I was interviewed over the weekend by a group called Civic Honors.

The interview is posted here.

It was an opportunity to say why I personally believe in civic engagement.

I said:

My philosophical position would be something like this: (1) Volunteerism

is an inadequate form of civic engagement, because it replaces political

action with service, which does not address the root cause of problems

or tap the political capacities of the volunteers. (2) Civic engagement

should be cultivated for two reasons. First, if we don’t deliberately

teach it, the least advantaged among us will be the first to disengage,

leading to political inequality later on. Second, civic participation

is a good human activity. It is not the only or highest good activity:

theoretical reflection, spiritual contemplation, appreciation of nature,

creation of art, and care for family members are some of the other activities

that are inherently good. All of these ends or projects are preferable

to the forms of life that are more frequently advertised to young people:

consumerism, athletics, and sexual gratification. Moreover, in public

schools, we cannot teach activities connected to spirituality or care

for family. Therefore, we ought to teach civic engagement (along with

art and science) so that it is an option available to young people.