Old Habits, New Reasons - Creighton University



Old Habits, New Reasons

Patrick Higgins

Flagler College

A Reflection on Civic Involvement

What does it mean to be an active member of society, a contributing member of your community, a civically active individual? Why does it matter? And why does it seem that if Rotaries, neighborhood watches, and local clubs of specific interests ceased to exist they would barely be missed? What happened to the spirit of the Greatest Generation and the sense of unity in their communities? Why did the children of this civically integrated Greatest Generation disintegrate? Why does the current generation coming of age appear to be making changes, and what can we suppose the future to hold for American civic life? Explaining how the pervasive attitudes among the generations have effected civic participation, the direction that civic participation has gone in the United States, a prospective outlook on where it will go, and possible reasons why the future of America may be one of increased civic engagement will be the purpose of this paper.

In America we have seen that civic activity has proven to be beneficial in creating communities that are cohesive and offer stability for citizens. It has been citizenship that is engaging that has provided for the types of communities that people desire to live in. It can be said that citizens want to live where the schools provide good education, the sanitation is satisfactory, and the roads are well kept. How exactly do these types of desires among citizens become the realities of their communities? Preceding the conversation that attempts to explain the history of civic engagement in the United States, its reasons and benefits, it is imperative for one to explain why the conversation of civic engagement is of such great importance.

Aristotle said, “Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?”[1] We must explore the reason why it is in fact important that citizens are satisfied, safe, and contributing societal members. In the context of this conversation one can say that the question raised by Aristotle is quite possibly the root of politics at the individual level and how it relates to the community. Of citizenship in the community he said that, “For here again there may be a difference of opinion.”[2] It is of a differing opinion as to what may the purpose of each individual in relation to his or her community. However, the question that Aristotle always comes back to is: Does this purpose that you have described further the ‘common good’ of the citizens? This is essentially the place where we attempt to come to resolutions that best serve citizens in a way that is ‘just’. What is ‘just’ is what is good for the citizens by and large, or the ‘common good’. “The core of Democracy is the notion that government reflects the views of the citizenry,”[3] and so, we resolve that it is best for humans to seek definition and application of the ‘just’ in their communities. When we seek the ‘just’, or in other words, the ‘common good’, in a collegial manner, we are most free because we are able to have a say in the things that are most directly affecting our lives. [4] It is what makes it possible for an individual to have a real degree of control over his or her life and environment. [5] A person who has become civically active as a result of the desire for the ‘common good’ of the community has come to an understanding of what it means to be a part of a community, and to take that claim a step further, a part of humanity.

Education is also crucial for the health of community, as it has been proven that higher educational levels are positively related to higher participation levels in communities.[6] It has however been the common misconception that civic activity is solely a result of increased levels of civic education.[7] People still must be informed of their citizenship, have the civic understanding, and knowledge, so as to be greater contributing engaged civic people. As John Adams said, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.”[8] It is essential to the preservation of any community that its citizens are actively serving and seeking to learn more about it.

But why is the ‘common good’ a good thing? Why is justice for all ‘just’? What does it mean to be ‘just’? And where does ‘just’ come from? Exploration of absolute truths will not be in this paper. One can look at the prospect of implementing the ideals of the ‘common good’ in a community and see that it fosters the ability for people to live with food, shelter, clothing, and provides security from those that may harm them. When people are provided with these most basic needs they are capable of making decisions about their lives and communities on a more subjective level. And as the Brookings Review article United We Serve? states, “Neighborliness, charity, and social responsibility are genuine virtues.”[9]

The Greatest Generation

This generation of Americans that was born between 1900 and 1940 was the group that brought us out of the Great Depression, through World War II, and into global superpower status. There was an attitude of hope and unity that this group of people possessed. Their hopes were conjured early on by people like Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in his First Inaugural Address on that cold day in March of 1933, would proclaim that, “Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work must no longer be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits.”[10] There was an attitude of purpose and duty to unite for the common good of everyone. American civic engagement increased drastically in the mid-twentieth century, following a time in which the government became more active in the lives of Americans than ever.[11] We had a group of Americans who had seen death and despair and came out stronger because of it and they had faith that their government was on their side.

