Why we need professional amateurs in citizenship

After the emergence of ‘citizen scientists’ and ‘citizen journalists’, what we need now are ‘citizen citizens‘, argues Eric Liu:

Excerpt:

“The work of democratic life — solving shared problems, shaping plans, pushing for change, making grievances heard — has become ever more professionalized over the last generation. Money has gained outsize and self-compounding power in elections. A welter of lobbyists, regulators, consultants, bankrollers, wonks-for-hire, and “smart-ALECs” has crowded amateurs out of the daily work of self-government at every level. Bodies like the library board are the exception.

What we need today are more citizen citizens. Both the left and the right are coming to see this. It is the thread that connects the anti-elite 99 percent movement with the anti-elite Tea Party. It also animates an emerging web of civic-minded techies who want to “hack” citizenship and government.

Why is government in America so hack-worthy now? There is a giant literature on how interest groups have captured our politics, with touchstones texts by Mancur Olson, Jonathan Rauch, and Francis Fukuyama. The message of these studies is depressingly simple: democratic institutions tend toward what Rauch calls “demosclerosis” — encrustation by a million little constituencies who clog the arteries of government and make it impossible for the state to move or adapt.

This tendency operates in an accelerating feedback loop. When self-government is dominated by professionals representing various interests, a vicious cycle of citizen detachment ensues. Regular people come to treat civic problems as something outside themselves, something done to them, rather than something they have a hand in making and could have a hand in unmaking. They anticipate that engagement is futile, and their prediction fulfills itself.

So how do we replace this vicious cycle with a virtuous one? What does it take to revive a spirit of citizenship as something undertaken by amateurs and volunteers with a stake in their own lives? There are four forces to activate, and they cut across the usual left-right lines.

First, we have to develop what filmmaker Annie Leonard calls our “citizen muscle.” As Americans we have hugely overdeveloped consumer muscles and atrophied citizen muscles. When we are consumers first, our elected leaders sell us exactly what we want: lower taxes, more spending, special rules for every subgroup.

Having a citizen muscle means thinking about the future and not just immediate gratification. It means asking what helps the community thrive, not just oneself. It means observing social change like a naturalist, and responding to it like a gardener. It means learning and teaching a curriculum of power — in schools, and in settings for all ages — so that we can practice power, even as amateurs.

Second, we need to radically refocus on the local. When the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson launched the Binghamton Neighborhood Project, he broke down that city’s many paralyzing problems into human-scale chunks of action — turning an empty lot into a park, say, or organizing faith communities — and then linked up the people active in each chunk. Localism gives citizens autonomy to solve problems; networked localism enables them to spread and scale those solutions.

Third, think in terms of challenges rather than orders. One of the best ways to tap collective smarts is to set great goals and let diverse solutions emerge — to be big on the what and small on the how. This is a lesson ecologist Rafe Sagarin emphasizes in his work: challenge grants like the X Prize motivate people to participate and innovate far more than top-down directives do. How can government behave more this way?

Fourth, create platforms where citizen citizens can actively serve. Code for America plugs software developers into city halls for a year so they can help government work better and spark decentralized citizen problem-solving. It’s a great program — and a template for other kinds of talent-tapping for the common good. How about Write for America, or Design, or Build?”

1 Comment Why we need professional amateurs in citizenship

  1. AvatarTom Crowl

    Let me confront an obvious question (to me anyway)… since I’m zealously advocating the political micro-contribution as having a critical role in building citizenship.

    Now there are assertions in the piece above… (a good piece with which I much agree) which might suggest that my proposal is in precisely the wrong direction…

    I support more political contribution by more people… and more support for a multitudes of constituencies that this piece suggests advance “demosclerosis”… I think this partially mis-understands the problem…

    I believe the sclerosis in government is for a multitude of reasons… and ‘professionalized’ interest groups are one of them. But not the only one. In fact its an imbalance in forces of influence… and the inertia of established interests that block the growth of new ones… that has more to do with this. But there are other factors as well. (repurcussions of the altruism dilemma being central and if that’s not clear I’ll explain another time.)

    Yet the piece also suggests that… “Regular people come to treat civic problems as something outside themselves, something done to them, rather than something they have a hand in making and could have a hand in unmaking.”

    I much agree with this!!!!

    So this is the conflict…

    The micro-contribution is clearly powerful. I’ve been desperate to see this capability recognized and the design of responsibly since I’m also convinced its inevitable. And the potential for misuse is always there.

    But I contend money is a tool of decision at its very roots and this dilemma can’t be avoided by pretending its not the case.

    The amount of money needed is largely a result of failing to adequately guard the interests of the Commons at the establishment of the legal/social frameworks surrounding major media technologies over the last century (radio, television and if TPTB have anything to do with it… the Internet will become another victim of this sad neglect.

    This cannot be un-debated or discussed. Its too important. For 5 years now I’ve been arguing that the speech and Commons related microtransaction offers the opportunity to establish a people’s transaction network… that will form a central tool for civic revitalization and localization.

    Bottom line… if its reasonable to assert that there’s real potential power in the capability to (e.g.) click a link in an email and contribute 25 cents to some lobbying effort… and that moreover its easy to offer this capability, that it would be attractive to groups seeking support, useful to citizens trying to be heard and having impact on those receiving the lobbying effort…

    Is the micro-transaction capability:

    a positive

    a negative

    or would it have no effect?

    And if its inevitable… and really is a “natural” person’s right (corporations are NOT natural persons)… how should such a capability be offered to best promote good citizenship… and advance a culture of civic responsibility?

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.