In part because of my county's local upheaval, but also because of the national balkanization, I've been reflecting on Albert Hirschman's 1970 "Exit, Voice and Loyalty." The thesis is that if people don't feel they have a way to influence a response to an institution's problems (voice), they'll vote with their feet (exit). Loyalty discourages exit, but can be built only by supporting voice. I guess you could say voice = loyalty and gag = exit.
It works for me. If I feel I can speak up and achieve healthy change, I'm not only more likely to stick around, I'm also more committed to the institution. Remember a time you've had a problem with a merchant, which was promptly fixed when you spoke up. Not only do you not take your business elsewhere, you're positively warm about sticking with the store and recommending it to your friends. It works that way for local government, too, not to mention clubs, friends, and marriages: any conflict successfully resolved makes you want to stick around. A silent resentment festers until one day you hit the road. In the meantime, the attitude tends to be "Fine, be that way, but you'd better not count on me for anything, because, oh, are you listening now that you need something from me?"
If you block both exit and voice, you not only forfeit loyalty, you back people into a corner in which sullen disengagement or even violence will seem the only choices.
1 comment:
This, in addition to the safety of the Courts, is a part of what makes this election so important.
If the Progressive-Democrats win, they'll bring their cancel culture to the White House and to both houses of Congress. They have, after all, already said that if the Republican minority gets too uppity, they'll just eliminate the filibuster and eliminate Republicans' voice in the Senate.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment