Why do we often prioritise publicising our private emotions over nurturing relationships with family and friends? Why do we find ourselves more invested in the lives of reality show characters or celebrities, using their stories to fill our voids of emptiness and loneliness? Is it because we’ve become convinced that our worth is defined by what we consume and that success and independence are measured by the attention we receive?
Because it’s what we respond to best. Because deep down, we prefer the conformism of running the rat race like a hamster on a spinning wheel and the standardised consumption of “keeping up with the Jones”. We like the quick fixes of consuming because we fear freedom — the freedom to be what we want to be rather than what we think others want us to be — embracing our complexity and tolerating our contradictions, doing things for the pleasure of doing them without calculating how we appear to others.
What can help us recover from this crisis in a way that builds collective spirit and social solidarity?
How does a crisis affect our social solidarity? The impact can be profound and varied. For instance, the shock of job loss among the middle classes may lead to greater empathy across classes, highlighting the need for societal support for the most vulnerable.
But on the other hand, we’re overworked in the office and overpriced in the housing market. This may lead us to seek support or even offer help to those around us. This could provide the “bridging” of social capital that is so missing — we may spend more time talking to teenagers on the street corner or the old lady in the park. But it could swing the other way, and we may retreat to our families and friends — what’s called “bonding” social capital.
If we try to typologies different kinds of citizens, we might get a better understanding of how this plays out in society:
Egocentric citizens
Egocentric citizens can become so voluntarily or involuntarily. Voluntary egocentric citizens — otherwise known as “free riders” — have internalised and taken advantage of society’s weaknesses in a utilitarian and individualistic logic. They don’t exclude themselves from society since they rely on the social crisis to be able to act the way they do. The Easyjet model of public service reform mainly targets this group as a result of missing the fact that people don’t behave in rational self-interest but experience different feelings about how fairly public resources are distributed across their community.
Involuntary egocentric citizens lose their ability to relate to where they fit in society and need to rely on themselves, given the lack of opportunity society offers them. The difference between these two types of citizens is the difficulty in restructuring their relationship with society. Both of them are expected to losetheir social identity, which certain groups can take advantage of (like the extreme right). This shows why the consumerist and tabloid-friendly approach to the public is counter-intuitive and dangerous. Someone who may have been the breadwinner of a “hard-working family” and find themselves on the dole can quickly see themselves chastised as a “benefit scrounger”. Whether this builds their solidarity towards minorities traditionally vilified is yet to be evidenced. Still, it undermines anybelief they may have had that the government is looking out for them.
Altruistic citizens
Altruistic citizens also internalise their social problems but try to tackle them for the good of society and not for their benefit, trusting more in the power of the community’s institutional action. Transition Towns is a good example of channelling altruistic citizens, and the Big Society is very much targeted. It depends on this groupof people activating their altruism when there are limited public services around them.
Ideological citizens
Ideological citizens sacrifice their interests but less for the common good than for a specific “cause”. Party and single-issue activists fit this category. This group is underestimated by most parties, even if parties wouldn’t exist without them. There is a sense that parties assume that this group of citizens are so stuck to ideological dogma that they are blinkered to reality.
Democratic citizens
Democratic citizens believe in civic virtue, particularly in how acting for the expected good benefits them personally and the world around them. People involved in citizens’ panels, other representative groups, or democracy campaigners tend to fit this mould. Parties also underestimate them, although democratic citizens tend to have the most significant influence overhow they exercise power.
These kinds of citizens — mainly the last three — aren’t autonomous but interdependent of each other, in the sense that an individual can belong to different types of citizens depending on the circumstance.
Apathetic citizens
Apathetic citizens distinguish themselves from the previous types by their passivity. It translates to a lack of societal belief and expectation, not because they cannot relate to where they stand, but because they know where they stand — right at the bottom — and feel powerless about their situation.
Alienated citizens
Alienated citizens also internalise this inferiority but don’t feel powerless and want to do something about their situation, either for their own or for the common good. These groups willbe most affected by the recession but could also have the most significant impact.
