This is the third in a series of articles on politically disengaging forms of individualism (part 1 and part 2). 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, though it has profound and often problematic implications for whether and how Americans connect with government and politics. Part 3 examines the common American language of choice, and its political implications.
In the course of my interview with Madison, a married bank credit officer in her mid-twenties, “Rock the Vote” – a non-profit offshoot of the music industry officially dedicated to increasing youth voter turnout and political 
engagement – came up as an example of an organization whose approach to engaging citizens she approved of (italics below are mine):
Madison: I think that Rock the Vote, that sort of thing, they really made a valid attempt. Granted I don’t know, you know, how successful they were, but that’s a great start to just to keep people more informed, like, what the heck, you know?
Paul: What’s a great start? What is it about Rock the Vote that’s good?
Madison: Just that they encouraged people that normally wouldn’t listen, probably the younger demographic, to say “listen you have the power to – as an individual – you could be part of this group that could change something.” Go for it, if you want to. If you want to, go for it. They didn’t force anybody to do it, but they made people want to be involved, you know, and that’s cool.
“Go for it” is such a common expression in American speech that it can seem patently uninteresting, merely a way to encourage a person or group to pursue a line of action. But in listening to my respondents, and in reading the transcripts of our interviews, it became apparent to me that several of my respondents used this mundane expression “go for it,” and they used it in the same or similar way Madison uses it – not just to encourage, but to signal a choice, an opportunity – not an obligation, individual or collective. The expression “Go for it” is part of a language of choice, and that language generally frames actions instantly or ultimately as individual choices rather than social artifacts, whether these social artifacts are commands, felt obligations, shared ethics, situational norms, or else.
Madison was not alone in asserting politics as a choice. Most of my interviewees did not identify with the activist or “political animal,” but they nonetheless encouraged those who feel so inspired to pursue their passion for politics. As Jane, a single health researcher in her mid-twenties, colorfully responded to the political animal, “Fantastic, rock on! I hope your views are good. Represent women’s health and health care in general….I admire their moxie….they’re doing something and they are being true to themselves and they’re being genuine about it, so—that’s what it’s all about.” In addition, in the course of my interviews, several of my respondents, mostly unsolicited, expressed preference for political organizers who convey the importance of voting without prescribing who to vote for, who fairly present different political choices rather than seeking to sway people toward one choice. No one argued contrary to these sentiments. Also, when I asked my respondents the following question:
Which of the following statements seems to you a more effective approach for an individual to pursue to change people’s minds or behavior?
1) Lead by example.
2) Join with others in a group working toward the same goal.
3) Seek to persuade people you know by engaging them in discussion.
4) Pray, and have faith in God.
The most popular answer was “lead by example”1. Moreover, among those who chose other answers, several made it known that while they found these other methods more effective in changing people’s behavior, they personally preferred to “lead by example.” Survey research indicates that what some call the “DotNet Generation” (i.e., Americans born after 1976), of which most of my interviewees are members, feels less obligated to vote, and even to justify their non-voting compared with the older GenX, Boomer and Dutiful generations. As Elizabeth stated, “you have a right to not vote and a right to not be informed.”
Together, these separate findings – the feeling that individuals should pursue their passions, that activism should present choices rather than sway citizens toward any particular choice, that it is better to lead by example than collectively pressure, individually persuade, or pray, and that political engagement is a choice rather than an obligation – all underscore individual choice as a fundamental value. Choice means everyone has the right to do anything within the realm of legality (and so long as one is not adversely impacting others), including the right not to participate. Just as it is acceptable for an inspired individual to become an activist, it is acceptable for others to remain politically unengaged. In this political imagination, the unengaged may choose at some point to become engaged, but only through balanced presentation of choices (including the inspired examples of other individuals) rather than pressure or persuasion. In this political imagination, an activist can make the choice to pressure rather than lead by example, but it will not get her very far. Of course, in reality, pressure often works in politics just as it often works in business and other realms. However, a cultural inclination to favor leading by example and the fair presentation of political choices may help explain why so many Americans find the partisan pressure and persuasion endemic to democratic politics so disengaging.
