Reclaiming Democracy Through Civil Society

8/14/2019 Reclaiming Democracy Through Civil Society

1/24

Reclaiming Democracy Through Civil Society:

The Role of Education, Local Institutions and Community Organizing

Barbara FermanProfessor of Political Science

andDirector of the University Community Collaborative of Philadelphia (UCCP)

Temple University

Paper prepared forA Global Look at Urban and Regional Governance:

The State-Market-Civic Nexus

A Symposium sponsored by

The Halle Institute for Global LearningAnd the Political Science DepartmentEmory University

Atlanta, GA

January 18-19, 2007


2/24

2

Introduction

How can we reconcile democratic accountability and deliberative and participatorypractices with the authority and clout necessary for effective decision-making? Althoughthis question has inspired much scholarly debate and is at the heart of the Halle Institutefor Global Learnings symposium1, I want to suggest that it is a false dichotomy. In fact,

I would argue that we cannot have strong, effective leadership and well-informed andbroadly representative policies in the absence of accountability, meaningful deliberation,and broad based participation. Indeed, the direction of the American political systemover the last 25+ years more than substantiates my claim. During this time, we havewitnessed a shrinking of the political franchise, a policy system that advantages a few atthe expense of the many, and a general decline in the competence and trustworthiness ofour political, and, I might add, corporate, leaders. The collapse of civil society hasenabled a very selective part of the market to harness the powers of the state in pursuingits own narrow interests. This situation seriously imperils our democracy and our overallwell-being, which, of course, are integrally connected. Restoring the accountability,deliberation and participation upon which effective democratic governance rests requires

that we re-engage and empower those who have been disenfranchised. In the followingpaper, I address the current state of our democratic franchise, the reasons for that stateand some of the ways through which we can begin to repair the damage. These repairefforts involve rebuilding civil society at the local level, a process that has educational,skill building and organizing implications.

Leadership vs. Accountability: the False Dichotomy

In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption

and degeneracy, which cunning will discover and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate

and improve. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people

alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories2

In Governing the Ungovernable City I argued that mayors needed a lot of power togovern effectively; that they needed the ability to stave off all the conflicting requestsfrom interest groups, citizen, neighborhood and other groups. (Ferman, 1985) Governingthe Ungovernable City was my revised dissertation, heavily influenced by my thesisadvisor who was a student of Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson. Several years later,in Challenging the Growth Machine, I did a 360 degree turn and argued that we neededstrong neighborhoods to press an all too powerful city government to be more responsive.(Ferman, 1996) I was living in Chicago and heavily influenced by that citys tradition ofracialized politics which was a disservice to all and its legacy of machine governance thatfavored patronage and reciprocity over any forms of progressive governance orresponsiveness to neighborhoods. Now, I come to you in the middle of those two polarpositions. So, my answer to the questions can we have strong leadership (authority for

1 This paper was prepared for the Halle Institute for Global Learnings Symposium on A Global Look atUrban and Regional Governance: The State-Market-Civic Nexus. Emory University, Jan 18-19, 20072Thomas Jefferson on Democracy: 87


3/24

3

decision-making3) and accountability, can we have deliberative processes and enoughclout for decision-making, should non governmental interests4 have a role in addressingsocietal problems, is an unabashed YES! In fact, I would argue, that in a democracy wecannot have strong, effective leadership without accountability and meaningfuldeliberation and we cannot have accountability and effective deliberation without strong

leadership.

My middle position is informed by my work over the last 10+ years with community andyouth groups that have been fighting for a place at the table, some of whom knew how tonegotiate the political terrain, most of whom did not. It is also informed by havingworked with some very talented, creative and committed people in city government whoembrace principles of fairness and equity but who often find themselves stymied by ascarcity of resources, outmoded systems of decision making, unresponsive bureaucracies,and a hostile political climate. Finally, it is informed by witnessing first hand the totalwithdrawal of many young people from the political system because they fail to see theconnection between what government does and their own lives and because when they

think about politics, on the rare occasion that they are forced to, they see only the bleaksidecorruption, lies, waste, and, ultimately, an exercise in futility.

So, to my unabashed yes I append the following qualifier--Until we address thisdisengagement from the political system, this stifling of talent and creativity within localgovernment, and the underlying causes of these phenomena, accountability ingovernment and effective deliberation at the community level will remain appealing,but essentially hollow, phrases. Consequently, we will continue to have policies that donot bear any resemblance to accepted notions of fairness. Indeed, we will continue to godown the path that we have been on for the last 25 years, a path that has accelerated withgreat rapidity during the administration of George W. Bush. Before discussing how weaddress the issues above, lets take a look at the state of our democracy.

The Current state of U.S. DemocracyIn December of 2004, the APSAs Task Force on Inequality and American Democracypainted a very sobering picture of the American enterprise.5 Not surprisingly, their threemajor findings were a sharp increase in income inequality over the last 25 years, asignificant distortion in political voice, with those at the bottom much quieter thanthose with more resources, and a skewed set of public policies that advantaged the welloff at the expense of everyone else, especially those nearest the bottom of the incomedistribution.

3 I do take issue with the term autonomy if it means that decision makers are autonomous from theirconstituents.4 The conference conveners used the term non governmental elites; I have taken the liberty of changing itto non governmental interests so that it is more inclusive.5 The Report was published in the December 2004 issue ofPerspectives on Politics under the titleAmerican Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality.


4/24

4

Economic indicators: The Task Forces report revealed a sharp rise in inequality as thegap between top and bottom and top and middle rose at an alarming pace. Between 1973and 2000, family income for the top 20% increased by 61% nearly twice the growthexperienced by the group just below and six times the increase for those in the bottom20%. (increases for those two groups were 33.6% and 10.3%, respectively). These

patterns diverged sharply from the Post World War II period (1947-1973) when growthin family income was much more evenly distributed across all 5 groups, with the lowestquintile experiencing the largest percent increase and the top 20% experiencing thesmallest percent increase (115.3% and 84%, respectively). (APSA Task Force:653)Another departure from the post war period is the reconfiguration of wealth from a wageto a capital income base. In 1998, the top one percent of the countrys households held38.1% of the countrys wealth while earning 16.6% of total income; by contrast, thebottom 90% of households controlled only 29% of the country wealth although theyaccounted for 58.8% of all household income. (APSA Task Force:653) Finally, the gapbetween whites and blacks continued with the median black household earning 62% lessthan the median white household. (Ibid) Lest we attribute these growing inequalities

solely to globalization, the authors of the report also highlight the fact that the U.S.outpaced nearly all advanced industrial democratic nations in the rate of growth inincome and wealth disparities.

