Teaching Apathy
The Failure of American Universities
by Barry Dolinger
PDF Version | Print Version
The promotion of democracy is somewhat of an obsession these days. Guided by the idealism of thinkers like President Woodrow Wilson, America has spent the past century promoting democracy throughout the world. During World War II and the Cold War, the United States encouraged global democracy as a positive contrast to the threats of fascism and communism. Most recently, America has sacrificed many lives to advance liberty in opposition to its newer nemeses, terrorism and extremism. The United States cannot afford to expend so much political and economic capital to develop foreign nations while it ignores signs of a failing democracy on the home front.
For democracy is failing. At least, this is what many social scientists are currently claiming. Scholars such as Robert Putnam, James Coleman, Cox, Bott, and Granovetter have all aided in showing that American citizens are engaging less and less in activities to promote social and political justice. This trend, however, is not only occurring on a national leve—it is happening at the University of Pennsylvania as well. For the past two years, I assisted Dr. Henry Teune in conducting research examining the level of democratic participation among students at Penn. (This measured the aptitude, attitudes, and actions of students in relating to democracy in the United States and in general to the broader society as a whole.) Previous studies have shown that democracy value corresponds with social capital; i.e. people who have high levels of democracy value are more likely to engage in social capital, and vice versa. The data were shocking—over the course of a student’s time at Penn, his relationship to democratic citizenship actually decreased.
In the following essay, I will attempt to explain this phenomenon. In order to do so, I must first explain what “social capital” is, in what ways it is disappearing, and why the university, specifically, is a crucial case study. Only after evaluating all of this information can I suggest what I think is the underlying cause of this growing malaise.
The decline in what has been termed “social capital” is arguably one of the most serious domestic problems in modern day America.1 The phrase “social capital” draws from the economic term “capital,” used to describe money invested with the hope that the money will increase with the growth of the venture in which it is invested. So too, the term “social capital” is used to explain a concept whereby people invest money, actions, and time in helping the lives of others and the community at large, all based on the notion that such help will cause a benefit to the overall society of which the original helper is a part.2 Perhaps the clearest definition was given by Dr. Robert Putnam, a professor of political science at Harvard University, in his book Bowling Alone:
Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals—social networks and norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense, social capital is closely related with what some have called ‘civic virtue.’ The difference is that ‘social capital’ calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital.3
In a sense, everyone benefits from an improved society, both individually and communally. “Social capital can thus be simultaneously a ‘private good’ and a ‘public good.’ Some of the benefit from an investment in social capital goes to bystanders, while some of the benefit rebounds to the immediate interests of the person making the investment.”4 For many scholars, this concept of helping to build the social capital is a central part of citizenship. In order to truly be a responsible citizen who lives up to his communal obligations, it is necessary to help build the community at large through actions dedicated toward an increase in “social capital.”5 “Frequent interaction among a diverse set of people tends to produce a norm of generalized reciprocity. Civic engagement and social responsibility entail mutual obligation and responsibility for action.”6
Nevertheless, many will read a term like social capital and think it a grandiose idea developed to describe imaginary trends in the academic ivory tower. In truth, however, social capital can be seen throughout society. It is present in all activities that foster positive interaction among citizens of the United States. Examples of social capital include volunteering for a neighborhood crime watch, a local soup kitchen, or a homeless shelter. People who are active in political causes, such as those who led the civil rights movement, create social capital. Social capital can even be seen in those who simply take the time to converse, building trust and relationships with neighbors, friends, and other members of society. Social capital, then, is any interaction which helps promote social good.
As Putnam and others most recently documented, positive civic relationships and the building of social capital have surprisingly large effects on a variety of areas in daily life ranging from education to crime, from economic prosperity to internal happiness. Geographic areas with higher social capital (be they states, cities, or neighborhoods) correlate with lower rates of school dropout, juvenile and general crime, child poverty, and higher levels of economic prosperity.7 Some scholars have even shown that individuals benefiting from social capital live longer, healthier, and happier lives.8
However, social capital is on the decline. “There is an agreement amongst many commentators, for instance, that in advanced Western societies there is a pervasive social disintegration. Although there has been a broad increase in the number of voluntary civic organizations, many have no members at all. In fact, the actual membership of civic organizations has been cut to one tenth of what it once was between the 1960s and 1990s.”9 Simply put, people are not joining the organizations that would help them participate socially.