For these American superstars it seems that things such as involvement in bowling leagues, churches, Rotaries, and PTA meetings would be tasks that could be completed while sleeping. Although I do not know whether people sleep at bowling tournaments and Rotarian activities, I have heard of people dozing off at PTA meetings and church services. The question of whether or not regimented involvement in these community activities could be accomplished sleeping or awake does not matter in answering the question of why so many people were involved in them. Some people say that it was simply because of the shared experience of having gone through the Great Depression and World War II that this generation felt linked to one another in such a way that they were prompted to be civically engaged.[12] There are also possible explanations drawn from the creation of social programs such as the GI Bill, as described by Suzanne Mettler. Her research, which explored how the GI Bill reached large numbers of the population, and how the Bill effected levels of civic participation gives us a greater understanding of how the government can effect civic participation.[13]

The GI Bill presents to us an interesting paradigm that helps us to better understand and explain the special circumstance of this unique Greatest Generation.

Under the GI Bill more Americans obtained a college education than ever before.[14] It is also observed that the level of education a person has completed is an exceptional indicator in explaining the level of ones civic engagement. The most interesting evidence is that we have a special circumstance in respect to the Greatest Generation. Although levels of education increased drastically following WWII, levels were still very low in comparison to that of the Baby Boomers, their children, who lack greatly in comparison to their parents in terms of civic activity.

There are conversations today in politics that analyze the effects of broad social organizations, and arguments for either side in regards to whether or not they are beneficial institutions for the ‘common good’. In the instance of the GI Bill which extended numerous social benefits, including higher education and vocational training, to returning veterans of World War II,[15] its benefits for the ‘common good’ were evident. It fostered increased education, which in turn fostered increased civic engagement. We see that, fifty-one percent of all retuning veterans, 7.8 million actually, took advantage of the educational benefits. [16] By 1947, veterans on the GI Bill accounted for 49% of students enrolled in American Colleges.[17] We see of the Greatest Generation that the group played, “…the leading civic role despite the fact that it received substantially less formal education than its children and grandchildren.”[18] For Americans born between the years 1900 and 1940 only one in four went beyond a high school education, as opposed to more than half of the Americans born after 1940.[19] It is evident that the existence of the GI Bill served as a function to get a multitude of American people educated. This still does not explain why this generation was more civically active than the generation of its children, who received more education. The increased level of education among the Greatest Generation increased the level of civic participation, but it was not the sole driving force. Instead, the desire to be educated was the same driving force that urged the citizens to be civically engaged. This is precisely because of the psychological implications that emerging out of World War II and The Great Depression triumphantly, and as a united group of people, may have had on the generation. [20]

Eric Oliver explains that psychological engagement in community life is determined by context: when people feel they have more in common with neighbors and have a greater sense of unity, interests in local issues increases.[21] The Greatest Generation was a group of American peoples with a new found appreciation for their circumstance as citizens of a now more prosperous and safe nation. And as Putnam explains, that as a generation of such profound unified accomplishment, they felt linked to one another in such a way that they were prompted to be civically engaged.[22] They were a generation that was seeking out the many opportunities before them. The advanced levels of education provided by means of the GI Bill, being one of these many opportunities, and another reason to place trust and thankfulness in their government.

It must also be understood that the economic state of the union at this time helped to foster the ability for these spirited civic participants to fulfill their desires. In the years following World War II, the United States entered one of the longest sustained economic expansions in the history of the nation.[23] In the following graph we see the steady rise in GNP that exists between 1945 and 1970.

[pic][24]

The economy was flourishing in a way that made it possible for a household to be supported by the income of a sole “bread winner” while still maintaining a comfortable middle class economic status.[25]

There was a great deal of expendable income as, “Real purchasing power rose by 22 percent between 1946 and 1960, allowing more people to satisfy both their needs and wants.”[26] This is not to say that all Americans were working white collar jobs. Quite the contrary, a good deal of Americans still worked as factory workers on assembly lines. Factory workers too, however, were able to take part in the American dream of owning a house and having two cars in the garage.[27] With the benefits of the GI Bill and its low-interest home mortgages the prospect of home ownership became a reality for many American families. In 1940 home ownership was the reality for forty three percent of Americans. By 1970 the number had risen to sixty three percent.[28] This generation of Americans experienced a life with more leisure time and an increased level of discretionary income. This allowed for the “American Dream” to be fulfilled fairly easily in comparison with the current economic situation in the United States; with the necessity of only one “bread winner”, and the leisure time that this provided, the ability of civic participation was more conducive to the lifestyle of these men and women. They would turn out in record numbers for a variety of community activities and organizational memberships were on rise like never before. [29]

[pic][30]

The graph above shows the average membership rate in thirty-two of the largest National Chapter based associations. The evidence reveals sharp increases in membership of organizations recorded following WWII. The numbers decline from the mean average for the twentieth century as the 1970s roll around, they take their sharpest decrease from the mean average from 1990-1997. It appears that as the Greatest Generation has aged, younger generations, namely their children, have not filled their places.