Political indicators: Political indicators mirror many of the inequalities found in theeconomic ones as those with lower levels of income, education and occupational status,have opted out or, in the case of incarcerated persons, have been pushed out, of thepolitical system.6 Across all categories of political involvement including voting, contactwith an elected official, affiliation with political organizations, community activity andthe like, low income groups participate at far lower levels than do high income groupsand blacks and immigrants participate at lower levels than whites. (APSA Task Force;Macedo, et al. 2005). Among the key correlates of participation are political knowledge,political interest and mobilizing institutions, all of which are positively correlated withlevels of income and education.7 While not individually correlated with participationlevels, other indicators, such as trust in government, a belief that government isresponsive, and a belief that the individual can make a difference, portray an equallysobering picture of the American political system. In 2004, the trust in governmentindexwas 37 as compared with a high of 61 in 1966; the government responsiveness index was61 down from 78 in 1966; and the external political efficacy index went from 63 in 1966to 47 in 2004.8 In other words, over the span of four decades Americans trust ingovernment, their sense that it is responsive to people like them, and their belief that their

6

Even more alarming is the overwhelmingly black and brown color of the prison population thus adding astrong racial dimension to this externally imposed political disenfranchisement. According to a study byChristopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, 7.5% of voting age blacks were disenfranchised in 2000 due to theirstatus as felons or ex felons. In several southern states, the disenfranchisement rate was more than doublethat national figure: Kentucky, 17.37%; Florida and Virginia, 16%. And, among white felons, thepopulation is overwhelmingly poor or working class. (December, 2002:777-803.)7 Macedo et al. (2005) Mobilizing institutions refer to those vehicles that solicited participation such aslabor unions, political parties and multi-tiered national voluntary associations like the PTA.8 ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior. (www.electionstudies.org) The indices areconstructed from aggregating responses to several individual questions within each category.


5/24

5

participation mattered, all experienced significant declines. These indicators shouldcome as no surprise. We live in an era of rampant consumerism, of praise for fierceindividualism (e.g. bootstrap mentality, entrepreneurship, etc), of extremely negativepolitics, of vicious attacks on government by candidates for office and elected officials,and of major shrinkage and de-legitimization of the public sector. Given this

inauspicious set of circumstances, how can we expect people to positively embracegovernment or politics?

Social Indicators: Turning to social indicators does not brighten the picture. RobertPutnams work on social capital displayed, in high relief, how Americans arewithdrawing from the associations and practices that constitute the very fabric of civilsociety. The rich and diverse associational life that de Tocqueville (1956) found soinspiring nearly 200 years ago has, according to Putnam (2000) and others, beendisappearing at an alarming rate. This decline in associational life has implications forour political health and overall democracy. It is through our activities within theseassociations that we learn how to interact with others who hold different ideas, where we

learn to tackle problems, address conflict, negotiate compromises, deliberate on issues ofconcern to the community, where we learn how to participate in public issues andconcerns, in short, it is where we cut our teeth on the democratic form of life. Withoutthis training ground and with the poor job that the schools are doing to prepare youngpeople for life in a democratic society, it is hardly surprising that many people lack theskills and knowledge to engage in public life and, even worse, see no purpose to suchengagement. Thus, a negative synergy takes hold in which the shrinking of civil societyinhibits our initiation into democratic practice while simultaneously increasing the gapbetween government and the citizenry. Together, these two factors conspire to reinforcethe cynicism, distrust, and estrangement that fuel our political malaise.

The downsizing of the political franchise and of civil society has resulted in agovernment that is functioning well for a much smaller segment of the population. Taxcuts for the highest income brackets, decreased corporate taxes, and an increased relianceon regressive forms of taxation (e.g. sales tax) are directly implicated in the soberingincome data cited above. (Williams, 2004) Moreover, the loss of revenues from these taxcuts has been offset by reductions in programs that benefit the less well off such ashousing, human services, education and the like. Cuts in Pell grants, for example, whichenabled many working class and poor students to attend college, will prevent millions ofyoung people from obtaining the primary key to economic mobility in a knowledge-basedand high tech economy; a college degree. Further compounding the problem is thedecreased state support for publicly funded colleges and universities and the increasedcompetitiveness of those institutions, resulting in a skewing of financial assistance tohigher income families. Between 1995 and 2003, flagship and leading public researchuniversities quadrupled their aid to students from families with incomes over $100,000,while aid to students from the poorest families declined. (Livingston. 2006)) Thisconspiracy of factors led theNew York Times to refer to public colleges as Engines ofInequality. (Nov 23, 2006, Public Editor)


6/24

6

The consequences of these policies are staggering for poor, working, and lower middleclass people who have seen their wages stagnate, their benefits decrease, and the publicservices they rely on (schools, libraries, mass transit, recreation centers, etc) deteriorate.

9

However, the skewed concentration of money, voice and influence, within the overallcontext of increasing inequality, almost guarantees that their piece of the American

Dream Pie will continue to wither. As the APSA Task Force on Inequality and AmericanDemocracy concluded: Our government is becoming less democratic, responsive mainlyto the privileged and not a powerful instrument to correct disadvantages and look out forthe majority. If disparities of participation and influence become further entrenchedand if average citizens give up on democratic governmentunequal citizenship couldtake on a life of its own, weakening American democracy for a long time to come.(December 2004:662)

So, the questions raised by the symposium conveners about accountability, deliberationand the state-market-civic nexus are not merely academic; rather, they go to the heartof our ailing democracy and our deteriorating urban infrastructures.

10While national

policy and actions have been the major contributors to this poor state of health, it is localgovernments that will bear the brunt of this situation.11 Similarly, it is at the local levelthat we can and must begin to develop the countervailing power necessary to challengepolicies that are grossly unfair and practices that totally compromise our future as ademocracy. In short, we need to re-engage those who have opted out of political andcivil society in order to hold government accountable to more than just a privilegedminority. Civil society is the only place that can generate enough pressure to compel thestate to put boundaries on the market thereby protecting its citizenry. (Coles, 2006:552)

The Local Context: Rebuilding Civil Society

People, regardless of their age or generation, are more likely to participate in public life

if they have the motivations, skills, resources, and opportunities to do so.12

There are various ways to approach re-engagement and, subsequently, the issues ofaccountability, deliberation, and participation in governance. One is to take a macro levelapproach and look at a citys civic capacity. As defined by Clarence Stone, civiccapacity is the mobilization of varied stakeholders in support of a community widecause. (1998:15) The more that stake holders can connect to a given problem and itssignificance overall and, more importantly, in terms of their own interests, the greater thecivic capacity. Developing civic capacity, however, is not an easy task even when theissue is critical to the urban context. Stone et als eleven city study of education revealedthis dilemma. Developing civic capacity to improve poorly performing school districts

9 Benefits refers largely to health care coverage.10 I use infrastructure to refer to the physical and service aspects of cities, especially their schools, libraries,health care systems and the like.11 Local governments are particularly vulnerable on two fronts. First, as service providers they sufferdisproportionately from federal cuts cited above. Second, many cities and older ring suburbs housedisproportionate numbers of low income households who rely on those and other services to survive.12 (Zukin, at al: 203)


7/24

7

encountered many problems not the least of which were fragility and sustainability.Moreover, of the 11 cities, only one (Pittsburgh) demonstrated a strong connectionbetween civic capacity and educational policy reforms. (Danielson and Hochschild, 1998)An even more fundamental problem with the civic capacity approach is its potential toreinforce existing power imbalances between the various groups as those with more

skills, knowledge and connections, bring significant advantages to the table. In assessingthe effectiveness of school reform efforts in the cities covered in Stone et als study,Danielson & Hochschild noted the virtual absence of involved parents and the thinpresence of community groups, (285) those with the most at stake but with the fewestresources and least clout.

