CAN REASONS BE CAUSES?
CULTURE, MORAL LANGUAGES, AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Abstract: Cultural theorists debate whether different moral languages or repertoires can explain
why certain people participate in civic efforts that promote the public good while others do not.
On the one hand, there are the so-called “communitarians,” most notably the Bellah group
([1985] 1996), who argue that languages grounded in the civic republican or the biblical tradition
are more likely to mobilize people to get involved in civic engagement than individualist
languages. On the other hand, scholars such as Lichertman (1995, 1996) argue that the language
of “individualism” or “personalism” is sufficiently capable of motivating individuals to
participate in public action. Analyzing survey data based on a national probability sample of
Americans, we find that, controlling for other important factors associated with civic
engagement, the language of civic responsibility (but not religious duty) is more likely to
promote volunteer efforts in communities than the language of personal fulfillment.
INTRODUCTION
During the past two decades, the concept of “culture” has been the target of numerous
attempts at redefinition and reinterpretation (see, for example, Alexander 2003; Sewell 1999;
Swidler 1986, 2001). As mainstream sociologists increasingly realize that “culture matters,” the
struggle to define it has taken on a new urgency and importance. Oversimplifying somewhat,
one might argue that there are two poles in the culture debate. First is what one might call the
“system” pole, which contends that culture is relatively autonomous, relatively coherent, and
capable of motivating human action (see Alexander 2003, 2004; Sewell 1999; Smith 2003). The
second is what might be called the “practice” pole, which stresses the dependence of culture on
institutions and local behavioral norms, emphasizes cultural fragmentation, and treats culture as
something that actors use to pursue “structurally” determined ends (see Sewell 1999; Swidler
1986, 2001). While there are proponents on both sides of the debate, Paul DiMaggio (1997:272-
1
Convention