This blog, of late, has been reviewing the effectiveness of
our civics education programs across the nation, not by looking at test results
but by looking at the actual state of the nation’s citizenry. This look is based on the standard suggested
by Robert Putnam’s use of the concept, social capital.[1] To remind the reader, Putnam defines social
capital as a societal quality characterized by having an active,
public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social
environment of trust and cooperation.
Therefore, a good citizenry is one that exhibits certain attributes.
These attributes include a citizenry
with high levels of political knowledge, high levels of political engagement, a
disposition to being politically engaged, high levels of civility, and low
levels of criminality. To date, the blog
has reviewed the state of knowledge, engagement, and civility. The next posting will look at
criminality. In short, by this method of
evaluation, civics education has not been doing a good job. Yes, there are bits of evidence that indicate
otherwise, but overall, Americans do not exhibit satisfying levels of these
attributes.
In the opinion of this writer, this is
a good place to insert an important factor.
That is, these attributes do influence the economic disposition of
citizens and, in turn, affect their politics and governance, particularly when
the nation is a democracy. Putnam's idea does refer to
people looking at their society as something greater than their immediate
interests and ambitions. The question
arises: how do insufficient levels of
these attributes affect economic, political, and governing aims, goals, and
behaviors.
In short, in accordance with the values
entailed with social capital, good citizens are willing to seek supportive qualities
– a willingness to help each other – in themselves and in their associations
and community. The
antitheses would be narcissism and selfishness.
Of course, people are entitled to pursue their individual goals and
interests. The question is: how do they balance the demands of their own
ambitions and those of the collectives to which they belong?
There
are social philosophies that equate the two.
For example, pure market values tend to do that. Adam Smith, who to many is the father of
capitalism, argued that the greater good is achieved by individuals pursuing
their individual interests. The
cooperation entailed in providing a wanted good or service within the context
of a competitive market, through the “invisible hand,” produces the best
results for society.
While
capitalism has provided untold wealth and prosperity, markets do fail and at
times will, if unchecked, lead to social detriment. Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell present
a convincing argument, backed by statistical evidence, about how excessive
narcissism and its manifestations were central in creating the conditions that
led to the economic crisis back in 2008.
An
irrational degree of self-enhancement promoted the excessive materialism and
its accompanying debt, which resulted from buying houses beyond people's means
to running up credit card charges which placed people in unsustainable
positions. Of course, lending
institutions, run by equally narcissistic or purely self-centered motives, fed
this monumental irresponsibility.[2]
There
has been a lot of ink used by economic experts who trace these reckless
developments back to the 1980s. This
includes an enormous shift of wealth to the upper classes. To cite an article in the New York Times, quoting experts Jacob
Hacker of Yale and Paul Pierson of Berkeley:
“Over the last generation more and more of the rewards of growth have
gone to the rich and superrich. The rest
of America, from the poor through the upper middle class, has fallen further
and further behind.”[3]
This
inordinate level of income and wealth to the upper class needs to be invested, while
otherwise productive economic activity is hampered by a diminishing ability of
the low and middle classes to consume.
Two results occur: one, the excess
money (capital) in the hands of the upper class becomes fodder for developing
“bubbles;” i.e., investments that heighten asset prices such as stocks and real
estate when the fundamental economic conditions do not justify their increases.
And
two, the lower classes engage in excessive borrowing to make up for the lost
wealth and income (to maintain their standards of living). There were also leveraged investment schemes
in which borrowing was collateralized by assets attained with borrowed
money. Another flow of capital made its
way to financing productive facilities in foreign countries offering cheap
labor. In these cases, we have a lack of
investment to generate sufficient middle class employment in this country. Hence, we have a diminishing middle
class.
The
bubble effect and the excessive leveraging just described were conditions that also
preceded the Great Depression of the 1930s.
But before it is determined that what has happened to the economy
mirrored the conditions of the '30s, one needs to understand that the nation is
situated presently in a much more complex world economy.
It
seems the economy has avoided the catastrophes of the Great Depression, but the
pain associated with the Great Recession has been real and still lingers in
certain segments of the economy. According
to many commentators, the associated conditions had a significant effect on the
results of the 2016 presidential elections.
As was stated above, conditions are getting better, but the effects of the
Great Recession are still being felt.
Whether
this short description is correct or not, the nation did see in the
pre-collapse period an excessive narcissism based on assumptions created by the
faulty economy. The people spent way
over what they were earning (by borrowing on the artificially inflated equity
in their houses) for a long time. That
time ran out.
Again,
the concept of social capital is relevant since this idea refers to a citizenry that has
adopted a meaningful degree of selflessness.
Yet what we experienced and continue to experience is a social situation
in which we see increasing levels of selfishness and narcissism.[4] In addition, this noted disparity in income
and wealth has many consequences.
In Putnam’s more recent book, Our Kids:
The American Dream in Crisis,[5] he writes about how the disparity has
led to a high degree of economic and social segregation among the nation’s
economic classes. The nation is creating
the social dynamics that will make it more difficult to sustain its social
infrastructure that supports its essential institutions. That is, the nation is losing its sense of
being federated among all its citizenry.
Therefore, one can expect in the coming
years a less public-spirited citizenry, less equality in terms of both economic
factors – such as opportunity – and political factors, and less trust and
cooperation. The populous will most
likely experience weakening communal bonds and increased animosity among
economic segments of the economy – a look at the 2016 presidential race and its
aftermath seems to be bearing this out.
Reflective of this economic backdrop,
the nation’s politics will likely become even more bizarre and
antagonistic. It will not be surprising
if this antagonism adopts a more organized form. With social media as a resource, one can
imagine an organized and militant response by disadvantaged groups. In part, one hears this with the increase nationalistic
rhetoric that is being bandied about. The
point is that the American society is reaping what it has sown.
And most telling is what Putnam points
out: most Americans are only semi-conscious of these developmental causes. They are simply not being instructed as to
these socioeconomic developments. They
know that things are not as good as they used to be, but they have little
understanding of what is taking place beyond the most obvious consequences such
as the loss of manufacturing jobs to low-wage workers in lesser developed
nations.
To illustrate his points, Putnam writes
about two children who live a few miles apart, one a product of an advantaged family,
the other of a disadvantaged situation – one can’t even use the term “family”
to describe his home life. Despite their
physical proximity to each other, there is little to no chance they will ever
have any contact with each other. This
is desperately different from the social world Putnam grew up in back in the
1950s.
In that earlier world, his high school
had students from differing social and economic classes. The level of interaction among the different
segments of the student body was healthy and often. This is not so true today and the level of
such interaction is becoming more and more infrequent. For one thing, poorer
kids are stuck in dysfunctional schools while wealthier kids are more apt to
attend private schools. The
“indivisibility” of the nation is becoming a memory.
The conditions by which civics education has been taught indicate that social capital is not being promoted. No; civics education is not responsible for
the 2008 economic collapse but it was, with other factors, complicit. And with the overall view of how ineffective
civics education has been, this blog will, in the next posting, add one more
area that is related to civics education but seldom considered: levels of criminality.
[1] Robert
D. Putnam,
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[2] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age
of Entitlement.
[3] Bob Herbert, “Fast Track to Inequality,” New York Times, November 2, 2010, accessed
March 6, 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/opinion/02herbert.html? r=1&src=me&ref=homepage .
[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age
of Entitlement AND CNN, The
Eighties, television documentary, produced by Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman
(2016; Atlanta: CNN, Playtone, and
Herzog and Company) television.
[5] Robert D. Putnam, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster, 2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment