collaborative governance and civic empowerment

8/10/2019 Collaborative Governance and Civic Empowerment

1/14


2/14


3/14


4/14

authority, they

can use

their

power

to enter

legislative

venues,

such

as

state

and federal

arenas,

where related

pol

icy

decisions

can

render local collaborative efforts

largely

meaningless

(Weir,

Rongerude,

and

Ansell

2009).

Success

ful local collaboration

requires

building

multilevel

politi

cal

power

to

defend

and

expand

the

scope

of

authority

for

collaboration.

Without

access

to

levers

of

power,

collabo

ration is

simply

a

diversion.

Finally,

issues of

power

emerge

when

we

consider

the

durability

of

collaborative

enterprises.

Sirianni shows that

widespread

support

for the

planning

efforts

helped

to

elect

a

sympathetic

mayor

in

Seattle

in

1998,

and

perhaps

more

impressively,

to

pass

bond

measures

needed

to

implement

the

planning

process

(pp.

99-100).

In

2007,

however,

Seattle

elected

a

new

mayor

who

had little

interest

n

pro

moting

the

model

of

decentralized

collaboration that

Sir

ianni

documents

and,

accordingly,

downgraded

the effort

(pp.

106-16).

Chicago

community

policing,

a

case

that

the author cites

as a

model

of

collaborative

governance,

lost

much of its

capacity

for

autonomous

civic

engage

ment

when

the

police

department

withdrew

support

for

the

independent

organizing

that

had

begun

to

rattle local

politicians.1

These setbacks

suggest

that

collaborative

pro

cesses

are

quite

vulnerable

to

political

rollback. Unless

those

engaged

in

collaboration have the

political

power

to

defend

the

structures

and

resources

thatmake

collabora

tion

possible, they

can

be scaled back

or

eliminated

in

the

face

of

tightening budgets, unfavorable elections,

or

shift

ing

fashions

in

public

administration.

These

concerns

underscore

the

ways

that

politics

can

intrude

on

collaboration.

Collaborative

processes

do

not

suspend

the

battle

among

contending

interests

and the

struggle

for

advantage

in

policymaking;

at

their

best,

they

constrain

and direct these

forces

while

engaging

themwith

a

broader

set

of

ordinary

citizens.

But

collaborative

pro

cesses

are

always

vulnerable

to

defectors

who

venue-shop

to

get

a

better

deal

and

to

politicians

who

see

no

advan

tage

in

supporting

collaboration.

This

vulnerability

sug

gests

that

durable collaboration

requires

the

backing

of

governmental power in the formof regulation, participa

tory

requirements,

and

ongoing political

action

to

defend

and

expand

its

domain. Political

vulnerability

also

high

lights

he limits

f collaboration:

Where

collaborative efforts

have

insufficient

authority

and

no

plan

for

expanding

their

reach,

they

are

a

diversion

from

the

hardwork of

political

engagement.

If

politics

intrudes

on

collaboration,

how

might

collab

orative

processes

intrude

on

political

processes?

Does

col

laboration

filter

out

into

the

larger

political

system,

providing

new

pathways

to

engagement,

improved

polit

ical

discourse,

or

deeper

trust

n

the

political

system?

hese

are critical questions for assessing the payoff from this

type

of

investment

in

democracy.

One

area

of

paramount

importance

that

Sirianni

touches

on

is

political

socializa

tion.

After

a

decade of

building

the

system

f

youth

involve

merit

in

civic

affairs,

he

reports

that the

youth

vote

in

Hampton

Virginia,

was

18.5%

higher

than the

national

average

in

2000

and

28.7%

higher

in

2004

(p.

154).

Fur

ther

research should

investigate

the

impact

of collabora

tive

governance

on

youth

political

engagement

and on the

political

involvement of

immigrants

who

participate

in

collaborative

governance,

such

as

those

in

Seattle.

If

col

laborative

processes

can

promote

political

socialization and

stimulate

broader

political

participation,

especially

among

those who

are

poised

to

acquire

a

lifelong

pattern

of

par

ticipation, they

may

exert a

significant

nd

positive

impact

on

the

ills of American

democracy.

Additional research

into

the

relationship

between

collaborative

governance

and

participation

more

broadly?as

well

as

the

size

and

dura

bility

of

any

political

socialization effect?will

help

illu

minate

this

potentially important

channel for

revitalizing

American

democracy.

The

exploration

of

the

pathways through

which collab

orative

governance

influences

politics

raises

a

fundamen

tal

question

about

collaborative

endeavors:

Do

they aspire

to

serve

as a

substitute

for

regular

political

channels

or

do

they

aim

to

reform

the

political system?

n

California,

the

dysfunctional

state

government

has

sparked

broad

interest

in

collaborative

processes.

But

at

the

end of the

day,

deci

sions

about

resource

allocation

are

political

decisions. Unless

supporters

of

collaborative

governance

recognize

this

real

ity,

their

effortswill

remain

small,

vulnerable islands of

engaged civility ithin

a

sea

of apathetic, polarized, unequal

politics

dominated

by

big

money

interests.

Even

worse,

enthusiasm for

collaborative

processes

may

encourage

a

focus

on

the

issues

most

amenable

to

collaboration,

rather

than

on

conflict-provoking legislative

measures

that

are

essential for

addressing

many

problems.

Financial

literacy,

a

collaborative initiative

that Sirianni

points

to,

provides

a

case

in

point.

While it

is

certainly important

for low

income

people

to

learn

how

to

manage

their

money,

build

assets,

and limit their

chances of

getting

caught

in

the

web

of

the

credit card

companies,

is

it

not

more

important

to

regulate

those firms

hose

business model

requires

them

to prey on ordinaryAmericans?

Sirianni's

argument

that

government

needs

to struc

ture,

promote,

and

provide

ongoing

resources

for collab

orative

governance

is

a

refreshing

nd

invaluable

departure

from the

purely

voluntarist

approaches

to

civic

engage

ment.

But

we must

not

lose

sight

of the

fact

that

politics

will

always

impinge

on

collaborative

ventures

and

that

government

is

never a

neutral

problem

solver. Govern

ments are

controlled

by

parties

and

politicians

who

sup

port

distinctive

goals

and

purposes;

moreover,

theAmerican

political

system

provides

many

opportunities

for

losers

in

the

collaborative

process

to

seek

advantage

elsewhere. Col

laboration promises a path to overcome dysfunctional,

litigious,

unresponsive

governments.

Yet it

is

important

to

identify

he

conditions

under

which

collaborations

are

likely

to

achieve

these

goals

and

to

remain

attentive

to

the

danger

June

2010

|

Vol

8/No.

2

597

This content downloaded from 131.130.253.60 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 05:34:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


5/14


6/14

As

an

example,

Sirianni

offers

community

policing.

Widely

used

throughout

theUnited

States,

this

strategy

f

crime

control

aims

to

engage

community

residents

in

work

ing

with

police

and other law

enforcement

officers.

Through

a

variety

ofmethods,

ranging

fromblock watches

to

restorative

justice

programs

(where

civic

groups

adju

dicate

minor

offenses),

local

citizens

are

allowed

to

utilize

their

familiarity

with their

surroundings

(and

their

neigh

bors)

to

help

promote

public

safety.

At the

same

time,

professional

law

enforcement officials

can

still do

what

they

are

uniquely qualified

to

do,

such

as

collect

data

about

the incidence

of

lawlessness,

or,

of

course,

appre

hend and

punish

criminals.

As Sirianni views

it,

this kind

of

partnership

leads

to not

only

better

results

(particularly

in

areas

where

community

pressure

can

affect

individual

or

collective

behavior),

but

also better

citizens,

more

knowl

edgeable

about the

problems

they

face

and the often dif

ficult choices

required

to

resolve

them.

At

a

time

when

surveys

show considerable

unhappi

ness over

polarization

and

gridlock

in

government,

col

laborations like

these

understandably

have

broad

appeal

in

that

they

transcend

ideological

divisions.

Portions

of

the

Left

have

always

had

a

fondness for

Jeffersonian

deas

of

democracy,

which look

upon

community

groups

as

schools

for civic

virtue

and vehicles

for

self-government,

worthy

of

encouragement.

And

notwithstanding

Sarah

Palin's

jibes

about

community

organizers

during

the 2008

presidential campaign, segments on theRight have also

viewed

empowering

people

as

an

alternative

to

an

expan

sive

and

intrusive welfare

state,

even to

the

point

of

allowing

for

the

possibility

of

government

help

for medi

ating

institutions. 3

In

fact,

until overtaken

by

the war

on

terrorism,

supporting

faith-based and

community

organizations

looked

likely

to

be

one

of

the

signature

initiatives

of

George

W.

Bush's

presidency.

Moreover,

as

the

case

studies

in

Investing

in

Government

show,

collaborative

governance

is

not

an

untried

concept.

Sirianni

describes

in

elaborate detail

neighborhood

plan

ning

efforts

in

Seattle,

Washington,

youth engagement

programs inHampton, Virginia, and a varietyof environ

mental

projects

undertaken

by

the

United States

Environ

mental

Protection

Agency

(EPA).

These

examples

suggest

to

him

that

government

can

successfully

promote

mean

ingful

civic

activity

in

different

locations

and

on

a

variety

of

issues.

Hence,

the

book's

chief

recommendations: that

federal

agencies

should do

more

to

incorporate

a

civic

mission

into

their

activities

and

a

White House

office

should be

created

to

give

high-level

impetus

to

the idea.

Sirianni

acknowledges

that

previous

effort

o

foster cit

izen

participation,

such

as

the

ill-fated

(and

in

his

view,

ill-designed)

Community

Action

Program

of the

war

on

poverty, tarnished the idea's reputation. Indeed, a copi

ous

literature

now

exists

that

seeks

to

explain

what

went

wrong.4

However,

according

to

Sirianni,

research

on

delib

erative

democracy

and other

efforts

to

engage

the

public

in

decision-making

has

now

illuminated

a

series

of

prin

ciples

that

can

guide

more

successful

collaborations.

These

include

focusing

on

community

assets

(rather

than

defi

cits),

sharing professional

expertise, transforming

institu

tional cultures

(especially

in

government

bureaucracies),

and

several others

(p.

42).

Since

each

of

the

examples

he

offers

manages

to

incorporate

these

principles

in its

efforts,

Sirianni

sees

them

as

models

for

implementing

the

civic

mission

he

wants

federal

agencies

to

adopt.

Still,

the evidence that these

experiments

in

democracy

are

successfully

addressing

important policy

issues is thin.

Although

he makes

a

few claims about

results

(such

as

reduced

juvenile

crime

rates

in

a

Hampton

neighbor

hood),

most

of the

Sirianni

book describes

a

seemingly

endless

procession

of

studies,

meetings,

conferences,

train

ings,

and

occasionally,

even

elections

or

referenda.5

That

is

not

surprising,

since

in

an

important

way,

the real

goal

of these

initiatives

s civic

engagement.

The

time-consuming

process

of

mobilizing

citizens

and

building

relationships

is

assumed

to

be

not

just

a

first,

but

also

an

essential

step

toward

getting public

work done.

Research

provides

some

support

for that

view. For

exam

ple,

communities

rich

in

social

capital ?networks

among

citizens

and between

civic

groups

and the

police?have

lower

crime-rates than

those

with

weaker social

ties6

and

schools that involve

parents

in

their

efforts

are

likely

to

out-perform

those

more

bureaucratically

controlled.7

But

civic activism can produce a varietyof less salutary results

as

well8

and

Sirianni

does little

to

demonstrate

that

Seat

tle's

neighborhoods,

Hampton's

young

people,

or

the

large

number

of

watersheds and other

sites

involved

in

theEPA's

programs

are

better off for

having

networks of

engaged

citizens.

