A couple questions and comments
First: Your online contact form doesn't allow me to choose the appropriate topic of "associational life" / "Social Capital"
Senator Lee,
After reading your report "Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing" as well as listening to your town hall, I have a few comments and questions to bring to your attention:
First and foremost, I don't wish to criticize your efforts--I think you have compiled some valuable information on the family institution--however, my critical advice towards that report is that without first establishing a clear definition of what is "bad" about unwed childbearing, all you can do is point out what is happening. In other words, just because more and more children are being born into single-parent families doesn't automatically mean that those children are disadvantaged--a good political example would be Joseph Baena, who was raised by his mother through early life yet is in fact Arnold Schwarzenegger's son--statistically Baena would pull up in your cross-section, but that doesn't mean he's disadvantaged in the least, and in fact an argument could be made that he has benefited more by being the illegitimate son of a California Governor.--Sure, you can cut hairs and say, "he would have been better off if his father was married to his mother," but this is debatable. Yes, being born in a single-parent, unwed parent, household can put you at a disadvantage, but it doesn't automatically put you at a disadvantage in life.
I'm assuming by presenting "The Social Capital Project" that you are in fact trying to start a discussion and generate ideas from Utahns and possibly discover problems or solutions for future and present problems, so I'll go ahead and provide my opinions and comments and hope that some of them are taken seriously, because I think this is a very worthy endeavor and I can get behind it so long as it does actually accomplish beneficial things and not merely the appearance of accomplishing things.
If I understand you correctly, the project is meant to discover ways the government can encourage the flourishing of social capital among civilians and to recognize areas in which the government might be hindering social capital. I have a few ideas which you should look at:
Non-profits.
A lot of Utahns don't like non-profit laws that give tax breaks to non-profits, specifically property tax laws, but there are other incentives that non-profits receive that people are offended with. Personally, I don't think non-profits should necessarily receive any form of advantage that any other business organization wouldn't receive. The way that I interpret the spirit of the laws regarding them, they were designed to encourage non-profits to help the population at large, not just specific groups of the population. What I have seen, however, is that they only help niche groups get ahead and not others, and I don't see any other way around it either, because non-profits operate through the support of niche groups that only care about their niche groups' problems. The problem is that many truly disadvantaged groups are also under-represented by non-profits.
Case in point, you can go in almost any state in the US and find a shelter / safe haven house for victims of domestic abuse. The problem is, that 0 of those states recognize that Men can be the victim of domestic abuse. --They do not allow men into their facilities, only women and children. This is 2017, we're smarter than that--we know that in situations of domestic abuse, both partners are usually abusive. The discussion, however is completely one-sided, and non-profits are completely one-sided in this area too. So, why do we provide a benefit to shelters that help "victims of domestic abuse" yet those shelters are allowed to turn away "some" (i.e. men) who are victims?
More to the point, I'm a single male and outside of extremist groups that accept practically anyone that they can brainwash, I can't think of a single organization I can go to for support if I ever have struggles related to being a man, yet there are plenty of organizations related to women struggles that receive tax deductible donations. And along that same cross-section of society, which organization do you think brings in more money: Breast Cancer Awareness groups, or Prostate Cancer Awareness groups?
On the surface, the easy fix would be to encourage more non-profits to form so that under-represented groups can be equally represented, but a case can be made that because groups like the NAACP (people of color) or the NOW (women), or even religious groups like Joel Osteen's church or the Fallwell Dynasty, and yes, even the LDS church(religion), are so poweful that a narrative is established in our society that there must be something wrong with you if you stand up and support being white, or male, or atheist or some other group. --As another example, not all white nationalists are extremists, but they don't receive the same kind of benefits as other groups that represent other minorities, and sadly, the government doesn't always protect those groups the same way that they protect their equal-opposite groups.
Online Associational life.
More and more these days, networking has become less about on-the-ground networking as it has on-the-web networking. If you're going to investigate social capital, I think you should take a serious study of the digital world. It may be that people are retreating from the real world but proportionally increasing their involvement in the digital world. Thanks to digital networking, I landed one of my better jobs--a tech job based in Salt Lake City. I knew no-one who worked there, but through my social network on facebook, I was able to make friends with and receive his referral for a position that got me hired. --This job was (in my mind) the job that got me out of the recession.
