Notes

Modern Political Community: A People Overload
get more info

Today, the global population is over 7 billion. The average population of a country is over 35,000,000. The average social network on Facebook is 338 but 15% of Facebook users have 5,000 friends. Every person is surrounded by at least hundreds of people. However, most human beings, particularly in relation to their political community, feel somewhat disconnected and unimportant. As of 2014, only 19% of American 18 to 29 year olds consider themselves politically active or engaged. In developing and emerging countries, most people vote (78%), but they participate in relatively few other political activities.
Dr. Brené Brown, a researcher from the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work, defines connection “…as the energy that exists between people when they feel seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment; and when they derive sustenance and strength from [a] relationship.” This sort of connection, which establishes emotions like trust and respect that are critical for productive and effective social behavior, is surprisingly difficult to find in the modern world. Even worse, it is unlikely that the average citizen feels this kind of connection with their so-called leaders. Why is this the case and what does it mean?
In his book Political Animals, Rick Shenkman contends that human beings are evolutionarily programmed to behave and function, politically and socially, in small groups of no more than 150 people. Shenkman proposes:
“We are mismatched with our environment. We are designed, says the social scientist Michael Bang Petersen, to thrive in a world of small groups. We are ill-suited to deal with the group in which we find ourselves today — the largest modern state — a group that consists not of 150 members, but millions…we don’t have an information problem, or a motivation problem, or a money problem. We have a human-being problem.”
The research presented in Political Animals indicates that social traits help people evaluate those in their midst (face-to-face), not people at a distance. Humans desire and rely on connection, whether it be with family, friends, a religious community, or colleagues. Yet in modern political communities, citizens are often disconnected from their leaders and even each other. How can voters be expected to engage politics properly if they do not really know their leaders and the experiences of their peers? And how can leaders be expected to respond to the needs of their constituents if they hardly can remember their names? Strong social relationships are integral to functioning political communities because they enable people to make good decisions and behave reasonably.
This phenomenon of “people overload,” which results from physiological dispositions, does not account for all of mankind’s political problems. Fortunately, Shenkman and others believe it can explain many of them. The social relationships from citizen-to-citizen, citizen-to-leader, and leader-to-leader create a complex web of action and reaction that shapes political outcomes. Yet humans cannot handle these social relationships. Humans cannot trust their instincts in the modern world. People’s inability to truly connect with their political community, given its size and complexity, makes it easy for them to misread information, misjudge people, blindly trust without rigorous research, and claim rational ignorance. The citizens that follow politics often make mistakes. The rest feel like their voice and their vote don’t mean much.
For leaders, social dispositions make it less likely that they will hear the diverse voices of citizens, even if they plan to make a rational and well-intentioned decision. According to Manuel Arriaga, author of Rebooting Democracy, “a body of work in social psychology known as ‘social identity theory’ describes how, once people identify with a certain group, that sense of belonging significantly affects their attitudes and behavior…” This social science research illustrates that the modern political community is structured so that leaders are unlikely to connect and empathize with their constituents.
For democratic countries that attempt to function of the people, by the people, and for the people, these conclusions are troubling.
With this in mind, it is unsurprising that political systems around the world are mostly influenced by small networks of people who talk among each other. In the Dictator’s Handbook, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith argue that “governments do not differ in kind but only in the number of essential supporters, or backs that need scratching. The size of this group determines almost everything about politics: what leaders can get away with, and the quality of life or misery under them.” In democracies, the leaders depend on more people for votes and support — they appease more numerous and diverse interests, but to what extent? The authors find that democratic leaders try to get away with what they can and minimize the circles of power.
This perspective on the world might be too cynical, but it illustrates a political lesson familiar to most of the leaders in national capitals: people, and in particular the “right” people, are critical to achieving political objectives. This is common knowledge in this business world; sustaining salient social relationships is crucial to sealing a deal amd increasing profit. For example, according to the Economist, Facebook paid 1 billion dollars for Instagram, mainly to hire its 13 employees. Given the size of social groups and human tendencies, it is natural that a small number of people play a disproportionate role in global affairs, even if they are well-intentioned and impactful.
People around the world are not pleased with a system of governance that relies too much on too few. In the 2016 Presidential Election, the up-start Sanders campaign is resonating with the American people in large part because it involves the average individual and seeks to connect them with political outcomes. Sanders’ main message is that a political revolution is in order against the small circle of actors from political and corporate elite that hold power in America and the world. The campaign is stepping outside of normal boundaries of the political system and challenging its very assumptions. Sanders is trying to (at least, it appears) get to know the average people; many are connecting with him because he seems like them. Whether or not Sanders’ policies and plans for addressing the problems facing America are good, his message reaches voters. Political revolutions often appeal to the human desire for connection — one that cannot be easily reached in the modern political community.
The question remains: can humans adapt their evolutionary dispositions and institute a culture and social system that addresses “people overload” and helps people find political connection? One candidate will not solve the problem and if anything, their message may be deceiving. Such an endeavor requires a fundamental reorientation of the political system and the organization of political community. Here are some ideas from a young and growing perspective on how to improve political community:
Develop more data on the influence of social relationships and networks on 1) political behavior, 2) political decisions, and 3) political outcomes. This research will help citizens to understand the social process that goes into political outcomes in their communities.Prioritize locally driven politics. Despite the desire for human connection, humans are least likely to participate in local politics. Why? Because the incentives are low and the power lies at the national level in most nations. While some power should remain at the national level where leaders make decisions for the entire population, leaders and citizens should engage more at the local level. Local leaders should be empowered. Political community should happen from the bottom-up.Embrace campaign finance reform in modern democracies; this is a critical change to ensure that certain networks and personal relationships do not over-influence politics. Leaders are pre-wired to form a small number of relationships, which causes them to adopt a limited perspective and biased influence. Democratic politics should not be over-influenced by interest groups, lobbyists, party insiders, and political elite. These actors play an important role, but so do the rest of the people.Institute deliberative politics. Manuel Arriaga believes that representatives are destined to fail citizens in fully representing their interests— thus, in order to achieve more democratic political communities, Manuel argues that humans should install more deliberative mechanisms so that more voices are heard and average have more input into their political system.Diversify social groups so that people can become educated and informed on the issues from multiple perspectives and interact with a variety of stakeholders. According to social psychology, social networks and groups shape human belief and action — a democratic political community should embrace diverse groups.Manage the expectations. Doing so does not imply that humans should except failures in political systems; rather, people should understand that humans must overcome physical and emotional hindrances in order to achieve a strong and vibrant political community. Building stronger democratic systems that produce good political outcomes will require a conscious effort to think through how people connect with their community. The modern world is not cutting it.

My Website: https://xuhren.de