Assessing Our Civic Health

In less than a month, voters throughout the United States will go to the polls to elect the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate, as well as a host of state and local officials.

Despite the rancor of this year’s campaign, the public appears to be paying attention. According to a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 70 percent of Americans have been discussing the issues with their families and friends, and 43 percent have done so while at work, an interest level exceeding that of 1994, when Republicans won control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Yet, according to two groups of experts, one largely liberal, the other primarily conservative, these signs of involvement in the political process may be misleading.

By a variety of measures, reports a largely liberal group assembled by the National Conference on Citizenship, a federally chartered organization founded in 1946 to encourage a more active citizenry, Americans show less desire than ever to be engaged with civic and political life, following a trend that began in the 1970s.

Making matters worse, says the National Civic Literacy Board, a group sponsored by the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute, students at the nation’s colleges and universities have a poor understanding of basic facts and concepts in American history, political science, and economics. The institute commissioned the report as part of its efforts to promote teaching about free societies.

If Americans were indeed growing less concerned and knowledgeable about the responsibilities of citizenship, that would be troubling. But the problem with reports like these — and many of the efforts undertaken by foundations and nonprofit groups to foster greater civic involvement — has more to do with the concept of civic duties they embody, one which has surprisingly little to do with being an American citizen.

The National Conference on Citizenship’s report is the latest in a series of studies, largely crafted by Harvard’s Robert Putnam and the Brookings Institution’s William Galston.

In addition to widely accepted expressions of citizenship, such as voting, giving, and volunteering, the report examines trends in other social activities, such as attending religious services, eating with family and friends, and trusting other people and institutions, all of which have stayed the same or become less common in the past four decades.

It acknowledges the rise in the number of nonprofit organizations during this period, but is dismissive on the grounds that involvement in many of these groups is more a matter of writing checks than actively participating. Likewise, recent rises in volunteering by young people or awareness of political issues are noted, but treated only as “signs of hope.”

These data and their implications can be debated, as scholars and nonprofit leaders have been doing since the studies began to appear. But it is also important to recognize that the idea of good citizenship advanced in this and the earlier reports is a peculiarly far-reaching one. Simply doing one’s duty by voting or serving on a jury, or by giving and volunteering when asked, or saluting the flag and obeying the law is not enough, though that is what most Americans probably believe.

Instead, to the authors of the National Conference on Citizenship report and their allies in the philanthropic world, a nation’s “civic health” also requires people to join organizations, deliberate about policy issues, go to political meetings, write letters to officeholders, socialize with members of different racial or ethnic groups, trust other people, the news media, and government, and more.

Perhaps a country would be better governed, and its citizens happier, when more of its population do such things. But that too is arguable, along with the related question of whether being immersed in civic life is always desirable. (The World War II generation, the standard against which the civic ties of later cohorts are usually measured, also had a reputation for being excessively conformist, too trusting of government, and overly concerned about social and organizational status, rather than individual accomplishment.)

In any case, if even the more limited duties of citizenship are no longer as honored as they once were, persuading people to embrace more expansive and demanding ones would seem to be a daunting challenge.

In addition, although the National Conference on Citizenship’s report is titled “America’s Civic Health Index,” there is, in fact, nothing particularly American about it. Indeed, as Mr. Putnam’s own scholarly work has demonstrated, the concept of citizenship the report embodies is meant to be a universal one, as applicable in Italy and Britain as in the United States.

But though both may be important, civic engagement requires more than just recognizing one’s legal rights and duties or becoming involved in a host of social and community relationships. It also calls for understanding and valuing the country of which one is a citizen: in other words, patriotism, not necessarily unquestioning, but still with sufficient devotion to make worthwhile the kinds of sacrifices citizenship may necessitate.

Yet, apart from suggesting that the 2001 terrorist attacks had an effect on young people, the National Conference on Citizenship’s report has little to say about how the attitudes of Americans toward their country may have changed in the last 40 years and what the consequences have been for civic life.

On that point, though more limited in scope, the National Civic Literacy Board’s report is useful by showing how much American college students have to learn about the United States.

To be sure, other studies suggest that civic knowledge among Americans has changed little over the years. But since today’s college students are more likely to be the future civic leaders than are people with less education, how little they know about — let alone, may appreciate — American traditions is more worrisome than how little involvement they have with voluntary associations or people from different backgrounds.

If interest in this year’s Congressional elections is any indication, the public may be eager to become more knowledgeable. Those concerned about American “civic health,” including political leaders and the press, as well as philanthropic groups, would do well to help them.

Leslie Lenkowsky is a professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University and a regular contributor to these pages. His e-mail address is llenkows@iupui.edu.