Also, half of my real-life best friendships started as online friendships, though I have to point out that making the transition from online friend to real-life friend isn't easy or a smooth transition.
Volunteer opportunities/ Lack of opportunities.
I know a lot of the neighbors on my street and feel like I live in a good neighborhood even though I'm near many slummy neighborhoods in Ogden. Let me explain why: My subdivision isn't part of Ogden city--it was supposed to be created as an HOA, but the developers didn't form an HOA before they sold the lots and so it sits in a gray area. The city will not pay for any maintenance on the street and there is no HOA to cover normal expenses: that includes the broken water main line that we all had to pitch in and pay for last year (the bill was something like $8,000 to fix it several feet under the asphalt and the utility company which is run/managed by Ogden city, didn't pay for any of it but required us to fix it or have our water shut off), it also includes snow removal, so every winter, we all pitch in as neighbors to shovel our snow as well as the street. As far as I can tell, none of my neighbors are religious and none of them act out of religious fervor--we act as a community. One of my neighbors has a four-wheeler plow that they plow the road, sometimes I use my tractor, and a few other people have snow-blowers. I've met most my neighbors because of this. My point is, that our little community of about 30 houses is aware of who lives where and has an added sense of security because we have needs that we can't meet on our own and are forced to meet those needs outside of comfort zone.
Further to the point I'm trying to make, it seems to me that single parents (specifically single mothers) tend to be the ones who communities tend to know the most about because they are the neediest members of the communities. Second to them might easily be the elderly person who sits on their porch like it's still the early 1900s.
To restate the point I'm trying to make: it seems to me that the people with the greatest social capital are the ones who have the greatest needs. They are easier to approach because they can't turn down help--they need it too desperately--and by helping them there is a strong sense of personal fulfillment. Through those people--by getting involved in their lives--it is easy to network with others that help them or their family or their friends and then expand your personal network connection to them into personal Social Capital.
I think in older years it was the fact that people had needs that forced them to walk outside of their busy farms now and again and engage with their neighbors, whereas today, people have less of those needs because they can be met in many other ways.
Community Outreach
If anything, I would say there is a lack of awareness about other people in our communities more than a real lack of Social Capital. Maybe I have a warped imagination of what it was like in colonial times, but I picture the founding fathers getting together at community hubs to talk about politics openly--sometimes even spur of the moment. Today in Utah, it's hard to go to a city council meeting and see more than 15 people--10 of which are regulars. No one seems to congregate at the courthouse during trials. And there are very few physical places where people can engage in public forum unless they are organized by politicians as Q&A sessions.
Instead, from my experience, to get involved in local politics and things that matter to Utahns, you have to sign a clipboard during some county fair where some group put up a booth related to some topic you already care about. --I fail to see how anyone branches out of their personal opinions these days when the only place you might experience people of different opinion might be protesters of an event you already care about (and let's be real, no one listens to those protesters because they didn't come for community engagement, they came for whatever the activity was). Along these lines, if you do decide to meet up for a discussion outside of some public building (or inside) you usually have to schedule in advance with someone, stating that you're going to hold some meeting and then it gets put on a public agenda and then people who oppose the discussion that you have planned will be disruptive and sometimes violent (such as the debate over taking down Civil War Monuments that happened this year where supporters of keeping the monuments were harassed by people who didn't support it and triggered violent responses from both sides).
Aside from venues that charge fees to host events, I don't know of anywhere that people can go locally (within their own county) to discuss with other people who actually care about topics related to the community--excluding when they are already publicly scheduled. In other words, if I want to know about what other people in my county care about related to the national government, I have to listen to my Senators' Q&A meetings. --Caucuses in Utah were a great idea until they became polarized: I can't vote at both the Republican and the Democrat caucuses--Usually you can't even attend them both because they happen at the exact same time in different places and they don't happen all that often and don't typically involve Q&A sessions. How are good political ideas generated if half of them are stifled based on political affiliation?
