Politics:
The Foundation of Humanity
The Foundation of Humanity
Politics is an infinitely complex field, but it is crucial to understand it nonetheless. Every individual must have a grasp on both the underlying concepts and the concrete actions in order to maximize the productivity and quality of our systems and societies.
So, what is politics? To answer this question, we must explore some critical definitions:
Politics is “the art or science of government.”
Government is “the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization.”
Authority is “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.”
Therefore, politics is a field that encompasses and examines how humans distribute and use power. Such power dynamics are indeed crucial: they determine the treatment of groups and individuals by the government; the perception of groups and individuals by other groups and individuals; the allocation of valuable resources; and the functioning of communities. A balance of power in a political system – including accountability and flexibility in the government – is tedious, but necessary. Contrarily, a power imbalance (whether it is within the elite, between the government and citizens, or among identity groups) can result in catastrophe.
Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, is fraught with conflict and cleavages. This postcolonial state only gained independence in 1960, and its time under the British Empire heavily influenced the social dynamics that exist now. When the British first seized control of Nigeria’s territory and previously existing tribes, more settlements arose in the Southern region for practical reasons (coastal access, communication abilities, etc.). This allowed infrastructure to be built, schools to be established, and Christian missionaries to spread their religion much more in the South than in the North. Today, the impact of this is that the mostly Muslim North is less developed and less wealthy than its Southern Christian counterparts. This fact has created a great deal of resentment, resulting in extremist Islamic groups such as Boko Haram, which have terrorized Christian communities. This demonstrates how complex power imbalances can result in political consequences.
Pure power struggles are not the source of all political tensions, though; human beliefs are just as important. Human societies hold many fundamental values and beliefs, determined by vast histories of cultural evolution. However, a common set of beliefs held by all groups, in one way or another, is beliefs about human nature. These not only have a long history of consideration, but also a broad application to different contexts. Such beliefs are often demonstrated in religions, cultures, ethnicities, and other major identity groups that shape politics.
Many religions subscribe to the idea that humans are fundamentally evil. For example, the Christian doctrine of Original Sin describes the human condition as “suffering, death, and a universal tendency toward sin” (Encyclopedia Britannica). However, others believe that humans are innately compassionate and kind. Many traditional East Asian religions, such as Buddhism and Confucianism, subscribe to a humanist view of innate compassion and the ability of all humans to correct their wrongdoings in the interest of a greater good. Furthermore, Hasidic Judaism teaches that “no man is so sinful that he cannot be purified by love and understanding” (Chaim Potok, The Chosen 91)
However, the debate over human nature can really be reduced to a single question: “Are humans essentially good or bad?”
In response to this question, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau stated that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Goodreads). English philosopher Thomas Hobbes disagreed, claiming that humans in their state of nature were savages, and that “[t]he condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone” (Goodreads). Lastly, another English philosopher named John Locke conceptualized a compromise, stating that “[w]e are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character, from those who are around us” (Goodreads). Their disagreement can be summarized as: society is the problem, human nature is the problem, or society and human nature are both the problem and solution.
Of course, each of these perspectives is severely limited by context – Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke were all wealthy, white, privileged men. Additionally, they all adhered to the same basic philosophical framework, known as social contract theory. However, much debate regarding human nature in politics can be boiled down to their arguments. Not only that, but basic political systems also relate to their views of human nature: Rousseau favored direct democracy, in which citizens could influence the government without distortions by society; Hobbes preferred monarchy and totalitarianism to counteract humans’ inherent evil; and Locke chose a representative democracy, in which the the people elected government officials to make decisions for them, effectively limiting both the system and citizens.
In reality, views about human nature cannot be so neatly partitioned as they are here: there is no single answer to the question of whether we are good or bad. Every individual must come to their own conclusion regarding the innate tendencies of humanity, and these beliefs will implicitly guide all actions within the political sphere.