The Baby Boomers

President Kennedy declared in his inaugural address in 1961, “Let the word go forth…that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.”[31] So what happened to this unified spirit in America in respect to the generation that came of age in the 1960s? Why did the baby boomers put civic participation and community involvement on the back burner? Or did they just turn up the heat and let the flame burn out too quickly?

I first will look at the formative years of the Baby Boomer generation and analyze how the new educational model under which they were raised may have caused their disengagement.

The demand for better schools at all levels was further fostered in the 1950s by a growing consumer culture. The American dream of every family owning an automobile and a house with a yard could be achieved only through education…The curriculum of high schools became broader than it had been before the war…a host of subjects necessary for the pursuit of what Americans came to feel was the good life.[32]

It was necessary that education became something that could be relevant to everyday American life with very practical types of education being brought into the classroom such as, the need for social, civic, and economic competencies.[33] It is interesting when we examine the education factors and how they may have affected the levels of civic engagement among the Baby Boomers. It appears that the civic education the Boomers received did not spur the involvement that has been so strongly characterized by their parents. As examined earlier in a look at Putnam’s data, the number of those born after 1940 that attend college doubles, and, it is shown on this point that the great paradox of modern political participation is said to be found, “As aggregate levels of education, including civic education, have increased over the past several decades, so too has there been a downward trend in overall levels of participation.” [34] With increased education in civic virtue, awareness, and the example set by their civically overachieving parents, why did the baby boomers fail to step up to the plate?

Could it have possibly been that a newly found distrust in government during the 1960’s gave way to the individualism that now leaves the Baby Boomers ‘bowling alone’? It is quite possible and evidence suggests that this may have been the case.

Before Johnson fell for the tar baby of Vietnam, Americans believed their Presidents…The level of trust and therefore respect for authority was probably foolishly high. All of that changed in the fatal asininity of Vietnam. The baby boomers’ rites of passage turned into a huge oedipal over toppling of authority…[35]

The history of student activism in the life of American college students was at an all time high during the sixties as they participated in sit-ins, picket lines, and other demonstrations, petitioning the government, on issues from the war in Vietnam to the violations of the civil rights of African Americans.[36] We saw this idea of activism, although we do not see with it the long term involvement that is characterized by participation and membership of an Elks club, a Rotary, or a local church. It was a different kind of civic participation, which was in many instances, only short term. It was a cynical type of participation. This is not to say that milestones were not crossed in the strides of this political activism. However, as Lenkowsky describes, “…Baby Boomers, are often held up as models of political consciousness. But often, our marching and protesting and activism - even in the service of good causes - was not spurred by a healthy love of country.” [37] This generation was not trying to move the country forward by building up; their desire was to tear things down.

Could it be that this radical idealism that shaped the attitudes of the politically active youth in the 1960s was clearly just radical idealism? This is the question that arises when looking at the low numbers of civic participation that are evident in regards to this generation as they passed into different life stages. The evidence from the DDB Lifestyles survey shows that, Americans born in the first third of the twentieth century and their grandchildren, the Echo Boomers show higher levels of volunteerism in 1998 than people their age had shown in the sixties and seventies. And volunteerism among the Baby Boomers is lower than among people of that age in 1975.[38] This however, does not explain the 1960s and exactly what happened with the radical political activism.

James Morone describes the 1960s activist mentality in almost poetic terms.