The decrease of social capital is hardly surprising given the fact that the institutions that promote it are on the decline, as well. These institutions fall mainly into two categories: political and religious. It is no secret that voter turnout in the United States is low. Additionally, levels of political efficacy and grassroots activism have fallen dramatically. “Throughout their lives and whatever their station in life and their level of political interest, baby boomers have been less likely to vote than their parents and grandparents,” with a strong overall downward trend.10
One reason for this political decline lies in the processes by which U.S. politics have developed. Earlier in American history, each citizen was truly able to participate in the democratic adventure. As Alexis De Tocqueville, the nineteenth-century French political philosopher and scholar of American democracy, observed:
The people are therefore the real directing power; and although the form of the government is representative, it is evident that the opinions and prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the people are hindered by no permanent obstacles from exercising a perpetual influence on the daily conduct of affairs. In the United States, the majority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all countries in which the people are supreme. This majority is principally composed of peaceable citizens, who, either by inclination or by interest sincerely wish the welfare of their country.11
Today, however, the government is a large body that is seemingly impenetrable to the average person. “The problem of scale is certainly a major challenge in all modern political communities: these are very large societies, where the civic activity of one citizen is rarely perceptible.”12 Indeed, it is unlikely that individuals will spend time and effort advancing causes through complicated and slow bureaucratic channels. Hence, the very governmental framework is discouraging toward individual engagement.
A further cause of political withdrawal is the corruption within Washington that has been so broadly publicized since the presidency of Richard Nixon in the 1970s. Since then, there have been numerous scandals within both the Democrat and Republican parties. Whether it was the Iran-Contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration during the 1980s, the Monica Lewinsky affair during the Clinton Administration, or the travails of Jack Abramoff today, incidents of corruption fill our recent political history. People are repulsed by this political climate, which no longer seems noble but greedy and corrupt.
Political institutions have not been the only to decline. Religious institutions and the decline therein have been at the center of the modern day reduction in civic engagement and, consequently, social capital. “Religiosity rivals education as a powerful correlate of most forms of civic engagement.”13 In fact, half of all philanthropy and half of all volunteering occurs in a religious context.14 This may be because most, if not all, religious systems encourage members to take an active role in giving charity, helping the needy, and generally reaching beyond individual needs. However, participation within organized religion has experienced a significant decline over time. In the thirty years between 1965 and 1995, 50 percent fewer people were involved in religion.15 Although there are obvious difficulties in measuring and interpreting statistics related to individuals’ religious beliefs, the trend seems strong and clear. Many have fallen away from religion and many who were once seeking religious paths in life have turned to newer kinds of spiritual answers, related more to individual spiritual growth than to religious communities of the past.16 This dramatic decline has had devastating affects for civic engagement in the United States.
There is, however, another institution that has traditionally produced the kind of people willing to actively participate in civic society, helping to build the social capital important to so many vital societal concerns. This institution is the university. Traditionally, the universities were founded with the aim of promoting graduates who would actively help to build the civic nature of the United States. The role of the universities was to teach the brightest students how to actively engage and better American society. According to Haddow, the leading scholar in the history of the university system in the United States, the most advanced students would study courses in ethics where they would examine the role of the individual within the context of the larger polity as well as the responsibility of individuals toward one another.17 Universities were not interested in producing students who would earn the best possible living for future donations, but rather in educating citizens who would make meaningful contributions to society. Some students were to enter the political realm and make their voice heard there, whereas others were to use their specific skills and interests to make major differences throughout the variety of professional callings. According to the charter of Yale College as stated in 1701, the main goal was to shape students who, “through the blessings of the almighty God may be fitted for the publick employment both in Church & Civil State.”18 The goal of the universities was for students to enter professions and, armed with their skills and education, work for the public good.
