| OCR Text |
Show Making Others Conditions Our Own: Faith-Based Initiatives and Other Mediating Structures as Public Policy Scott R. Rasmussen our democracy; and its absence threatens to tear at our foundation. Members of a society that lack social networks, trust, and cooperation do not seek to make others' conditions their own. A society that lacks social capital certainly does not labor and suffer together. Indeed, social capital is the modern-day expression of Winthrop's vision. It emphasizes "a wide variety of quite specific benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks" (Putnam, "Social Capital" n.d.). The creation of social capital is encouraged by a bottom-up approach. Thus, while a welfare state leaves people feeling disconnected and disempowered, local trust, cooperation, and participation in social networks empowers people. The welfare state clogs up connections between individuals. Instead, individuals create connections with government agencies. This awkward relationship with the government does little to build social networks and trustworthiness. Joyce and Schambra noted that many remarked on the awkwardness of this relationship, including Senator Robert Kennedy. They reported that "He argued in To Seek a Newer World that the nation's slums could be transformed only through 'new community institutions that local residents control, and through which they can express their wishes'" (1996, p. 21). Such institutions would encourage face to face interaction and create social networks and trustworthiness; in short, they create social capital. Joyce and Schambra, again quoting Senator Kennedy, pointed out that this objective had become "increasingly difficult in the face of the giant organizations and massive bureaucracies of the age" (p.21). Winthrop's vision of community concern and cooperation did not die. Discussion continued around the ineffectiveness of the welfare state and its attack on social capital. Some, including Richard John Neuhaus and Peter Berger, offered up viable alternatives to the cumbersome welfare state. In 1976, they published an article entitled: To Empower People: The Role ofbAediating Structures in Public Policy. The article was reprinted in a 1996 book of essays about mediating structures. In the article they defined mediating structures as "those institutions standing between the individual in his private life and the large institutions of public life" (p. 158). These institutions - like neighborhood and church, may be manifestations of Senator Kennedy's "community institutions" that he deemed most appropriate to combat social ills. How and what do these structures/institutions 'mediate?' Neuhaus and Berger explained that life is divided into two spheres: public and private. Public life, or society, is ruled by megastructures or "large economic conglomerates of capitalist enterprise, big labor, and the growing bureaucracies that administer wide sectors of the society" (p. 158). Private life is controlled by the individual with relatively little institutional support. We spend our life constantly roving between the two spheres. The authors wrote that there is a double crisis between these two spheres. First, "Meaning, fulfillment, and personal identity are to be realized in the private sphere ... in private life the individual is left very much to his own devices, and this is uncertain and anxious" (Neuhaus & Berger, p-159). The second crisis comes in balancing between the two spheres. "It is a political crisis because the megastructures (notably the state) come to be devoid of personal meaning and are therefore viewed as unreal or even malignant" (Neuhaus & Berger, p. 159). Individuals who use mediating structures are more successful in this balancing act. "Such institutions have a private face, giving private life a measure of stability, and they have a public face, transferring meaning and value to the megastructures" (Neuhaus &. Berger, p. 159)- \ This stability and value are provided by social capital, through the trust and cooperation of citizens on a local level, rather than faceless government agencies. Concerns about Mediating Structures To many this sounds like the normal, anti-government rhetc ric we have come to expect from the Right. In their book Free Spaces, Sara Evans and Harry Boyte (1986) quote Johm Neuhaus and Peter Berger who said "Without mediating structures, the political order is [unsettled] by being deprived j of the moral foundation upon which it rests" (p. 186). This j view sees social change as a deficiency or lack of community- j Evans and Boyte argued that such a defensive stance "prc j duces a political and social vision which contributes to the | erosion of the very community institutions neoconservatives [ purport to support" (p. 186). Mediating structures are thus very narrow, and do little to create bridging or inclusive social capital. Rather, structures like families, neighborhoods, ana churches more often create bonding, or exclusive social capital-By nature these structures are exclusive, requiring those who wish to enter and or be accepted to adapt to certain norms and morals. Evans and Boyte fear that this exclusion erodes and tears at the fabric of society and our democracy. Evans and Boyte also pointed out that the mediating structures theory provides no ideas for "collective action to regain control over massive economic dislocations ... nor any notion of how different communities might join together to pursue a common good" (Evans & Boyte, 1986, p.186)-Mediating structures are often smaller scale local entities not capable of addressing massive economic dislocations. The authors summed up their criticism by saying "Conservatives [believe] in defending voluntary, autonomous groups against the force of the modern state" (Evans & Boyte, p. 187)-Mediating structures are in a battle against government of simply put "the problem" (Evans & Boyte, p. 186). This strug' gle between the two ends up leaving our democracy weak and fragile. Are these valid concerns? Can relying on mediating structures to address social ills and foster community be so dangerous? Do mediating structures help or hurt efforts to create and sustain community? Do they help create socia* capital, the indispensable adhesive that holds our democracy together? The answers to these questions are complex, but to 50 |
