"Just doing my civic duty, sir."

So last week for American Government, I read two passages. One was by a man named Robert Putnam, who proposes that there is a direct link between "social capital" and "civic engagement," and government performance. Social capital is "features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." Basically, it's all the good stuff that comes out of actively participating in social communities, whether it's a church group, a labor union, the PTA, the League of Women Voters, bowling leagues, the Elks, Boy Scouts, or the Red Cross. Being involved with one of these groups is "civic engagement," and according to Putnam, the more "civic engagement," the higher the voter turnout, and the better the performance of the government.

The other part of Putnam's theory is that civic engagement and thus social capital has been in decline since the 1960s and '70s. Membership in organizations like those mentioned has decreased significantly, and though membership in other new organizations, like the Sierra Club or AARP, is high, membership does not require direct activity. "Their ties, in short, are to common symbols, common leaders, and perhaps common ideals, but not to one another." There is no social trust, and there is little sense of community or connectedness.

Putnam attributes this decline to changes in women's roles in the community, changes in the economy, changes in residential stability, and changes in technology and entertainment. There is less "neighborliness" among Americans, and they are less trusting in general. Women are now a substantial part of the labor force, people move around a lot, the economy has increased in scale and community-based businesses have largely been replaced by franchises and corporations, and people spend their leisure time in isolated activities. People play on computers, watch television shows and movies, play video games - all of these things are so simple to do alone. Even listening to music is now a personal activity - instead of gathering around a record player to listen to the latest single, people listen to their MP3 players and iPods.

I found this interesting because of a book I read a few years ago by two men, William Strauss and Neil Howe. They suggest that American history can be seen as a series of generations, and each generation fits one of four types. American history, then, is a repetition of cycles that consist of these four types: Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive. Each generation of a particular type shares characteristics and traits. Each life stage of a generation is about 22 years: youth, rising adulthood, midlife, and elder life. Idealist and Civic generations are dominant, while Reactive and Adaptive generations are recessive. Each generation lives through social moments: secular crises and spiritual awakenings. Dominant generations come of age and enter rising adulthood during a social moment, exerting greater influence on the public world, while recessive generations' first social moment is as a child, influencing the private world more.

It makes a lot more sense when put in practice. The whole thing seems like it tailors history to fit the pattern, rather than history happening to fit the pattern. Example: the most recent cycle to be completed fully was the Great Power cycle: the Missionary Generation, the Lost Generation, the G.I. Generation, and the Silent Generation. They lived through the Missionary Awakening (the "3rd Great Awakening" that prompted agrarian and labor protests, muckraking journalists, and progressive and socialist movements in the early 20th century) and the Great Depression/WWII Crisis. After them came the Millennial Cycle, which we're in now.

First came the Boomers (1943-1960). They were rising adults during the Boom Awakening, 1967-1980. Woodstock, Kent State, Vietnam, Age of Aquarius, Earth Day - radical cultural change going on here. Lots of self-interest here. There's a funny bit in this movie, I Could Never Be Your Woman, in which Mother Nature rants about how humans were grateful to be at the top of the food chain until the Baby Boomers, who "thought they could just breeze through life doing whatever the hell they wanted" - the men didn't go to war when they were supposed to, the women didn't have kids when they were supposed to, they became materialistic and didn't care about the environment at all. Hehe. So anyway, after them is the 13ers, 1961-1981, who grew up seeing the adults screw up the country (Vietnam, Iran, all that). They're The Breakfast Club and the Brat Pack in general - adults are against them and life doesn't hold much for them. Pessimistic and realistic by turns. Adults call them disappointing; 13ers themselves say they are what they have to be to get by.

Then, 1982 to about 2000 or so are the Millennials - us. We're predicted to be a Civic generation that comes of age during what is still an unknown crisis and is in elderhood during the next spiritual awakening. The book I have was written in '91. It predicts that 1991-2003 sees more regulation, "public intrusions into what others will consider matters of personal and business privacy," anti-drug and pro-environment lobbying, more pro-life movements, disdain for political party allegiances, increased materialism and attention to style and advertising, clean-cut and overprotected kids, and revitalized civic organizations for youth. 2004-2025 sees failure of Social Security and economic and social hardship. Depending on if the secular crisis turns out well or not, the Millennials could produce strong leaders and a greater sense of unity and solidarity than any other generation in recent history. If the crisis comes too early or unfolds poorly, then the Millennials will be a crippled generation, unable to do what the Idealist Boomers set for them. So say Howe and Strauss.

The whole theory really stretches the whole generation cycle deal to work. One cycle actually doesn't have an adaptive generation, which they explain away somehow, I forget exactly how. But if they're right, then our generation now is a civic, and we're going to reverse the trend of low civic engagement.

The other article I read for American Government is by Scott Keeter, who says that the youngest cohort of voters is currently showing signs of being more politically active and aware, much like their Boomer parents were in the '60s and '70s. Keeter calls us the "DotNets," though, and says we are active in community work and attempt to make our voices heard - we're not hesitant in expressing ourselves. If the voting trend continues in the direction it was headed from last election, there should be a higher turnout of 18-29 year-olds: in 2004, the percentage of voter turnout for that cohort increased 9 percentage points.

I know that that was a really roundabout way of making my point, but I wonder if Keeter's research shows that Howe and Strauss's theory is correct in this case. And if it is, what's our secular crisis going to be? Or, did it come early with 9/11 and the Iraq War and now the economic crisis and everything else that we're screwing up?

Something else that they said: the Boomers will be most influential and productive in their later years. They won't relinquish control early. Bush is a Boomer. But, Obama just misses being a Boomer by one year: he was born in 1961. And if McCain is elected...he'll be the first of the Silent Generation to be president. The G.I.'s produced 7 Presidents. The Silents, 0. The Boomers, just 1 so far. Obama would mean a 13er in office 12 years before the 13ers are projected to take over the White House.

Sarah Palin is a 13er too.

Somehow, I feel like no matter who's elected, things are not going to turn out well. Just a feeling.

I spent way too much time writing this instead of doing homework. Rawr.

----------------
Now playing: Counting Crows f. Sheryl Crow - American Girls