Introduction
Social processes are synonymous to the way of life of the American people; this means that political structures affect it as well. There is a need to look at the extent to which politics is intertwined with social microstructures (religion, work and education) because this will demonstrate its relevance.
Furthermore, there is a need to establish the various manifestations of these interrelationships so as to understand how American social processes work. Through an examination of these two areas, it will be possible to establish a pattern of how American society operates thus demystifying this society.
Role of politics from the macro social perspective
Geertz (1996) explains that religion can be regarded as a collection of symbols which create pervasive and powerful motivations. Those symbols eventually contribute to existent orders. Therefore, religion may be critical in determining how people’s lives are lived. Alternatively, others may think of religion in a negative way. The question to ask is where does America lie and how does the interaction between politics and religion play out in this society?
Fields et al (1) affirm that there is a distinct relationship between politics and religion in the US. Through a 1996 survey, these researchers confirmed that relationship. They asserted that religious conservatism was associated with political conservatism. Most of the time, this was reflected by the political party affiliations and ideologies of voters.
Generally speaking, religious elements are prevalent in the nations’ political structure. For instance American presidents have been Christians all along and this is considered an important quality in most presidential or civic candidates. Even several speeches and campaign pledges often contain references to God. Therefore, to a certain extent, one can say that Americans hold religion in high esteem when making political decisions.
These manifestations are not always straight forward and one can argue that there is a complex interrelation between politics and religion. Democrats are often seen as liberals while republicans are thought to be conservative politically. However, in a state like California, gay marriage is considered legal. This state is headed by a republican who is supposed to be conservative. It is therefore easy to see that people in the US are religious but their status may not affect policy outcomes. America is religious and at the same time secular and is therefore a paradoxical society.
In political governance, religion may not really count. Here, Americans prefer less religious ideas because this may contradict their cultural ideals (such as the American dream). The latter concept can best be upheld using secular ideas. Indeed because democracy is largely seen as a secular concept then conservative religious laws would not fit in with this political model.
As contrasted to Islamic States like Saudi Arabia which rely on religious values as foundations for their politics, the US values democracy, freedom of speech and other human rights above anything else. This often contrasts with religious values which are based on absolutes. Therefore Americans do not solely rely on religion to determine political direction, policies and governance procedures.
On the other hand, religion’s application as a source of morality cannot be undermined because people still live their lives in accordance with these principles. Religious values and religious groups contributed to many political movements in the US’s past such as female suffrage, civil rights, welfare legislation and antiwar endorsements.
Currently, religion rarely contributes directly to the governance of society; however it is through religion that Americans get to express the freedoms that political structures often seek. Furthermore, religion is the major platform for building upon these freedoms and imprinting those ideas in people’s minds.
Education as a macrostructure also has immense influence on politics in the United States. Education reform is often necessitated by political structures.
Consequently, leaders who are interested in running for office must demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the education sector and must know some of the problems in it. Since education reform often involves heavy financial investment then this often takes a toll on federal budgets and it forms a crucial part of political participation. This role is often the first one that people can see when analyzing education.
Nonetheless, there is an even deeper relevance of education in politics; it is a platform for implementation of other governance policies. One such policy is property tax. Schools, district administrators and the like have staged opposition to property tax increments in the past thus demonstrating to members of the political arena that their policy on this matter is unworkable (OECD, 25). Political stakeholders had to respond to those objections because educational stakeholders were an important part of civil society.
The relevance and implementation of worker’s unions has been a crucial part of the education sector’s role in execution of governance policies. Spread of unionism amongst teachers illustrated that the same was likely to occur in other sectors of the economy and that political stakeholders needed to be aware of this or to inculcate it in their political agendas.
Most importantly, though, education has always been crucial in unraveling pressing civil rights issues prevalent in American society. For example, certain reports revealed that family background plays an important role in determining performance by students in various levels of schooling.
This illustrated some of the failures of past political and civil rights achievements such as desegregation. The education sector is therefore a reflection of the inequalities rife in American society. This is a good barometer for political stakeholders who often use findings from education to spearhead changes in other areas of civil society.
Further still, education can play an important role in political election. It has been shown that if this area performs poorly then political leaders must have campaign related strategies designed at making the education sector more productive. A case in point was the Ronald Reagan bid for reelection in 1984.
At that point, educational reform was front page news and the public wanted to know what politicians intended on doing in order to deal with the grave problems of school reform. These groups had to act accordingly and they needed to express that they were going to spearhead critical changes in this sector.
Lastly, education plays an important role of preparing younger members of society to take on new challenges in the nation. In essence this translates into frequent alterations of education systems to reflect new workforce demands. The education sector’s relation to other parts of society testifies to the fact that political leaders need to be aware of changes taking place in the workforce and hence think of ways of tying this in with the education sector which can be better able to prepare members for future roles in their respective lives (OECD, 40).
Work is perhaps one of the most crucial areas affecting politics in America. Any problem detected in work or employment often immediately translates to poor political governance. This is because it is assumed that obsolete or poor governance policies are what are causing work related problems.
When Americans find it difficult to get work or if work opportunities start diminishing then this is often manifested as unemployment. Low employment also means low purchasing power, less investment and eventually a poorly performing economy. This is always one of the key areas for assessing the extent to which political leaders are performing.
The problem with the Bush era in Washington was often associated with the economic recession that had commenced in 2007. Recent objections to the Obama rule are also tied to the fact that unemployment is still rife and that deliveries on campaign pledges on economic performance have not yet been delivered. This shows that political entities must always relate work microstructures to their performances in office.
Skills gap at the workplace are often a cause for concern among politicians because this means fewer work opportunities are available. In such circumstances, employees are easy targets for job losses (Chen, 45). Essentially, what this means is that some governance changes need to be instated in order to make work related conditions more feasible. Here, politics comes in again in order to make the situation better.
Less work also means less infrastructure and even fewer opportunities for manufacture. Political stakeholders often respond to these challenges by making a range of policy changes. Some of them may include tax increments or tax cuts. This is done because it has an effect on investment decisions and hence job opportunities. People often react to tax changes quite aggressively as seen by frequent criticisms of Obama’s reforms.
Conclusion
Politics has a crucial role to play in American society as seen through effects in the three macro social structures. Politics can make the difference between the success or failure of a certain governance policy because the microstructures will depict failure if this has occurred. Politics and political structures also affect civil rights issues which have not been addressed.
These are normally made visible by inefficiencies and problems in microstructures like education. Therefore, it is through political agendas and governance that social structures can be changed thus demonstrating the significance of politics.
References
Geertz, Clifford. Religions as a cultural system. London: Tavistock, 1966
OECD. Lessons learned: how good policies produce better schools, PISA report, 2009
Chen, Anthony. Jobs, politics and civil rights in the US. Princeton; Princeton university press, 2009
Fields, Graham., Shevda, Tracy & Simmons Dan. Conservative religion and conservative politics. 1996. Web.