Moving to the micro level, we can look at institutional practices and how they encourageor deter participation, deliberation and accountability. As Archon Fung noted, With afew important exceptions, civic engagement scholarship has not yet generated compellingaccounts of how public policy and institutional design might reverse these trends in civicdeterioration. (2004:15) Fung quite ably took up the challenge producing a very detailed

and insightful examination of how institutional design and public policy can foster civicparticipation thereby repairing the rupture between state and society. His careful analysisof citizen participation within the police department and the school system in Chicagodemonstrated what these processes look like on the ground and how they can contributeto more participatory and resident-informed decision-making. While Fungs findingswere promising with respect to the levels of engagement among low-income residents ofcolor, they may prove the exception to the rule on two counts. First, most cities lack themechanisms for citizen input that Fung studied in Chicago. In a survey of high povertyschool districts conducted by the Department of Education, only 18% reported efforts toincrease parental involvement in the schools. (Doherty. 1998) Second, even whenmechanisms to elicit a broader base of input are in place, there is no guarantee that wewill see more involvement among those with fewer resources. This was the case in the11 city study of educational reform by Stone et al. where the mechanisms mostly failedto increase either the amount of involvement or the effectiveness of poor and minorityparents whose children are at greatest risk in city schools. (Danielson and Hochschild.Ibid:285) This was also the case in the five cities studied by Berry, Portney, andThomson where the neighborhood-based citizen participation systems revealed a strongcorrelation between levels of income and education on the one hand and participationlevels. (1993). One possible explanation for the promising results in Chicago may be thatcitys history of strong community organizing and strong neighborhood based advocacygroups, a point to which I shall return. (see Ferman, 1996)

In response to these shortcomings I want to suggest a more fundamental, but probablymore ambitious, step; rebuilding civil society from within so that it can be reconnected tothe state in a robust and meaningful fashion. By civil society, I do notmean simply acollection of voluntary associations or a thousand points of light that will magicallysubstitute for government actions. Quite the contrary. As Crenson and Ginsbergobserved, contemporary social groups and civic organizations are likely to remainsocial and civic rather than to become involved in politics. In modern America, politicshas become the province of specialists, and the social capital of ordinary Americans is


8/24

8

not so easily transformed into political capital. (2006:210) In fact, these organizationsoften detract from political engagement as Americans increasingly substitute a moraldefinition of citizenship for a political one. (Ibid)

13This substitution explains the

seemingly contradictory pattern found among young Americans who are volunteeringmore in community service projects but participating less in political activities.14 (Panetta

Institute, 2000; National Association of Secretaries of State,1999) Re-coupling socialcapital or civic activity with politics and government will require a civil society centeredaround a critical analysis of questions of power, resource distribution, and the role ofprivate, public and nonprofit institutions. In short, it must be capable of engaging thekinds of questions and self reflection that can help to restore accountability ingovernment, develop strong deliberative capacities, and broaden the base of enlightenedand representative leadership. Building this type of civil society involves a series of tasksthat address the reasons for disengagement in the first place. Beginning with three of themost important reasons- lack of knowledge, lack of interest, and decline in mobilizinginstitutions, the tasks become readily apparent: developing the kinds of knowledge andskills that enable people to understand the issues at hand and to navigate organizational

and political systems; providing opportunities for meaningful participation that link theconcerns of the individual to larger systems of power and decision making; andmobilizing individuals to engage in collective action. Carried out successfully, thesetasks can instill the values central to living in a democratic society-participation,deliberation, negotiation, public mindedness and the like.

This constellation of tasks points in the direction of education and the community as twoof the primary sources for rebuilding civil society. Education is particularly importantbecause it directly engages more people than any other institution and because it ischarged with instilling values, knowledge, and skills in our young people. Indeed, one ofthe original purposes of public education in this country was to promote citizenship. Thecommunity sector is critical because it is where people live, and, thus, provides theprimary place where citizens can engage in the personal relationship building so crucialto community coherence and to the formation of a collective political will. (Warren,2001:253) Moreover, by focusing on education and the community, we target two of themost important constituent groups: young people and those at the lower ends of theeconomic ladder. These two groups are among the most politically disengaged and theyare the most likely to embrace policies that promise a more equitable distribution ofresources.15 Additionally, youth represent the future. The thoughtful combination of

13 Based on her own work with young people as well as research findings, Tobi Walker concluded thatservice has been positioned as a morally superior alternative [to political engagement], a belief

reinforced through rhetoric and practice by parts of the community service movement (2000:647)14 It is also unclear how much of the increase in voluntarism is a function of the proliferation of servicelearning courses, many of which are required. Additionally, some research has shown that volunteering isoften an exercise in resume padding as opposed to an expression of civic virtue. (Friedland and Morimoto,2006) Similar patterns of avoiding political activities in favor of community service projects were foundamong adults as well. (Eliasoph, 1998)15 In their comprehensive study of political and civic engagement among young people, Cliff Zukin, et alfound that young people (18-29) were supportive of a social safety net, including spending more on healthcare and insuring that people are housed and fed. They also supported government playing a role in

reducing the gap between rich and poor. (2006) According to the ANES Guide to Public Opinion and


9/24

9

critical education and community mobilization can provide a powerful antidote to thetriumph of individualism that has trumped any sense of civic obligation.

Educational Arena: Skills, Knowledge and Values

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselvesand if we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with

wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their

discretion by education. 16

A healthy civil society requires a citizenry that is knowledgeable about government andpublic affairs, skilled in the arts of democratic practice (deliberation, listening,communication, critical thinking, and the like), and believes that they can have a voice inwhat government does, that their voice will be heard and that it can make a difference. Inshort, knowledge, skills and political efficacy form the cornerstone of a healthy civilsociety. Unfortunately, these attributes are in short supply and have been getting shorter

for many years. The kinds of political engagement that foster the development of theseattributes have been strongly discouraged by three primary, and mutually reinforcing,trends, which can be summed up as the relevance factor, the negativity factor, andthe triumphant market factor.