We’ll see variations of the same pattern in every sixties social movement. Dreams of changes stir the idealists. They then mobilize. Think big. Rattle the institutions. Jim Crow laws tumble down, women win new opportunities, and universities scrape some ivy off their ancient ways. Then the backlash hits. The reforms never quite live up to the reformers aspirations. The whirlwind passes, but it leaves behind deep changes. Great Awakenings never produce the Second Coming, but they generally manage to turn society upside down.[39]

Radical idealism has been, and can be beneficial. However, it is much more beneficial if there is long-term commitment involved after the whirl wind passes. The sense that this generation is one that is inspired by instant gratification and results is undeniable. The photographs and video clips of students getting on buses headed for the Deep South to protest segregation, march on Washington D.C. to protest the war in Vietnam, and the young men in California burning their draft cards have been seen for over forty years. Many of these men and women would do these radical acts of political activism only to return to the safety of their college campuses and quiet suburban middle class neighborhoods. It was as if they were looking for fights and fiery battles, but left only the remnants of their efforts behind for those dedicated individuals, or subsequent generations, willing to fight the longer wars. And it is interesting to note that, “Of all today’s generations, Baby Boomers are the most prowar. From Desert Storm to Kosovo to the war on terror, polls have shown Baby Boomers to be as much as 10 percentage points more likely than older or younger Americans to support the use of force and risk broader conflicts to remove evildoers abroad.”[40]

One would think that this fervent activism would have lead into other types of engagement relevant to different life stages such as the PTA, neighborhood watch committees, and Rotaries. However this was not the case as the chart below shows the decline in organizational involvement from 1973-1993.

[pic] [41]

As the graph above and other evidence shows, they did not get involved in their later adulthood years, as less than half the amount of Americans participated in civic activities in the 1990s than in the 70s.[42] It appears that the majority of these radical idealists would only go on to be the soccer moms and dads, and Monday night football watching parents of the current generation coming of age[43]: The Echo Boomers.

In Between Boomers

Before there were the Echo Boomers, however, there is a generation caught in between the idealistic activists of the 1960s and the upbeat and up and coming generation. This generation following the Baby Boomers, commonly referred to as the Gen-Xers, would reject many things about the Baby Boomer generation and stand stuck with a great sense of confusion. As a Time Magazine article from 1990 gives a depiction of this generation, we are left with a troubled understanding of exactly what they stand for by and large.

They have trouble making decisions. They would rather hike in the Himalayas than climb a corporate ladder…They crave entertainment, but their attention span is as short as one zap of a TV dial. They hate yuppies, hippies and druggies. They postpone marriage because they dread divorce...They possess only a hazy sense of their own identity but a monumental preoccupation with all the problems the preceding generation will leave for them to fix.[44]

We see a rejection of the 1960s culture yet an embrace of good ideals. There is a problem of lacking participation in this generation, despite the need for increased engagement. The Gen Xers appear to be quite non-cohesive on the matter, as the Time Magazine article states: the people of the X generation want contribute to society, but they do not know where to start. The looming issues, ranging from the national debt to homelessness, are too large and complex to even begin to attempt to solve.[45] It appears that ‘many’ gave into the ‘one’ out of this sense of confusion of the current state of the country. This is possibly a result of the skepticism of the previous generation, as well as the governmental scandals of the previous decades.

The following chart taken from Ronald Inglehart’s publication, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, examines the personal values among the American public from 1968-1981. The numbers indicate the level of importance the American public places on each of the categories. The number (1) being the most important value, and so on.

_______________________________________________________________________

U.S. Post Materialist Analysis 1968-1981

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Value 1968 1971 1974 1981

A world at peace (free of war and conflict) 1 1 2 2

Family Security (taking care of loved ones) 2 2 1 1

Freedom (independence, free choice) 3 3 3 3

Happiness (contentedness) 4 6 5 5

Self-respect (self-esteem) 5 5 4 4

Wisdom (a mature understanding of life) 6 7 6 6

Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) 7 4 12 12

Salvation (saved, eternal life) 8 9 10 9

A comfortable life (a prosperous life) 9 13 8 8

A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution) 10 11 7 7

True friendship (close companionship) 11 10 9 10

National Security (protection from attack) 12 8 13 11

Inner Harmony (freedom from inner conflict) 13 12 11 13

Mature love (sexual and spiritual harmony) 14 14 14 14

A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts) 15 15 15 16

Social recognition (respect, admiration) 16 17 18 18

Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life) 17 16 16 17

An exciting life (a stimulating, active life) 18 18 17 15

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[46]