Notes:
1 Of the 34 respondents who answered this question, fourteen (41%) chose “Lead by example,” ten (29%) chose “Join with others in a group…,” nine (27%) chose “Seek to persuade people you know…” and one chose “Pray and have faith in God.”
3 Comments
The concept of politics as a choice, as presented by Dr. Lachelier is a frightening possibility. While I understand the argument that citizens have the “right” not to participate, I believe it is this sort of unhealthy mentality that has produced the level of disengagement that the country is encountering. The right to vote is one that has been fought for extensively in America’s history. Suffrage was unequal upon its inception, despite the fact that the country claimed that “all men are created equal”. This doctrine did not apply to voting; political participation was an arena legally dominated by white, male, land owners. Such inequality was eventually addressed and overthrown, providing access to democracy for all. Yet, people now apply the term “rights”, one on which the country was founded to protect, to justify apathy? While I am sure not all of these people are apathetic, the “go for it” mentality just simply is not sufficient for maintaining a healthy democracy. There is a level of civic duty and obligation that should be felt by the American citizens. Furthermore, when a law passes that does not sit well with a citizen who did not vote under the “right” not to, they should thereby surrender their “right” to complain because they did not fulfill their civic obligation. The right to vote, the bare minimum of political engagement, is coveted by citizens under dictatorships or communist regimes. Americans take for granted the right to vote and have access to substantial influence on the government. It is disconcerting that this seems to be the viewpoint of my generation and that political withdrawal seems to be on the incline because once the time of the politically active older generation has passed, the current twenty-somethings must make the decisions for the future. I understand that politics is not for everyone; like most other subject areas is a matter of personal interest and passion. I know that I am one of the minority of my age group that seeks political knowledge through C-SPAN, CNN and the newspaper and votes without fail. However, it is an area within society that has a profound effect on the life of every individual and that every individual should make a point of participating in by, at the bare minimum, voting. I cannot envision the mundane “go for it, if you want to” mentality as the vehicle for propelling the nation into a successful future. The importance of being politically educated and involved must be emphasized and the mindset of politics as a choice must be discarded and replaced with an ambitious and duty driven outlook.
I agree with Jasmine. I am politically active as well and think it is not right to consider the right to vote a choice and not a duty as an American citizen, expecially if a person doesn’t vote but complains when a law passes or someone becomes elected in a position of power. As Americans, we really need to step up to the plate and stop taking the right to vote for granted if this country is going to stay together as the “land of the free” that the pilgrims intended for it to be. If this does not happen, the wrong laws or people could be placed into power just because we all were not paying attention and being engaged so we could have a full understanding of current issues and people who run for office. I think the only way to solve this problem is to have people be educated in politics starting in middle school and high school already (and have it carry over into college) so that they grow up with the understanding of why political participation and knowledge is very important. I bet if this is done, the amount of political participation will rise, expecially after the people in middle school and high school become of voting age.
I have to agree with the above comments by Jasmine and Tamara that voting should be a duty for every American citizen. However, I firmly believe that people have negative views of politics and this become a reason for them not to vote. When they put faith on someone such as Barack Obama, and they see that one man alone cannot change the way serious political issues are treated in Washington, they lose hope in a way that they do not want to be involved in politics anymore. I can predict that the next national election, young people will not show up in great numbers as they did the previous election (unless there is a huge improvement in our economy). So, I think that the problem may not be the people that do not show up to vote, but the American political system; a system that allows special interest to rule the game because of our federalist structure; a system that does not give a minimum chance to a 3rd party to have a seat in congress which would probably represent a significant portion of the population that does not fully identify with either Republicans or Democrats. So, I think that what we have is more of a structural problem than an individual problem. Our political system is broken, and even if we are all politically active as the status quo asks us to be, the problem will not be solved. Americans need to be politically active, but they also need to be assured that their participation is important and that politicians will listen to them as much as they listen to lobbyists.
Post a Comment