Today, in this second entry of a new blog about democratic engagement, I want to explore the multiple meanings of democratic from the point of view of my own work.
As a Professor of Civic Engagement at Wagner College, I seek to make stronger connections between the college and the wider community in order to deepen student learning and to help students see how their learning in the classroom can be applied to real community problems. In the process, we at Wagner hope to raise the civic consciousness of students, to give them confidence that their thinking and their actions can have an impact on the community's quality of life. Finally, we want the students and the college as whole to learn to partner with the community, to see everyone, in the community and at the college, as both learners and potential teachers, and thereby to bring about positive change throughout the community that contributes to everyone's overall well being.
From this brief summary, it follows that democratic means a number of things. First, it means that we must respect everyone's right to be part of the decision making process that will lead to positive change. Second, it means that we must create spaces for every voice to be heard and that great effort must be put into creating a deliberative process that builds on the experiences of a highly diverse population. Third, it means that whatever project we embark on or whatever goal we establish for ourselves as a partnership must be planned and carried out jointly. As noted in yesterday's post, college and university expertise has an important role to play in strategizing about community change, but no more so than the everyday and accumulated experiences of people who actually live in the community and who have been part of a long-term struggle to continue to improve that community.
There is a fourth, often neglected meaning of democratic that now animates my own efforts to build stronger and more effective college-community partnerships. Democratic refers to the fair playing field that is often proclaimed to be foundational for any just society but that has rarely, if ever, been acted upon. It follows, then, that any effort to promote democracy must focus on supporting those individuals and those groups that are the least well off. People who are hungry, who are living below the poverty line, who cannot count on decent shelter, and children who are deprived of effective early childhood education programs must be given first priority. Democracy with its implied quest for equality and justice demands this emphasis. Therefore, even if a process is respectful, broadly inclusive, and takes into account everyone's knowledge and experience, it falls short of fulfilling its true democratic potential unless it also addresses the needs of the least privileged members of our communities.
Some people might object to the above analysis because of its emphasis on equality and privileging the needy. They might insist that freedom and individual responsibility are the premier democratic values and that the approach I outline not only undermines freedom and individuality, it actually encourages dependence on the public dole. My response would point first to the importance of hearing each individual voice and of ensuring that those voices are taken into full account in making collective decisions. Rather than deemphasizing freedom and individuality, this approach embraces the individual lives and experiences of people who for too long have been excluded from our most important public deliberations.
Even if this response were convincing to detractors, however; they still might question the commitment to meeting the needs of the poor first. Aren't they poor, they might suggest, because of their failure to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them and even because of flaws in their basic characters? While it is doubtful this is true in most cases, we cannot be certain that some people face hunger and economic uncertainty owing to their own mistakes and a lack of personal discipline or fortitude. But when people are suffering and as a result are unable to contribute positively to society, doesn't it make good sense to put everything we can into promoting their future well being, just as we would want to cure their disease or heal their ills if they were sick? Ultimately, this vision for a democratic society is one in which everyone can realize themselves as human beings and meet and even exceed their individual potential. Having said that, though, the urgency to meet the needs of children who are themselves completely innocent of character flaws or inadvisable life choices makes this commitment to looking after the least well off first an irrefutable and self-evident truth.
To put it bluntly, as long as one child in four goes to bed hungry every night, democracy will remain a sham. It is thus entirely in keeping with democracy and our hopes for its future that addressing the concerns of those who suffer most is democracy's first and most urgent priority.
No comments:
Post a Comment