Star-Spangled Bummer?
Frank Underwood smiles as he is triumphantly sworn in as the president of the United States. Just another chapter in the rich democratic history of the freest nation in the world, right? Not so much. Underwood lied, manipulated, and murdered his way to the White House, all the while preserving the illusion that the will of the people is valued above all else.
Obviously, and thankfully, House of Cards is simply a work of fiction, but this is not to say that it doesn’t deftly symbolize the current state of power in the U.S. and its relation to the populace. In fact, this land of opportunity has a vibrant history of a structure that “bolsters power for some and mitigates it for others” (Roscigno 4). Not only that, but “cultural scaffolding,” as Roscigno calls it, has been used time and time again to reinforce and legitimate actual changes in government policy, and to defend “institutional power, practices and privileges” (4).
This is where Gaventa’s analysis of the relationship between power and quiescent groups becomes salient. Take, for example, the institutionalized housing policy of the mid-20th century, which disproportionately harmed already disadvantaged black families. Though provisions such as the G.I. Bill attempted to assist middle-class Americans achieve their suburban dreams, real estate brokers were advised not to sell to minorities so that property values wouldn’t suffer. Integrated neighborhoods were seen as undesirable, and white flight occurred as more black families wanted to move to the suburbs. As neighborhoods continued to lose value, amenities began to disappear, and banks made it difficult to loan in such places. Job growth, schools, and financial opportunities declined, and families were left with no options to accumulate wealth.
Viewing this phenomenon through the lens that Gaventa provides, the U.S. government and white America had existing power over the black community in the form of resources. The adoption of racially charged housing policy contributed to a “mobilization of bias” (Gaventa 14). Opportunities to gain ground were severely undercut, which led to the third dimension of power, “an unconscious pattern of withdrawal, maintained […] a sense of powerlessness [ and…] undue apathy about one’s situation” (Gaventa 17). Stripped of the same power afforded to others in the same society, these families might have felt a lack of ability to do anything about their predicament.
This renowned American system, one that has acted as a paragon of governance for so many others, is designed so that those with the power and influence can benefit over all others (or it operates that way, at the very least). Unfortunately, we have power over much less than we believe we do.
