in both politics and administration is associated with self-interest, but that
a resurgence of democratic spirit might have great benefits for society and
for its members.
The Role of the Citizen
Unfortunately, in recent times, the ideals of citizenship have been largely
overwhelmed by increased power, professionalism, and complexity. Robert
Pranger, for example, argues that much of what is termed “politics” today
is actually “power politics,” largely concerned with the activities of leaders,
officials, and other power holders in society. Pranger contrasts this orientation
to an alternative, the politics of citizenship or the “politics of participation.”
In the politics of participation, ordinary citizens engage in dialogue
and discourse concerning the directions of society and act based on moral
principles such as those associated with the term “civic virtue.” A similar
distinction has been made between high and low views of citizenship. High
definitions of citizenship, associated with such writers as Aristotle, Rousseau,
and Mill, assume a wide distribution of power and authority and view citizens
as sharing equally in the exercise of authority. Low citizenship, associated
with such names as Thomas Hobbes or the more contemporary democratic
elitists, assumes a hierarchical distribution of authority, with the greatest
power wielded by those “at the top” and little power exercised by others
(Cooper 1991, 5). In either case, it appears that, in modern American society,
the “politics of power” or “low citizenship” has come to dominate—perhaps
not to the exclusion of the “politics of participation” or “high citizenship,”
but certainly to its disadvantage.
in both politics and administration is associated with self-interest, but that
a resurgence of democratic spirit might have great benefits for society and
for its members.
The Role of the Citizen
Unfortunately, in recent times, the ideals of citizenship have been largely
overwhelmed by increased power, professionalism, and complexity. Robert
Pranger, for example, argues that much of what is termed “politics” today
is actually “power politics,” largely concerned with the activities of leaders,
officials, and other power holders in society. Pranger contrasts this orientation
to an alternative, the politics of citizenship or the “politics of participation.”
In the politics of participation, ordinary citizens engage in dialogue
and discourse concerning the directions of society and act based on moral
principles such as those associated with the term “civic virtue.” A similar
distinction has been made between high and low views of citizenship. High
definitions of citizenship, associated with such writers as Aristotle, Rousseau,
and Mill, assume a wide distribution of power and authority and view citizens
as sharing equally in the exercise of authority. Low citizenship, associated
with such names as Thomas Hobbes or the more contemporary democratic
elitists, assumes a hierarchical distribution of authority, with the greatest
power wielded by those “at the top” and little power exercised by others
(Cooper 1991, 5). In either case, it appears that, in modern American society,
the “politics of power” or “low citizenship” has come to dominate—perhaps
not to the exclusion of the “politics of participation” or “high citizenship,”
but certainly to its disadvantage.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..