The Democratic Academy Workshop
June 4,2004

Call
610-606-4607
or

Register Here

EXPERIENCING DEMOCRACY

The cure for the ailments

of democracy is more democracy.

John Dewey

The Participating in Democracy Project is Cedar Crest College’s response to the urgent national need for initiatives that address the growing problems of civic disengagement and political apathy among young Americans. Led by a coalition of liberal arts colleges, research institutions, and community organizations, the fundamental purpose of the project is to broaden and deepen the significance  students attach to the meaning of citizenship and participation through the promotion of educational practices that reflect a commitment to student-centered learning and the value of autonomy, equality, and civility as the basis for a democratic society.

By design, the Participating in Democracy Project joins two of the most pressing public policy concerns confronting contemporary American society: The future of both higher education and democracy. For reasons outlined below, Cedar Crest College and its partnering institutions believe that the institutional practices of higher education and the promise of democracy are inextricably linked. Given this, one overarching goal of the Participating in Democracy Project is to plumb the depths of this relationship and to suggest how the evolution of educational practices can make a critical contribution to the reaffirmation of democracy in America.

Generation X

Two disturbing developments stand at the core of our growing national concern about the future of democracy: The decline of voter turnout in recent elections and the increasing degree of apathy and cynicism that citizens exhibit toward public affairs more generally. Perhaps the most troubling fact, however, is that these trends -- toward disengagement and alienation – are most pronounced among younger Americans.

A preliminary analysis of the November 2000 election indicates that only 17 percent of 18-29 year olds bothered to vote. [1] If confirmed, this would represent the lowest turnout rate for this age group in a presidential election year since the voting age was lowered to eighteen in 1971. [2] Turnout rates for younger Americans in mid-term election years are equally dismal. Since 1974, the turnout rate for 18-24 year olds in off-year elections has averaged only 21.5 percent. [3] In 1998, however, this age group registered its lowest turnout rate in history with only 16.6 percent of this cohort casting a ballot. [4] If we were to extend the analysis to the level of recent state and local elections, we would find that at times the turnout rate for this age group dips into the single digits. In short, over the last thirty years, a steadily increasing number of younger Americans have opted not to participate in the electoral processes that constitute the foundation for representative democracy in the United States.

More ominously, younger Americans also exhibit an increasingly profound lack of interest in politics and public affairs. The Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) most recent annual survey of freshmen in American colleges and universities, for example, concludes that “the political engagement of entering college students [has] reached an all-time low.” [5] The survey reveals, for example, that barely 28 percent of incoming freshmen have an interest in keeping up with political affairs and that only 16.4 percent discuss politics frequently with family or friends. Perhaps the most disturbing finding, however, is that only 17.6 percent of first year students feel that influencing the political structure is essential or very important. [6] Given the significance that Americans historically have attached to the principle of “government by the people,” it is sobering to realize that for most college students in the United States political participation is a relatively unimportant facet of their lives.

Seen from this perspective, one fundamental challenge confronting the future of democracy in America is clear. Today’s cohort of younger Americans votes less frequently and displays more apathy in regard to politics than any previous generation in the nation’s history. [7] Hence, if we are serious about revitalizing and enriching the practice of democracy in the 21^st century, one of our first priorities must be to address the problem of civic disengagement among college students. [8]

An Institutional Perspective

The Participating in Democracy Project approaches the problem of civic disengagement and political apathy among college students from an institutional perspective. In essence, we begin from the premise that an individual’s beliefs, perceptions, and behavior are conditioned by the institutional environments within which that individual lives, works, and learns. Hence, to the extent that institutions are not based on democratic principles or practices, we should not expect the individuals embedded in these institutions to become socialized to democratic values either. Seen from this perspective, the problems of disengagement and apathy on the part of young Americans cannot be attributed primarily to the idiosyncratic characteristics of generation x, y, or z. Rather, these problems are in part a structural effect of specific institutional practices. As a consequence, attention must be directed to the nature of the institutions wherein individuals learn how to participate in public affairs.