First, many people fail to see the relevance of government in their lives or in the lives ofthe surrounding community.17 They are unable to link what they perceive to be privateor individual issues and problems with governmental activity or inactivity. How manycollege students make the connection between changes in tax and budget allocationpolicies and the rising cost of their tuition bills? Not many, I would bet.

Related to the relevance factor is the negativity factor. The reputation of governmentin the U.S. has been under siege for years. These attacks have assumed the all toofamiliar guise of government as wasteful, incompetent, and corrupt, all leading tothe firm conclusion that government is the problem.

18A close cousin to the negative

views of government is the equally negative view of politics.19 The very term itself hascome to symbolize corruption, back room deals and all other forms of illicit behavior thatinterfere with decent practice. Of course, all of the recent scandals in Washington, D.C.have not helped to counter this image.

Electoral Behavior, blacks consistently support a greater role for government in social welfare issues thando whites16 Thomas Jefferson in Phi Delta Kappan:117

Based on focus groups with college students around the country, the National Association of Secretariesof State reported that, few participants could articulate any concrete ways in which government affectsthem. Said one Iowa non-voter, ...Most of the issues are for people who own businesses and have familiesand kids in college and stuff. I mean its not even really related to us. (Des Moines - Non-college, Non-voter) The New Millennium Project, 2000. www.nass.org.18 While Ronald Reagan may have popularized this notion, he was not the only candidate to run for officeon a government is the problem platform.19 Negative views are particularly prevalent among younger citizens. Zukin et al reported that in their focusgroups with young people between the ages of 15 and 28, 55% associated the word politics with lying,49% with corrupt, and 48% with boring. (2006:110)


10/24

10

The relevance and negativity factors are bolstered by the triumphant market factor.Reification of the market translates into a strong push to privatize as many functions,products and services as is humanly possible thereby further emasculating government.20Working in tandem with privatization is our fascination with the individual as opposed to

the collective body. While the myth of rugged individualism has always nurtured theAmerican soul, we appear to have gone head over heels for it over the last 25 years. The1980s ushered in the era of the entrepreneur with a vengeance. As our infatuation withpersonal responsibility, personal gain, and personal salvation soared, the traditionalorganizational bases of American political, economic, social, and spiritual life (e.g.parties, labor unions, communities, and religious institutions) waned. This inverserelationship created a vicious cycle with organizational life taking a decided back seatto individual expression. The 1960s adage that the personal is the political has beenturned on its head. The new dictum is the political is the personal. The market hasreplaced the polis as seemingly personal problems falsely cry out for customizedsolutions. The tragic irony of the above trends is, of course, that they further enable

powerful economic and other interests to distort government policies in their favor.

Educational efforts to rebuild civil society must address this unholy troika of relevance,negativity, and the triumphant market factors. And, I might boldly add that those of uswho teach about government and democracy have a moral obligation to provide theknowledge, skills, and values that enable and inspire young people to actively participatein civic and political life.

Through effective pedagogy, we can begin to counter the forces that are discouragingcivic and political engagement among our youth. The essential tasks of such a pedagogyare philosophical, cognitive, and normative. Philosophically, we need to demonstrate therelevance of government, recast its image from negative to positive or, at least, to neutral,and debunk the myths of privatization and the lone ranger syndrome. Cognitively, thepedagogy should furnish students with the necessary knowledge and skills for operatingin a participatory and deliberative society. Students need a working knowledge of howgovernment and institutions operate and how what they do and do not do impacts thelives of individuals, an awareness of the issues at hand and of the mechanisms for andrules governing participation, and an understanding of power and its exercise andaccessibility.21 Equally important are the skills necessary to engage in democraticpractice: collection and evaluation of information, effective communication, criticalthinking, and deliberation and debate. Normatively, such a pedagogy should inculcatestudents with the values upon which democratic participation is founded: values thatpromote equality, respect for and appreciation of diversity, tolerance for different pointsof view, compromise, teamwork, public regarding behavior, a belief in ones own

20 Witness the Bush administrations attempts to privatize Social Security and education. Many critics ofthe No Child Left Behind Act have suggested that the underlying objective is to privatize public education.(cf Meier et al 2004)21 Among the reasons given by young people for not voting, the most commonly cited ones were a feelingthat their votes did not count (26%) and lack of sufficient information (25%) (CIRCLE. 2002:)


11/24

11

capacities to influence larger decisions, and trust in the larger system that it will beresponsive to such participation.

This list clearly indicates that the kind of education needed tofoster the knowledge,develop the skills, and instill the values necessary to sustain a democratic society should

be experiential, empowering, and democratic in nature. It must be experiential becausedemocratic practice is not a passive activity. In fact, the all too common textbookdepictions of American government as a static set of institutions seemingly on auto pilotmay actually discourage participation in public life. (cf. Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1996;McDonnell, 2000; and McDonnell et al. 1990) It must be empowering becausemeaningful participation requires citizens who believe that their participation is valued. Itis no accident that participation is lowest among those groups who are, or believethemselves to be, the most marginalized in society (people of color, poor people, recentimmigrants). And, it must be democratic lest it reinforce notions that we do not live in ademocratic society. Pretense only heightens cynicism which is a strong link in the chainof increasing disengagement. In short, educating for democracy needs to be a pedagogy

that embodies the values it is trying to promote in the learner.

For guidance on experiential learning that is both empowering and democratic there areperhaps no better sources than John Dewey (1916; 1938) and Paulo Freire (2001; 2003).For Dewey, experiential learning was at the heart of his educational theory. Deweysphilosophy of education is a philosophy of experience. But the experience is that of thelearner as opposed to that of the teacher or the textbook. As with Freire, it is situated,student-centered learning, reaching the student where s/he is and then connecting theirexperiences to larger societal issues, contexts and forces. This is especially critical incourses that focus on American government. For many students (and their friends andfamilies, that is, their known world), democracy is still a promisatory note. Hence,courses based on text books that portray democracy as a battle that has been fought andwon, merely reinforce the irrelevance factor for those students who have not benefitedfrom the spoils of victory.22 Situated learning, on the other hand, would begin with thestudents experience and then explore the gap between that and the promise ofdemocracy. Not only does such an approach address the relevancy problem, but it alsohelps students to develop critical thinking faculties as well as identify, and hopefullyquestion, perceived injustices.

22 In a recent examination of the three major text books used in high school civics and social studiesclasses, Sharareh Frouzesh Bennett made the following observations: the underlying suppositionconveyed through the largely descriptive and unproblematized representation of government institutions is

that the institutions of American democracy manage to operate effectively regardless of citizenparticipation. The textbooks fail to connect active citizenship to American constitutional democracy.This is especially troublesome because the texts are taught not just as an authority on Americangovernment, but as civics texts committed to outlining the range and scope of citizenship in an institutionalcontext. By extending their projects to the latter missions, while offering such limited means or reasons forthe necessity of citizen participation, the texts undermine the institutional rationale for active citizenship.(2005:16; 9). Lorraine McDonnell makes a similar argument stating that civics instruction also tends tofocus on static descriptions of governmental institutions and less on the deliberative skills that students willneed to make informed political judgments and to participate actively in the public life of theircommunities. (2000:5)


12/24

12

Student-centered learning is also dialogical with the instructor playing the role of groupleader, helping to tease out larger themes and identifying and seizing upon teachablemoments. The dialogical aspect also ensures that such education is participatory. Giventhe cultural mosaic that defines current American society and certainly the schoolpopulation, student-centered, experiential learning also takes on a strong multi-cultural

dimension.

