From Neighborhood to Nation: The Democratic Foundations of Civil Society

Notes

Notes 1. Representative vs. Participatory Government (pp. 1–7) 1. Stephen C. Craig, The Malevolent Leaders (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993). 2. The degree to which this assumed stability of democratic forms in unrealistic can be seen in James A. Morone’s examination of the epic struggles between the yearning for democracy and the dread of big government in American history, in The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998; originally published in 1990 by Basic Books). 3. Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1985); followed by The Good Society (New York: Knopf, 1991). 4. Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). 5. Robert Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6 (January 1995), pp. 65–78. He brings substantially more data to bear on these same issues in his subsequent book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000). 6. See, for example, the excellent review by Jean Cohen in “Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy: The Contemporary American Discourse of Civil Society,” Democracy and Trust, ed. Mark E. Warren (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 208–48; also see Margaret Levi, “Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work,” Politics and Society 24 (March 1996), pp. 45–55; and Alejandro Portes and Patricia Landolt , “The Downside of Social Capital,” The American Prospect 26 (May/June 1996), pp. 18–21, 94. 7. Important findings in the opposite direction include those presented by Sidney Verba, Kay Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Henry E. Brady, Voice and Equality: Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995); and by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Trust and Citizen Engagement in Metropolitan Philadelphia: A Case Study (Washington, D.C.: The Pew Research Center, 1997). 8. Cohen, “Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy,” p. 216. 9. See, for example, David B. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951), pp. 139–55. 10. The data for this book represents a portion of that collected as part of a larger study on the impact of citizen participation on policy responsiveness, local governance, and citizen capacity-building. The results of the larger study are reported in Jeffrey M. Berry, Kent E. Portney, and Ken Thomson, The Rebirth of Urban Democracy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993). 11. For an overview, see Albert Hunter, “The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test Through Replication,” American Sociological Review 40 (1975), pp. 537–52. 179 12. Jack L. Walker, “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,” American Political Science Review 77 (June 1983), pp. 390–406. 2. The Aggregation of Interests (pp. 8–32) 1. J. Roland Pennock, Democratic Political Theory (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp. 309–10. 2. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press, 1967). 3. Pitkin, Concept of Representation, p. 121, elaborated on pp. 127–39. She also examines a fourth classification, that of “deputy,” as well as a number of significant shadings of each of these areas, but concludes (p. 139) that three major concepts underlie all of these uses of representation in the sense of “acting for.” These three concepts I have embodied here in the terms “trustee,” “delegate,” and “agent.” 4. Thomas Hobbes, “Of Persons, Authors and Things Personated,” chapter 16, Leviathan (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977; originally published in 1651), pp. 132–36. 5. A. Phillips Griffiths and Richard Wollheim, “How Can One Person Represent Another ?” Aristotelian Society, Suppl. 34 (1960), pp. 187–224. 6. Pennock, Democratic Political Theory, p. 314. 7. Griffiths and Wollheim, “One Person,” p. 190. Pitkin’s comment (p. 269) in reference to this work is worth repeating: “Anyone who questions whether the insane man, the favorite example of political philosophers, has relevance to the realities of political life is referred to this item from the San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 1960: ‘Aroma (France), Nov. 9 (UPI)—Mayor Pierre Echalon complained today that it is impossible to run this French village sensibly because mental cases outnumber sane citizens in the local electorate. Echalon told provincial authorities that population of Aroma consists of 148 normal villagers and 161 patients in a...