The intellectual framework guiding the Participating in Democracy Project is based on a theory of participatory democracy developed by Carole Pateman. [9] In essence, the theory specifies the causal relationships that link institutions, individuals, and civic engagement, while also suggesting practical steps that can be taken to promote greater political participation on the part of citizens. Intellectually, the theoretical framework draws heavily on the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill. Rousseau’s contribution is especially important because his meditations on the relationship between state, society, and man specify the causal pathways linking institutions and individual development. Mill’s primary role is to suggest how Rousseau’s insights might be applied within the context of a mass-based, industrialized society. The result is a theoretical framework outlining the important role that community-based, non-governmental institutions can play in providing individuals with the “social training” essential to the practice of democracy.

The Educative Function of Political Participation

In The Social Contract, Rousseau hypothesizes about the impact that political participation can have on the subsequent course of an individual’s moral and intellectual development. In essence, Rousseau suggests that the transformative effects are potentially profound, and given the right type of institution, highly desirable. The caveat is critical because Rousseau’s argument implies that the developmental consequences of participation will vary (positively or negatively) depending on the nature of the political institution in question.

Rousseau illustrates the point by discussing the developmental effects of participation in democratically oriented decision making processes. For Rousseau, democracy fundamentally means equality between and among the participants. In such a setting none are entitled to lead, none are obligated to follow. More importantly, however, “the participatory situation is such that each citizen would be powerless to do anything without the co-operation of all the others, or of the majority.” [10] . Hence, the principle of consent emerges as another defining characteristic of a democratic institution.

In combination, the legal fiction of sovereign equality and the procedural need for consent depict democracy as primarily a deliberative phenomenon wherein individuals endeavor to mobilize the support of others through an on-going process of face-to-face social interactions. It is this aspect of the democratic process that leads Rousseau to conclude that participation will have a significant – and virtuous—effect on the character and behavior of individuals.

In brief, Rousseau contends that the practice of democracy nurtures a sense of both empathy and efficacy on the part of individuals who participate. Empathy emerges as a consequence of the fact that an individual must take more into consideration than simply immediate self-interest if the support of others is to be secured. Put differently, the nature of a democratic process teaches an individual to take the interests of others into account thereby nurturing an appreciation of the linkage between public and private as well as a sense of belonging to a broader community.

In addition to empathy, participating in a democratically oriented decision making process also will nurture a sense of efficacy on the part of individuals. Two considerations underlie this claim. First, the social relations characterizing democratic institutions (i.e. equality and consent) permit individuals to have some control over decisions that affect the quality of their lives. For Rousseau, such opportunities are a prerequisite for the attainment of freedom because the norm of intrinsic equality nestled at the core of democratic practice affirms the inalienable right of each individual to be heard. In this sense, democratic institutions breed a sense of efficacy because the simple act of empowering individuals to participate implicitly recognizes and reinforces their autonomy and equality as individuals.

In addition to this, perhaps, subliminal effect on an individual, participation in a democratic institution can nurture a sense of efficacy in a second, and much more explicit, manner. While Pateman fails to develop the point, it is implicit in Rousseau’s conception of the democratic decision making process as primarily a deliberative phenomenon. In Rousseau’s framework, deliberation serves two essential purposes. The first is the social, and largely symbolic, purpose described above (i.e. deliberation as a form of social recognition and respect). The second purpose is primarily instrumental. Here, deliberation serves as the method for arriving at collective decisions.

Rousseau suggests that this process is essentially dialectical in nature – driven by the need for voluntary cooperation among sovereign equals. Hence, the deliberative process is at the same time a process of negotiation designed to mediate conflicts of interest and reconcile alternative conceptions of distributive justice such that a majority, or all, of the assembled can reach agreement. It is this practice (i.e. negotiation) that lends democracy its discursive and dialectical qualities. More importantly, however, this practice also provides each individual with an authentic opportunity to participate in, and influence, the decision making process since consent, ultimately, must be socially constructed in a democratic institution. In terms of efficacy, all of this suggests that participating in a democratically oriented decision making process will promote “a sense of general, personal effectiveness” on the part of individuals because this institutional environment systematically encourages and rewards individuals for their participation. [11]

In summary, Rousseau’s main contribution to the theory of participatory democracy is to specify the causal relationships whereby institutions influence the moral and intellectual development of individuals. In essence, the framework suggests that the democratization of character and behavior is an evolutionary phenomenon that occurs as a consequence of the act of participation itself. Hence, Rousseau would agree whole-heartedly with John Dewey’s well-known axiom that the cure for the aliments of democracy is more democracy. On the basis of Rousseau’s analysis, Pateman deduces two propositions relevant to the design of the Participating in Democracy Project:

1.      The major function of participation [is] . . . an educative one, educative in the very widest sense, including both the psychological aspect and the gaining of practice in democratic skills and procedures.