What does all of this mean for the atmosphere of moral ideals that could possibly shape and influence the civic participation of the Gen Xers? We see from the chart that, “The six items that were ranked highest in 1981 are identical to the six items ranked highest in 1968; and…not one of the six items varies by more than one rank from its 1981 position in any of the three previous surveys extending across thirteen years.”[47] Again it appears that there is a sense of decreased unity among the American public, possibly caused by generational differences. It seems an impossible endeavor to synthesize the information above and give an analysis of the reality of the type of society that the Gen Xers sprung from. For example, we see a consistently positive response to the postmaterialist ideal of world peace; however we see a decreasing level of importance placed on the postmaterialist ideal of equality. (See footnote for materialist and postmaterialist definitions).[48] This is consistent with the claims made in the 1990 Times article that the Xers feel a sense of caution and indecisiveness, as a Gen Xer newspaper reporter in Ventura, California stated of his generation, “It is almost our role to be passive…Many global events seem out of our control.[49]” It is this mentality of fragmented opinion that has proven to be the most notable characteristic of the Gen-Xers. They want to avoid unnecessary risks, pains and rapid changes. The social problems concerning the Gen Xers which include racism, homelessness, AIDS, broken families, and a hurting economy, leave them with a sense of civic paralysis.[50] The Gen Xers have proven to be the most difficult sample generation to analyze as it is not possible to place a majority in any one category other than a category of unified fragmentation. The attitudes of skepticism may be what have lead to the lacking civic virtuousness among the Gen Xers.

The Echo Boomers

The generation of young people that follows the Gen Xers, the Echo Boomers, have a much different attitude toward their lives and world, than did their predecessors who have a disintegrated attitude towards the challenges that the nation and world face. The Echo Boomers have a much different attitude toward their world than did their rebellious Baby Boomer parents at a young age as well. The attitude among the Echo Boomers is most similar to that of their grandparents, the Greatest Generation. [51] The pervasive attitude of the Echo Boomers, which has been shaped by a variety of factors, has lead to a large spike in civic participation among American youth. Although the service idea is pervasive, as it was among their grandparents, the Echo boomers are answering the call to service for different reasons than their Great Depression overcoming, and World War II fighting elders. In many ways, their attitudes are a result of the accumulated experiences and attitudes of the generations of Americans that have emerged before them in the twentieth century.

“The largest generation of young people since the ‘60s is beginning to come of age. They’re called the Echo Boomers because they’re the energetic offspring and demographic echo of their parents, the Baby Boomers.”[52] This generation has been told that they can “be somebody,” that things like world peace, safety, and equality are the most important things. Life is a regimented act of a series of activities. And, it is a generation where rules have taken the place of rebellious rule breaking, community is more important than the self, and morals and values are more traditional.[53] How did this happen? The children of the fiery activists of the 1960’s have become a generation that Neil Howe says, “…are more like their grandparents, the great World War II generation-more interested in building things up that tearing them down.”[54]

Service learning, which has become even more increasingly popular in American public schools than in previous years, has been linked with an increased feeling of civic responsibility and personal effectiveness and importance.[55] The Echo Boomers have been educated in schools with emphasis on Earth Day, cancer awareness, world AIDS, and Black History month;[56] “Today’s kids trust and confide in authorities…keep in constant electronic contact with parents and friends…and challenges of civil liberties are less of a worry than to older people.”[57] It is arguable that the trends are largely in response to 9-11, as applications for Americorps have increased over 50% since the attacks, applications for the Peace Corps are two times at what they were at, and those for Teach America have tripled.[58] The increased numbers of applicants to these civic organizations show that increasing numbers of young people are looking toward the service idea since September 11. However, “…even before 9-11…the budding character of these youth was making itself clear…Energized by a sense of their collective potential, large numbers of Millenials (or Echo Boomers) had already begun participating in community service.”[59] The numbers are positive, they look toward the future with optimism, and although the media sometimes describes this generation as a group of sexually depraved, desensitized, South Park corrupted invalids, “They’re turning around nearly every youth trend their parents, when young, sent rocketing in exactly the reverse direction.”[60] A December of 2006 report states that teenagers from sixteen to nineteen have more than doubled their time spent volunteering since 1989.[61] Although this may be attributed to the volunteering requirement administered by many high schools,[62] several young people are still becoming involved, and are serving in their communities in their twenties.

