Attention deficit democracy: The paradox of civic engagement - Book Report/Review Example

 Critical Assessment Essay In ‘Attention Deficit Democracy’, Ben challenges the meaning and definition of “civic engagement” and offers a systematic analysis of how the misuse of the term in social science can endanger durability of future civic engagement literature as well as the many accolades for scholarly contribution already made. First half of the book dissects the political, social and moral elements that form the body of civic engagement. Ben posits that without comprehending these multiple aspects of engagement, the notion of civic engagement being a noble gesture lacks merit and harms its current value. The categories can be considered on a scale of local, national or international level; thus, with this concept of attention and energy, Ben offers potential sources of operationalization where engagement can be practical instead of being vague. Under limits of ensuring that democracy works, Ben proposes schemes that he believes to be helpful in achieving democracy in a competent manner. The central thesis and perhaps mission of the book is educating scholars about the dangers of misrepresenting the concept and definition of civic engagement. Thus, Ben’s goal is not only to expose the confusion that exists but also to turn the confusion into an advantage. He indicates the meaning of civic engagement becomes confusing by making it all-inclusive umbrella that takes in everything from watching political programs on television to bowling in leagues, to writing checks to political advocacy groups as well as participating in political rallies and marches. Ben puts effort on exemplifying three distinct engagement categories indispensable for both theoretical and empirical scholarship. As well, Ben notes that engagement is a unique and a suitable term for finding means for ensuring democracy works, but only when individuals appreciate its full significance. The book shows that civic engagement and citizen trust literatures note on-going decline in trust, with the explanation on the trend seemingly depending on the type of activities citizens engage in. Ben analysis delves into the notion of whether these different activities of civic engagement like attending church services to make campaign donations can result to different outcomes. In his definition of social engagement as activity and attention related to social groups and norms that categorize civic engagement, Ben observes no obvious connection to citizenship. Moreover, there seems to be a significant overlap in the meaning of political engagement; for instance, if factors related to trust in government become operational, the way citizens initiate their engagement for campaigning for office can be very different. Ben’s efforts in delineating the characteristics of moral engagement are conceptually essential since he considers moral engagement as an activity related to moral reasoning (Berger, 2011). Berger in his volume stresses the significance of institutions in channeling citizens’ collective energy into useful political outlets that link local energy to regional and national politics, essential in developing cross-sector relations. Ben shows that voluntary associations as well as political participation can be exercised with appropriate institutional design, which leaves one concerned if this is relates to government political responsiveness as a key determinant for advancing the democratic system. Ben shows that promoting political engagement at local instead of national level speaks to a wide range of democratic values and goals, which can pave way for national-level engagement, which is a crucial element in governance. The notion directly links to Ben’s focus regarding the engagement with marginalized citizens. Ben disagrees with normative assumption of participatory democrats arguing that democracy can be healthy when many citizens are not involved in politics; he considers greater participation among masses to be unrealistic if undesirable. Like participatory democrats, Ben desires to level the playing field by mobilizing the politically disadvantaged; hence, he manages to offer contemporary revision of Aristotle. Similar to Aristotle, Ben claims that more participatory democracy is not always beneficial to democracy; however, he posits that targeting the disadvantaged groups for greater participation could be beneficial. The highlight of the book is the emphasis of targeting not only citizens but also those who are sensitive to effects of democracy’s political attention deficit; hence, promoting cross-sector relationships, which effectively affects governance and democracy (Berger, 2011). Ben offers a necessary critique to the concept of civic engagement calling for its retirement by arguing that the label “civic engagement” baffles the different political experiences of social, ethical and political commitment that consequently influence governance and cross-sector relations. He states that scholars and institutions often promote engagement among people who already tend to participate in many high rates than the rest of the population, like members of the upper middle class or college students in elite institutions, which is unlikely to improve democracy representation, legitimacy and fairness, which bears the ability of straining cross-sector relations and governance. Ben shows that the poorest and least-educated citizens are likely to be detached both politically and socially hence least likely to be precisely represented by both activists and politicians. Ben argues that citizens are the core elements to democratic politics; thus, political theorists have to take citizens seriously since they influence cross-sector relations and governance (Berger, 2011). Basing his argument on Tocqueville’s premise, Ben offers a remedy for improving democracy, which insists on changing the approach to politics and political mobilization as well as changing individuals and institutions, which I consider useful in my future career. Ben posits that more thought, energy can be engrossed on political affairs processes as well as institutions by making politics more striking, and appealing to the tastes of citizens, I find this to be essential as Ben successfully manages to convince me of its importance for the future of politics. In addition, Ben points out that this cannot be achieved without making institutions more responsive; for instance, he notes that for political equality and fair representation there is need for a shift of resources from promoting political engagement among college students. Moreover, he recommends targeting attention and energy to certain demographic groups such as the poor and poorly educated, who are prone to political disengagement and likely to be misrepresented in order to promote cross-sector relations and governance (Berger, 2011). Ben’s work is a dire reminder to individuals including me who may want to take advantage of the essential concept of civic engagement not merely ideally but also practically. Hence Ben’s work will be helpful in my career in the future since he managed to inform me that civic engagement cannot be a tool for better governance unless its inherent social, political and moral characteristic are identified. Beyond the differences in the book, one thing stands tall, government responsiveness, moreover, the book enabled me appreciate that civic engagement literature is incomplete unless it can justify and specify role of the marginalized in political processes. Hence, I have learned that to achieve and promote fairness and equality in democratic society I have to ensure fair opportunity for all especially for those likely to be disenfranchised, which will be helpful in my career’s future. References Berger, B. (2011). Attention deficit democracy: The paradox of civic engagement. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Read More