 "Photo: Illustration by Whitney Bandel")
As daily consumers of news, we are bombarded with information about Americans "cutting back" in these "trying economic times." But typically we hear these stories in purely economic terms — efforts made to save money and reduce spending.
However, according to the 2009 America's Civic Health Index, we are also decreasing our civic and community engagement. This national survey found 72 percent of Americans have cut back on time spent volunteering and participating in groups or doing other civic activities. Thus while our country's economic capital is hurting, so is our social capital.
That is not the only interesting development to surface from this study. Although there is an overall decline of participation in what we consider to be traditional forms of civic activity, this year's survey introduced new "indicators of engagement" to focus on the often overlooked forms.
Compared against traditional modes of civic participation, such as volunteering, this study also included statistics on the provisions of food, money or shelter to relatives or nonrelatives, and something quite important was discovered.
The 2009 America's Civic Health Index concluded, in these new areas, those with the lowest income are actually giving more than those with the highest income. The report's executive summary points out "although people of modest means are less likely to volunteer than affluent Americans (29 percent vs. 50 percent), they are more likely to give food, money or shelter (24 percent vs. 21 percent)."
Notably, of those who do not volunteer at all, 39 percent of those making less than $50,000 a year engage by providing food or shelter. Of those with higher income levels, only 27 percent of nonvolunteers give in these ways.
A number of meanings can be pulled from this study.
One way is people of all income levels are starting to see the importance of being civically engaged in new ways based on the times — providing food, money or shelter are more personal, "neighborly" ways of contributing to the community for some. It is also important to look at this study as an indication of the civic contributions made by individuals at all income levels.
Whereas many from higher income backgrounds assume that service is always directed at low-income individuals — a dehumanizing, disempowering approach to service — this study shows, in fact, the reciprocity of service (who receives it and who provides it) is not necessarily based on income.
More affluent Americans may need services that those with less financial means can provide, and those with less financial means can and do look to others in the same income category for temporary assistance.
Similarly, those with higher incomes may also seek assistance from their financial peers. The economy requires people to civically participate by "opening up their homes, feeding their friends, and sharing their wealth (even if they themselves are needy) to support others" — and those with lower incomes are doing this more than their wealthier counterparts.
Though not explicit in the study, a central point from its findings requires a shift in a commonly-held paradigm of service. Regardless of income (hint: even poor college students), we can be active civic participants in our communities. The perspective that only those of low income status are beneficiaries of service is incorrect and ignores the civic contributions and services that lower income individuals are providing to others. Service is meant to empower everyone involved.
Moving past perceptions about income as being indicative of an individual's ability to give and serve is crucial if we are going to restore the vibrant civic health of our country.
-Molly Hamm is a senior in education and international studies. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
1 comments
Great job on the political cartoon. That is how the dialogue is supposed to happen.