Now that we have a framework for understanding politics, we will investigate the contemporary political world. In recent history, one of the most significant phenomena has been globalization, defined as “a rapid increase in the flow of economic activity, technology, and communications around the globe, and the increased sharing of cultural symbols, political ideas, and movement across countries” (Orvis and Drogus 460).
There are four primary periods when globalization was accelerated. Each marks a moment when new technological innovation broadened networks of power and information (National Geographic).
The Silk Road (50 BCE-250 CE). This was “an ancient network of trade routes across China, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean.” Key innovations of this time included the production of coins, the construction of roads, and advancements in agriculture, all of which spurred the sharing of commodities (ex. Spices, silk) and ideas (ex. Buddhism).
The Age of Exploration (1400-1600). Once complex trade routes on land had long been established, European explorers took to the sea, which required new innovations such as advanced ship designs and the magnetic compass. Although they set out with the goal of furthering trade with Asia, the result of their discovery was a continent thriving with foreign ecosystems and peoples. The spread of European things to the Americas (such as Christian missionaries, diseases, and livestock) and American things to Europe (such as tobacco, gold, and silver) marked a significant increase in the interconnectedness of the world.
The Age of Revolution (1770s-1850s).“Revolution” here certainly refers to the American and French political revolutions, which furthered ideas of freedom and liberty. However, it also refers to the Industrial Revolution. Beginning in the mid-18th century in Europe, the Industrial Revolution included numerous inventions (such as the steam engine, textile machinery, the telegraph, and the telephone) that triggered a shift from agricultural work to factory work, and from rural communities to urban communities. This altered the quality of life (improvements for some, deterioration for others), increased the pace of work, and altered the functionality and accessibility of technology.
The Information Age (1950s-present). The Information Age is, in a way, an extreme version of industrialization: the rapid pace of technological pioneering has only increased in the past centuries, and information technology is just the latest installment. Innovations such as the World Wide Web, Artificial Intelligence, smartphones and computers, complex cyber networks, and much more have caused a shift to an information-based world, in which economic and political networks are linked in unimaginable ways. This has prompted a fundamental reassessment of the government.
Although one might suppose that globalization increases cohesiveness in society, it has often had the opposite effect by stimulating polarization between groups. Polarization occurs when opposite ends of the political spectrum move further and further away from compromise.
Today, “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades.” Contrarily, most Americans are actually ideologically in the center or mixed, but those with more radical left or right views tend to dominate politics because they are the ones who take the initiative to impact the government. Other trends of polarization in America include more uniformity among the two major parties, more widespread negative views of the opposing side, and more personal grudges against individuals with differing political affiliations (Pew Research Center). And this isn’t just unfortunate on the surface level: according to Orvis and Drogus, “polarization undermines the norm of mutual toleration, weakening democracy” (428). Mutual tolerance, in which opposing groups are courteous and accept one another’s importance despite differences, is a critical standard of civic culture, and weakening it weakens the foundation of democracy.
It would not be an exaggeration to state that polarization is an urgent predicament – it is a major limitation to the ability of government and citizens alike to work cohesively with others. This not only makes society unsafe and unpleasant, but hinders us from effectively addressing the other catastrophes that have arisen with globalization (and these issues are seemingly endless: climate change, humanitarian emergencies, natural disasters, raging wars, poverty, and inequality…). Our capacity for solving these problems is determined by the ability of all political actors to overcome their differences and work together.
One might ask (and, in fact, many have asked): How do we solve this crisis? The short answer is building social capital, which is the “value derived from positive connections between people” (SNHU). Social capital requires collective action, in which individuals amass their passion, motivation, and resources in order to make a positive impact. Social capital is the currency on which all of politics is based – without it, nothing would happen.
However, this broad definition is difficult to conceptualize and even more difficult to initiate. Many feel overcome with hopelessness regarding the plentiful issues in the world and the seeming lack of solutions. This results in the collective action problem, a situation in which "individuals [are] unwilling to engage in a particular activity because of their rational belief that their individual actions will have little or no effect yet collectively [suffer] adverse consequences when all fail to act" (Orvis and Drogus 246).