There is also evidence such as the increasing age at which Echo Boomers will marry and have children that could possibly be causing the increased levels of civic participation. The birthrate among teens, which has been falling since its peak in 1991, dropped to an all time low in 2005.[63] People are staying single and childless until later in life as the evidence also suggests that America is, “…marrying later-and…marrying smarter.”[64] Whelen’s analysis of the census data shows that 32% of men, and 24% of women, age 30 to 34, have never married. This is nearly four times the number in 1970.[65] The average marriage age in 1960 was 22.8 for men and 20.3 for women. In 2002 men were 26.9 and women 25.3.[66] It is projected that these numbers will continue to rise as more Echo Boomers reach marriage age in the up and coming years. So what does increasing marriage age, and holding off on parenthood mean for civic participation?

It could possibly mean that there is more leisure time in the late teens and early twenties to participate in civic activities. We also see that the increased levels of participation among this generation may have been encouraged by a difficult economy. And as the years following completion of school are not spent trying to take care of kids and make mortgage payments, the increased numbers of Echo Boomers desiring to join the Peace Corps, and the doubling of volunteer activity among teens since 1989 may be the result of the delay to settle down. In other words, choices of how expendable time is used by the emerging generation appear to point to the power of the service idea.[67] It is no longer possible in most instances for a couple to have as decent of a standard of living as their grandparents when marrying in their early twenties. To buy a home, and support children with a sole ‘bread winner’ poses a great challenge in the twenty first century for young people. We instead see many young adults using these years to do other productive things as they look at the service oriented habits of their grandparents, however, for different reasons.

Prospective outlook based on current trends

“The answer is not in the robust economy. Youth trends improved during the Great Depression and worsened in the go-go ‘60s. Instead the answer lies in the social rhythms of American History.”[68] Howe and Strauss tell us that SAT scores are at all time highs, there is a wide decline in the teen birth rate, a decline in sexual activity and abortion rate among teens, as well as a drop in drug abuse and cigarette use among kids under eighteen.[69] All of which are behaviors that have been shown to correlate with lacking respect for the nations institutions, and despondent feelings towards community life among American youth.[70] The rhythms of today show that the trend has been to place greater emphasis on the youth and the prospects of their futures; there was a time when American culture looked down on kids,[71] this is no longer the case, America wants kids now; it celebrates them.[72] These young adults have been carefully cared for and emphasized,

From when they were toddlers, they have been belted in to car seats, and driven off to some form of organized group activity. After graduating from “Gymboree” and “Mommy and Me,” they have been shuttled to play dates and soccer practice, with barely a day off, by parents who’ve felt their kids needed structure, and a sense of mission.[73]

This attitude, or sense, of mission and purpose, that widely describes the Echo Boomers, is the possible fuel that will drive the nation forward during the twenty first century.

Conclusion

As the economy, education, world, and nation have changed since World War II, so too have levels of civic participation in the United States. As I discovered in my research, the varying levels of civic participation among the generations have been substantially affected by the pervasive attitudes of their members. As the pervasive ideals and attitudes have changed from generation, so too have the levels of civic participation. The numbers seem to be positive, and the future of civic participation may be bright in up and coming years. If the Echo Boomers continue to connect their inclination to service with workable politics and active community engagement, “…it could become one of the great reforming generations in our nations history.”[74]

-----------------------

[1] Aristotle, The Politics, translated by Bejamin Jowett, Book 3, Part 1. The Politics was written in approximately 350 B.C. The translation used was first published by the Oxford Clarendon Press in 1885.

[2] Aristotle, The Politics, Book 3, Part 1.

[3] John C. Green, Scott Keeter, Andrew, Kohut, and Rober C. Toth, The Diminishing Divide. (Brookings Institution) Washington D.C. 2000 p. 73. The Diminishing Divide is a book of statistics and commentary in regards to a variety of topics involving morals/values, religious affiliation and beliefs, life priorities, and political views of people in the United States.

[4] Carol Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, (Cambridge University Press) New York, NY, 1970 p. 25. This book analyzes democratic theory and the root of participation, historically, and during the present time of the books publication.

[5] Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, p. 25.

[6] Suzanne Mettler, Bringing the State Back In to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans, (American Political Science Review) Vol. 96, No. 2; June 2002, p. 353. This article expresses the fact that American civic engagement soared in the mid-twentieth century, succeeding an era in which national government had become more involved in citizens’ lives than it had preciously ever been. It primarily focuses on the effects of the G.I. bill.

[7] Rodolfo Espino, and Michael Jensen, Unpacking Education: Exploring the links between Civic Knowledge and Political Behavior, p. 2. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

[8] Leslie Lenkowsky, Service and Education: The making of Patriots, (Vital Speeches of the Day) Vol. 68, Iss. 21; p, 694, 5 pgs. New York, NY, August 15, 2002, p. 698. This article is provides a look at the the history of civic participation and provides a challenge for Americans to get involved.

