‘Showmanship has eclipsed even simple governance’ – the meaning of membership

De Tocqueville’s classic, long on my shelves (note the price: $4.95!)

The quote in this title comes from New York Times columnist David Brooks, who describes himself as someone who “spent the bulk of my adult life on the right-wing side of things, generally rooting for the Republican Party”. Brooks argues that the party now stands for “Entertainment over governance. … It doesn’t have supporters; it has audience members.”

The idea of membership is a curious one, with several layers. Let’s think out loud about two of them, and then muse about a third.

First, clubs and associations: The term “membership” often refers to people who join such loose groupings, social structures that the 19^th century French political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville saw as a defining characteristic of the society he saw while visiting America in the early years of the republic. In his Democracy in America, he found that under that new form of governance, even among the “coarse and ignorant crowds” were “lively passions, generous feelings, deep beliefs, and untamed virtues. Imagining what such a society could become, he wrote that “Understanding its own interests, the people would appreciate that in order to enjoy the benefits of society one must shoulder its obligations. Free association of the citizens could then take the place.”

In his famous essay, “The Rights of Man,” the British theorist of early democracy Thomas Paine declared: “The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.”  (Both authors' writings are excerpted in Blaug, 2016, pp. 67-76; 83-86). Such associations include political parties themselves.

At the start of the 21^st century, the sociologist Robert Putnam (2000) remarked that America’s clubs and associations were breaking down, and in doing so the cohesion of society was at risk. The metaphor he employed as the title of his book became a watchword for social breakdown: Bowling Alone. He lamented how membership as a concept collapsed.

If Brooks is correct, two centuries on that idea of association – and of membership – is imperilled, at least in Trump’s Republican Party, but I suspect the conclusion applies much more widely.

Second, businesses: At the founding of America, following the model in many European countries, businesses were often governed as partnerships, the members of which pledged their wealth to each other for the sake of creating a larger, more capable company, capable of putting greater capital at risk for the sake of greater reward. The word “company” echoes the companionship they sought and gave to each other. Like the Three Musketeers of storytelling in France – all for one and one for all. In the 19^th century France, a business enterprise came to be called a société. Likewise in various German states: Gesellschaft, i.e., “society”, came to be the label, whether on its own or with the “G” qualified by limited liability (GmbH) or shares (AG). In 19^th century Britain, the emerging company law decided that the shareholders in such businesses would be called “members”, as they are to this day (UK Parliament, 2006). Even the 20^th century term corporation suggests that the many (shareholders) have become one body, in Latin, corpus.

The political philosopher Michael Walzer (1983) sees membership as central to the belonging that people develop through the various forms of association in which they engage, the commitment and obligation that comes with becoming joined together for whatever range of social goods each level of association, each type to membership, and for whatever rights membership each association affords. I think that applies well to the various social and physical goods the social form of organising we call companies create and distribute, with interesting consequences for corporate governance (Nordberg, 2023).

Third, membership in civil society today: So, what lessons can we draw, what questions can we ask, about the direction Brooks sees in the descent of the Republican Party – and perhaps politics in general, in America and other countries – from membership to audience?

Let’s save that for another post, once I’ve let the implications of the first two ideas of membership sink in.

Blaug, R. (2016). Democracy: A Reader. New York: Columbia University Press.

Nordberg, D. (2023). Governing corporations with ‘strangers’: Earning membership through investor stewardship. Philosophy of Management, Online first. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00237-4

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

UK Parliament. (2006). Companies Act. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.