You are a citizen of a group (regardless of your legal status) if you seriously ask: “What should we do?”<\/p>\n
The question is what we should\u00a0do <\/em>because the point is not merely to talk but to change the world. Thinking is intrinsically connected to action. We don’t think in focused and disciplined ways about the social world unless we are planning to act; and we don’t think well<\/em> unless we learn from our experience.<\/p>\n The question is what we<\/em>\u00a0should do, not what should be done. It’s easy enough to say what should be done (enact a global tax on carbon, for instance). The tough question is what we can actually achieve. That requires not only taking action but obtaining leverage over larger systems. Since\u00a0our tools for\u00a0leverage\u00a0are mostly institutions, this question requires careful thought about real and possible institutional forms. It is also, by the way, not the question “What should I<\/em> do?” Of course, that is also important, but I cannot achieve much alone and–worse–I cannot know<\/em> on my own\u00a0what I ought to aim for. I\u00a0must collaborate in order to learn enough about what to do.<\/p>\n The question is what\u00a0should<\/em> we do, so it is intrinsically about values and principles. We are not asking “What do we want to do?” or “What biases and preferences do we bring to the topic?”\u00a0Should<\/em> implies a struggle to figure out what is right, quite apart from what we may prefer. It is about the best ends or goals and also the best means and strategies. (Or if not the best, at least acceptable ones.)<\/p>\n Finally,\u00a0the question is what<\/em> we should do, which implies an understanding of the options, their probabilities of happening, and their likely costs and consequences. These are complex empirical matters, matters of fact and evidence.<\/p>\n Academia generally does not pose the question “What should we do?” The\u00a0what\u00a0<\/em>part is assigned to\u00a0science and social science, but those disciplines don’t have much to say about the should<\/em> or the we<\/em>. Indeed, the scientific method intentionally suppresses the should<\/em>. In general, philosophy and political theory ask “What should be done?” not “What should we do?” Many professional disciplines ask what specific kinds of professionals should do. But the\u00a0we<\/em> must be broader than any professional group.<\/p>\n “Civic Studies<\/a>” is a nascent effort to pose the citizen’s question again. We have an emerging canon of authors<\/a>, which is merely exemplary and not complete. They\u00a0are all recent or current thinkers and each offers a\u00a0distinctive method for\u00a0combining normative, empirical, strategic, and institutional analysis in the service of action.<\/p>\n I don’t offer my own method but merely\u00a0some\u00a0eclectic principles. I think:<\/p>\n Our methods should be interactive and deliberative. I<\/em> will not decide what we<\/em> should do; we<\/em> will. Yet\u00a0procedures will not suffice. It is not enough to say that a diverse mix of affected people should sit together and decide what to do. If I am seated at that table, I must decide what to advocate and how to weigh other people’s ideas. A deliberative process creates the framework for our discussion, but we still need methods to guide our thinking.<\/p>\n Our methods should be conscious of\u00a0intellectual\u00a0limitations. This is what I take from conservative <\/a>thought: a serious doubt that we will come up with a better plan than what our predecessors devised, what the\u00a0community in question already does, or what emerges from uncoordinated individual action. That doubt can be overcome by excellent thought; but we must\u00a0be reasonably cautious and humble about\u00a0ourselves.<\/p>\n