BLOG 2 Inequalities and Political Engagement

 

Socioeconomic Inequality – Reality, Next Generation, Education and its Exacerbation

 

Democracy allows citizens to share their concerns on matters affecting them (Sloam et al. 2021, p. 298), therefore, populations need politicians who represent them. If certain groups in society are less active in terms of voting or having the government meet their needs, an imbalance forms (Dalton 2017, p. 6). This blog elaborates on the element of schooling through the use of statistics and raises the question of whether society wants to stop inequality. Main areas covered are school, class and wealth.

 

Active Citizenship and Social Inequality

 

Three elements are seen as being relevant to Active Citizenship – these are “Power, imagination and character” (Liu 2015, 3:27). Inclusion is also seen as being power, (Liu 2015, 6:20) and community cultivates ideas (Liu 2015, 12:31).

The full long video can be found below if interested

Social inequalities on the other hand, links to cultural capital and can be understood via elements such as parental education and cultural components (Hoskins, Janmaat and Melis 2017, p. 89 citing Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). Social inequality is occurring in an education system based on the idea of employment (Hoskins and Janmaat 2019, p. 51). Not only is the outcome of schools detrimental, but the education system also creates social class for children consisting of less ‘cultural capital’ (Hoskins and Janmaat 2019, pp. 61-62).

 

Looking at America, Ben-Porath (2013, p. 112) provides that education is undermining youth and civic virtue. Civic virtue connects with politics, civics and other elements such as behaviours and ‘self-perception’ (Ben-Porath 2013, p. 114). While students from higher socio-economic backgrounds have an advantage, (Ben-Porath 2013, p. 116), students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in America can attend schools such as Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) schools, which are ‘mission-based non-profit’ (Ben-Porath 2013, pp. 117-118).

 

These schools include longer schooling hours, Saturday schooling and shorter holidays (Ben-Porath 2013, pp. 118 – 119). Additionally, the discipline in these schools is strict and can include things such as long silent detentions, colour systems to monitor behaviour, and monetary reward systems (Ben-Porath 2013, p. 120). Open discussion and tolerance to alternative viewpoints is minimal and students are taught to follow rules (Ben-Porath 2013, pp. 122-123). Altogether, it appears these schools take away character and imagination, which Liu (2015) saw as key to Active Citizenship. Such grouping of social students leads to escalating inequality and decreases social change (Levačić and Woods 2002, pp. 221-222). It also leads to undesirable influences on student behaviour and academic results (Gutiérrez, Jerrim and Torres 2019, p. 171).

 

Generation, Education and Politics

 

Currently, youth are having difficulty entering a workforce in ‘advanced industrial democracies’ (Sloam 2014, p. 665) and gathered from British, German and American 15-24-year old’s, events such as marriage are being postponed in life (Sloam 2014 pp. 675-676). Looking to education and income we can see the impact on political engagement.

Statistics from the European Commission, 2019 (figures based on EU members before 2014), provide university degrees are becoming more common (Sloam et al. 2021, p. 298).

Table one (Sloam et al. 2021, pp. 303-304) provides that Participants who, 18 years and over, with Higher Education participation at the time of or in the past, scored higher in engagement than those who did not have Higher Education (Sloam et al. 2021, p. 310). Column B in comparison to M denotes this. For example, the difference in ‘Voted [in the] last national election’ was 10.5%. The difference in having signed a petition was also significant, 12.5%. All column B items were higher than column M items. Comparing column, A and B, there are significant differences between persons without Higher Education, such as a difference of 18.3 in favour of Higher Education, who have signed a petition.

Table 1

 

 

Table two provides that the difference in political engagement for 18-24-year old’s is due to whether they have participated in Higher Education. Comparing column D to E shows a difference in voting of 66.9% to 20.8% (Sloam et al. 2021, p. 312). However, interestingly is the 36.7% difference between column H and E. Column H and E have not engaged in higher income, however here, income appears to have a heavy influence. This can be further viewed in the differences seen in column F and I (Sloam et al. 2021, p. 312).