2.      [Democracy] is self-sustaining through the educative impact of the participatory process. Participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it; the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so. [12]

The dilemma implicit in Pateman’s formulation is how to promote participatory democracy within the context of contemporary, mass-based society wherein opportunities for direct democracy are seemingly rare. Rousseau – given his operative assumptions about the relatively compact size of democratically oriented institutions – did not address this point. However, John Stuart Mill did take up this issue, and in the process dramatically expanded both the domain of democracy and the significance of community-based, non-governmental institutions as tools for fulfilling the educative function essential to the practice of democracy.

Democracy and Social Institutions

In the Political Economy, Mill criticizes conventional conceptualizations of politics for being narrowly defined and unduly restrictive. In brief, the conventional wisdom depicts politics as an autonomous sphere of public activity concerned primarily with the operation of government. For Mill, however, this perspective obscures the fact that “politics” pervades every aspect of state, society and economy. In arriving at this conclusion, Mill directs our attention to the social relations of governance and authority, rather than to its organizational expression. Put differently, Mill’s conceptualization of politics parallels Robert Dahl’s more recent definition of a political system as “any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves to a significant extent power, rule, or authority.” [13] Seen from this perspective, the concept of “politics” is as relevant to the family and to the workplace as it is to the affairs of state. As Pateman points out, Mill’s conception of politics has far-reaching implications once it is combined with Rousseau’s sociological perspective on individual development.

Society can be seen as being composed of various political systems, the structure of which has an important effect on the psychological qualities and attitudes of the individuals who interact within them; thus, for the operation of a democratic polity at the national level, the necessary qualities in individuals can only be developed through the democratization of authority structures in all political systems. (emphasis added) . [14]

As this passage suggests, Mill’s argument not only expands the domain of politics and democracy to include a wide variety of social institutions; it also adds another key dimension to the theory of participatory democracy – an element of verticality linking political participation at the national level to the formative educational experiences of individuals at the local level. Hence, community-based, non-governmental institutions emerge as a key superstructural support for democracy.

The point suggests that in the absence of a supportive institutional environment at the local level, efforts to promote political participation nationwide will be inadequate and ultimately futile. This conclusion, for example, underlies Mill’s dismissive attitude toward voting:

A political act, to be done only once in a few years, and for which nothing in the daily habits of the citizen has prepared him, leaves his intellect and his moral predispositions very much as it found them. [15]

The significance of this hypothesized inter-institutional connection also is underscored by Mill in a widely-cited comment that explicitly emphasizes the educative function of participation in locally-based institutions: “We do not learn to read or write, to ride or swim, by being merely told how to do it, but by doing it, so it is only by practising popular government on a limited scale, that the people will ever learn how to exercise it on a larger.” [16]

Bu his own admission, Mill’s argument is informed by Alexis de Tocqueville’s analysis of the contribution that civic associations made to the health of the American political system and the preservation of democracy during the era of Jacksonian pluralism. For de Tocqueville, civic associations constituted learning communities wherein individuals acquired the sense of public spiritedness and the requisite social skills essential to the practice of democracy. Seen from this perspective, participation in community-based, non-governmental institutions emerges as a type of apprenticeship that prepares citizens for subsequent acts of political participation in the more formalized processes of democratic governance (e.g. voting) at the state and national level. [17]

On the basis of these considerations, Pateman incorporates a third proposition into the theory of participatory democracy that holds practical significance for the project:

3.      A “democratic polity” cannot exist unless a “participatory society” also exists (i.e. “a society where all political systems have been democratised and socialisation through participation can take place in all areas).” [18]

In summary, the theoretical framework underlying the Participating in Democracy Project maintains that political participation and civic engagement are learned behaviors that individuals acquire by virtue of the institutions within which they live, work and learn. Hence, to the extent that these institutions are not based on democratic principles (i.e. equality and consent), we should not expect individuals embedded in these institutions to act democratically either. The framework also suggests that if we are to address the problems of disengagement and alienation among college students, we must first problematize the practices of those institutions wherein young Americans learn about political participation.

