Engaged Learning as a Bridge to Civic Engagement

41 “thE arC of thE moral univErSE is long, but it bends toward justice.” This famous quotation—a Martin Luther King Jr. paraphrase of nineteenth century minister and reformer Theodore Parker—evokes one of the most inspiring images in the history of ideas and has provided a ray of hope during periods of setback in various struggles to achieve a more just society. Yet, it also conveys a dangerous sense of inevitability that may encourage passivity about long-term civic outcomes. Frederick Douglass’s authoritative articulation of politics offers a more engaged—and more realistic—vision of the struggle for justice. “Power concedes nothing without demand,” he said; “it never did, and it never will.”1 Douglass understood that the arc is long in large part because those who have power and privilege in a society will, as a group, do whatever they can to hold on to their advantaged position. Because they have power, that power can and will be used to suppress those who seek change and the redress of injustice. The German social theorist Max Weber pointed out that there are two ways that members of society come to accept the established political, economic, and social order: (1) intimidation through fear of coercion—i.e., a police state or its equivalent—and (2) acceptance of the legitimacy of the order of things.2 Since most of us grow up in families in which we take what we see to be “normal,” we regard it as “normal” to accept one’s condition. This acceptance is the fundamental building block of what sociologists term “legitimacy.” If you grow up in a monarchy, then the monarch comes to be seen as the legitimate authority. If you grow up in a democracy, then the elected head of state comes to be seen as having legitimate authority. If you grow up in a theocracy, then.... But rebellions, insurgencies, coups, and revolutions do sometimes arise, and then the police power of the state comes into play. Which brings me to a vital distinction between two strategies for change: policy versus action. Policy is a top-down strategy. Those in positions of power can and do shape policy decisions about the allocation of resources. Whether they come from kings and queens or from theocratic leaders, from presidents and prime ministers or from bureaucrats, top-down government policies come from those in authoritative positions of political power. In sharp contrast, action is a bottom-up strategy for change. From food-price rebellions to coal-miner’s Engaged Learning as a Bridge to Civic Engagement