23

Issues and readings are examined from multiple perspectives with each onesubject to inspection, evaluation, and critique. Finally, this pedagogy must incorporatesignificant opportunities for reflection in which personal experience is connected toexternal activities as well as to larger theory and scholarship.

If we are serious about civic engagement and democratic practice, we need todemonstrate the relevance of government and politics to the everyday life of our studentswhile providing them with the knowledge, skills, competencies, and tools necessary toengage in larger societal processes. As educators we should be preparing young peopleto be critical thinkers who are tolerant and respectful of other perspectives but ready tochallenge unjust practices, effective communicators who are knowledgeable, caring and

inquiring, and active participants in their own lives and in that of the larger society.Nurturing these traits requires an approach to education vastly different from most ofwhat is practiced in the classroom today. The banking or cold storage system ofeducation that is far too prevalent in American education creates fact collectors asopposed to independent thinkers.24 If deliberation and participation are the two maincomponents of a democratic society, this kind of training is not helpful. Indeed, it iscounterproductive. If the environment of the classroom is reinforcing non-democraticpractices, all of the civics lessons in the world will not overcome those underlyingmessages. The old adage actions speak louder than words rings very true in theclassroom. The first task in educating for democracy is thus to examine our ownpractices, many of which will come up wanting. Ultimately, educating for democracymeans living with riskrisk that our assumptions, beliefs, and authority will bechallenged and tested. Rising to those challenges and appropriately meeting them areperhaps the best affirmation of a healthy civil society and democratic polity.

The Community Sector: Institutions and Practices

Education in the ways of democratic practice must be accompanied by opportunities tomeaningfully participate in public life. In their study of the changing patterns ofparticipation in political and civic life, Zukin et al concluded that One of the greatestpredictors of public involvement is whether or not someone has been asked toparticipate. (2006:205) Unfortunately, the asking mechanisms or, what Macedo et altermed mobilizing institutions are not up to the task. (2005) Two of these primaryinstitutionslabor unions and multi-tiered national voluntary associations like the

23 Addressing different cultural perspectives would probably also help to reduce prejudice as studentswould learn that within their differences, they also have a lot in common in terms of concerns, goals, fears,and the like.24 banking system was the term used by Freire and cold storage the term used by Dewey to describeeducational practices that are fashioned on the teacher is expert, student is novice model in which theteacher uncritically pours facts into the students mind.


13/24

13

PTAhave declined in scope, reach and significance while the third institution, thepolitical party, long ago abandoned its grass roots orientation for the more distant worldof high paid professional consultants and expensive media sound bites. While politicalparties still engage in mobilization activities, they tend to give scant attention to youngpeople, poor people and immigrants. (Macedo et al 2005) Given the important

connection between mobilization and participation (Zukin et al, 2005; Verba, Schlozmanand Brady, 1995;), and the disproportionate concentration of poor people, people ofcolor, and immigrants in urban neighborhoods and older, inner ring suburbs, it behoovesus to find alternative institutions and practices for mobilizing within the community. Themost critical are: faith-based institutions, schools, and the practice of communityorganizing. As Robert Warren noted, A necessary starting point for building socialcapital lies in the institutions that still exist in local communities. (Warren, 2001:20) Allcommunities have faith-based institutions and schools which, together, reach a majorityof residents within the community. Igniting these institutions through the practice ofcommunity organizing can produce the prerequisite motivation, skills, resources, andopportunities for participating in public life. (Zukin, et al, 2006)

Faith-Based Institutions

Faith-based institutions are distinct from other community-based institutions in ways thatmake them very strong candidates for rebuilding civil society along the lines suggested inthis paper. First, their range of activities encompasses many segments of a communityslife from religious worship to education, from recreation to social services, and fromeconomic development to food and shelter. Indeed, in some of the poorest communities,they may be the only institution. Thus, their ability to reach large segments of thecommunity is greater than most other community institutions. Second, they tend to havemuch longer staying power than other institutions thus allowing them to engage residentsfor the long haul and to provide some semblance of stability in an otherwise chaoticenvironment. Third, they can appeal to residents from a moral framework about issuesrelated to community, obligation, and commitments beyond the individual. Such aframework is necessary to counter the ubiquitous emphasis on and appeal to theindividual. Fourth, most faith-based organizations are part of larger networks that gobeyond the community and that often include secular institutions as well. Thus, theyprovide the necessary connection or bridging capital to the larger society.(Warren,2001) Fifth, through the regular workings of the church, many congregationmembers acquire critical leadership skills such as outreach, organizing and facilitatingmeetings, public speaking, letter writing, fundraising, planning community events, andadministration. This is especially important in low-income communities where residentstypically lack access to other institutional sources of such skill building such asuniversities and union organized work places. (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).Finally, the black churches have a history of engaging in social movements, the mostnotable of which was the civil rights movement, and of being in the thick of local politicsin terms of grooming political leadership and supporting, or not supporting, candidatesfor office.25

25 In cities with sizable African American populations, black churches are typically on the map ofnecessary campaign stops.


14/24

14

Schools

Schools constitute the other likely institutional candidate. As with faith basedorganizations, they are found in almost every community, they have longer staying powerthan other institutions in the community, and they reach large segments of the population.

Many schools have mechanisms in place for outreach, especially to parents andguardians. Teachers unions, while viewed negatively in some corners, constitute anotherpotential source for larger mobilization efforts.26 In some school districts, teachers andparents have worked collaboratively for additional resources and policy change. (cfBlanc, Goldwasser, and Brown. 2003). There is strong precedent for schools operating asfully integrated community institutions. The community control movement in the 1960ssought to transform schools into institutions that were run by and, therefore, responsiveto, the community. More recently, the Beacon School movement, which began in NewYork City in 1991 and which has been replicated in several other cities includingChicago, Oakland, San Francisco and Philadelphia, is an effort to provide programmingand services to the community based on significant input from the residents. (Schorr,

1997) Finally, schools are charged with the most fundamental task in a democraticsocietyeducation.

