Study Guide #17
Interest Groups
Ever since Madison's denunciation of
factions in Federalist Papers #10, Americans have had an unflattering
view of political interest groups. Interest groups are regularly vilified in
American
politics, a
tendency in keeping with the individualistic political values of
Americans. Yet at the same time, as Tocqueville first noticed, the
U.S. is a nation of joiners, and so groups of every type continue to
proliferate. As the Ladd article on parties pointed out, Americans
are far more likely than citizens of other nations to volunteer for,
contribute to, and become active in groups. Americans are less likely
to vote, but much more likely to engage in political activities
involving groups.
American political scientists have built a whole theory of democracy
around interest groups participation in politics, called
pluralism, which we discussed at the beginning of the
course.
So are interest groups a plague on American democracy, or a source of
strength? The articles you read for this section present varying
answers. First, again re-read Federalist Papers #10 for a view
of groups as potentially dangerous and tyrannical. Then take a look at some excerpts
from Tocqueville's Democracy in
America in which he lauds Americans' propensity to join groups. For Tocqueville, associations, whether avowedly political or not, are a crucial bulwark against what he sees as a disease of socially equal (in his terms "democratic") societies, individualism.
In recent years Tocqueville's formulation has received renewed attention. Robert Putnam, a neo-Tocquevillian, worries that Americans are "bowling alone," becoming more individualistic and less group-oriented; Everett Ladd argues that this concern is misplaced. Theda Skocpol offers yet another, to my mind more nuanced, perspective in her address on the 100th anniversary of the American Political Science Association. Skocpol argues that the civic life of Americans has been transformed by the decline of "fellowship organizations" on one hand and the rise of professionalized, more advocacy oriented groups on the other. The consequences for American society and politics, she argues, are profound.
How would Tocqueville react to the trends that Putnam, Ladd,
and Skocpol note? Does American civic life still provide
a healthy bulwark against individualism and democratic despotism? Or would
Tocqueville worry with Putnam and Skocpol that something has gone very
wrong in American society? (Will the rise of the Internet expand civic life, or diminish it?)
Federalist #10
1. Why are factions bad according to Madison? (Does Madison leave
room for the participation of interest groups that are not "factions"? You might revisit Gary Wills' article on this.)
Tocqueville
1. How do Americans compare to the French and English in the
propensity to form associations according to Tocqueville? (If you
grew up outside the United States, how do you think Americans compare
to citizens in your home nation?)
2. How do Americans compare to other nations in their attitudes
toward religion according to Tocqueville?
3. What is the relationship between "civil associations" and
"political associations" (interest groups) for Tocqueville?
4. What are the advantages of associations according to
Tocqueville?
5. What is "self-interest properly understood"? How is it different
from self-interest?
Putnam, "Bowling Alone" (link to journal article from required readings folder)
1. How exactly does Putnam define "social capital"?
2. What evidence suggests to Putnam that social capital is declining in the United States? (What exactly does Putnam mean by "bowling alone"?)
3. Putnam cites some "countertrends." What are they and why does Putnam dismiss them? (How is AARP different from, say, a fraternal organization like the Elks, the Lions and the Jaycees?)
4. What factors have caused the decline of Social Capital according to Putnam?
Ladd, "The Ladd Report" (required readings folder)
1. Tocqueville defined individualism as a "calm and considered feeling" which leads people to isolate themselves from the rest of humanity. It was due, Tocqueville wrote, to an "inadequate understanding" of the way in which the lives of each of us are linked to each other. Obviously this is a very negative, critical conception. How does Ladd seem to define "individualism"? (Like many commentators, I'm not sure he fully understands what Tocqueville meant by individualism!)
2. How does Ladd define "social capital"? Is his definition significantly different from Putnam's?
3. Ladd claims that group membership is "churning, not declining." What evidence does he offer for this claim? (How for example does he respond to Putnam's claim that the PTA is in decline?)
4. What is happening to church membership according to Ladd?
Skocpol, "Voice & Inequality"
1. What kinds of groups did Americans belong to in mid-Twentieth Century America? How did the group participation of Americans compare to citizens of affluent European nations? (What exactly is a "fellowship association"?)
2. What three changes does Skocpol trace in the group membership patterns of Americans? In what respects has American civic life become less participatory as a result?
3. How does Skocpol explain these changes in American civic life? What caused the decline of fellowship associations and the rise of advocacy (public interest) groups and more professionalized organizations? Why have conservative groups been less affected by these trends?
4. What according to Skocpol is "worrisome" about these changes? (Why might the Woodsman Association arguably contribute more to democracy than the Children's Defense Fund?) How has the rise of advocacy organizations and the decline of fellowship associations changed American politics?