cur essay 2

Decline of Social Engagement

Yana Kroytor

Essay 2

12/16/16

The social capital has been declining ever since the 1950’s. The generation before WWII

was more engaged and helpful to assist in society, while the baby boomers and Generation X’s

are more focused on individualism and tend to become less involved with community and civics.

There is a substantial increase of liberalism between young individuals whereas older

generations lean towards conservatism. The fact that younger generations are becoming more

technologically educated, technology may not be as “smart” as many people might think. In

current time, social media is a huge benefactor on politics and the outcome as well. In the United

States, 65% of Americans own smartphones, and technology is becoming a huge popular

demand upon companies.1 The use of technology has increased every year with new phones,

tablets, laptops, and other technological media streaming. The digital society we live in today

surrounds us all with its brilliance, but it’s what it does to us inadvertently that may be a cause

for concern.

In Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Robert D.

Putnam was an individual who believed that the decline of social engagement during the

twentieth century was tragic. He explained that social capital and engagement have fallen in

areas such as attending religious services, interacting with others face-to-face in communities,

and organizational memberships. Putnam suggested that generational succession accounts for

about half of the overall change of this decline.2 Within the community, he found that

1 Plumer, Brad. "Why More than 80 Million Americans Won't Vote on Election Day." Vox. N.p., 2016. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

2 "Robert Putnam, Social Capital and Civic Community." Infed.org. N.p., 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

participation decreased in areas including connections in the workplace and with family and

friends, volunteering, and even the trust among others declined as well. In doing so, he found

that older individuals are more engaged than younger Americans. Could it be that the older

generations are more experienced, or that younger people, when they are in small groups, social

movements, and the internet are the only things younger generations know how to be engaged

in? Many young adults are starting to develop social anxiety from the constant use of electronics,

which causes them to have nervous breakdowns when needed to talk face-to-face with someone.

The decline in engagement has enormous consequences for society. Robert D. Putnam found

that when social capital has a deficit, that leads to more suicide, crime, and other social

problems. On the other hand, when social capital is high, children do better in school, people

prosper, and the government tends to be better overall. It is when a society starts to crumble, so

does the government. The fewer people that are in involved in the community, the weaker the

democratic system becomes, so there has to be some kind of change because the number one

growing industry is technology and advancements. In the same way as other specialized

advancements, the web was welcomed eagerly by the individuals who thought it would "change

everything" with regards to law based administration. Among its anticipated accommodating

impacts, it is the limit of the web to allow standard locals to cut off elites and arrangement

straightforwardly with each other and open powers; to cultivate the spread of ideas, upgrade

trust, and make groups; and one unique accordance to encourage political interest. The majority

of the unique enthusiasm for new technology increased, which also depends on how they utilize

their broad spectrum of technology, whereas the political engagement decreased drastically.

The biggest decline during the past years is the problem with the number of people

engaging in the voting process for a new president. Approximately, 40% of the population in the

United States do not vote. Financial anxiety and the changing workplace may account for up to

ten percent of the change. Sprawl and suburbanization account for another ten percent.

Technology also accounts for some of the change; however, the largest factor appears to be

generational succession. There are three main factors to the decline of engagement throughout

the United States, first being social influence; the peer pressure and influences of political parties

around an individual with their busy lifestyles and their explanation about their willingness to

vote. Second is the growth of modern technology; technology incorporated into every

American’s life cause them to decrease in their engagement overall. Lastly, the decline in faith

of populism; individuals do not know the right to have control over their government rather than

a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite.

