This post is a summary of the book with the title above and was published in 2008 at https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262524827_sch_0001.pdf
Democracy is not a sure thing. Governments and party systems often strain against changes in societies, and some fall prey to corruption and bad policies. Under the right conditions, people may reassert their right to govern, and produce remarkable periods of creative reform, realignment, and change. In these times, politics becomes a focus of personal life itself, restoring the sense that participation makes a difference. The challenges of influencing the course of nations and addressing global issues may inspire creative solutions from citizens who have access to digital communications. It is clear that many citizens of this digital age have demonstrated interests in making contributions to society. Yet the challenge of engaging effectively with politics that are linked to spheres of government remains, for most, a daunting prospect. The reasons are numerous. A casual look at world democracies suggest that many are showing signs of wear. Parties are trying to reinvent themselves while awkwardly staying the course that keeps them in power. The trend in dissatisfaction with conventional politics engagement are not just occurring in the U.S. The pathways to disconnection from government are many: citizens are frequently negative about politics, the tone of the press is often cynical, candidates seldom appeal directly to voters on their own terms about their concerns, politicians have poisoned the public well with vitriol and negative campaigning, and people see the media filled with inauthentic performances from officials who are staged by professional communication managers. Paralleling these developments has been a notable turning away from public life into online networks. Where political activity occurs, it is often related to lifestyle concerns that seem outside the realm of government. Many observers properly note that there are signs of civic engagement in these nongovernmental areas, including increases in volunteer work, high levels of activism, and impressive involvement in social causes. Many of the spontaneous forms of collective expression online seem more appealing than the options typically offered in engagements sites sponsored by parties and governments. This exchange, along with many others, show that the same evidence can be interpreted differently when placed in different paradigm frames. The engaged youth viewpoint, in a sense, empowers people by recognizing personal expression and their capacity to project identities in collective spaces. The future of democracy is in the hands of these citizens of the so-called digital age. These new media reposition their users in society, making them both producers and consumers of information. Perhaps more important, they enable rapid formation of large-scale networks that may focus their energies in critical moments. In other cases, applications of digital media do seem to bridge, and at times, transcend the conventional boundaries between different kinds of political organizations such as parties, interest groups, and social movements. Despite these and other signs of potential to revive and perharps reinvent politics among next generations citizens, two trends seem to hold: 1) The majority of those communicating with young people about politics continue to do so in tired top-down, highly managed ways that most young people find inauthentic. 2) What young people do online tends to be largely social and entertainment oriented, with only tangential pathways leading to conventional civic and political world. These two patterns are most likely related to each other. For example, in order to learn how to expand youth involvement, politicians, policymakers and educators need to communicate differently with young citizens. And in order for citizens to feel confortable engaging in politics, they need to feel invited to participate on their own terms, and to learn who to use their digital tools to better express their voices. Resolving dissonant perceptions of proper citizenship and participation, while suggesting ways in which media may help better connect people to public life, may enable future generations to reinvent their democracies. The challenge for civic education and engagement is to begin by recognizing the profound generational shift in citizenship style that seems to be occurring in most of the postindustrial democracies. There is need for caution and creativity in thinking about implementing more creative approaches to engage young people in communication with each other about real political concerns. Many scholars have discovered a shift in value in postindustrial democracies in which people are more inclined to become interested in personally meaningful, lifestyle-related political issues, rather than party or ideological programs. These citizens seek public commitments and issues that fit with the values at the center of personal lifestyles, giving rise to trends in politics, for example. What is needed is research that combines principles underlying both citizenship styles. That is, research aimed at identifying and assessing strategies of engagement that appeal to citizens while creating connections to government that help promote democratic ideals. Depending on how the above learning scenarios play out, there are several different scenarios for future engagement. It is important to understand that these developments need not be left to their own evolution or devolution. In the process of synthesizing what we know about engagement we, academics, educators, policymakers, NGOs, journalists, foundations, public officials, and young people, can make choices about what outcomers are desirable. If nothing is done to bridge the paradigms, the default scenarios will likely be persistent with youth disconnection from politics, with little reconciliation of the gap between different citizenship styles, and continuing unproductive paradigm battles in the academic world. A second scenario utilizes the possibilities for convergence of tech and political practices to bring vibrant experiences of politics into calssroom and even elections, showing young people how their concerns can gain public voice within the conventional arenas of power and decision making. The most important question before us is: What kind of democratic experiences would we choose for future generations? This is a properly political question, yet it is one that often chills creativity among government officials, educators, and NGOs, the very players with the capacity to make a defference in the potilical futures of young people. The outcomes for youth engagement, insofar as they involve the restoration of positive engagement with government alongside creative and expressive personal communication, depend importantly on the adults who shape the early political impressions of young people. Are politicians, parents, educators, policymakers, and curriculum developers willing to allow young citizens to more fully explore, experience, and expand democracy, or will they continue to force them to just read all about it?