This is why I constructed a simple framework for individuals to initiate their participation in civic activity: Learn, Engage, Advocate, and Debate. LEAD simplifies the complex world of politics into an understandable foundation, which, if used, will inevitably result in more valuable connections, more innovative solutions, and more productive communities.
Learning is understanding politics. Students have the privilege to learn about politics in an academic setting, but everyone has the opportunity to further their knowledge. Perhaps the most prominent way to do this is through the media. Whether through TV, newspapers, radio, or another source, mass media have always allowed the world to communicate events and ideas.
However, with the rise of the internet, news stories from across the globe are available instantaneously, providing a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips. This is a blessing and a curse: when used cautiously, the news can be informative and enhance civic engagement, but when used recklessly, it can spread misinformation and increase unnecessary negative emotions. These negative emotions can be between groups, but they can also exist individually in the form of the information dilemma: how much do we really want or need to know about what’s happening across the world? Do we have a responsibility to be aware of global issues on which we can have no impact?
These risks of media are why media literacy is so significant: although all sources are biased to some degree, one must avoid severely biased information in order to not misjudge groups or events. Some news outlets known for being unbiased and reliable are the BBC, The Economist, The New York Times, The Guardian, and CBS News, but this is not an exhaustive list by any means.
Engagement is participating in the political process. This is the foundation of democracy: institutionalized civic engagement, typically in the form of elections. The right to vote is a crucial one, which most modern democracies have secured. However, there are still restrictions on the right to vote.
In general, there are three primary barriers: age restrictions, norms of inequality, and formal institutions of inequality. Firstly, the age barrier prevents minors from voting. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be a hindrance to young people who wish to become involved in political processes. Secondly, implicit structures and societal norms often prevent marginalized groups from voting with the same ease as the majority: for example, Jim Crow-era laws in the United States. Lastly, laws can formalize inequality in voting: for example, the system of apartheid in South Africa prevented Black people, Colored people, and Indians from voting for nearly five decades.
However, these barriers can be overcome using the next principle of LEAD: Advocate.
Advocating is fighting for the causes one cares about, typically outside of formal institutions. While engaging in the government is critical, advocating for change in contexts apart from the government is just as important. Advocacy encompasses all participation in civil society, such as joining nonprofits or social movements, volunteering at a local organization, donating money or resources, petitioning for or against legislation, contacting government officials, and protesting.
Debate is engaging in civil discourse regarding politics (notice the emphasis on “civil”). All too often, political debates become heated, and people come to believe the solution is to simply avoid discussion. However, as Kurt Gray, a Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, states in his groundbreaking book Outraged, we all have the same foundation for our ethical codes: fear. This offers another conceptualization of human nature in politics: not as purely ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but as variations of ‘fearful.’ If you can understand what threat someone sees, you will better understand why they think something you initially saw as incomprehensible.
Aside from being crucial for building positive personal connections, courteous and open conversation is the easiest and most direct way to promote political participation. By withholding assumptions and biases, asking genuine questions and listening, and giving people the benefit of the doubt (all difficult tasks, but worthwhile nonetheless), one can have more meaningful conversations about politics, weaken polarization, and build social capital.
By using LEAD in our everyday lives, political participation will be enhanced, resulting in an improved political system. And, as we have discovered, political systems are fundamental to society, and major determinants of the quality of our lives: ergo, civic participation has great potential to better the world.
Summary:
Politics is “the art or science of government.”
Power dynamics and our understanding of human nature are both crucial concepts in politics.
Globalization is increasing the connectedness of the world
Polarization is a consequence of globalization
Collective action, social capital, and positive impact are mutually reinforcing and can be generated through Learning, Engaging, Advocating, and Debating (LEAD).
Hope Hesselink has been a homeschooler in Maryland her entire life. She is an avid reader, loves politics and philosophy, and is proud to be a Scout, black belt in karate, and guitarist.