The

challenges

governments

face

in

embracing

a

civic

mission

ought

not

to

be overlooked

either.Much

of

the

interest

in

collaborative

government

stems

from

a

belief

that

public

(and

to

a

lesser

xtent,

non-governmental)

agen

cies

have

become

too

professionalized

and

hence,

too

dis

tant

from

and

unresponsive

to

citizens.9

Accordingly,

giving

people greater opportunities to participate, and furnish

ing

them,

where

necessary,

with

enough

training

to

do

so

effectively,

seems

called

for

to restore

public

trust

in

government.

However,

apart

from

the

question

of

the

willingness

of

ordinary

citizens

to

spend

their

spare

evenings

contem

plating

the

finer

points

of,

say,

oning,

education,

or

envi

ronmental

rules,

the

kinds

of initiatives

Sirianni

advocates

are

apt

to

demand

a

great

deal

from

government

too.

As

earlier

efforts

to create

partnerships

have

shown,

more

sophisticated

management?including

better

monitoring

and

measurement

of

results?will be

required.

Predic

tions that governingbynetwork will save taxpayersmoney

or

trim

the ranks of

public

employees

are

apt

to

be illuso

ry.10

If

anything,

it

requires

more

professionalism,

not

less.

June 2010

|

Vol.

8/No.

2

'

599



7/14

Siriannis

own

accounts

bear this

out.

All

the

more

remarkable,

then,

is

that

one

of

his

main

recommenda

tions

is

to

expand

AmeriCorps?the

federal

government

program

that

recruits

and

pays

mostly

young

people

for

up

to two

years

of work with

community

groups?and

assign

its

members

to

help

public

agencies

fulfill their

civic

mission

(pp.

235-239).

Whatever

the overall

mer

its of the

program

(and

that

is

still

debatable),

largely

untrained,

short-termvolunteers

are

not

likely

to

bring

to

government

the skillsneeded

to

implement

complex,

long

term

efforts

at

collaboration.

Indeed,

if

the

public

is

to

become

more

engaged

in

doing

public

work,

the

con

tention

that

too

much

professionalization

is

at

the

root

of

disaffection

with

government

perhaps

itself

ought

to

be

reconsidered.

So

too

should another

claim

of collaborative

gover

nance

advocates:

that

excessive conflicts

currently

existing

in

government

prevent

it

from

acting

on

important

issues

The

efforts

irianni

describes

are

meant

to

foster

greater

consensus.

By

engaging

a

wide

range

of citizens

working

together

on

common

tasks,

under

carefully

designed

rela

tionships,

the

prospects

for

reaching

agreements

are

expected

to

be

enhanced.

The

examples

Sirianni offers

are,

in

fact,

notably

free from

the kinds of

divisions

that

so

often

characterize local

and

national debates

today.

Even

so,

does this

mean

that collaborative

governance

is

a

useful

approach

to

reducing

conflicts?

Or

that

it

works

best where disagreements are small and readily bridge

able?

Siriannis

book does

not

provide enough

informa

tion

to

tell.

However,

the

ability

to

arrive

at

agreements

is

only

one

sign

of

health

in

a

democracy,

and

sometimes

a

dubious

one.

At least

as

significant,

democratic

theorists

have

long

argued,

is

the

ability

of all sides of

contentious

issues

to

be

heard.

Robust debate

may

be

more

important

than manufactured

consensus

and

finding

common

ground

less valuable

than

clarifying

the

scope

and

nature

of dis

senting

positions.

Yet,

oddly

for

an

approach

that

pur

ports

to

be

aimed

at

revitalizing

democracy,

collaborative

governance

places

more

emphasis

on

the

virtues

of

coop

eration and exercising authority than itdoes on encour

aging

the

expression

of differences

and

challenges

to

power.

This

is

especially

problematic

when

government

is

called

upon

to

play

a more

active role

in

structuring

civic

life.

The

arrangements

Sirianni describes

are

heavily

influ

enced

by

administrative

actions,

legal

mandates,

financial

aid,

and other

instruments

employed

by

the

public

sector.

In

fact,

one

of the

main

points

of

Siriannis

book

is

to

illustrate

the

many

ways

government

has

to

cooperate

with

civic

groups.

But the

power

to

collaborate

is

also

the

power

to

co-opt.

And

what

Sirianni does

not

explain

is

how

much

auton

omy the civic groups involved in his case studiesmain

tained,

or

which

groups

were

not

included

because

they

may

have been

too

uncooperative

to

begin

with.

Through

tax

laws,

corporate

statutes,

grants

and

contracts,

and

a

variety

of

regulations,

both the

federal

and

state

govern

ments

already

exercise considerable. influence

over

the

so-called

independent

sector,

prompting

criticisms

that

non-governmental

groups

have

grown

too

close

to

public

officials.11Collaborative

governance

will

only

exacerbate

this

problem.

To

be

sure,

civic

groups

in

the

United

States have

never

been

wholly independent

from

government.

And

many

want

even more

connections

than

they

currently

have.

More

participation

by

Americans,

either

through

their

sso

ciations

or

individually,

could

conceivably

benefit

govern

ment

as

well.

Exactly

how

might

surprise

those,

like

Sirianni,

who

notes

he served

as an

advisor

on

civic

engage

ment

to

President

Obamas

campaign.

Tea

partiers,

it is

worth

noting,

are

citizen-activists

too.

Striking

the

right

balance

between

a

citizenry

that

actively participates

in

public

affairs nd

political

institu

tions that

can

govern

effectively

has

always

been

a

chal

lenge

for

merican

democracy.

But

despite

Sirianni's

efforts,

the

case

that

collaborative

governance

offers

fruitful

ew

approach?a

third

way

between the

public

and

private

sectors?remains

unpersuasive.

Notes

1

Skocpol

2003.

2

Salamon

1995.

3

Berger

and

Neuhaus

1977.

4

E.g., Lipsky

and

Smith

1993;

Couto

1999;

Warren

2001.

5

If,

as

Oscar

Wilde

supposedly

quipped,

the

prob

lemwith

socialism

is

that

it

takes

up

too

many spare

evenings,

collaborative

governance

undoubtedly

will

do

so

too.