Activating the Institutional Bases through Community Organizing

For the reasons cited above, faith-based organizations and schools can serve as the newmobilizing institutions within low-income communities. However, since that is nottheir principal mandate, their capacity to do so has to be activated. Communityorganizing can serve that role. Community organizing, as practiced by mostorganizations, incorporates all of the tasks cited above for rebuilding civil society whileaddressing many of the underlying causes of disengagement. First and foremost,community organizing is about base building for purposes of developing power; thus, bydefinition, it is a force for incorporating citizens into the political process. Moreover, inreaching out to people of color, to those at the lower ends of the economic ladder and,more recently, to immigrant populations, community organizing is targeting some of themost disenfranchised groups in American society.27

These outreach activities are designed to tap into the self interests of residents and,ultimately, to illustrate how their interests are impacted by politics, governmental policy,and institutional practices. Thus, connections are drawn between very local concerns andlarger systems of power. By engaging in practices such as deliberation, debate, voting,and accountability sessions with public officials, community organizing imparts keydemocratic skills to community residents. Leadership training, which is a key part ofcommunity organizing, equips ordinary residents with facilitation, public speaking,

26 Teachers unions have often come under attack from educational reformers on the right and the left asbeing overly protective of their members at the expense of improving educational quality. This is a verycomplex issue far beyond the scope of this paper.27 Actually, there is some debate as to whether community organizing is reaching the most disenfranchisedsegments of American society. (Warren, 2001) Without getting into that conversation, suffice it to say thatcommunity organizing, as a collective endeavor, reaches deeperinto the disenfranchised populations thanother forms of association or mobilization.


15/24

15

research, and outreach and organizing skills. Through public actions and policycampaigns, community organizing provides opportunities for people to collectivelyengage in issues relevant to their lives and their communities. The relationship buildingthat occurs through these campaigns helps to develop social capital within thecommunity. And, it is the kind of social capital that is directly connected to political

goals.

28

Organizing victories, of which there have been many, reap significant benefitsfor many low-income residents and people of color.29 In addition to the tangible benefits,these victories help to build the political efficacy of community members which serves asan incentive to continue their involvement and to recruit additional residents to theenterprise. In short, community organizing is a very promising strategy for rebuildingcivil society. Infusing this practice into faith based institutions and schools can providethe key to re-engaging disenfranchised populations in ways that connect them to politicaland governmental systems.

Fortunately, there are numerous examples of incorporating community organizingpractices into faith based institutions and schools. Beginning with Saul Alinskys work

with congregations and parishes in Chicago, there has been a proliferation of faith-basedorganizing. According to Siranni and Friedland, there are approximately 4000 institutionsthat are affiliated with faith-based organizations spanning 33 states and the District ofColumbia.30 (2005) The four major networks representing faith based organizing(Industrial Areas FoundationIAF; PICO31; Direct Action, Research and TrainingDART; and Gamaliel Foundation) have a strong presence in many states encompassingall regions of the country: PICO has affiliates in 150 cities across 7 states;32 IAF is in 44cities across 21 states;33 DART is in 22 cities across 6 states;34 Gamaliel is in 21 states.Of these networks, DART and Gamaliel organize only in faith based institutions whilePICO and IAF have expanded to include other institutions, most notably schools andlabor unions. DART concentrates its organizing efforts at the county level and Gamalielat the metropolitan level, while PICO and IAF are structured in ways that can integratelocal issues with larger citywide and sometimes statewide efforts. (see below)

Faith-based organizing integrates individual development with institution building.Central to both is the practice of relational organizing that blends one-on-one

28 I use the term political in a totally non partisan way.29 In addition to the well known victories around community reinvestment, which resulted in two majorpieces of federal legislation---Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975 and the CommunityReinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977, community organizing efforts have secured victories around living wageand minimum wage, affordable housing, economic development, immigration, health care, education,public safety and prisoner re-entry issues among others. See Gittell, Ferman and Price,Assessing

Community Change 2006.30 The number for institutions was from the 2000 census whereas the number of states was as of 2004.31 PICO was originally called the Pacific Institute for Community Organizing; it is now simply PICO32 these cities include: New York, Philadelphia, Camden, New Orleans, Birmingham, Orlando, Gainesville,Denver, Kansas City, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Anchorage.33 these cities include: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, DC, Seattle, Portland, SanFrancisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, Tuscon, Atlanta, Charlotte,Durham, Jackson (Mississippi).34 The six states are: Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio. The cities include: Miami,Orlando, Miami, Sarasota, Tampa, Louisville, Lansing, Columbus, Toledo, Charlottesville, and Richmond.


16/24

16

conversations with congregation and community members with networking acrosscongregations and other institutions to build the power necessary to achieve the desiredchange. Issues are selected based on their popularity among members, their ability tounite members, and the potential for victory. Invoking the social justice componentwithin the Judeao-Christian tradition, faith-based organizing has, in many places,

successfully bridged racial, denominational and class divides around fundamental issuesof health care, education, housing, neighborhood safety, and the like.35 Moreover, theseorganizing efforts have often enlisted public agencies, elected officials, and majorinstitutions as allies, thus creating the bridge between community residents and thepolitical and governmental spheres. These alliances have also helped to increase thecredibility of the organizers.36

Although working through individual congregations, the Industrial Areas Foundation(IAF)37 and PICO, two of the major faith-based networks, both employ a federated modelthat encourages local base building and institutional development while providing thevehicle for collaboration across neighborhoods. Individual faith-based institutions

engage in their own relational organizing and develop and carry out their own issuecampaigns thereby developing their leadership, credibility, and organizing capacities butthey also participate in federated campaigns that involve a collaboration of all theinstitutional members. In both cases, issues are selected through democratic processes.And, in Texas, IAF has developed a statewide network that combines local base buildingwith efforts to influence state level policy while PICO has developed a similar structurein California called the California Project. (Warren, 2001; Foley, McCarthy and Chaves,2001)

There are also some very good examples of school based organizing, some of which havebeen initiated, supported and/or encouraged by IAF and PICO, some of which grew outof other organizing efforts and some of which began spontaneously as a result of studentdissatisfaction with the overall educational climate. In most cases, the organizing isstudent led and designed to hold schools and education decision makers moreaccountable to the students as well as to the larger community.

In Philadelphia, Youth United For Change, a PICO affiliate, began organizing in schoolsnearly 15 years ago. With chapters in 4 high schools they have taken on issues related tocurriculum, library and technology resources, and college and career preparation. ThePhiladelphia Student Union, which began in 1996, has chapters in 5 high schools and hasforged organizing campaigns to address issues of school safety, curriculum, class size,and the privatization of Philadelphias schools. Along with Youth United for Change,they are also part of the broader small schools campaign. Both of these organizations aremulti-racial, totally youth driven and incorporate leadership development and training

35 In fact, these organizing efforts are characterized by much more diversity than the traditional civicassociations whose decline is lamented in the work of many social capital theorists. Given the increasinglymulti racial, ethnic and cultural composition of the U.S., such efforts are sorely needed.36 In Florida, several DART and PICO organizers have actually been asked by public officials to help themout on certain issues. (interviews, December 2006)37 IAF is the network that grew out of Saul Alinskys pioneering work in Chicago.