[9] E.J. Dionne Jr., Kayla Meltzer Drogosz, United We Serve?, (The Brookings Review) Vol. 20, Iss. 4; Washington, D.C., Fall 2002, p. 5. This article explores the bipartisan call to civic service in the United States and speaks briefly on the roots of “call to service’ rhetoric.

[10] Editor: Boorstin, An American Primer, p. 840. This speech was edited Frank Friedel.

[11] Mettler, Bringing the State back to Civic Engagement, p. 351.

[12] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, (Simon & Schuster) New York, NY, 2000, Chapter 14. This chapter entitled Generation to Generation attempts to explain the reason why generational differences provide such profound indication of levels of civic involvement.

[13] Mettler, Bringing the State back to Civic Engagement, p. 351.

[14] Mettler, Bringing the State back to Civic Engagement, p. 351.

[15] Mettler, Bringing the State back to Civic Engagement, p. 351.

[16] Mettler, Bringing the State back to Civic Engagement, p. 351.

[17] Mettler, Bringing the State back to Civic Engagement, p. 351.

[18] Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 254.

[19] Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 254-5.

[20] Putnam, Bowling Alone, Chapter 14.

[21] Oliver, City Size and Civic Involvement, p. 362.

[22] Putnam, Bowling Alone, Chapter 14.

[23] Volume Editor: Allen M. Winkler, Encyclopedia of American History, Postwar United States 1946 to 1968, 2003, p. 88.

[24] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 88.

[25] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 88.

[26] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 89.

[27] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 89.

[28] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 89.

[29] Putnam, Bowling Alone, Chapter 14.

[30] Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 54.

[31] James A. Morone, Hellfire Nation, (Yale University Press) New Haven, CT, 2003, p. 432. Hellfire Nation tells the story of American politics and how it has been affected by religion since the Mayflower Compact. This book contains a comprehensive section on the New Deal and its call to social justice, civic participation, and sacrifice for the common good of the community as well as an analysis of the 1960’s.

[32] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 91.

[33] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 91

[34] Espino, and Jensen, Unpacking Education p. 2.

[35] Lance Morrow, The whole world was watching, Time Magazine, New York, NY, Vol. 148, Iss. 10; p. 24, 2 pgs., August 26, 1996, p. 2. The primary focus of this article is the protest that took place in Chicago at the 1968 DNC.

[36] Winkler, Postwar United States, p. 92.

[37] Lenkowsky, The making of Patriots, p. 694.

[38] Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 119.

[39] Morone, Hellfire Nation, p. 412.

[40] Neil Howe, and William Straus, Through prism of tragedy, generations are defined, (Christian Science Monitor) Boston, MA, September 23, 2002, p. 9. The primary focus of this article is an argument on how tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, JFK’s assassination, and 9-11 define generations. Howe and Straus have worked together on many generational studies.

[41] Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 60.

[42] Putnam, Bowling Alone, p. 62.

[43] Putnam, Bowling Alone, Chapter 13. This chapter explains the effects that television and other mass media have had on the U.S. population, in particular those who have been raised with them in their households.

[44] David M. Gross, and Sophfronia Scott, Proceeding with Caution, Time Magazine, New York, NY, July 16, 1990, p. 1. This article takes a look at the current generation coming of age in 1990 and attempts to explain the culture of it. It resolves in a failure to define.

[45] Gross, and Scott, Proceeding with Caution, p. 8

[46] Ronald Inglehart, Culture shift in advanced industrial society, (Princeton University Press) Princeton, NJ, 1990, p. 119. The book is abundant in claims about the postmaterialist cultural shift. It speaks of economics, religion, and education to name a few. The claims are based an analysis of quantitative research and analysis.

[47] Inglehart, Culture Shift, p. 119.

[48] Darren W. Davis, Individual level examination of postmaterialism in the U.S.: Political tolerance, racial attitudes, environmentalism, and participatory norms, (Political Research Quarterly) Vol. 53, Iss. 3; Salt Lake City, UT, September 2000, p. 1. Davis provides the definition used by Inglehart for Materialist and Postmaterialist. “Inglehart’s postmaterialism theory suggests that traditional materialist values evolve from developing and economically secure societies in which individuals are concerned with satisfying lower-order psychological needs. Materialist, being primarily concerned with maintaining their economic and physical security, are driven by self-interest.”