Table 2

 

Providing similar conclusions, is a Longitudinal data study on 14-19-year-olds regarding voting and age 20, for protesting, based in the United Kingdom (Hoskins and Janmaat 2016, p.73). Figure 1 (Hoskins and Janmaat 2016, p. 83) shows voting probability is higher for those educated at Level 3 (dark purple).

Figure 1

So, besides education and money, what else?

 

Factors such as historical events also have an influence. Chile provides that historical factors such as a period of dictatorship (1973-1989) and its neoliberal policies can affect a country into being one of the highest ranked in economic inequality (Castillo et al. 2015, p. 18). During this time a voucher system was implemented in schools which lead to students transferring from public to voucher schools, as they had more funding. As a result, the class divide widened (Castillo et al. 2015, p. 19).

 

Can socio-economic inequality be overcome on its own?

 

Ariely (2015) provides USA statistics showing the difference between how people think wealth is distributed, actual distribution and, wanted distribution. Statistics showed that the top 20% of people hold 84.4 percent of wealth, in comparison 58.5%, what people believed (Ariely 2015, 3:30). The bottom 20% was 0.1 % in comparison with the believed 2.9 % (Ariely 2015, 2.50-3:20). The percentage people wanted wealth to be distributed was 31% to the top 20% of wealthy people, and 10.5% to the bottom 20% of people (Ariely 2015, 4.56). The fact that there was a 2.8 % difference in what people believed and what was fact indicates that people cannot overcome inequality, such as monetary inequality, when they lack awareness.

 

Solutions?

 

Political activities at school could be made obligatory to reduce social class difference (Hoskins and Janmaat 2019, pp. 90-93) or the age of compulsory citizenship education could be raised to 18-years (Hoskins and Janmaat 2019, p. 93). However, Generation Z is a generation which engages in creative and different educational forms (Shaifer 2018, 9:45 – 10:06). In a way this makes sense. Newer generations are bombarded with information continuously – perhaps information needs to be ‘trendy’ for youth to pay attention.

What do you think? Are you in Generation Z and have some crafty solutions?

 

 

Bibliography:

 

 

 

  • Castillo, J C., Miranda, D., Bonhomme, M., Cox, C. and Bascopé, M. (2015) ‘Mitigating the political participation gap from the school: the roles of civic knowledge and classroom climate’, Journal of Youth Studies, 18:1, pp. 16-35, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.933199

 

 

  • Gutiérrez, G., Jerrim, J. and Torres., R. (2019) ‘School Segregation Across the World: Has Any Progress Been Made in Reducing the Separation of the Rich from the Poor?’, The Journal of Economic Inequality, 18, pp. 157-179. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-019-09437-3

 

 

  • Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J G. and Melis, G. (2017) ‘Tackling inequalities in political socialisation: A systematic analysis of access to and mitigation effects of learning citizenship at school’, Social Science Research, 68, pp. 88-101, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.09.001

 

  • Hoskins, B. and Janmaat, J G. (2019) Education, Democracy and Inequality. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

  • Levačić, R., and Woods, P A. (2002) ‘Raising School Performance in the League Tables (Part 1): Disentangling the Effects of Social Disadvantage’ British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), pp. 207–226, Avaliable at: https://www-jstor-org.roe.idm.oclc.org/stable/1501974

 

 

 

  • Sloam, J. (2014) ‘New Voice, Less Equal: The Civic and Political Engagement of Young People in the United States and Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 45(5), pp. 663-688. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453441

 

  • Sloam, J., Kisby, B., Henn, M., and Oldfield, B. (2021) ‘Voice, equality and education: the role of higher education in defining the political participation of young Europeans’, Comparative European Politics, 19(3), pp. 296-322. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-020-00228-z

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *