Social Power and the Future of Democracy

The editorial by E.J. Dionne Jr. in Sunday’s Washington Post, “Political dysfunction spells trouble for democracies” set me thinking about the basic factors that might be causing this situation.  As I contemplated this, on Monday, May 20^th David Brooks wrote an editorial in the New York Times, “What Our Words Tell Us.”  SO what do these two editorials have in common?  Everything!  And, they shed light on the decline of our social, economic, and political support networks.

Brooks’ editorial dealt with the use of the new database of 5.2 million books published between 1500 and 2008, and some of the research that has been done on the use of words.   Several sociologists, anthropologists, historians and other social scientists have been using the database to explore the use of phrases and words over the last several hundred years.  They looked into the frequency of words and phrases like “personalized,” “self,” “standout,” “unique,” “I come first” and “I can do it myself,”  words that relate to “it’s all about me” and they also looked into the frequency of use of phrases and words that relate to social groupings and social interaction like  “community,” “collective,” “tribe,” “share,” “united,” “band together” and “common good”  and the usage of words that imply selflessness, humility, appreciation and protection like “bravery” and “fortitude” “thankfulness” and “appreciation,”   “modesty” and “humbleness” “kindness” and “helpfulness.”   Other people looked into phrases and words like “discipline” and “dependability” “run the country,” “economic justice,” “nationalism,” “priorities,” “right-wing” and “left-wing”  that imply that politics, government and militarism have become more prevalent.

Although I have not studied the specific results, Brooks did summarize some interesting trends:  In the last 50 years or so, the literature reflects a more individualistic society and less social and communal.  I also infer that the literature reflects a more militaristic attitude, and by further implication, less trusting and more confrontational.

All this brought up to the surface of my conscious, long repressed academic interest I harbored while attending Stanford; the study of socio-economic and political transformations using systems theory.  It turns out that one can model the evolution of these groups where the eigenvalues of the transformation matrices reflect the direction of social, economic or political state.  A quick look into the current literature on this work turns out several interesting findings.  It turns out that this fellow, Bonacich, developed a relationship (1987) that suggested a useful way of modeling questions of social relationships and social “power” of individuals or groups.   The general form of the relationship is simple

c_i(α,β) = Σ (α – βc_j ) *R_i,j

(the equation really doesn’t matter, I just put it in here to show myself that I have not forgotten some of my mathematical training).  The point is, that it provides a way of describing individual and group relations  by showing which are in tension, or when competition, bargaining, struggle, and negotiation predominate, and where powerful contacts are constraining and disadvantageous.  The point is the key factor, β, that relates (in an indirect way) to the eigenvalue of a transformation matrix.  It illustrates that individuals and communities that share information (and resources) have higher collective “social power” and people and individuals who do not share, the “social power” concentrates in a few and many become less influential.

So, what does all this gobbledygook mean and what does this have to do with the two articles by Brooks and Dionne?  Well, I’m not sure.  But to me it means that Dionne is right, and the research of the Google database hints at why.  We are fragmenting ourselves as a society and “social power” to influence and control society is being focused on a few powerful individuals and/or organizations.  That is a very sad state of a Democracy indeed.

One does not have to go far to see these effects, I see them in my own family, this “me” mentality has overwhelmed the “family” mentality.  Societal issues do not seem to matter, There is no passionate involvement in social decision making, little interests in voting or participation in politics, low support (or at least not passionate support) for unions, public education, and in general, public sector support mechanisms.  Local newspapers (in our case the like the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, but it seems to be the same all over the country) do not cover or do not want to cover societal issues, and when they do it is not an objective report, but reflecting the ownership of the paper’s owners.  Instead, local papers concentrate on sensationalism.  This not only keeps the public ignorant and at best ill informed.  I see it in my co-workers.  All this fragmentation of family and society, loss of collective approach to social and economic problems, leads to political dysfunction and the establishments of centers of social power and influence concentrated in a few.

E.J. Dionne Jr.  is correct, “Political dysfunction spells trouble for democracies,” and in particular, our democracy.