[49] Gross, and Scott, Proceeding with Caution, p. 2.

[50] Gross, and Scott, Proceeding with Caution, p. 2.

[51] The Echo Boomers. CBS News: 60 Minutes. September 4, 2005, print story available at p. 1. (I viewed this story my sophomore year of college and found it be quite compelling as it had a direct relation to my life and generation. The Howe and Strauss research cited in my paper was inspired by this news story as well as the leading researchers cited in the publication. It could be said that this source was the beginning inspiration for my paper).

.

[52] The Echo Boomers. CBS News, p. 1.

[53] The Echo Boomers. CBS News, p. 1.

[54] The Echo Boomers. CBS News, p. 2.

[55] Dionne, and Drogosz, United We Serve?, p. 3.

[56] (This evidence has a positive correlation to those of Neil Howe, and William Straus. It is an observation is based on experiences and conversational encounters with individuals of the Echo Boomer Generation.)

[57] Howe, and Strauss, Through prism of tragedy, generations are defined, p. 9.

[58] Dionne, and Drogosz, United We Serve?, p. 2.

[59] Howe, and Strauss, Through prism of tragedy, generations are defined, p. 9

[60] Neil Howe, and William Strauss, ‘Millennial’ Kids Are New and Improved Models, (Newsday) Long Island, NY, December 5, 2000, p. A-37. This article provides an overview and states evidence for the optimistic outlook of the up and coming generation.

[61] PR Newswire, Volunteering Hits a 30-Year High. New York, December 2006, p. N/A. This article explains the resurgence in volunteer work in America during 2006.

[62] Carlos Ramos-Mrosovosky, The Great Servers, (National Review) New York, NY, October 13, 2003, p. 46. This article explains the cynical approach that many teens have toward required volunteering and how it is done for purely selfish reasons for many.

[63] Rita Rubin, Birthrate among teenagers drops to record low, (USA Today) McLean, VA, November 22, 2006, p. A-6. This article examines the overall drop in the teen birth rate and possible reasons for the drop despite increases among certain ethnic groups.

[64] Christine B. Whelan, Taste: Older but Wiser, (Wall Street Journal) New York, NY, November 3, 2006, p. W-13. This publication looks at the statistics for marriage in the U.S. and attempts to explain why there is an increasing marriage age.

[65] Whelan, Taste: Older but Wiser, p. W-13.

[66] Marriage age rising in the USA, (USA Today) [Final Edition], McLean, VA, January 5, 2004, p. A-1. USA Today fact taken from the Census Bureau.

[67] Dionne, and Drogosz, United We Serve?, p. 3.

[68] Howe, and Strauss, ‘Millennial’ Kids Are New and Improved Models, p. A-37. (Referring to the Adaptive to Idealist model these generational studiers are credited with designing almost twenty years ago. In the article, The Cycle of Generations, published in American Demographics in April of 1991 their theory is presented. Much of the defining characteristics of generation are as they describe, “epochal events”).

[69] Howe, and Strauss, ‘Millennial’ Kids Are New and Improved Models, p. A-37.

[70] Michael Kerestes, Edward Metz , and James Youniss at The Catholic University of America, Longitudinal Patterns of Religious Perspective and Civic Integration, (Applied Developmental Science) Vol. 8, No. 1; January 2004. This article was inspired by the research and findings of Funderburk from the Sociological Focus in the 1980s. It displays and discusses a survey that was taken of high school sophomores. The survey analyzed the student’s religious views during their sophomore year and tracked them over their high school careers in an attempt to explain how their religiosity might effect their adolescent development. Civic integration and development was measured by participation in civic activities, participation in extracurricular activities, and willingness to perform volunteer service. Poor developmentally behaviors included alcohol use and marijuana use and lack service and participation in activities.

[71] Howe, and Strauss, ‘Millennial’ Kids Are New and Improved Models, (This idea is a common theme in this publication as well as many of their other writings when referring to the common social rhythms and attitudes that appear to be characteristics of certain time periods and generational groups).

[72] The Echo Boomers. CBS News, p. 3.

[73] The Echo Boomers. CBS News, p. 1.

[74] Dionne, and Drogosz, United We Serve?, p. 3.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download