As was the case at most universities of the time, this civic ideal was an integral part of the development of the University of Pennsylvania. This idea was seen throughout the writings of founder Benjamin Franklin, and articulated as recently as 1930, in the graduation speech at the University of Pennsylvania:
The true greatness of an educational institution is in the lives and characters of those whom she trains for service to city and state. The Roman matron, Cornelia, was eternally right in regarding as her choicest possessions the sons whom she was rearing to worthy manhood and useful living. So this University may point to her graduates as her living monuments…the sons and daughters of Pennsylvania have gone as living representatives to build their lives into the communities of the commonwealth.19
Words like this were not empty, but rather, were representative of the strong civic attitude central to the founding principles of the University system.
Unlike the political and religious institutions that have experienced dramatic decline in the last thirty years, the university system has grown stronger than ever. According to U.S. government data, college attendance of high school graduates was up from 44 percent in 1971 to 62 percent in 1995, with all signs indicating that the numbers will only continue to increase.20 Furthermore, the ethnic diversity of universities has increased even more dramatically then the overall numbers during this time.21 Combine the historic mission of the university (i.e. promotion of civic engagement) and the strong growth in university attendance, and one might assume that the University remains today an institution vital to the construction of necessary social capital. This is unfortunately not the reality on the ground.
Large amounts of research have been presented at numerous national and international conferences showing that the university has in large part halted the promotion of the civic institution once so central to its formation. The Wingspread declaration, presented at January 2000 meeting of the Council of Europe, stated the following after days of examining universities throughout the United States:
Higher education can contribute to civic engagement, but most research universities do not perceive themselves as part of the problem or of its solution. Whereas universities were once centrally concerned with “education for democracy” and “knowledge for society,” today’s institutions have often drifted from their civic mission.22
This statement and others like it have spurred a flurry of recent interest and studies designed at examining the reasons and root causes for such a change, in hopes of evaluating possible solutions to this grave problem. The public institutions that used to promote civic engagement and help build social capital have experienced steady declines. The university, which has evaded this fate, has nevertheless ceased promoting the civic engagement so vital to the American social fabric.
It was with this in mind that several students and I conducted research aimed at evaluating the internal trends of civic citizenship within the University of Pennsylvania. After we read data that outlined the severe decline of the promotion of civic engagement in modern universities, we focused our research on the nuts and bolts of the problem. We sought to analyze and understand the workings of the University of Pennsylvania, to discover why the promotion of civic engagement is no longer a central factor in the university system.
Research was conducted for two years in a seminar led by Dr. Henry Teune regarding democratic citizenship in students attending the University of Pennsylvania. The survey measured various subsections of citizenship under the rubric of “Literacies and Understanding,” “Competencies and Communication,” “Actions and Engagement,” and “Values.”23 In a development that is telling of the larger problem, the category entitled “Values” was the most closely related subcategory to the entire overall index of democratic citizenship. Essentially, students’ values, rather than actions or knowledge, are the best predictor of whether or not they will be active citizens.
The results from the project revealed many more important findings. Students in the College of Arts and Sciences, who receive a broadly based liberal arts education, have a strong positive correlation with democratic citizenship, whereas students in the other schools (Nursing, Wharton, and Engineering) all had non existent or negative correlations with democratic citizenship. However, even the one seemingly positive trend within the College does not hold up under further scrutiny, since the degree of correlation between democratic citizenship and college students decreases each year within the University of Pennsylvania. While freshmen in the College have a correlation coefficient of r=.205 (p=.01) with democratic citizenship, the relationship between seniors and democratic citizenship decreases to r=.180 (p=.05).24 What the data show is the opposite of what one might expect—gaining an education at the University of Pennsylvania is related to a weakening in the character of the citizens it produces.