Education.
You talk about in your report on Unwed Childbearing that family is "an institution with primary responsibility for ..."--that is correct, it is AN institution but not the only institution. As the old saying goes "It takes a village to raise a child." Education is another important institution that can have a mediocre effect or a major effect on your social capital in life. --Many successful business founders meet their business partners at college. Many people meet their spouses in high school and many of their life-long friends. Furthermore, education is often where people learn the skillsets that are most crucial to their future careers.
And, unfortunately, many people think the school system is broken. This would be a small drop in the bucket if other institutions could pick up the slack, but citizens age 5-13 are required to spend a majority of their waking hours not with their family but among their peers and with their teachers, and like your report indicates, if their family life isn't supportive and their school life isn't supportive, that leaves a small handful of other institutions providing, "values, knowledge, aspirations, and skills to subsequent generations."
If you want to improve people's social capital really fast, give them more opportunities through their education. --I don't mean force them to make social connections, but give everyone (not just children <18) more access to on-the-ground educational programs where they can meet people who share similar interests and opinions(the key being on-the-ground, because social networks are formed by person-to-person interactions, not online, go at your own individual pace educational programs).
Forming social networks don't end once you're out of regular school. If the intent of public schooling was to make responsible voting citizens who wouldn't be manipulated by outside powers, doesn't it stand to reason that there should be other institutions that adults (no longer children, but sometimes equally irresponsible) go to to remain responsible voting citizens? --it's no wonder so many people fell for so-called Russian election manipulation. How would they really know about it? That wasn't an issue when they were children and they weren't taught in schools that "one day, another country is going to run a bunch of biased ads on TV, Radio and the Internet to make you angry and polarized against or for a certain candidate," and they have very few outlets to learn more about the complexities of modern life. --This used to be the library, and possibly today it is supposed to be the internet, but the internet is quickly becoming a luxury that poor people cannot afford--they can't afford to go to the library all of the time while tending kids and working and they can't afford a computer or smart phone either.
If you've read all of this, it shouldn't surprise you when I say that I've put a lot of thought into this topic. During the recession that started in 2007 I was a recent high school graduate with the world ahead of me, but I lacked experience for many of the living-wage jobs that I felt I was qualified for and that ultimately led me into on and off depression. I grew up in a "close" family both of my parents are still married to each other and are well off, I had plenty of institutions to turn to for support, but from 2007 until 2015 I honestly feel like I lacked social capital. I struggled to get a decent job even while I was getting a post-secondary education. When I graduated with a Bachelors degree, I still struggled to get a job because I quickly learned that it's not what you know, it's who you know. Many of my peers seemed to live happier lives--they got married, had children, had nice jobs, etc. Me, I struggled, even though I was more intelligent and had more things going for me (not only were my parents together, had no family drama, but also my parents were dual earners my entire life and that gave me a little more access to wealth than most other people [at the drawback of not seeing either parent as often]).
It wasn't until I started thinking outside of the box about what I was lacking (social capital) that doors started opening for me. I have more friends right now than I have ever had in life--more friends than I can even manage. I feel pretty secure in my career, and in all areas of my life, and it has been a long time since I have felt any kind of depression. --That's actually the last point that I want to make:
When you're depressed, it's hard to develop or even utilize your social capital. I'm surprised that so few politicians admit to having depression--it must be one of the more depressing careers full of let-downs and emotional roller coaster rides! Yet, at the same time, I don't know anyone who hasn't experienced serious depression at least once in their life. To me, the biggest benefit to living in a "close knit" community or an "active" community, or to have a diverse collection of social relationships is not actually the networking side, but the sense of purpose and fulfillment that comes with it. We as humans and Americans aren't just individuals going through life independently, even though to some people who are depressed it seems like that is all there is to life. It would be nice if we had another great rallying cry like the one made by President John F. Kennedy in the '60s, "Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country," but this time around the rally was extended to not just "country" but "neighbors."
No comments:
Post a Comment