17/24


18/24

18

Community Reinvestment Act [CRA] of 1977grew out of grassroots organizing inChicago which then spread to similar communities across the country. These two piecesof legislation, CRA in particular, resulted in significant reinvestment in low-incomecommunities.

A more recent example of this bubbling up can be found in the Living Wage campaigns.Beginning with the successful Living Wage Campaign carried out in 1994 by BUILD, anIAF affiliate in Baltimore, in alliance with labor organizations, there has been aproliferation of similar campaigns in cities and counties across the country. As a result,140 cities and counties have passed living wage ordinances. (Living Wage ResourceCenter. www.livingwagecampaign.org) Moreover, the existence of larger networkswithin which many faith based organizing activities are embedded (PICO, IAF, DART,Gamaliel) provide the institutional vehicles to connect local efforts across broadergeographic lines, thus facilitating the bubbling up process. As noted above, IAF andPICO have developed statewide networks in Texas and California, respectively.Organizing activities carried out through these networks have resulted in policy victories

in education, job training and health care. (Sirianni and Friedland, 2005)

School-based organizing has also gone beyond individual schools and cities as witnessedby the PICO and IAF examples cited above and by the Cross City Campaign for UrbanSchool Reforms work in general and with the Small Schools Initiative in particular.With operations in Baltimore, Denver, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York,Oakland, Philadelphia, and Seattle, Cross City Campaign has been able to promote theissues of accountability, school quality, and the need for small schools on a fairly broadscale.

Conclusion: Education, Community Organizing and the Rebuilding of Civil Society

Restoring deliberative practices, broadening the base of participation in politics andpolicy, and increasing accountability in government requires that we first rebuild civilsociety. The key tasks include education and skill building, mobilization of citizens, andthe development of opportunities for meaningful participation. The educationalcommunity and community-based institutions are particularly well situated to carry outthese tasks. Moreover, the complementary nature of many of the tasks createsopportunities for collaborations around research, learning and practice, collaborationsthat can strengthen each sector and further contribute to the rebuilding of civil society.

The field of community organizing has become increasingly sophisticated in its arsenal oftactics and methods to include research, analysis, and mapping tools, areas in whichuniversities can and have played a key role. (Gittell, Ferman and Price; 2006; Delgado,1994) Perhaps the best example is the Community Reinvestment Act, a tool that hasbeen very successfully used by organizers but one that requires painstaking analyses ofHMDA data. Research has been critical to other areas of organizing as well. Labormarket analyses have been conducted to provide the informational ammunition for wageand job related organizing campaigns; research on toxicity and pollutants has been usedin environmental campaigns; gentrification studies have been used to fight for housing set


19/24

19

asides, and the like. Organizing has also incorporated new tools such as power analysesand message framing exercises in the development of campaign strategies. GIS mappinghas been used to document community needs and governmental responsiveness. Thesesophisticated tools often require the enlistment of academic expertise. In fact, accordingto Gary Delgado, there has been more collaboration between community organizers and

academic institutions than there has between community organizing networks. Academicinstitutions provide much of the actual research, as well as research training and otherexpertise. (1994)40

Collaborative possibilities also exist around learning and teaching practices. CommunityFellows programs provide opportunities for community leaders to engage in teaching,learning and research activities on college campuses. In many instances the communityfellow is paired with a faculty person or graduate student in ways that allow forreciprocal mentoring.41 Community based learning courses can provide students withhands on community experience while augmenting the staffing capacity of communityorganizations.

42Occidental College hired an IAF trained community organizer to head its

Center for Community Based Learning which is responsible for developing courses thatbring the university and community together in mutually respectful and productive ways.(Mott, n.d.)

Although space limitations prevent a full-blown excavation, there are many examples ofcollaborative practices between universities and communities that are focused onfurthering democratic ends and supporting those individuals and organizations that areengaged in such work. However, despite their number, these efforts, as Andrew Mottaccurately noted, exist on the margins of universities (n.d:56) and, therefore, are alwaysthreatened with extinction. Thus, an area for potential collaboration is in the battle tobring these programs from the margins to the mainstream. There is a lot that we canlearn about strategies, tactics and organizing from our colleagues in the trenches and,organizers have a lot to gain from the development of more university programs thatsupport their efforts. Moreover, there is strong precedent for refashioning highereducation around the larger goals of citizenship and democracy. The creator and firstpresident of the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper, clearly viewed theuniversity as central to the well being of democracy. The university, I contend, is the

40 Examples of such research collaborations include: The Policy Research Action Group (PRAG) inChicago which involves 5 institutions of higher education; The Center For Research and Urban Learning(CURL) at Loyola University in Chicago; the University of Massachusetts at Lowell; the Research Instituteon Social and Economic Policy within the Center for Labor and Research Studies at Florida InternationalUniversity.41

The Center For Research and Urban Learning (CURL) at Loyola University in Chicago has had such aprogram for many years. Similarly, UCLA had a Community Fellows program but, according to AndrewMott, cut back on it when they decided to increase the universitys academic profile, thus cutting back onprograms deemed peripheral to that objective. (Mott, n.d.)42 Community based placements for students can also be problematic if the student has no preparation forthe work, if the placement is viewed by the instructor as serving primarily the needs of the student, and ifthe community work is not tied to critical reflection activities. Unfortunately, this has come to dominatemost of the service learning universe. (cf Walker: 2000) However, when constructed thoughtfully and incollaboration with the community partner and when grounded in a larger political and social analysis, suchplacements can be a very enriching and useful experience for all.


20/24

20

prophet of democracythe agency established by heaven itself to proclaim the principlesof democracyIt is the university that must guide democracy into the new fields of artsand literature and science. It is the university that fights the battles of democracy(1905:19-20, in Harkavy, 2006:7) Similarly, Charles W. Eliot, in transforming HarvardCollege from a small, languishing school into the premier research university in the

country, asserted that At bottom most of the American institutions of higher educationare filled with the democratic spirit of serviceableness. Teachers and students alike areprofoundly moved by the desire to serve the democratic community. (Vesey,1965:119 inHarkavy, 2006:10-11). More recently, Alexander Astin proclaimed that when itcomes to describing its educational mission, the typical college or university will uselanguage such as preparing students for responsible citizenship, developing character,developing future leaders, preparing students to serve society, and so forth. (1997:210-211, in Harkavy 2006:11) Holding institutions of higher education accountable to theirdemocratic mission is indeed a battle worth fighting.

