Putnum vs. Jones

Politics in today’s day and age have drastically changed, specifically the perception of political engagement among the citizens. Political engagement among the masses has shifted from one standpoint to a completely different realm. The realm in which I am referring to is technology. As described by Robert Putnam in the reading by Jeffery P. Jones, “Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture”, Putnum describes political engagement as physically devoting ones time to politics itself. Putnum argues that civic disengagement is due to mass culture such as television, the media and other forms of entertainment or technology. Jeffery P. Jones counters Putnum’s argument and believes that political engagement through the masses is conducted by staying involved in politics, specifically technology. Jones believes that political engagement can be carried out by simply filling out an online survey or reading headlines pertaining to politics. Through technology one can be involved in politics and one doesn’t necessarily have to physically devote time and energy to maintain engagement. Each point of view describes methods of the past and the present, but I believe that in today’s day and age both perspectives are essential to political outcomes. Since today’s society requires an abundance of modifications to adjust to the ever-changing environment, both perspectives from the above writers allow society more than one option and are therefore, essential to political engagement.

Technology has enhanced political engagement according to Jeffery P. Jones, but to what extent is engaging in politics? Jones believes that technology, mainly the internet opens up a vast amount of resources that generations past could not obtain. The internet opens endless amounts of resources to the political world, but does it mean that one is necessarily engaging in politics? According to Jones, by researching or simply involving oneself in politics through technology, one is engaging. I would have to agree that in today’s society the vast amounts of information being cast through technology enable citizens to engage in different forms. Technology for today’s generation is the main source of becoming involved in politics. The media during election year covers each candidates move around the clock. The internet contains updates and speeches, websites are devoted to political campaigns allowing viewers to catch up on political agendas that may not be available on basic television. Websites such as youtube.com allows for videos of political candidates to be available to anyone with access to the internet. One can stay involved in politics by keeping up with political agendas and visiting certain websites to learn more about each candidate. The vast amounts of resources due to technology allow people from across the nation to post political opinions and ideas for other citizens to see. Blog’s or tweeting allows one to post ideas and thoughts of not only their daily lives, but political opinions as well especially during election year. Personal opinions posted online whether there on official websites or a personal webpage promote public awareness or even political debates between writer and reader. Knowledge of politics is gained through education, but it also gained through interacting with others, conversing with one another through technology to build more knowledge. Technology enables this engagement, but through a non traditional point of view.

The traditional point of view is that of Robert Putnam, he believes that physically devoting yourself to politics is an act of engaging in politics. Putnam from my interpretation believes that to engage in politics one must go down to where the campaign office is held and physically devote ones time to the cause they believe in. As previously stated both methods of engaging in politics are essential to the ever changing mass culture. Physically devoting time in today’s day and age is still very effective as seen in the documentary film “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore”. In the film Jeff Smith used the grass roots strategy to promote his political position and campaign. As seen in the film the physical presence of each person in Jeff Smith’s campaign had some effect to the outcome of his near election. The coffee meetings, the door to door conversing with every day citizen’s nearly won the seat in the House of Representatives for Smith. Physical conversations between one another still go a long way, simply because it reminds many the humanism and realism of candidates. By engaging in politics in the sense described by Putnum the humanism involved reminds one that technology still has a disadvantage. People still require a sense of interaction between one another whether it is a campaign volunteer or the candidate his/herself. Conversing with someone representing a candidate will further enhance political sway from one side to another. For example if an undecided is leaning towards one political party without conversing physically with someone representing a candidate, the technology will sway the position. But, if the same situation is presented and the undecided has conversed with a representative, then in my opinion the rhetoric involved between the two parties will ultimately mean more in the decision of the undecided. By conversing with someone more knowledge is gained because everyone interprets readings or education in a different manner.

Both interpretations of political engagement are essential because each complement one another. A person can be educated as much as possible through technology and the vast resources it has to offer, but that same person will not gain more knowledge without physically conversing with another about their position. Technology offers a strong base for political engagement by informing the masses of opinions and factual positions of candidates, but political engagement is enhanced with the physical conversing between two different parties. By physically being present around fellow peers and talking about ones political positions, knowledge is gained because each person interprets politics in a different way. Robert Putnum states that we are a society that is losing civil engagement in politics to the technological world, that “television and its electronic cousins are willing accomplices in citizen disengagement.” Personally Putnum is right is some regard, but what he doesn’t see is that technology allows vast interpretation of political issues which leads to infinite methods of becoming involved in politics. Personal web pages allow one to freely express political opinions and thus allow one to engage in politics. Opinions of citizens are available to other members of society to learn more about someone’s perspective or to simply argue against their position. Putnum is right to the extent that technology can move people away from physically getting involved in politics because access to political affiliations or positions is “one click away” and takes away the humanism involved in politics.

It all boils down to the simple fact that political engagement requires both positions of Putnum and Jones. Each opinion on political engagement and which position is right for society is what makes this country so unique. Each side is needed for political development because if technology alone shapes politics than society loses the sense of humanism. But if physical engagement rules all, then accessibility of political view, issues, and opinions will be limited. Our society needs those so devoted to a candidate’s position that they will physically go down to the campaign office and devote blood, sweat and tears to the campaign trail. Our society needs technology to allow easy access of facts, opinions and positions to enhance our knowledge of politics. Our society needs both positions because additional knowledge can be gained by conversing with one another, but knowledge cannot first be obtained without availability to resources. Mass culture is forever changing and when things change society tries to find the best available resources to adapt to the changing environment. In the present, both methods of political engagement are effective and therefore essential to politics because both in a sense compliment one another.