February 16, 2015 - 19:07
Upon reading Levinson's work, one of the things that struck me the most was Lebinson's students complete mistrust of "the system." While Levinson agrees that she is more of a state to trust politics and engage civically, I wonder about the pieces she left out. I would posit that a lot of people do not civically engage because they do feel a sense of loyalty to this country. It is not necessarily the fact that these people believe their efforts won't make a difference - in most cases this is probably the opposite. People know their efforts are meaningful, but perhaps they don't care. What then? How do we encourage students, especially young people to become engaged if they do not care? In most cases, this lack of care seems justified. People do not want to support a country that does not support them. This makes me think about recent events around this country regarding police brutality, specifically toward people of color. When there were multitudes of riots and protests set up in response to these events, it was a sign of citizens caring. It was not, however, demonstrating trust. In fact, I would argue that it demonstrated the opposite. In my view, these protests and organized marches only serve to emphasize exactly what Levinson wants to move away from - a mistrust of politics, the governement, this country in general... Many reacted very negatively to this form of civic engagement. As Levinson says, traditional engagement is privileged.
Further, this reading made me think about my own journey with civic engagment. In 9th grade in high school, my history class was titled "Civics and Multiculturalism"- usually shortned to "civics."Until reading this very work by Levinson, I did not understand why the class was called "civics." In fact, we never even discussed what civics meant. We talked about the different branches of governement, and spent a couple weeks discussing "black history." It never once crossed my mind in high school that we were supposed to be learning how to engage as citizens. Civics is about citizens. I did not ever consider myself in that class as a citizen to this country, or question what my rights/duties/responsibilities as a citizen were. Perhaps this is why when it came time for me to vote, I did not want to. It wasn't that I didn't know enough about it, or that I didn't have the access to voting. Simply said, it was becuase I did not care. I believed that my single vote meant absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. And I was right. Levinson's piece repeatedly mentions that empowering students and individuals to be civically engaged is vital for strengthening this country and maintaining the integrity of this country's democracy. This makes me question, as I have questioned a thousand times before, and will continue to question, what does "democracy" mean to this country? Certainly it does not mean the peoples' choice. The democracy that this country prides itself on is highly problematic and quite possibly the least democratic democracy I have ever studied. Does everyone need to participate at the same level? If we empower students to become civically engaged, are we telling them to trust politics? Trust the system? The system has treated many unfairly - civic engagement is a way to work toward changing this, but how can we change the hegemonic structures that so deeply influence our abilities to engage? How can I become persuaded that my vote counts?