From Passion to Politics: What Moves People to Take Action?

Welcome: Anne-Marie Slaughter '80, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Slaughter:  background to colloquium topic.  Paul Slovic talked on what brings people to action. Felt worth building 2 days around this question.  many answers:  political commitment, social conscience, enlightened self-interest.  May also be deeper psychological explanation, familiar to those who have to think about how to frame issues to move people to take action, organize, make difference in the world.  That is core of what WWS is about.  Tools to do this in govt, non-govt, and citizen capacity.

Moderator: Larry Bartels,  Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Bartels:  If read great moments in history, can find instances of individual heroic action, but striking that action is collective and based on social resources rather than individual calculations.  That is the basis of our panel.  Talk about social networks, cognition, how perception derived from connections with other people.  Just read a paper on turnout in elections.  2006 primary elections.  one mailing talked about civic duty.  another mailing had a list of previous voting histories and indicated it would be updated after elections.  second mailing far more effective.

Intro panelists:

- Delia Baldassarri.  written articles on public opinion.  will join princeton faculty in september

individuals imbedded in tangle of social relations and how this shapes their reasons for action.  We are used to thinking of people in terms of gender, ethnicity, etc.  To explain people's behavior with these criteria. 

1. challenge idea that indiv interests can be assumed as given and that political action emerges from group identity

2. consequences of diffferent forms of social action

Main question of colloquium, what motivates people to move beyond awareness to action?  This assumes that people know in advance what to act for, and that in the end the problem is just one of coordination.  I propose that need to move a step back and ask how interest is shaped first.  In case of katrina, might be logical to say that awareness can be followed by action.  But in this example, aside from immediate humanitarian intervention, all that follows (reconstruction initiatives) have to be defined in political terms - priorities, political criteria, should we reduce inequality, should we favor business and everything will follow.  The interests of individuals are far from clear.  Need to think of interests separate from action.  Need to ask how common good can be perceived as "common".

Germany 1989, people in streets in Berlin claiming more power.  After few weeks, became "we want to be united with other side of wall".  example of how starting out in one way can end up with collective goal which is different from inital one.

Puzzle:  poor people don't vote?  scholars assume political interests determined by economic status.  but in reality determined by multiple factors.  Poor people might not perceive econ status as political identity.  might think more about ethnic or religious group, and act accordingly.  What becomes political status depends on the people around them.  

Consider input on political action.

Example:  2 cities, a and b.  Same social characteristics, but differ in economic status.  In city a, rich and poor live together.  in city b, separated.  People in b more likely to become aware of their similarities and develop common interest that might lead to political action.  Might lead to social organization.  While in city a, might not have the awareness or organization.

Ability to translate individual association into something that serves collective interest.  

We don't need to look only at how many people associate, but the way in which they associate.  e.g. breakdown of Weimar republic.  high level of association, but there were no forms that connected individuals across class lines.  

Thinking of individual not by characteristics, but in terms of the interactions in which they are imbedded is an important aspect and important way to think of associations from different perspective.

Second panelist:  Robert Putnam.  Prof. of Public Policy at Harvard.  involved in research on changing role of religion in contemporary America, which is basis of remarks today.  (has PP)

Will talk about role that people and social networks play in process of moving people to action.  What some people refer to as social capital.  Degree of interaction among neighbors, civic organizations.

Go back to E. Germany.  Study of mass demos in 1989 before fall of Wall asked who got involved?  One of obvious guesses is that it was people with sharp grievance.  It turns out that had nothing to do with who showed up.  Who showed up is people who were asked by a friend to go.  That is also best predictor of who took part in massive political organization.  

Worth asking why social networks have this power?

- partly information.  if have a friend involved, more likely to hear about it.

- but dilemma of political action.  to have any action, have certain amount of trust in collective obligation.  "i will if you do".  That sense of obligation often arises, not out of immediate relation, but relations in multiple ways.  In orgs where people are connected in multiple ways, easier to resolve into action.  Effect of pre-existing networks is important.  e.g. Katrina refugees.  

- interacting with others has effect on our own identity.  Social networks can affect what we think our interest is.  One important example is religion.  

Half of all social capital in America today is religious.  America is unusually religious relative to rest of world, which is secularizing.  in history, ebbs and flows of religiosity.  In 1740's and 50's, again in 1830's, again around 1900's.  Bush has talked about another period.  Historically, these awakenings have been associated with progressive, not conservative politics.  But this time in evangelical movement, which is associated with conservative politics.  But religious fervor did precede other moments - organization of revolutionary movement started with religious networks.  Connections of trust built among evangelicals formed basis of trust among patriots.  NJ was divided at that time and what allowed action was not pledge of allegiance was first great awakening. 

Second great awakening led to abolitionist movement.  Again there is a connection to evangelical effervescence.  This web of connections led directly to organization of abolitionist movement.  

