New Civic Engagement? Where Has the ‘Public’ and ‘Work’ Gone in Public Work?

• In Event: Civic Engagement Models and Practices

Abstract

Debates concerning civil renewal were quite popular in the 1990s but have largely gone dormant in academic circles. Its proponents posited that the civil renewal movement (CRM) framework complemented liberal democratic politics due to their nonpartisan approach to promoting democratic values, teaching civic skills, and contributing to local problem-solving. Its critics argued the framework was averse to criticizing the status quo and took an ambiguous position on policy. While academic debates around it may have waned, the rhetoric of civic renewal is alive and well today within civic organizations, but with some crucial differences. First, there has been a change in scope from local to national, accompanied by a shift in emphasis from geographical representativeness to a specialized interest group focus. Second, the claims of impact have become more ambitious; instead of complementing liberal democratic politics, some CRMs adopt a language that posits themselves as just as, or even more, important than politics in solving public problems. Third, there has been a shift in focus from substantive issues to dialogue around the topic of polarization. These shifts, in addition to broader structural shifts such as the cooptation of civic enterprises by private philanthropists, suggest that CRMs may not merely be benign, but antithetical to liberal democratic politics. This paper takes up these concerns and addresses their impact on the concept of civic in terms of how they modify notions of participation, impartiality, and cross-cutting ties.

Author

• Erika Coe, University of Montana