6

Sampson,

Raudenbush,

and

Earls

1997.

7

Chubb

and

Moe

1990.

8 Olson

1984.

9

McKnight

1996.

10

Goldsmith

and

Eggers

2004.

11

Brody

and

Tyler

2009.

References

Berger,

Peter and

Richard

Neuhaus. 1977.

To

Empower

People:

From State

to

Civil

Society.

Washington,

D.C:

American

Enterprise

Institute.

Brody, Evelyn

and

John

Tyler.

2009.

How Public

is

Private

Philanthropy:

Separating

Reality rom

Myth.

Washington,

DC:

The

Philanthropy

Roundtable.

Chubb,

John

E.

and

Terry

M.

Moe.

1990.

Politics,

Mar

kets and

Americas

Schools.

Washington,

D.C:

Brook

ings

Institution.

Couto, Richard A. with Catherine S. Guthrie. 1999.

Making

Democracy

Work

Better:

Mediating

Structures,

Social

Capital

and

the

emocratic

Prospect.

Chapel

Hill and

London:

University

of

North

Carolina

Press.

6CMI

Perspectives

on

Politics



8/14

Goldsmith,

Stephen

and

William

D.

Eggers.

2004.

Governing by

etwork:

The New

Shape of

the ublic

Sector.

Washington,

D.C.:

Brookings

Institution.

Lipsky,

Michael

and Steven

Rathgeb

Smith.

1993.

Non

profits

or

Hire: The

Welfare

State in the

Age

of

Con

tracting.

ambridge:

Harvard

University

Press.

McKnight,

John.

1996.

The Careless

Society: Community

and

its

Counterfeits.

New

York:

Basic

Books.

Olson,

Mancur.

1984.

The Rise

and Decline

of

ations:

Economic

Growth,

Stagflation

and Social

Rigidities.

New Haven:

Yale

University

Press.

Salamon,

Lester M.

1995.

Partners in

Public

Service:

Government-Nonprofit

Relations

in

the

odern

Welfare

State.

Baltimore:

Johns

Hopkins

University

Press.

Sampson,

Robert

J.,

Stephen

W.

Raudenbush,

and

Fenton

Earls.

1997.

Neighborhoods

and Violent

Crime: A Multilevel

Study

ofCollective

Efficacy.

Science

277:

5328. 918-24.

Skocpol,

Theda.

2003.

Diminished

Democracy:

From

Membership

to

Management

in

American

Civic

Life.

Norman:

Oklahoma

University

Press.

Warren,

Mark

R.

2001.

Dry

Bones

Rattling:

Community

Building

to

Revitalize American

Democracy.

Princeton

and

Oxford:

Princeton

University

Press.

Romand Coles

doi:10.1017/S1537592700000435

Carmen Sirianni's

pathbreaking

book

boldly

explores

the

role of

government

in

facilitating

citizen

engagement

in

collaborative

networks.This

is

a

terrain

toward

which

many

express

skepticism,

fear, resistance,

indifference,

nd

some

times

ignorance.

We

are

indebted

to

Sirianni

for advanc

ing

the

debate

and

compelling

us

to

think

more

carefully.

Many

engaged

democrats

view

government

as

a

bureau

cratic

system

hopelessly

colonized

by

corporate

capitalism

in

ways

that render

it

blivious?and often hostile?to

spe

cific

conditions,

knowledge,,

needs,

and

aspirations

of

the

demos.

From

this

perspective,

civil

society

becomes the

sin

gular

terrain

fordemocratic initiatives

that seek?in often

Sisyphean

ways?to

pressure,

resist,

and

make

more

account

able

highly

undemocratic

institutions.

Seeking

to

rewire

gov

ernment

to

enable citizen

agency

is like

putting

one's

democratic

eggs

in

n

antidemocratic

basketwhere

they

ill

surely

be

broken. Sirianni

acknowledges

a

long,

sobering

history

f

government purposes

and

processes

betraying

em

ocratic

aspirations,

yet

he

sees

and

carefully

rticulates

trans

formative

possibilities

where others

do

not.

One

of his

great

achievements

is

to

render this

hopelessness

questionable.

Many

have

long argued

for

government

policies

to

democ

ratize

the

economy,

regulate

the

commons,

provide public

services,

support

the

vulnerable,

and

so on.

Yet

Sirianni's

distinctive

and

deepest spirit

is

expressed by

a

city

manager

and a leader of an exemplary youth civic-engagement ini

tiative

in

Hampton,

Virginia:

[D]on't

bring

me

more

pro

grams;

change

systems

(p.

118).

Sirianni

doesn't

suggest

simply

changing particular

systems,

but rather

transform

ing

the

fundamental

character

of

systems.

In

the

contem

porary

theoretical

discourse

that

culminates

in

thework of

theorists such

as

Niklas Luhmann

and

Jurgen

Habermas,

social

systems

re

characterized

as

modes

of

organizing

activ

ity

y

means

of

media

(e.g.,

money

and

bureaucratic

power)

that

transform he

world

into

a resource

environment

toward

which

systems

are

essentially

exploitative.

Although

others

have

offered

profound

challenges

to

systems-theoretic

laims,

veryew have suggested ot onlythatgovernmental systems?

especially

at

the

federal

level?are

profoundly transformable

in

directions

ofresponsive

ommunication

and

reciprocal

col

laboration

with

citizens,

but

moreover

that

they

an

become

the

key

agents

in

a

process

that

facilitates

and

organizes

cul

tural

change

so

that

citizens

becomeproactively ngaged

in

ways

thatwill

powerfully

limit,

shape, coproduce,

and

implement

governmental

behavior.

This is

a

radical

idea.

Sirianni

does

not

develop

this

critique

of

systems

theory

in

a

direct and

expressly

theoretical

way.

But

his

theses

Romand

Coles

is

the

cAllister

Chair

and

Director

of

the

Program

for

Community,

Culture,

and

Environment

at

Northern

Arizona

University.

June

2010

|

Vol.

8/No.

2

601



9/14

Review

Symposium

s

-

'

v iv

?

.

>

'/./?vvement

on

collaborative

governance

and

his

analyses

of

case

studies

offermuch

to

support

it.

is

discussions

of

how

municipal

governments

have facilitated

neighborhood

empowerment

in

Seattle

and

youth

civic

engagement

in

Hampton,

Vir

ginia,

and

his

analysis

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency's

efforts

o

build

civic

capacity

around

environmen

tal

problems,

are

replete

with

impressive examples

of

gov

ernments

advancing

his

core

principals

of

collaborative

governance:

engaging

citizens

in

coproducing

public

goods,

enhancing

their

capacities

to

do

so

effectively,

obilizing

community

assets,

enabling

more

inclusive

and

equitable

public

deliberations,

fostering

sustainable

partnerships

among

diverse

constituencies,

transforming

nstitutional

ul

tures

to

view

people

as

participants

ratherthan

consumers

of

services,

and

so on.

He

provides

many

examples

of

grass

roots

activistsmoving

into

governmentalpositions

andmak

ing

important

advances

to

change

systems.

Yet while all of the

cases

Sirianni

analyzes

owe

pro

found debts

to

more

conflictive

social

movements

and

organizing

traditions

that have

fought

for

seats at

more

level

tables,

his citizen

engagement

paradigm

heavily

accents

collaborative

relationship building

over

conflict.

Indeed,

the focus

on

receptive relationship

building

across

myriad

differences

is

a

central

community-organizing

motif that

is

relentlessly

ultivated

by

leaders

of the collaborative

gov

ernance

experiments

that

he

investigates.

The democratic

effects

f

nurturing

relational

cultures

are profound. In contrast to bureaucracies and markets,

relational

cultures

that

are

dialogical,

receptive,

and

col

laborative

have

proven

that

we can

creatively

respond

to

theworld's

dynamic complexities

and

diversities

in

ways

that avoid

the blunders

of both

monological

governance

and

gridlocked

multiplicity.

Sirianni

writes that Seattle's

neighborhood

empowerment

planning

effectively egoti

ates

among

scores

of

neighborhoods,

agencies,

nonprofits,

and

other

constituencies

in

ways

that lead

to

exemplary

public

work:

What

kept

the

neighborhood

planning

pro

cess

from

becoming

just

another

complex

bureaucratic

maze

of technical

details,

participatory

process

require

ments, andmultilevel accountabilitymechanisms were the

relational

civic skills

and

philosophy

underlying

the

project

manager's

role

(p.

98).

Sheldon

Wolin's

provocative

work

on

Montesquieu

embraces

the

latter's

ffirmative

ision of

the

polity

as a

labyrinth,

in

contrast

to

tyrannous

sovereignties.1

Labyrinths

can

both

impede

such

powers

and

give

responsive

articulation

to

social,

political,

and

ecological

complexities.

What

makes such

a

complex

con

stitution

of

political

processes

possible

and

desirable?

and

what

can

in

turn

be

nurtured

by

such

constitution?is

an

infrastructure

f

relationality

that

articulates

principals

of

receptivity,

inclusiveness,

equality,

reciprocal

account

ability, and collaborative public work.

Engaged

radical

democratic

scholarship

has

made

many

important

advances

in

the

past

dozen

years

or so.

Along

with Sirianni's work

on

collaborative

governance,

one

might

note

the

rich

literature

that

is

developing

around

community-based

organizing,

and

the

fascinating

work

on

widely emergent

modes

of

democratic

economic

prac

tice

in

municipalities

and

states.2

Yet

most

often,

those

who would democratize and

pluralize

the antidemocratic

powers

of

our

polity

focus

on

particular

sectors

(e.g.,

civil

society,

governmental

bureaucracies,

corporate

mar

kets)

of

radical

reform

in

ways

that do

not

sufficiently

investigate

the

elemental

relationships

between these

trans

formations

and

transformations

in

other

sectors

that

are

conditions

of

each

other's

(im)possibility.

Gar

Alperovitz,

for

example,

in

America

Beyond Capitalism,

brilliantly

analyzes

important

initiatives for

democratizing

econom

ics

in

ways

that have

important implications

for Sirian

ni's

discussion

of

democratizing governance (and

vice

versa).

Yet

Alperovitz

does

not

sufficiently

address

the

importance

of

collaborative

governance

and

ongoing

trans

formative

social

movements

for

sustaining

the

demo

cratic

directions

of the

economic initiatives

he

analyzes.

Similarly,

though

many

scholars and

practitioners

of

community-based

organizing

have made

indispensable

contributions

to

our

ethical

and

political

tool kit for

cultivating

relational

power

that

maintains

a

vital

tension

between idealist

and

pragmatic

sensibilities,

most

ignore

the

possibilities

for

transforming

both

governance

and

corporate

markets. Such

sector-focused

scholarship

is

use

ful in order to open and probe possibilities in particular

domains;

yet

if

we

are

to

change

systems,

it is crucial

that

democratic

scholarship

push

these

limits

and

focus

more

on

larger

configurations?the

interrelationships

between

multiple

sectors

that

must

be

engaged

and

trans

formed

in

tandem because

unresponsive

systems

are

co-engendered

in

multiple

locations.3

Underemphasizing

the

relationships

among

different

sectors

can

diminish

the critical

vision

and

voice

necessary

for radical

demo

cratic transformation.

Unfortunately,

Sirianni focuses

on

governance

in

ways

that

significantly

iminish

our

attention

to

the

manner

in

which profound transformations ncorporate capitalism and

intensifications

of

independent

democratic

organizing

are

indispensable

conditions

for

developing

the

very

direc

tions

in

governance

he affirms. adical democratic

theory

and

practice

that

focus

on

changing

the broad

interrela

tionships

of

power

necessary

for

more

expansive

and

dura

ble

democratization

can now

be

more

than

an

empty gesture,

precisely

because

of

the

many

experimental

initiatives

nder

taken

in

recent

decades.

Sirriani's

avoidance

of such

a

rad

ical

democratic

focus

is

problematic.

Consider

three

examples

related

to

global

capitalist political

economy

that

are

deeply

important

for

collaborative

governance:

As

David

Bacon compellingly suggests,contemporary global capital

ism

engenders

the

migration

of

millions

of

people

and

yet

simultaneously

criminalizes

immigrants.4

While

Sirianni

points

to

vital

ways

in

which

immigrants

are

drawn

into

602

Perspectives

on

Politics



10/14

collaborative

public

work

around

neighborhood

gardens,

community

centers,

nd

so

on,

such

engagement

largely

ails

to

respond

to

this

greater

systemic

problem

of

global

migra

tion

and

immigrantrights?unless

it

s

linked

to

organizing

that

begins

to

address

it.

Similarly,

while

Sirianni

points

to

many

inspiring

collaborations around

environmental

prob

lems,

such collaboration takes

place

in

a

context

in

which

nearly

all

evidence

suggests

that

we are

racing

ever

more

quickly

toward

catastrophe

from

global

warming

(and

myr

iad other

problems)

that

is

engendered

by

the

degradation

of the

planetary

commons

by

global

capitalism.

Finally,

in

spite

of

all

the excellent collaborative

engagement

in

Seat

tle,

the level

of

income

inequality

has increased

signifi

cantly

there

during

the

period

he

discusses,

in

ways

that

are

corrosive

of

democracy.5

These

problems put pressure

on

Siriannis framework

in

some

key

ways.

First,

his sectoral focus diminishes

our

critical

attention

to

intersectoral

relationships

of

power

in

ways

that

marginalize

important

broader

concerns

from

our

understanding

of

engaged

citizenship.

Evidence

of

this

is

discernable

in

the absence of

an

indispensable

critical

vocabulary,

voice,

and

vision

regarding

these

monumental

problems

that

greatly

undermine and

limitwhat he

affirms.

Sirianni mentions

at

the end of

every

case

study

that the

initiatives

described

have

suffered

significantly

from

bud

get

cuts

and the

persistence

of

technocratic frames

(to

which

we

might

also add

narrowing

consumerism,

hyper

mobility, and antidemocraticworkplaces). Yet he offers

no

discussion

of,

for

example,

the

ways

in

which

the

global

economy

shapes

and constrains the

processes,

priorities,

and fiscal

crises

of

governments.

Second,

this

lack

in

turn

de-emphasizes

(and

de

energizes)

the

crucial work

of

imagining

and

experiment

ing

toward

political

economic

transformations that

might

extend

a

web

of initiatives

more

capable

of

furthering

nd

supporting deep

democratization. While Sirianni

is

not

inattentive

to

the

concerns

of

organizers

and

scholars

about

ways

in

which

independent

initiatives

can

be

assimilated

and domesticated

by

governmental

and

corporate

powers,

his own framework risks inadvertently nurturing such

assimilation

in

the

absence

of

links

to more

transforma

tional initiatives.

Third,

these

two

issues raise

questions

concerning

the

extent

of

Siriannis

accent

on

collaborative

citizenship

and

suggest

that initiatives

of

robust

conflictive olitics

are

also

a

more

necessary

part

of

the

mix

than he

acknowledges.

Megapowers deeply

invested

in

patterns

of

damage

do

not

like

to

be

named and

never

change

without

movements

that

directly

contest

them.

My

point

is

not

simply

to

suggest

that

Sirianni

leaves

to

the

side

one

kind of

politics

as

he

studies

collaborative

modes.

Conflictive

politics,

as

he

acknowledges, have been central forenabling the zones of

collaboration

he

brilliantly

explores.

Moreover,

many

cen

tral

problems

of

our

day

call

for

dimensions

of intense

con

flict

now

and

in

the

foreseeable future.

Thus,

we

must

cultivate the

possibility

or

mutually

enabling relationships

between the collaborative ethos and

practices

at

the

center

of

Sirianni's

normative

and

empirical

vision,

on

the

ne

hand,

and

an

ethos that

summons

up courage

for?as

well

as

affir

mation

of?arts

that

enable,

and

knowledge

that

informs,

intense levels of contestation

as

part

of

a

vibrant demo

cratic

political

ecology

in

the face

of

catastrophe.

Collabo

rative

citizenship

engaged

in

public

work

is

an

absolutely

indispensable

element of the

needed

ecology.

(I

spend

doz

ens

of hours

a

week thus

engaged

as a

scholar

and

organizer.)

Yet if

the

centrality

of thismode

is

overplayed,

it

can

deplete

democratic

awareness

of

the

importance

of

more

agonistic

modalities. The Industrial

Areas

Foundation

(LAF)

has

a

motto,

no

permanent

enemies,

no

permanent

friends,

which

they

take

to

mean

that conflict and

coop

eration, polarization

and

depolarization,

are

both

necessary

for democratic

empowerment.

To

reifyolitics

and theoret

ical

frames

in

one

direction

or

the other

is

to

misunderstand

thatdemocratic

politics

flourishes

in

the

tension

between

these

modes.

Sirianni

notes,

for

example,

that

cultivating

a

com

mon

language

was

essential

for

enabling

the

youth

engage

ment

initiatives

in

Hampton,

Virginia.

My

worry

is

that

the

most

salient and

repeated

concepts

in

his

political

lex

icon

tend

to

underplay key

terms

(like conflict )

needed

to

envision,

inform,

and

empower

modes

of

democratic

engagement

without

which

we

are

going

nowhere fast.

I

suggest

that democratic

scholarship

ought

to

take

a

lesson from the IAFmotto and offera frame for under

standing

the

political

that

ceases

to

slant

toward conflict

or

collaboration,

and

instead focuses

on

the

the

ways

in

which

conflict and

collaboration

are

entwined,

at

once

enabling,

and

in

tension

with,

each other.

We

need

to

enliven both modes

in

order

to

empower

democracy.

This

capacity

in

turn

requires

carefully

cultivating

robust

asso

ciations

that

are

jealous

of

their

independence

and

highly

attentive

to

the

possible

negative

(as

well

as

positive) impli

cations

of

deep

collaborative

relationswith

governments.

If

we

ignore

this,

we

risk

instituting

a

democratic

vision

that

disciplines

citizens

into

collaborative

activity

at

the

expenseofmore contestational politics that engagemonu

mental and

deeply

entrenched

patterns

of

subjugative

power.

When

this

happens,

the

problem

under

discussion

can

enter

a

vicious

circle

with

the first

two:

An

overly

collaborative

focus

creates

pressures

to

be silent

about and

not

encroach

upon

powers

with which

one

seeks collabo

ration.

In

contexts

where

these

pressures

are

consistently

heeded,

collaborative

engagement

can

become

a

key

strat

egy

of

governmentality

in

Michel

Foucault's

sense:

consti

tuting subjects

and

communities

whose

counterconducts

enable?more

than

they

dislodge?a subjugative

order.6

Investing inDemocracy makes an unparalleled contribu

tion

to

citizen

engagement

in

collaborative

governance.

In

order

to

sustain

and

further

such

initiatives,

we

must

interweave

them

in

a

broader web

of

political critique,

June

2010

|

Vol 8/No,

2

603



11/14

Review

Symposium

|

Collaborative

/

=

:>xee

.3

o

.'.v^c G

xkxx-

v

\

experimentation,

and

contestation.

And

most

of

the

agency

for thiswill

have

to come

from

an

attentive,

imaginative,

energetic,

and

supple

demos

transforming

many

sectors

and

utilizing

many

tools. Sirianni

(an

advisor

to

the

Obama

2008

campaign)

ends his book

with

an

appeal

to

Barack

Obama

to

ensure that federal

agencies

enable the collab

orative 'we'

in

'Yes

we

can'

(p.

240).

That

Obama's

we

often

appears

to

tilt

towardWall

Street,

that

his rhetoric

and

practice

of

we can has shifted

to

a

technocratic

I

can, 7

and that

Siriannis

call has been

marginalized

is

significantly

due

to

the

fact that

the

political

discourse

of

collaboration

endorsed

by

Obama and

many

of

his

sup

porters

lacks

a

systemic critique

of economic

power

and

a

place

for conflictive

modes

of

political

engagement.

Lack

ing

a

demos born/e

in

a

complex

confidence

that

we

can,

no

president

can

carry

a

movement

of

democracy

forward. Such

a

demos does

not

yet

exist. Democratic

theory

can

contribute

to

its

emergence

by

calling

atten

tion

to

this

absence,

and

the

reasons

for

it,

and

the forms

of

contestation that

might

better

empower

ordinary

citi

zens

and

social

movements.

At

the

same

time,

we are

indebted

to

Sirianni for

his

sharp

illumination of

the

many

ways

in

which

we

are

already

becoming

far

more

than the

nothing

to

which

technocratic

power

would

consign

us.

Notes

1Wolin 1989.

2

For

a

review

of

recent

literature

on

community

organizing (including

a

discussion

of limitations

I

discuss

here,

see

Coles

2005

and

2006. For

an ex

tensive

discussion

of the literature

on

democratic

economic

practices

for

a

pluralist

commonwealth,

see

Alperovitz

2004.

For

a

discussion

that draws

upon

and

moves

beyond Alperovitz

in

the

context

of

democratic

organizing

stemming

from

the

Civil

Rights

movement,

see

Coles

2008.

3

For

a

profound

analysis

of these

interrelationships

of

contemporary

mega-state

power

and

inverted

totalitarianism that forms an indispensable back

ground

for

considering

ways

to

move

forth,

see

Wolin

2004,

Chapters

16

and

17.

4

Bacon

2008.

5

See:

http://www.b-sustainable.org/social

environment/income-distribution.

6

Foucault 2007.

7

See

Harry Boyte,

The

Work

Before

Us

Is

Our

Work,

Not

Just

His,

Minneapolis

Star

Tribune,

3

May

2009,

and Coles

2009.

References

Alperovitz,

Gar.

2004.

America

Beyond Capitalism:

Re

claiming

Our

Wealth,

Our

Liberty,

and

Our

Democ

racy.

Hoboken,

NJ:

John

Wiley.

Bacon,

David.

2008.

Illegal People:

How

Globalization

Creates

Migration

and Criminalizes

Immigrants.

Bos

ton:

Beacon.

Coles,

Romand.

2005.

Beyond

Gated Politics:

Reflections

for

the

Possibility of

emocracy. Minneapolis:

Univer

sity

of

Minnesota Press.

Coles,

Romand.

2006.

Of

Tensions and

Tricksters:

Grassroots

Democracy

Between

Theory

and

Practice.

Perspectives

on

Politics

4

(3):

547-61.

Coles,

Romand.

2008.

Awakening

to

the Call

of

Re

ceptive

Democratic

Progress.

The

Good

Society

17

(1):

43-51.

Coles,

Romand.

2009.

This

Song

Is

Old:

But Is

It

True?

The

Immanent Frame:

Secularism,

Religion,

and the

Public

Sphere.

Brooklyn,

NY:

Social Science Research

Council.

Foucault,

Michel.

2007.

Security,Territory,

opulation:

Lectures

at

the

College

de

France,

\911?V)1$>.

Trans

lated

by

Graham Burchell.

New

York: Picador.

Wolin,

Sheldon. 1989.

The

Presence

of

the

ast:

Essays

on

theState and the

Constitution.

Baltimore:

Johns

Hop

kins

University

Press.

Wolin,

Sheldon.

2004. Politics and

Vision:

Continuity

and

Innovation

inWestern

Political

Thought.

Prince

ton:

Princeton

University

Press.

604

Perspectives

on

Politics



12/14

Patrick

J. Deneen

doi:10.1017/S1537592700000447

Carmen

Sirianni tackles

a

worrisome

problem

in

his

ambi

tious

book:

What

can

be

done

to

elevate

levels

of

civic

participation

in

the

world's oldest

liberal

democracy,

and

to

inculcate

in

future

generations

a

strong

sense

of

civic

obligation

and

concern

for the

common

weal?