A good argument that much of progressive era was related to immediately preceding period of social gospel.  Embodied by Woodrow Wilson.

Finally, civil rights movement emerged directly out of churches.  

Not to say all political consequences of evangelical activism is progressive.  There have been some conservative consequences.  Progressives who distance themselves from religion have distanced selves from important source of political organization.

Putnam's current research:  Religious Americans are better neighbors and citizens than non-religious Americans.  But why?

The more religious America is, the more she volunteers, the more she gives to religious causes and secular causes.  more likely to work on community projects, attend public meetings, more likely to vote in local elections, more likely to take part in protest.  This is so even on the left of the political spectrum.

(Shows graph of degree of religiosity, corresponding to civic engagement)

Conclusion: religious people, by many measures, more likely to be involved in community and civic life.  But why?

- Might be because sat through a lot of sermons.  Heard the golden rule.  Maybe just soaked up more of that moralizing.  Can find some evidence that this is true.  Hard to measure, because if you ask about altruism, everybody will say they care. 

- Religious people might have more friends, and therefore be more involved in social activities.  But this factor not as big as expected.  Real factor is that if have personal networks within religious community, more likely to be involved.  Having religious friends seem to carry more weight.  why important?  It says that praying alone doesn't cut it.  If you are really devout, but don't talk to anybody about that, not any more likely to be civicly involved.  When you converse with a shared moral community makes it more likely that you will do something when asked to do it.

- Turns out, doesn't matter how much believe in heaven or hell.  Denominational differences don't have any independent other effect on whether more civicly involved.

There is a current bestseller that says religious people are more generous than others.  That is half-true.  Book says conservatives more generous.  But  if control for religiosity, liberals actually more generous.  A lot of other things coming out of study would be interesting to talk about if we had more time.

Bush asked if right that we are in Fourth Great Awakening.  Putnam says half-right.  Part of America is offended by this.  America in religious terms becoming more polarized.  Some of us more religious, and some less religious.  Secondly, greater degree over last 15 years of correlation between politics and religion.  Now there are fewer progressives in church and fewer unchurched conservatives.  Politics and religion more closely aligned.  Will probably see this in upcoming election.  More than in living memory, we are more divided religiously.  

Overwhelmingly, secular Americans say religion is good for America.  And most religious Americans accept that you can be non-religious and still be good.  Americans are tolerant.  Inherit religion less than other countries.  1/3 to 1/2 of Americans worship in a way different from parents.  That means most of us have good friends and relatives in other religions.  That means we are knit together with other religious traditions.  Helps account for Americans being both very religious and relatively tolerant.  

(11:40am open for question)

Dean Slaughter:  when talking about "moral community", to what extent is religion a stand-in for moral community.  Often say Princeton education is a moral education.  Don't mean religious, but sense of moral ethos.  part of what supposed to do.  Ethic of good behavior.  Question is:  to what extent can you look at moral community not bound by faith in a higher being?

Putnam:  I chose term "moral community" to allow that possibility.  This question often asked.  When press hard and ask what other examples of moral community, can't find examples.  Religion is different, because if you believe about it, that's what it's about.  

Q:  Struck of notion of equality.  That we are children of the same God.  How does this cut across other kinds of values?

Putnam:  Can be committed to equality and not be religious.  But in American religion has been an important factor.  Religion has provided rhetorical resources for advocates of egalitarian policies.  e.g. Martin Luther King used religious valued to make everybody feel we had moral obligations.  Putnam grew up Methodist in small town in Ohio.  Remembers when preacher said "racism is a sin".  That implicates own religious conviction in fight for equality.  As Left moves away from religious roots, lose rhetorical ability to say "that's a sin".

One reason religion has effect it does is that it provides external point.  That's why Second Great Awakening so effective.  White Americans had been perfectly content to live with slavery for so long.  

Q:  Do you know about Metropolitan Org and Industrial Areas Foundation and how it works through churches, synagogues to align social action.  Holding community politicians accountable.  

Putnam:  Have written about it and am a member.

Q: Values instilled by Princeton is my religion.  Many alum feel same way.  Could Putnam make comparison of research on Italy and U.S.?

Putnam:  Religion has played different role in Italian civic life than in America.  Fundamentally because the church was there first in Italy.  More hierarchical.  

Baldassarri:  Different than U.S., in Italy fought against the church to create a state.  Candidates never present selves from religious standpoint.  Grew up in religious organizations.  But others who grew up in Communist area had exactly same experiences, but organized by Party.  Can see that civic activists in both areas are exactly the same.  

Q: Read Putnam book, but think he is wrong about direction of public policy.  Think associations do NOT lead to generalized trust or political engagement.  Seem to be saying that it is mobilization that makes a difference, not strength of beliefs.

Putnam:  theory is not that being involved groups makes you more trusting, but makes you more trustworthy.  Trust is a symptom but not a causal role. 

End session