Social media has been ever growing all around the world with Facebook, Twitter,

Instagram, and other influential sites. The fact that the Internet is a vast web of connections and

massive amounts of information allows an individual to grasp onto anything they desire. When it

comes to political engagement, people have access to candidate information about their

campaigns, videos, and even interviews with well-known individuals. That access to their

information and profile can be a good thing or a bad thing. It would all depend on the political

campaigns and how they are trying to win over one another. For example, like scandals and tax

evasion. Many people watch the presidential debate online or live on television, but many people

do not know the beliefs of each candidate, or their goals. Some people are just absent minded

about politics. Most Americans who make their political decisions and voting decisions are

based on facts other than the issues at hand. People just do not care about who wins or get

influenced by others to vote for the opposite political party than the one they desired. Educated

engagement is obviously preferable to uninformed. The examination is obvious that voters settle

on various decisions and consider a more extensive scope of points of view when they are all

around educated. However, wellsprings of substantive news are in decay, and numerous

residents are losing the hard news propensity—or never building up a desire for quality data by

any stretch of the imagination. For instance, an individual might want to vote for a Republican

party, but their peers (who are also connected online through social media) will explain that

there would be some conflict, so that they will vote for the different party absent-mindedly.

Voter behavior is an examination of why people voted the way they did.3 Robert D. Putnam

explains in his book, Bowling Alone, about the differences in a person that is an intracohort, they

change their habits and tastes of individuals in a single direction simultaneously, those people

3 Dugger, Ashley. "Factors That Influence Voters During Presidential Elections." Study.com.

N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

evolve fast as well, but he also said that people are easy to reverse back into habits that helped

social capital.

Robert D. Putnam notes [p. 77]:

The concept of “civil society” has played a central role in the recent

global debate about the preconditions for democracy and democratization. In the

newer democracies, this phrase has properly focused attention on the need to

foster a vibrant civic life in soils traditionally inhospitable to self-government. In

the established democracies, ironically, growing numbers of citizens are

questioning the effectiveness of their public institutions at the very moment when

liberal democracy has swept the battlefield. . . . High on America’s agenda should

be the question of how to reverse these adverse trends in social connectedness,

thus restoring civic engagement and civic trust.4

Other people are intercohorts, they have physiological change, they are detectable by

comparing generations, they evolve slowly, but hard to reverse. These two cohorts, intracohort

and intercohort, causes fewer people to vote. The people who are both are the ones that cause the

harsh drastic change in civil engagement and many people are questioning the effectiveness of

their government. These people are social network geniuses, and they use a social network for

responding to other party’s attacks and spreading of own party ideas like jungle fire. As

4 Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Touchstone, 2001. Print.

explained earlier, people can use their information for a good cause or use their information

against political candidates. Mobile campaigns will help manage perceptions. The political

commentary and fundraising will help refine the opinions. Political campaigns can use the

internet as a source of expansion, but the internet can either make or break their chances of

success. Distinctive onlookers have been unrealistic about the ordinary focal points, pointing out

that each inventive advancement has been invited with the swelled longings that faster

transportation and less requesting correspondence will sire local fortifying and urban restoration.

This understanding prompts to the warier assessment that, instead of changing notoriety based

administrative issues, it would end up being the same old thing and fortifying developed political

illustrations and regular political elites. Fundamentally more quiet were the people who expected

that, far from creating social capital, the web would energize undemocratic inclinations: more

imperative political break, "hacktivism," and incivility. Though, many people question the

reasoning behind the geniuses that know all about technology and if their mindset is just about

helping themselves, rather than helping out the community.

The increase in technology causes people to work less, and become more

unproductive. Populations in the modern world do not have to spend one ounce of energy

to get groceries or leave the house to go to work. Many Americans have very busy

lifestyles that fracture their knowledge about hot-button topics of politics and intercepts

their chance of giving to the community. Because of this unproductive lifestyles, people

are becoming more unengaged and have no motivation to change their lifestyle and

habits. Alexis de Tocqueville saw clearly an importance of mass communication for civic

engagement [2, paragraph 1, p.218]:

