagine sending someone all the best things in existence. Rainbows and puppy dogs, perhaps. Whatever you’re into.

I can’t commit to my sincerity, and I’m skeptical of my thankfulness, but I feel confident that whoever you are I wish you the best – however you define that for yourself.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Archetypes, Foils, and Gender Norms

Through much of Western history “Man” has been an archetype with woman his convenient foil.

These two tired tropes have served us well in some regards – a simple way to summarize all that is strong and stern, or all that is weak and emotional. A tool for understanding not only ourselves, but our broader social context.

There are, of course, problems with this approach.

Consider, for example, the quote, “The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare.”

At first blush that may sound good. Perhaps I should be flattered. But of course Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote the above in Human, All Too Human, isn’t exactly known for his raging feminist philosophy.

Perhaps because he also liked to write things like, “From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty.”

But I’m not sure I find the second quote particularly more problematic than the first. They both take women as a foil – Man is the object of interest, and Woman a mere tool for understanding this more important truth.

One solution seeks to right this historic wrong by flipping the paradigm, making Woman a central concern in her own right. Perhaps it is Woman who should be the archetype with man demoted to foil – little more than a shadow which serves to illustrate its master.

But I find that approach unsatisfactory.

No sentence which begins “Woman is…” will end well for me. Women are not a monolith. Men are not a monolith. And gender is not a two item list.

We’re all individual people. With shared traits and divergent traits. Neither an archetype nor a foil.

We’ve put generations of effort into defining our gender norms. Women are this. Men are that. But which ever way you prioritize that list, a bifurcated system does little to express who we actually are.

I am glad to see efforts to promote strong women, to show real images of women, and to treat women as more than a shadow for the other half of society.

But these efforts are not enough. They still feel too narrow, too defining. Perhaps we need to think more radically – not about what it means to be Woman or what it means to be Man, but about what it means to be a Person.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

All the Truth is Out

I attended a great talk last night with Matt Bai, author of All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid. The national political columnist for Yahoo News, Bai previously was the chief political correspondent for the New York Times Magazine where he covered three presidential campaigns.

His latest book covers the 1987 Gary Hart scandal, when the political career of this leading Democratic candidate “came crashing down in a blaze of flashbulbs, the birth of 24-hour news cycles, tabloid speculation, and late-night farce” as tails of his “womanizing” swept tabloids and mainstream press alike.

Bai argues that the Hart affair “marked a crucial turning point in the ethos of political media,” a point when candidates’ ‘character’ began to draw more fixation than their political experience.”

As the scandal grew in intensity, advisors told Hart to apologize, to be contrite in the face of overwhelming public opinion.

He did not.

As the Chicago Tribune reported in May 1987, “A defiant Gary Hart dropped out of the race for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination on Friday, delivering an angry speech that blamed news media attention on his personal life for making his candidacy ‘intolerable.’”

The article continues, quoting Hart’s speech:

I say to my children and other frustrated, angry young people: I’m angry, too. I’ve made some mistakes. I said I would, because I’m human. And I did–maybe big mistakes, but not bad mistakes.

I refuse to submit my friends, my family and innocent people and myself to further rumors and gossip. It`s simply an intolerable situation,

I believe I would have been a successful candidate. I know that I would have been a very good president, particularly for these times. But apparently now we`ll never know.

We all better do something to make this system work or we’re all going to be soon rephrasing Jefferson to say, ‘I tremble for my country when I think we may in fact get the kind of leaders we deserve.’”

A journalist by training, Bai says his work is to tell an interesting story – not necessarily to present a specific argument. But the story of Gary Hart and the clash of political coverage and celebrity culture raises some interesting questions.

As Bai commented last night, ‘character’ has always been a consideration for political candidates, and it should be to some degree. The question is what should that character look like? How should it be judged?

That is to say, in the face of such intense media scrutiny, would you rather have a candidate who would drop out of the race – or choose to not enter politics – putting his family and friends before his political ambitions?

Or would you rather have the candidate who will say anything, do anything, be anything, to get elected?

Because in the political celebrity media environment, that’s the candidate we’re going to get. And perhaps we should tremble, for that is the candidate we deserve.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Election Spin and the Voice of The People

There’s nothing quite like the post-election spin and hype machine, a 24-hour media scramble to interpret the Voice of the People.

CNN reports that “a Republican tide ripped the Senate away from Democrats.” And everyone seems to be jockeying to promote their preferred answer to the question of whether the election was a referendum on the President, the Democrats, or the political system in general.

The people have spoken and our political pundits are here to tell us what they’re saying.

It is times like this when I most appreciate the words of Walter Lippmann, “In this deadly conflict between [the Founding Father's] ideals and their science, the only way out was to assume without much discussion that the voice of the people was the voice of god.”

We are taught that the essence of a democracy is to revere the voice of the people as, indeed, the voice of God. As the highest form of Truth. And when every election rolls around, we look hopefully to the polls, desperate to understand what The People are trying to tell us.

But, alas, it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That is not to say that people, as individuals, are idiots. Lippmann’s view was far more nuanced than that. His disdain for the The People or The Masses should not be confused with a disdain for people.

The challenge, you see, is that, “We have been taught to think of society as a body, with a mind, a soul and a purpose, not as a collection of men, women and children whose minds, souls and purposes are variously related.”

