One question has been driving much of my thinking lately: what is the best way to communicate the value of “politics” to people who consider themselves apolitical? What do you say to people that argue, often very casually, “I’m not really into politics.” I’ve found that many students who are hoping to enter seemingly non-political careers such as business, media, entertainment etc., for example, think that “politics” is a phenomenon that is very distant from their lives and interests—something that goes on in the faraway, bureaucratic world of Washington, DC, but bears little connection to their personal and professional career trajectories.
I’d like to open up a space for public inquiry here—what have you done to communicate the value of politics to others who consider themselves apolitical?
In my own dealings with this quandary, I’ve found it best to bring politics down to the level of “everydayness” as much as possible, communicating to apolitical others how buying a t-shirt, a cup of tea, or even their favorite album can all be political acts—supporting whole systems of equality or inequality that are hidden from us in our everyday doings (and per Kenneth Burke’s wonderful aphorism that “every construct is a destruct”). I try to talk about “power” as much as possible, particularly how “power” is who gets to speak in society—which means that we are all implicated in influencing or being influenced by forces which help or hinder both ourselves and others in everyday life. I try to raise (following Henry Jenkin’s findings on promoting civic engagement among youth) issues that are “immediate” and “involving” for the person I’m talking to—have they had any trouble with healthcare lately, or potholes in the road, what about noisy neighbors?—these all bring up civic issues that relate to our everyday lives. There are many more examples, but what I most try to do is expand the definition of “politics” for people so that they can start seeing the political in the seemingly “nonpolitical” (in Barry Brummett’s terms—perhaps talking about how race is politically negotiated in Wayans Brothers films or two white teenagers in the suburbs listening to Eminem—in moment to moment acts of negotiating meaning that wield influence for ourselves and others). Per one of my favorite theorists, Stanley Deetz, I try to also communicate how all information is political and sponsored, even the front of a “Trix” cereal box is political in occluding its means of production and sheer coma-inducing sugar content (not to mention its fostering of childhood obesity). As Deetz and others such as Stuart Hall have argued, the sanitized, supposedly neutral word “information” hides political dynamics in social life—that is, “information” really puts us “in-formation.”
Paradoxically both simple and difficult to answer, this is, I believe, an enduring interdisciplinary question that we all have a significant stake in. Think of the number of vital political issues (e.g. civil rights, human rights, health rights etc.) that might be left unaddressed by future generations who think politics is “out there” rather than “right here.” We should do everything within our power to find novel ways to communicate and translate the value of politics to others who consider themselves apolitical. What means/methods have you used for communicating the value of politics to others who think they are apolitical? –Don Waisanen
Comments 4
Jon Smajda — October 24, 2008
I think there's kind of a conservative-liberal split on this.
Liberals seem more inclined to see politics everywhere and to not necessarily see politics as a bad thing, whereas conservatives have a much more narrow definition of politics. A lot of things liberals might see as "political" are, for conservatives, about economics, family, values, culture, communities, etc. Liberals of course see these things too, but also recognize them as political through and through. So politics as a specific sphere of the social world as opposed to a pervasive element of all social life.
I'm a liberal, and a sociologist, so I tend to adopt the broader vision of politics as power you describe, but this is one of the challenges I encounter: it's hard to communicate this broader view of politics without coming across as a liberal, in my experience. Pointing out that there are "politics" behind the production of everyday items can easily get interpreted as an argument that there's something wrong with the way those objects are produced. In other words, conservatives, at least in my experience, wind up conflating the analytical argument with the moral argument. I do not think this is necessarily the way it has to be: understanding systems of power as a pervasive and stable element of social order can have conservative connotations too, so this may just be an artifact of American conservatism today, or perhaps just my own idiosyncratic experiences with conservatives.
jose — October 24, 2008
I tried an assignment where they had to trace the political history of an everyday item (music cd, shirt, etc.) from manufacture, to transport, to store and to consumption. It totally flopped! Ultimately, for many of our students, if it ain't broke, why fix it! Perfectly rational way to proceed, I guess.
I suppose what I do is start with the question of why anyone needs to care and try to move them from that position. I think maybe 1/2 get moved.
Kenneth M. Kambara — October 24, 2008
I think there is something to the lacking of personal relevance regarding the political. There are intrinsic sources of personal relevance (ISPR) that are linked to values and situational ones that come from framing (SSPR) from campaigns (often on hot-button issues). The political ISPR (I'm just dying to coin PISPR) may be low or at least not very unified, so it doesn't drive behaviors consistently. I think tapping into political SSPR is how political campaigns are run. I think Jon may be on to something with how liberals versus conservatives perceive the political. Additionally, I think many moderates don't cleanly fit into either camp, with government management of the economy creating populists and libertarian clusters, in addition to liberal and conservative clusters. I think the current state of things can be explained by how voters tend towards these 4 clusterings and how candidates try to persuade votes using issues and SSPR (e.g., through culture wars, taxation, abortion, etc.).
Raising consciousness requires a strong meaning system, akin to brands like Nike or Trix. As people start to identify with the meaning system, the cause or social movement becomes theirs. They belong to the "tribe." Karl Rove was a master at motivating usually apathetic voters by finding the hot-button issues to get them to the polls.
I think politicians and parties will increasingly see themselves like brands. Maybe a better metaphor is the rock star, but just don't call it celebrity. Maybe politicians will take notes from the film, Dogma. Just like brand managers realize that features don't sell, it's perceived benefits, I think politics will become less about the issues and increasingly about having resonance with large coalitions of voters.
Principles 3 – Democratisation – PJ in limbo — January 16, 2016
[…] are losing their side of the bargain in democratic societies. As huge swathes of the populace self-proclaim to be apolitical, changes to political processes and economic structures are occurring on a constant basis that are […]