This is the first in a series of articles on politically disengaging forms of individualism. This series explores the connections between individualism(s) and politics through in-depth interviews I conducted with young (20s and 30s) American professionals for a book I am writing on American political culture. Individualism is a word familiar to academics and non-academics alike. Academics and political liberals often equate individualism with selfishness. But individualism as Americans speak it, and live it, is not simply selfishness. Yet it has profound and often problematic implications for whether and how Americans connect with government and politics. The first article, in two parts, examines what I call “private individualism.”
Historically, if it can be said that there has been a broad trend in the United States toward the rejection of politics since the late nineteenth century, that rejection has taken two forms. First, in certain ways there has been a shift from collective to individual political engagement, e.g., from public to private voting, from grassroots political parties to professional, money and media-driven parties, plus a steady decline in labor union membership. Second, there has been a more recent shift, dating roughly from the 1970s onward, from political to civic action, as politics becomes a dirtier word due in part to the watershed that was Watergate, and as more and younger Americans opt for civic ways to help others or “give back.” This rejection of politics springs in part from certain forms of individualism some if not many Americans share.
To briefly define individualism, it’s arguably most fundamental principle is a belief in the intrinsic value or sacredness of the individual. Beyond this core principle, individualisms develop in different ways in different times and places. Yet however they may diverge, individualisms all tend to have implications for the public life of citizens in a democracy because they fundamentally define how people should understand and relate to each other. This brings us to what I call private individualism, the first in a series of forms of political disengaging individualisms I have found in interviews with contemporary young Americans.
Private individualism includes three inclinations. The first is that the political decisions an individual makes – e.g., whether and how to become involved in politics – are a private affair, to be decided alone, or in consultation with one’s trusted friends or family members. This inclination to private decision-making was most clearly evident in the assumption a number of my interviewees made that that most prominent of political acts, voting, involved “doing one’s homework,” i.e., sitting down, usually alone, to gather all or enough of the facts about the issues and candidates to make a sufficiently informed decision. As Alice responded when I asked her whether she planned on voting in the 2004 presidential election: “Yeah, and I know that before then I need to sit down and really look at exactly what’s going on.” This private decision-making is very different from the citizen decision-making not only discussed in political theory, but practiced in various ways in reality, whether in town meetings, on juries, in deliberative polls (Fishkin 1991, 1997), or other forums.
The second inclination is that if and when one decides to politically engage, one engages alone or in what the French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville called one’s “small private circles” of friends and family. Hence, if private individualism allows politics, it inclines Americans to read the news, vote, maybe write an op-ed or contact one’s representatives if one feels so moved, and to discuss politics with their often like-minded friends or family rather than citizens outside this private circle, who are more likely to have different experiences, opinions and manners. All of these activities that readily spring to my interviewees’ minds when they think of political engagement can be done alone or in the safer confines of their small private circles. Conversely, private individualism disinclines Americans to step out of their private circles into political life with fellow citizens, whether in political issue groups, parties, unions, government committees, etc. – places where Americans may encounter distasteful pressure, conformity, conflict and compromise.
Next: Part 2 of this article unpacks private individualism’s third inclination, this one regarding the meaning of freedom.
References:
Fishkin, James S. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fishkin, James S. 1997. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2 Comments
First of all, “Private Individualism and Political Withdrawal” is very interesting to me! I am a political science major here at Stetson University and follow politics on a daily basis. I read many different articles from a bunch of different news outlets and sometimes post interesting articles on Facebook (as sort of a blog of my thoughts on the different articles). This often leads to very interesting debate between those with differing opinions.
I say all that to shed light on the Private Individualism mentioned in this posted article. I often get comments in my inbox or private emails from someone who happened to read my Facebook posts and comments. I find that the reason I get these private messages is because that person didn’t want to broadcast their views on the subject. They feel comfortable telling me that they agree with the viewpoints I express, but maybe they aren’t as versed in political lingo, (not that I am), that they’ll post their comments on their own. This is a prime example of the Private Individualism that I have experienced firsthand.
I believe that people are too busy to sit down and read-up on political happenings or too busy to figure out what candidates are supporting what view points, beyond the sound-bites they hear or comments they read. So they’ll be more likely to agree with and vote for which ever candidate their close friends and family support. This lack of political knowledge is what I related to your “political withdrawal” term. I think that because they only get those sound-bites, they know they’re missing the full story and cannot confidently put forth their views. In this ‘go-go-go’ society we live in, politics is different; it takes time to read viewpoints and understand what is going on in the political arena. This seems to be the mentality that you have found in your surveys – people are more likely to share their views with like-minded people. Rather than present an opinion and support that opinion with substantive arguments, it is easier to message someone in private to let them know you agree with their views. I to, have found that politics has become a quiet, personal expression to a select group of friends and family.
Perhaps the best way to tackle private individualism is for us to find ways to adapt to it. My colleague Thomas Lutz presents an interesting example of how civic engagement can evolve, so that it is able to break through the issues of private individualism. Individualism, in my opinion, was inevitable in a nation that has modernized tremendously through the years. Technology, work, and the extent of mobility that exists today has shifted collective engagement towards greater individual engagement. Individuals also focus more on their personal accomplishments and become too preoccupied with their life that they withdraw more from politics. They feel more comfortable getting things done themselves, without having to take time to meet with others. Or as this article presents, individuals feel comfortable connecting with others they are closer to – but even this can evolve into modern day neighborhood associational life.
With how fast-paced society has become, individuals have lost their sense of comfortability with others and I believe it is our duty to try and reconnect individuals back to the importance of engaging in civic and political lives with one another for the sake of a better future. Let’s look at Thomas Lutz’ facebook articles. He presents an example of how to adapt to private individualism through technology, a factor that Marcella Ray discusses in her article “Technological Change and Associational Life” to be a cause of private individualism, but how it can also be a new way of facilitating civic and political engagement (297). Lutz has created a way of making individuals feel comfortable enough through technology to engage in political debates with others. Such activity can motivate individuals to return to appreciate connecting with others.
The internet can serve as a way for individuals to seek civic and political information, and participate with others over current issues. Marcella Ray discusses how today, individuals have the ability to choose whether to detach themselves from civic and political matters , which has contributed to the issue of private individualism (312). However, by the means of technology, activists can draw individuals back into associational life. Thomas Lutz demonstrates how the internet can serve as a new frontier of associational life, creating political activity for individuals to come together again. Technology is something that is embedded in everyday life, it can help alleviate private individualism and promote public activities for an ever more enduring associational life. We must adapt to private individualism by creating new means of satisfying civic and political interests of different individuals, and technology can gradually help bring individuals together to new forms of associational life.
References:
Skocpol, Theda, and Morris P. Fiorina. Civic Engagement in American Democracy. 1st. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999. 1-514. Print.
Post a Comment