Expanding the democratic franchise requires deliberate, concerted action. In contrast to

the standard textbook portrayal of democracy as a well functioning set of institutions, weneed to treat democracy as an on-going battle that requires continual work. If we are tohave policies that serve the broadest possible spectrum of society, we need a vigilantcitizenry that is well trained, well educated, and highly motivated to participate in thepublic life. Such a citizenry can demand and create the kind of opportunities formeaningful participation that ensure the marriage of accountability, deliberation andparticipation with strong, effective and responsible leadership. The alternative is tocontinue down the path of increasing inequality, corruption, cynicism, and alienationfrom government and politics. No democracy can last for very long on such shakyfoundations.

.


21/24

21

References

The American National Election Studies (www.electionstudies.org). THE ANES GUIDETO PUBLIC OPINION AND ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR. Ann Arbor, MI: University ofMichigan, Center for Political Studies.

APSA Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. (2004) AmericanDemocracy in an Age of Rising Inequality. Perspectives on Politics , December 2004,v2#4:651-666.

Bennett, Sharareh Frouzesh. 2005. An Analysis of the Depiction of DemocraticParticipation in American Civic Textbooks. Paper presented at the German-AmericanConference on Responsible Citizenship, Education, and the Constitution. Freiburg,Germany, September 12-16, 2005

Berry, J., K. Portney, and K. Thomson (1993). The Rebirth of Urban Democracy

(Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press).

Blanc, S, M. Goldwasser, and J. Brown. (2003) From the Ground Up: The Logan SquareNeighborhood Associations Approach to Building Community Capacity. (Chicago, IL:Prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Logan SquareNeighborhood Association.. February 2003

Carlo, F. A. Powell, L. Vazquez, S. Daniels, C. Smith, and K. Mediratta and A. Zimmer(2005). Youth Take the Lead on High School Reform Issues. inRethinking Schools.Volume 19 No. 4 - Summer 2005 (www.rethinkingschools.org)

CIRCLE, 2002. Youth Civic Engagement, Basic Facts and Trends. January 9.

Coles, R. (2006). Of Tensions and Tricksters: Grassroots Democracy Between Theoryand Practice. In Perspectives on Politics. September 2006, V4#3:547-561).

Danielson M. and J. Hochschild. (1998) Changing Urban Education: Lessons, Cautions,Prospectsin C. Stone (ed) Changing Urban Education (Lawrence, KS: University Pressof Kansas):250-276.

Delgado, G. (1994).Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in CommunityOrganizing in the 1990s. (Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center)

Delli Carpini, M and S. Keeter, 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why itMatters. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. (New York, NY: Free Press)

__________. 1938 Experience and Education. (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster)


22/24

22

Doherty, K. (1998) Changing Urban Education: Defining the Issues in C. Stone (ed)Changing Urban Education (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas):225-249.

Eliasoph, N. (1998) Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in EverydayLife. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).

Ferman, B. (1985) Governing the Ungovernable City: Political Skill, Leadership and theModern Mayor. (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press)

Ferman, B. (1996). Challenging the Growth Machine: Neighborhood Politics in Chicagoand Pittsburgh. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas)

Foley, M. J.D. McCarthy and M. Chaves. (2001). Social Capital, Religious Institutions,and Poor Communities in Saegert, S., J. P. Thompson, M.R. Warren (eds) SocialCapital and Poor Communities. (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation):215-245.

Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (New York, NY. Continum. 30

th

Anniversary Edition).

__________. (2001). Pedagogy of Freedom. (Lanham, MD. Rowman and LittlefieldPublishers, Inc.)

Friedland, L. and S.Morimoto. (2005). The Changing Lifeworld of Young People: Risk,Resume-Padding, and Civic Engagment. CIRCLE Working Paper 40. September 2005.www.civicyouth.org

Fung, A. (2004). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. (Princeton,NJ:Princeton University Press).

Gittell,M, B. Ferman and C. Price. (2006).Assessing Community Change (New York,NY: The Howard Samuels Center. Prepared for the Ford Foundation).

Harkavy, I. (2006). the role of universities inn advancing citizenship and social justicein the 21st century. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. V.1(1):5-37. (SantaMonica, CA: Sage Publications) www.sagepublications.com

Jefferson, T. (1939) On Democracy. (New York, NY:Mentor Books).

_______________. Phi Delta Kappan:1

Living Wage Resource Center. www.livingwagecampaign.org)

Livingston, C. (2006) Public Universities Chase Excellence, at a Price. New YorkTimes, December 20, 2006


23/24

23

Macedo, S. and others. (2005)Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices UndermineCitizen Participation and What We Can Do About It. (Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution Press).

McDonnell, L. (2000). Defining Democratic Purposes in McDonnell, L, P.M. Timpane

and R. Benjamin (eds) Rediscovering the Democratic Purposes of Education.(Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas):1-18

_____________, et al. (1990)Discovering What Schools Really Teach. (Santa Monica,CA: Rand Corporation)

Meier, D. et al (2004). Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act isDamaging our Children and Our Schools. (Boston, MA: Beacon Press)

Mott, A. (n.d.) University Education for Community Change: A Vital Strategy forProgress on Poverty, Race and Community-Building. (Washington, DC: Community

Learning Project) www.communitylearningproject.org

National Association of Secretaries of State. (1999). The New Millennium ProjectPartI: American Youth Attitudes on Politics, Citizenship, Government and Voting.(Washington, D.C: NASS)/ www.nass.org

Panetta Institute. (2000) Institute Poll Shows College Students Turned Off by Politics,Turned On By Other Public Service. www.panettainstitute.org

Public Editor. (2006) Public Colleges as Engines of Inequality New York TimesNovember 23, 2006

Putnam, Robert. (2000). Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity. New York, NY Simon and Schuster.

Schorr, L.B. (1997) Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods toRebuild America. (New York, NY: Anchor Books).

Siranni, C and L. A. Friedland. (2005). The Civic Renewal Movement: CommunityBuilding and Democracy in the United States. (Dayton, OH: The Charles F. KetteringFoundation).

Stone, C. (1998) Urban Education in Political Context. in C. Stone (ed) ChangingUrban Education (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas):1-22.

Tocqueville, A. (1956)Democracy in America (New York, NY:Mentor Books)

Uggen, C and J. Manza. (2002). Democratic Contraction: Political Consequences ofFelon Disenfranchisement in the United States. ASA, V67 #6, December, 2002:777-803.


24/24

Verba, S., K. Schlozman and H. Brady. (1995) Voice and Equality. (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press).

Walker, T. (2000). The Service/Politics Split: Rethinking Service to Teach Political

Engagement. PSOnline, September, 2000: 647-649 www.apsanet.org

Warren, M.R. (2001) Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize Democracy(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

Williams, L. (2004) The Issue of our Time: Economic Inequality and Political Power inAmerica. Perspectives on Politics , December 2004, v2#4:683-690

Zukin, C., S. Keeter, M. Andolina, K. Jenkinsg and M. Delli Carpini. (2006). A NewEngagement? Political Participation, Civic Life and the Changing American Citizen.(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).

Documents

Reclaiming Democracy Through Civil Society