The data also show that belonging to any subgroup within the Penn community is actually negatively related to democratic citizenship. Joining fraternities, participating in athletics, and being active in religious and political organizations all relate poorly to citizenship.25 Indeed, some of the very organizations designed to promote citizenship are actually related to its weakening. Therefore, the university can be described as a community of communities, each essentially isolated from the others and even more so from the local, national, and global communities within which they exist.
Other scholars see the cause for this in some kind of amorphous “generational change,”26 and call for a return to the good old days. In my estimation, this does not address the one thread running throughout all of the decline in civic engagement and social capital, a broad trend towards greater individualization. The dearth of participation in political causes stems, in my opinion, not from a lack of modern efficacy, but from a lack of desire. If people truly desired to participate, there are more than a fair amount of channels to utilize. In contemporary society, most citizens focus on their own needs rather than on those of others. In a recent editorial, columnist and noted social commentator Charles Krauthammer described what he termed “contemporary radical individualism” taking hold of society in the United States.27 A thorough analysis of the data at Penn leads me to believe that this individualism is in fact a root cause of the abundance of apathy on Penn’s campus and American society as a whole.
The conclusion that individualism is, in fact, a leading attitudinal root of the broad civic withdrawal at Penn was further supported by a series of focus groups. In these groups, many students who participated in the project were interviewed in small groups of three to five people in order to better understand the spaces in between the data. Even the most active students expressed a high degree of apathy in their responses. One student stated, “If you cancel anatomy, I would sign up for things that I’m interested in. I might volunteer in West Philly.…You make time for things that are important. But I have enough things that I’m doing not to make time for other things.” 28 Student after student echoed the preeminence of individual concerns. “I read news a lot, but here my concerns are local, what’s for dinner? What classes am I taking? People are so apathetic.” 29 To perhaps state the obvious, it would seem that Penn students are apathetic because they are unduly concerned with their own lives; most students view their personal lives as paramount. And that is exactly the root problem. The attitude that one’s own life is too important to sacrifice time or resources for others underlies the problematic culture at Penn, and in America as a whole.
However, hope is far from lost. The university, with its continued growth, could provide the perfect forum for a response to this dilemma. At universities nationwide, educators help shape the values of students who are considering what they will do with their lives and what values are most important. This is the perfect setting for solving a problem that is largely attitudinal. Universities might consider mandatory courses on civic duty, and push a strong curricular and extra-curricular agenda designed at promoting civic citizenship. Educators and leaders of universities need to send powerful messages about civic duty to students. Only a strong response will help reverse these troubling trends.
Barry Dolinger is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is a Political Science major and a Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations minor.
Notes
1. Barbalet, J.M., “Vagaries of Social Capital: Citizenship, Trust, and Loyalty,” Citizenship, Community, and Democracy, ed. by Ellie Vasta (Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000), 92.
2. Ibid., 92.
3. Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 19.
4. Ibid., 20.
5. Barbalet, J.M., “Vagaries of Social Capital: Citizenship, Trust, and Loyalty,” Citizenship, Community, and Democracy, ed. by Ellie Vasta (Great Britain: Macmillan Press Ltd., 2000), 92.
6. Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 21..
7. Ibid., 297.
20. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Trends in the Well- Being of America’s Children & Youth, 1997 Edition,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
21. Ibid.
22. Boyte, Harry and Elizabeth Hollander. “The Civic Responsibilities of Research Universities,” The Wingspread Declaration, Council of Europe, January 10, 2000.
23. Dubin, Max, and Inguaggiato, Anthony and Travis Morello, The Penn Model, Index, and Survey: Measuring the Impact of Undergraduate Education on Democratic Development and Civic Engagement, June 30, 2005.
24. Dolinger, Barry, The Necessary Response to a Modern Decline in the Promotion of Active Citizenship: Historical Context and a Case Study at the University of Pennsylvania, 45.
25. Ibid., 50.
26. Putnam, 283.
27. Krauthammer, Charles, “Pandora and Polygamy,” Washington Post, Editorial: A19, 17 March 2006.
28. Student interview, Focus Group, 5 November 2005.
29. Student interview, 5 November 2005.