When no firm and lasting ties any longer unite men, it is impossible to obtain

the cooperation of any significant number of them unless you can persuade every

man whose help is required that he serves his private interests by voluntarily

uniting his efforts to those of all the others. That cannot be done habitually and

conveniently without the help of a newspaper. Only a newspaper can put the same

thought at the same time before a thousand readers .... So hardly any free

association can carry without a newspaper.5

There is always a relationship with people who watch television throughout the

day and the current television shows. Individuals who follow news on television

(compared with those who do not) are more knowledgeable about public affairs, vote

more regularly, and are more active in community affairs, though they are not quite as

civic as newspaper readers.6 The regular amount of “screen time” for individuals has

steadily starting to expand just as technology is expanding. There have been so many new

opportunities that arose for an average American to increase their screen time, which

causes Americans to watch roughly four hours of television per day, that is the highest

5 Tocqueville, Alexis De, Phillips Bradley, Henry Reeve, and Francis Bowen. Democracy in America. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1945. Print.


viewership anywhere in the world.7 The steady increase of unproductiveness due to more

technology, which is being exposed to everyday life is making many Americans tired of

channel surfing. They would much rather have a regular viewing habit, that would

normally be a television playing in the background rather than paying attention to it.

Putnam explains that “busy people tend to forgo the one activity, TV watching, that is

most lethal to community involvement.” That alone shows the decline of engagement in

everyday life, let alone politics and the community. People are more likely to get

brainwashed by the ignorance of entertainment channels on television, rather than

educating themselves in news and politics. It is an easy choice for many Americans to

choose the entertainment over education because it is what they desire more. One

interesting variable that arises about many young adults is that they are tending to rely on

groups because of their social anxiety, but populism is one thing that can help with the up

rise of many individuals with opinions that can change political laws and ideas.

Is populism set to prevail in American politics? The expression itself is famously

difficult to define. It is a language, in a way, of talking about individuals and the elites. It

does not make a difference if the elites being the ultimate possessor of Wall Street or the

Education Department. By this measure, the United States is close to the triumph of

logical populism. In any case, it is more boisterous and irritating than progressive.8

7 Ibid., 222.8 Gerson, Michael. "Is Populism on the Rise in America?" The Washington Post. WP

Company, 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

However, populism likewise has a significance established in American history.

Populism is the development of average people whose interests are disregarded in times

of monetary anxiety and change. The development picked up support among workers and

independent company proprietors. Its requests were not necessary: more liberated cash,

coordinate race of legislatures, the government protecting of banks and controls on the

share trading system. One important property of populism is radically simplifying

politics and (appearing to) adapt to popular opinion. People need to understand that

politicians are going to be motivated more to actually change things. Otherwise, the

“knocking at their gates” is going to get louder and louder, until the populist party

actually gets enough followers to change things itself. It is a very powerful tool for

political change. This year’s election can be a perfect example on how things could have

been different for the outcome on election day. Stephen L. Carter explains that “there’s a

problem with rebuilding this moral consensus, even with aspirational leadership, and the

problem is not just that politics have changed but that we’ve changed as a people; we’ve

changed in the sense of how we get along with each other.”9 With more citizens that

could have participated and would have had enough followers to vote their potential

party, there might have been a change in candidates. Everyone has something in

9 Gould, J.J. "Why Is Populism Winning on the American Right." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 2 July 2016. Web. 13 Dec. 2016.

common, that is why democracy can keep thriving, everyone needs something that can

benefit someone else.

I think that people in this modern world do know the true meaning of democracy. The

fact that people have the ability to participate, as citizens, in politics and civic life, profoundly

explains the benefit of the power of the people. Putnam argues that “the performance of our

democratic institutions depends in measurable ways upon social capital”.10 As described earlier,

many people do not believe in populism. They do not think that their opinion matters, although,

it was difficult to voice a single opinion when there are 318.9 million individuals amongst each

other. It is almost a bystander effect in action or a domino effect as well; one person will not

vote because they assume that other people will decide for them. That is why there is a huge

decrease in voting behavior over the past years, and that shows that democracy is a steady

decline because if a nation is dissatisfied with their government, the citizens are the only ones

with the power to change the way the nation will be run. Winston Churchill quoted, “The best

argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”11 Democracy

is failing, and it shows by just talking to an average citizen about politics, their knowledge about

global strife is exceedingly shocking. They allow all of these freedoms for citizens but it is as if

no one is listening to the people’s complaints. At many protests, people hold up signs that say


