Our Future Environment

This is a paper proposal slightly off topic for this blog, but, the idea of civic engagement and youth participation is increasingly central to bringing environmental justice to the forefront of American minds.

The authors and discussion topics so far approached in this course have centered on how we define American national identity and political culture. Is American national identity solely race, religion, and shared social practices or is it also democratic ideals such as freedom, liberty, and equality? How do we foster a sense of shared identity or ideals when Americans, and “potential Americans” all look, act and think differently because we are from (or choose to identify with) different countries with different social practices?

In our readings and discussion about the “then and now” immigration wave, we question how to compare European immigration in the past, where skin color and social practices may be more similar to Anglo-Saxon “settlers” than Latin American and Asian immigrants whose differences are more readily apparent. In the Barone-Fonte debate Fonte states, “During our earlier immigration wave one century back we had self confident patriotic elites in politics, education, business, religion and civic association who insisted that new immigrants Americanize. Now we have diffident and divided elites who are either actively promoting anti-Americanization politics such as ‘multiculturalism’ or doing little to encourage assimilation.” But, the question remains, in this course and across the United States, assimilation to what?

Any appeal for assimilation back into traditional European American values would deny most of the diverse voices that can contribute to how we can actively construct a new adaptive American identity that is simply a healthy extension of our past. Schlesinger argues that a “cult of ethnicity” is set to create splits among Americans and immigrants and creates a people who have lost confidence in their American future. I would argue that Americans, no matter their racial, cultural, or ethnic background have a loss of confidence in America’s future (however that is defined) not because we think a shared identity is unimportant but because there are many social, economic and political forces pushing us into a consumer arena where we care about personal issues and ignore American identity. So how do we bring American identity and political culture back into mainstream discussion, discussion that can combine diverse voices and the roots of our country into a whole American identity?

An obvious reality is, yes we have ethnic and racial differences and yes these differences are mapping a new America. Due to this reality, as well as how and where we communicate, separate people are discussing their concerns in arenas where only other people like them are complaining. But where is this public arena where everyone supposedly discusses and engages in a messy but productive way?

So far in this discussion I have mentioned social practices which divide us, questions about what we should assimilate to, a loss of confidence in our ability to change anything beyond our daily lives, and a lack of a public arena for these discussions. I would like to ask what kind of public arena can exist for diverse Americans to discuss and actively shape an American identity. If we agree that America is most likely not going to revert back into an Anglo-Saxon protestant-centered country then we need to foster an American identity based on a social practice of political engagement equal to the prevalence of “traditional American” social practices such as thanksgiving or Independence Day.

An obvious arena for this social practice of political engagement is cyberspace but the problems I have discussed so far still exist in, and some would argue are allowed to flourish because of, cyberspace. Because citizens and immigrants use the online environment, a cyber space, for everything from signing petitions to social networking I would like to examine these problems in a few public cyber space sites, where “civic engagement” occurs but has the same problems so far discussed in physical space. Secondly, I will try to identify some key similarities and differences between how young adults participate in these two types of public spaces and what may be necessary to foster civic engagement (in a political rather than a volunteer sense) in any arena, physical or cyber. Third, I would like to identify public spaces in New York City, such as Union Square, where public discourse exists as a social practice and compare or contrast this to cyber spaces that also have a history of providing space for diverse voices to anyone who “passes by”. Lastly, I want to examine if providing an arena for public discussion promotes confidence in our ability to affect political processes (does it promote acts of civic engagement such as voting, protesting, promoting a political candidate) or it is just a public space where many private voices take turns promoting individual causes.

To address these questions I will have to examine how we currently define and promote civic engagement in any space. I will also examine the social capital concept and what Robert Putnam’s work on civic groups informs us about civic engagement in public physical spaces. I also will need to decided which online spaces to discuss and why.

My analysis will add to this discussion because I will use theorists central to environmental psychology which discuss how we construct and use public spaces. I will use Manuel Castells and Setha Low as a way to talk about this construction of space.

Filed under: fostering identity, observations and opinions, social justice on May 16th, 2008