ENGL 1103 – Inquiry Project
Derry Delventhal
Back in my freshman year of high school, I suddenly became fascinated with reading
current events. Politics, social movements, the environment—they all fascinated me. It became a
point of arrogance. My fifteen year-old self was certain that keeping up with politics was
inherently good, and a sign of an intelligent, focused individual.
After a while, a funny thing happened. The articles, the arguments, all seemed so similar.
I began to get frustrated with the repetition, with the lack of accomplishment. It’s been a few
years since then, and I still have an ambivalence towards politics in general. I’ve questioned
whether that year was really beneficial. So, I set out to ask a series of questions. What purpose is
there, if any, for following politics? Do knowledge of government and the various issues of our
world push people to action, or foster apathy? What is the best way to approach politics, so that
we get the most out of it?
Clearly, there are many social benefits to political awareness. Politics is a large part of
our culture, and defines how we react to what is around us. Our conversations, mindset, and
actions all frequently reflect our political beliefs. In response, what you believe in will dictate
who you are close to in many cases. This is true even for those who aren't particularly
opinionated.
Often the measure of whether someone is politically active or not is whether they choose
to vote. For example, Austin and Pinkleton’s examination of political apathy relies completely
on voting to determine political apathy. While this is arguably not the best indicator of
involvement, the results of this particular experiment were intriguing in a few ways. When
establishing the bounds of their experiment, the scientists defined several subcategories of
apathy. This provided a few unexpected trends, one being that cynicism towards the government
was often correlated with being more political in general (Austin and Pinkleton, 215-235)..
Therefore, there are different ways of not being politically active. Rather than not caring
about government and social justice at all, many of those who avoid news and politics are those
who have been involved in the past. This can be interpreted as not a cause, but a symptom of
underlying issues in government. The pessimism and discouragement of politics have nothing to
do with ignorance.
Can it thus be argued that political inaction is a conscious choice itself? In an interview
with Jeremy Paxman, comedian Russell Brand argues that he doesn't vote because of his political
awareness. Brand believes that the political system is irreparably broken, and the act of voting is
participating in it (“Paxman vs Brand”).
The vast majority of people will end up becoming aware through the filter of media. This
not only affects what opinions they hold, but how they will express those opinions. In many
cases, the portrayal of political activists and the public in general seems to discourage action on
an individual basis. Charity work and activism are often put on a pedestal, in a way that
counterproductively discourages many people from community service. Additionally, hearing
the same issues constantly come up can give the impression that being politically active is futile.
When hearing about events, especially global ones, there is often the sense of utter powerlessness
at doing anything about the underlying issues.
There’s also an underlying problem with American attitudes towards politics that Anthony
Downs calls the "issue-attention cycle" (Downs 38-50). Essentially, the media and public
attention in general has a tendency to cycle through hot topic issues. Usually, the severity of an
issue such as systematic racism, or environmental distress, goes unnoticed until a few alarming
events bring the problem greater coverage and recognition. Immediately afterwards, the public is
convinced that the problem can be solved. Politicians claim they can bring an end to such
problems, and that society will be made better for it. Once it's made clear that solving the
problem would involve significant change or sacrifice, however, people become much less
enthusiastic. Public interest decreases due to boredom and discouragement, and the problem
often goes unsolved.
A knee-jerk reaction to this is that Americans simply view these issues as a sort of
entertainment to compete with video games, movies, and other media. This misses a key
component of the cycle, though-- the move away from difficult issues is often due to an inability
to truly accomplish anything. American politics sits on this idea of solving problems, which
explains that initial rush of activism when problems get wider coverage. And, due to the
similarly American concept of individualism, the actions taken are typically on a relatively small
scale. The true causes of the problems often go untreated due to their larger origins. Thus, people
feel powerless and ineffective.
So is it worth being politically active in any regard? I’d argue that it almost certainly is, at
least in some capacity. It is true that political knowledge sometimes backfires, creating apathy
and frustration. Awareness of issues alone has little effect on their resolution. However, I believe
that this apathy and disgust is just another step to becoming more politically motivated. The fact
that disillusionment with government is so common is indicative of a real need for change in
how our society reacts to politics.
References
Austin, Erica W., and Bruce E. Pinkleton. "Positive and Negative Effects of Political
Disaffection on the Less Experienced Voter." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media. 39.1 (1995): 215-235. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Dean, Dwight G. "Alienation and Political Apathy." Social Forces. 38.3 (1960): 185-189.
JSTOR. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.
Downs, Anthony. "Up and Down with Ecology - the "Issue-Attention Cycle"." Public Attention.
(1972): 38-50. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
McNeill, William H.. "Why Study History?." American Historical Association. American
Historical Association. Web. 30 Oct 2013.
Paxman, Jeremy. "Paxman vs. Brand." BBC Newsnight. BBC: 23 Oct 2013. Web. 11 Nov 2013.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk>.