11 "Finest Hour." History Detectives - Red Herrings: Famous Words Churchill Never Said. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

“Dictatorial Democracy…is where you have freedom of speech but the administration doesn’t

listen.” From that quote, that has to say all about our government. Political systems wonder why

many people do not vote, they wonder why many people do not participate, ultimately, how can

a nation have people play a role when people do not even trust their democratic system? Putnam

also explains his views on the distrustful society and how it is less efficient than a generalized

society, “A society that relies on generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful

society, for the same reason that money is more efficient than barter. Trust lubricates social life.

Networks of civic engagement also facilitates coordination and communication and amplify

information about the trustworthiness of other individuals”.12 In fact, only 20% of Americans

would describe the government as well run. That is where the decline in engagement comes from

including the exposition of technology and busy lifestyles.13 It is hard to trust the government let

alone the information that politics are revealing to the public, their promises they make, the

changes that will be overbearing for some individuals and so on. I would believe that back in the

1950’s, many citizens trusted their government, they did not have much technology at the time,

and everything was different back then. At this day and age, democracy is not what it used to be,

people have other responsibilities now, and the clash between the social authority and

government authority will always be the problem on why voting for presidential candidates are

so unengaged. Americans interests are not in politics anymore; they figure that the older


13 "Poll: Americans Distrust Their Government." VOA. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

generations will decide on political subjects because they sub sequentially have more knowledge

about politics than younger generations.

While expanding social capital is not a simple errand, there is a way to shape new

organizations and associations can get individuals included once more. Putnam contends that

society can take after this case right to the issue of declining social capital in the United States.

America has always been a nation of organizations. Americans are more likely to participate in

voluntary agencies with people than any other country. Though, not all the organizations have

the mass membership. The peril is that our aggregate loss of affiliation makes issues both for our

general public and for our majority rules system. At the exact crossroads in our history when

movement is swelling the quantity of Americans of various ethnicities and societies, innovation,

work and different variables are isolating us as neighbors and residents. Group and neighborhood

groups, alongside the government funded schools, used to serve as specialists in teaching vote

based qualities and beliefs. These associations and affiliations connected nationals from various

foundations and points of view, making a feeling of aggregate responsibility to each other all

together that we as Americans could live respectively successfully as neighbors, and as taking

part natives in an extraordinary majority rules system. The peer pressure that influences opinions

around an individual with their willingness to vote, the growth of modern technology that has

been incorporated into every-day life, and the decrease in the faith of populism to have control

over their government are the reasons why many Americans are individualistic and that is what

makes civic engagement at its all-time low. The loss of a feeling of a group, and the

accompanying commitment to act in support of that group, decreases the adequacy of the group

to finish aggregate objectives. Moreover, it makes a descending winding of chance: a decrease in

gatherings and associations lessens open doors for natives to represent the collective good.

Communities need to come together and help each other to make people trust in the government

again.

Bibliography

Dugger, Ashley. "Factors That Influence Voters During Presidential Elections." Study.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

"Finest Hour." History Detectives - Red Herrings: Famous Words Churchill Never Said. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

Gerson, Michael. "Is Populism on the Rise in America?" The Washington Post. WP Company, 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

Gould, J.J. "Why Is Populism Winning on the American Right." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 2 July 2016. Web. 13 Dec. 2016.

“Robert Putnam, Social Capital and Civic Community." Infed.org. N.p., 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

"Poll: Americans Distrust Their Government." VOA. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2016.

Plumer, Brad. "Why More than 80 Million Americans Won't Vote on Election Day." Vox. N.p., 2016. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Touchstone, 2001. Print.

Tocqueville, Alexis De, Phillips Bradley, Henry Reeve, and Francis Bowen. Democracy in America. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1945. Print.

cur essay 2

Documents