Toward an Institutional Solution

The literature on political socialization identifies a number of institutions that are central to the formative experiences of individuals when it comes to the social relations of governance and authority. [19] Among these, educational institutions play an especially prominent role. [20] Viewed from the perspective of democratic principles, however, educational practices in the United States are lacking because they traditionally have emphasized hierarchy, discipline and “parentalism” at the expense of autonomy, equality and consent.

 One consequence of this educational environment is that students are conditioned to accept a distinctively passive approach to participation and engagement (i.e. learning). In essence, educational institutions systematically teach the young to leave the task of governance to those who know better. [21]

This is not to suggest that the traditional pedagogical techniques and standard administrative procedures associated with educational institutions are not capable of delivering a “good” education. The more interesting question is what conception of the “good,” and whose interests, are being served by these practices. [22] From the standpoint of democratic theory, educational institutions are found lacking precisely because the classical model’s commitment to “discipline” (academic and otherwise) diverts attention from the issue of sociality that Rousseau, Mill, de Tocqueville, and others would regard as the defining characteristic of a genuinely democratic system. For these theorists, democracy is fundamentally a social phenomenon that prescribes how individuals should relate to, and interact with, one another. Hence, an education that aspires to truly prepare students for citizenship in a democratic society cannot be limited to simply rigorous training in the scholarly traditions of long-established academic disciplines. In essence, students must not only be able to read and write; they also must learn how to relate to others in ways that are consistent with democratic principles. From the standpoint of democratic theory, the gap between the laudable goals of educators and their reified means underscores both the challenge and the opportunity of (re)configuring educational institutions to promote the civic arts of democracy.

Education and the Future of Democracy

To problematize the practices of educational institutions is to delve into one of the most pressing public policy problems confronting contemporary American society. To couple this issue to the future of democracy in the United States is to heighten the urgency of responding to this challenge. A fundamental purpose of the Participating in Democracy Project is to help educational institutions realize their potential as a strategic resource in the fight against disengagement and apathy among students. To that end, Cedar Crest College and its partnering institutions are in the process of developing instructional materials, pedagogical techniques, administrative initiatives, and assessment instruments that will serve to democratize the institutional practices of higher education. Our goal is to have these materials available for distribution nationwide by the beginning of 2004.

Guiding our efforts is a commitment to the promotion of educational practices that emphasize student-centered learning and the values of autonomy, equality, and civility as the basic principles of a democratic society. In practice, the materials under development will be designed to provide students with a more active role in the learning process. At a minimum, this will entail a greater emphasis on the value of experiential learning and community service as  pedagogical techniques. However, we also are interested in exploring the practical implications of the Council of Independent Colleges’ recent recommendation that we broaden of our conception of active learning by inviting students to participate in the process of pedagogical, curricular, and programmatic change. [23] This provocative recommendation is intuitively appealing within the context of the present project since it would directly involve students in the governance of educational institutions. For reasons outlined above, it is precisely this type of initiative that will serve to provide students with the “social training” essential to the practice of democracy. In principle, empowering students to participate in the “heretofore walled-in Realm of Pedagogy” would represent a far-reaching institutional commitment to engagement. [24] And if nothing else, this type of educational practice would stand as a symbolically potent reminder to students that a truly representative democracy depends upon the existence of a genuinely participatory society.

The reason behind Madison’s constitutional manipulation – of separation of powers and republican representative government – was that, at heart, he did not trust the individual citizen to understand the requirements of government and to govern in a dispassionate manner. . . Rather than turn the government over to an unstructured, passion-prone democracy, Madison – and by extension the Constitutional Convention – chose to disenfranchise the citizen by a series of carefully designed checks and balances, as well as by a representative government that effectively tempered the individual and his “misled” enthusiasms (Democracy and the Policy Sciences, Albany, State University Press of New York, 1997, pp. 22-23).