The voice of The People is nonsense, not because the people are nonsensical, but because The People is not a coherent whole.

Individual people do individual things for individual reasons. Perhaps there is some meaning we can gather from their collective data, but…a referendum on a person, a party, or an institution?

No. Individual people can declare opposition to those things. The People cannot.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Youth Turnout in the 2014 Midterms

I have the pleasure of working with the brilliant team at Tisch College’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. The preeminent, non-partisan research center on youth engagement, CIRCLE does a lot of great work on youth civic engagement broadly defined.

Today, CIRCLE released an exclusive, preliminary youth turnout estimate for yesterday’s 2014 midterm election. As their post today describes:

At least 9.9 million young Americans (ages 18-29), or 21.3%, voted in Tuesday’s midterm election, according to national exit polls, demographic data, and current counts of votes cast.

In a wave election for the GOP, youth still tended to vote Democratic. In the national exit poll data on House races, 18-29 year-olds preferred Democratic candidates by 54% to 43%. In many close Senatorial and gubernatorial races, youth preferred the Democratic candidate, and sometimes they were the only group that did (e.g., in Florida).

In terms of both turnout and vote choice, 2014 actually seems quite typical of a midterm year as far as youth are concerned. Young people made up a similar proportion of voters, and with some exceptions, were more likely to cast ballots for Democrats in tight races.

However, the Senate class of 2008 was not elected in a midterm year. They were elected in 2008, an exceptionally strong year for Democrats, when youth support for Barack Obama set the all-time record in presidential elections. The change from an extraordinary presidential year to a rather typical midterm year hurt the Democratic Senate incumbents. Their advantage among youth voters shrank compared to 2008 in some key states, such as North Carolina (down from 71% in 2008 to 54% in 2014) and Virginia (down from 71% to just 50%). And in some states that had been expected to be competitive this year, the Republican Senatorial candidate won the youth vote along with all older groups–Arkansas and Alaska being examples.

For Republicans, the lesson is they can be competitive among younger voters, although nationally, they still lag behind with that group, and in some states, the Democratic tilt of young voters may pose a problem in years to come.

For Democrats, the message must be to re-engage with young people, who had provided more support in 2008 Senate contests.

You can also see how young people voted in key Senate races below:

YouthDifferenceByState_revised

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Is There an Obligation to Vote?

Voting is often referred to as a civic duty, yet there is no shortage of Americans who choose not to vote.

People give all sorts of reasons for not voting. The most common reasons are being too busy/having conflicting work or that they were not interested/felt my vote would not count. Illness or disability is also not an uncommon reason for not voting.

Frankly, I don’t put much stock in people’s self-reported reasons for doing or not doing anything. As marketer Clotaire Rapaille – who developed the marketing vision for Hummer – will tell you, people commonly make an instinctual decision then come up with rationalizations to explain it.

But irregardless, many people don’t vote and have stated reasons for not voting. Perhaps some of those people – such as those with illness or disability – literally don’t have the logistic support to vote. But certainly, the majority of non-voters could vote if they tried.

Yet none of this answers the question – is there an obligation to vote?

In many ways voting is irrational. From what I know, I have never been the deciding vote in an election. Given my ideological similarity with those in my ward, city, and state, I am unlikely to ever cast the deciding vote in an election. So, really, in many accurate ways, my vote does not matter.

Of course, if nobody voted that would be a problem. And if no one of my demographic profile – my supposed “voter blocker” – voted that would be a problem, too.

But none of that changes that my own, individual decision to vote is, essentially, irrational. Just as I dismissed people’s reasons for not voting, one could easily dismiss people’s reasons for voting. We have a behavior and we rationalize it afterwards. Perhaps we just invoke terms like civic duty and obligation to make us feel better about this random little deed.

And, still, none of this answers the question – is there an obligation to vote?

I’d like to push this question even further, asking, is there an obligation to be an informed voter? Having an obligation to show up in a cramped room and mindlessly check a few boxes doesn’t seem particularly compelling.

But asking for informed voting is an even greater burden for the individual involved. If I was too busy to vote before, I’m certainly not going to have time to become informed. This demand also raises important questions about what it means to be informed – is the word of a trusted friend enough? What about inferring from party affiliation? What about learning from candidate ads or from the ads of PACs with agendas?

Are you informed if your information is biased?

The answers are entirely unclear.

But does one have an obligation to vote?

Perhaps the question is too narrow. An obligation to show up on designated days and draw some lines? That is uninspiring.

But the doesn’t mean we have no obligation. Anyone who is part of a community benefits from their membership in that community, and anyone who benefits from a community has an obligation to participate in that community.

For me, voting is an essential part of that participation. Even when I’m uninspired by candidates or feel that the system is stuck in a broken status quo. I keep irrationally voting because it is one of many things I do to participate.

I can imagine a society of corruption and rigged elections where refusing to vote could be a more powerful statement than lending legitimacy to the system. But, complain as I might, we don’t seem to be that far gone.

Refusing to vote is not a powerful statement. It is a silent assent. A willingness to be ignored. It is a triumph for those in power, with even less impact than my paltry ballot.

Is there an obligation to vote? Maybe not. But there is an obligation to participate. From inside the system and from outside it. You can do both, and you can do both simultaneously.

And right here, right now, a vote may be a tiny tick in the universe but it is a piece of the larger puzzle, and a piece a good citizen ought to participate in.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail