The Tension Between Civic Engagement and Individualism

Consistent, reciprocal, and mutually beneficial interactions between individuals create the social fabric that stitches people together in society. This social fabric is a must for societies to function, and individuals should remain attentive to the fact that any benefits they receive that they did not produce come at the cost of someone else. As the adage goes, there's no such thing as a free lunch; someone prepared the meal. Thus, individuals have a responsibility to pay it forward if they wish to continue to be able to glean from the benefits of a generous community.

Robert D. Putnam mapped out the state of the American social community in his book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. He described the decline in civic engagement, such as sports club memberships; participation in local, state, and federal elections; interacting with neighbors; reading newspapers; religious affiliation; and involvement in parent-teacher associations. Putnam noted that the proportion of people that consistently interacted with their neighbors fell from 71% in 1974 to 61% in 1993. In the same timeframe, the number of groups a person was engaged in fell by 26%. Though some activities saw increased individual participation, those individuals were less involved in competitive leagues. For example, from 1980–1993, there was a 10% increase in the number of people regularly bowling but a 40% decline in bowling league memberships. As community engagement decreased, people's trust in their fellow man declined in turn. In 1960, 58% of people agreed that "most people can be trusted." By 1993, only 37% of the population believed that to be true.

Putnam was not the first to point out citizens' responsibility for a healthy republic. These ideas stretch back to Plato and Socrates. At the founding of the United States, the Declaration of Independence emphasized the incumbency of citizens to call out injustices when they arise:

"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The authors went to great lengths to illustrate the injustices that King George III perpetuated on the American colonies and suggested that it was morally necessary for them to resist his tyranny. Their declaration assumed that lives would be lost by rebelling. However, they knew that failing to do so would leave a moral hole in the fabric of existence. The bloodshed was considered a lower cost than the subjugation.

In his book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, Michael J. Sandel makes a series of complex arguments over various topics. He guides the readers on a journey that illustrates the complexity that many moral quandaries have. For example, is it morally acceptable for the prices of goods to increase during a catastrophic event? If a hurricane breaks out, should gas stations be able to charge three times the price that they would during "normal events"? Opponents of such fluctuations call this behavior "price gouging," claiming that companies are simply capitalizing on the suffering that people are going through, knowing that they will comply with their strongarming of prices. However, Sandel discussed some of the economic mechanics that such emergencies cause. When local suppliers of goods cannot keep up with demand, suppliers from surrounding areas have an incentive to fill in the gaps. However, given the increased distance for transportation and the investment costs to raise production capacity, the price must increase to make up for the costs. We could have a good-faith debate on how much the price should be increased. However, since not everyone will agree on the number, it is best to let individuals make the call. 

Given the reality of complexity, how can we determine the degree that people are responsible for engaging in their community? How much does an individual need to give of themself to society? Should any answers we find be instantiated into law or left up to the individual? Such questions will always be debated. I find it challenging to take the stance of forcing an individual to live their life in a particular way. The groundwork of individual freedom already sets limitations on an individual's behavior (for example, I am not free to murder someone, as it would infringe on the rights of another person). However, I can concede that some areas may need governmental intervention.

A recent phenomenon that could fall under such cause for governmental regulation is social media companies' role in protecting their users' mental health. Given the vast amount of data on the correlation between social media and depression, increases in suicidal ideation, and the fracturing of interpersonal relationships, it could be argued that these companies should be required to adjust their algorithms to ameliorate such pathologies. It is not easy to fight against a supercomputer that knows your desires better than you do. It is easy to slip into entropic indifference and sloth. Perhaps individuals running such corporations should be obliged to take on the responsibility of helping their users fight against such maladaptive tendencies.

Elon Musk noticed another area where social media companies had gone astray in their responsibilities. When he purchased Twitter, he posited that social media companies' algorithms and policies restricting speech had become one-sided. He stated Twitter would open lines of dialogue across multiple political perspectives, emphasizing that he would not allow the company to shut down an account that had points of view that were unorthodox.

Upon purchasing the company, the team made public that the United States government had privately requested Twitter to suppress specific narratives and certain political figures. Choosing to expose the flaws of the company that he had just bought was a risk Elon was willing to take. Why? Lamenting on his findings, he tweeted,

"The more I learn, the worse it gets. The world should know the truth of what has been happening at Twitter. Transparency will earn the trust of the people."

Musk stated that it was incumbent on someone to reveal our political figures' engagement in suppressing our rights to speech. Elon Musk believed it was worth $44 billion to provide the public with a digital talking space that did not suppress the free exchange of ideas. As our founders stated in our Declaration of Independence, "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." To maintain vigilance against authoritarian power, the people must be informed to call out said corruption. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his stance, Elon Musk answered the call to what he saw as a civic duty.

It is easy to assume that such differences could only be made because of wealth and status. However, just as we cannot overlook the power of compound interest over time, we should have faith that actions made in truth and in good conscience will echo into eternity for the better. Though our spirits may fade in the wind, and the towers we build will fall, our actions are the ripples that splash onto the shores of the future. We are more than such stuff as dreams are made on.

—GCF, June 15, 2023