Nearly

every

political

scientist

not

only

knows

but

in

some

form

or

another admires

Tocqueville's

classic

analysis

of modern

mass

democracy,

in

which he

commended

an

education

in

the arts

of association and

the

presence

of vibrant

and

active

civic

and

political

associations for

the

perpetuation

of

liberal

democracy.

Yet

studies

continue

to

show

declin

ing

levels

of

participation

and

membership

in

civil and

political

associations,

and

high

levels

of

mistrust

of and

alienation fromgovernment.While agreeing

on

the needed

cure

for the

ills of

an

apathetic

citizenry,

most

political

scientists

are

hard-pressed

to

recommend

a

means

for

improving

the

patient.

Siranni takes

the

radical

step

of

arguing

on

behalf

of

active

government

assistance

toward

the

fostering

of

civic

spiritedness.

Not

simply

content to

lament

the decline

of

civic

participation

and call

for

amorphous

increases

in

participation,

he has examined several

instances

in

which

government

provided

various

incentives

for,

and

even

financial

support

toward,

increasing

civic

participation

in

matters

of

local

and national

policy.

Given

how much of

contemporary life?from market economics to central

ization

to

mass-media

distraction?makes the

mainte

nance

of such

associations

increasingly

difficult,

it stands

to reason

that

it

may

require

government

itself

to

redress

the decline

of

civic

participation

in

the

workings

of

government.

Yet,

Tocqueville

noted

that

government

itselfwould

increasingly replace

associations

as

the

locus

of

our

civic

lives: It

is

easy

to

foresee that the

time

is

drawing

near

when

man

will be less and less able

to

produce,

by

him

self

alone,

the

commonest

necessaries of life. The

task of

the

governing

power

will

therefore

perpetually

increase,

and itsvery efforts ill extend it everyday. The more it

stands

in

the

place

of

associations,

the

more

will

individ

uals,

losing

the

notion of

combining

together,

require

its

assistance: these

are causes

and effects

that

unceasingly

create

each

other. 1

Sirianni,

while

noting

a

debt

to

Tocque

ville,

does

not

sufficiently

eed his

caution

that

the

gov

ernment

of

liberal

democracy

itself

increasingly

becomes

the

main

obstacle

to,

and

replacement

for,

the

very

par

ticipation

he

seeks

to

recommend.

Patrick

J.

Deneen

is

Associate

Professor

of

Government and

holds the

arkos and Eleni

Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis

Chair

in

Hellenic

Studies

at

Georgetown

University.

Sirianni's

faith

in

the

positive

role

to

be

played

by

gov

ernment

in

fostering

civic

engagement

blinds

him

to

its

inherent

dangers.

A

case

in

point:

Early

in

Investing

in

Democracy,

he

approvingly

quotes

from

the

former direc

torof the Environmental Protection

Agency

(EPA),

Wil

liam

Ruckelshaus,

who claimed that

only

when the federal

government

engages

in

the education

of the

citizenry

about

the

complexity

of

government

would

theUnited States

...

be

ready

for

self-government

p.

41).

Sirianni

responds,

No head

of

a

federal

agency,

to

my

knowledge,

has

ever

put

it

better.

In

effect,

only

with

the

assistance of the

federal

government

itselfwill

theAmerican

citizenry

be

capable

of

self-government.

I

think

many

would

find this

idea

a source

of

concern,

and would

decry

his lack of

curiosity

about

how

we

have arrived

at

a

point

at

which

leaders

of

a

government

constituted

by

the

people adjudge

that the

citizenry

may

yet

be

capable

of

self-government.

Sirainni's celebration

of

this

statement

suggests

that

he

wears

a

highly distorting

set

of

blinders.

In

fine,

this book

admirably

attempts

to

grapple

with

the

symptoms

of

civic

apathy

and

even

ignorance

in

advanced

liberal

democracies,

but

without

concern

for,

or

awareness

of,

the

deeper

systemic

causes

of that condition.

Toward the conclusion

of

the

book,

Sirianni

speaks

of

a

crisis of

democracy

(p.

239),

but

allows this

phrase

to

substitute

for serious

reflection about

the

nature

of that

crisis.

And without such

reflection,

the

book has the feel

of

someone

putting

Band-Aids

on

a

patient

who has

already

lost

most

of his blood.

What

we now

call liberal

democracy

was not at

it

incep

tion

called

democracy.

Itsmain aim

was

to

combine

a

theory

of

popular

legitimation

with

a

state

structure

that

would

provide political,

economic,

and

military

stability;

protect

individual

rights;

increasematerial

prosperity;

and

winnow

the

ambitious and talented

from

disparate places

and

put

them in service

of the

modern

state

and

its

larger

ambitions

for

national

greatness.

Encouraging

civic

partici

pation

was

not

on

its

ist f

desiderata; indeed,

for the

Found

ers

of the

United

States,

a

great

fear

was

the

sort

of

popular

agitation

that

had

manifested itself

n

Shay's rebellion,

the

proximate

cause

of

the

Constitutional

Convention.

Mad

ison

concluded

that

democracy ?by

which

he

meant

the

ancient

form

defined

by

direct

civic

participation?always

resulted

in

instability

and

stasis;

the

task

for the

Founders

was

to

design

a

system

thatwould elicit

the

occasional

sanc

tion of

the

citizenry

but leave

the

machinery

of

govern

ment

to

those who

could

refine

and

enlarge

the

public

opinion.

Madison's

view

of

the inherent

irrationality

f

gath

ered citizens

was

captured

most

expressively

in

Federalist

55,

in

which

he

wrote

that

even

had

every

Athenian

citi

zen

been

a

Socrates,

every

Athenian

assembly

would still

have been amob. The systemthatMadison designed had

the aim

of

suppressing

civic

engagement

by

making

gov

ernment

distant

and

complex

and

by

creating

a

substantial

and

rewarding

sphere

for

private

activity

that

would leave

June

2010

|

Vol

8/No.

2

60S



13/14


14/14

collaborative governance and civic empowerment

Documents