Democracy Makes Better Meaning
Addressing human psychological needs
My views on meaning fundamentally changed when I finally experienced something resembling actual democracy—as a student at Goddard College, which unfortunately closed just this year. Goddard was built on the educational philosophy of John Dewey, who was deeply committed to student-centric, democratic education. At Goddard, we were responsible for developing our own study program for each semester and for our degree as a whole. We met weekly with academic advisors and took part in small seminar-style classes as well as self-guided study. Goddard also had community meetings which ran in a generally democratic fashion modeled after New England town meetings.
At its core, democracy seems to be a system of governance—a way to make decisions as a collective. But what if democracy is something more? What if it is, fundamentally, a meaning system—a framework that helps us understand ourselves, our relationships with others, and our place in the world? That’s what I came to understand and appreciate from my educational experience at Goddard.
This post explores how democracy, when practiced authentically, satisfies our deepest psychological needs, helps us make sense of our shared existence, and transforms us into engaged participants in shaping our future. Viewed through the lens of meaning, democracy is not just about politics; it’s about how we build lives of purpose, connection, and agency.
What is a Meaning System?
A meaning system provides us with the structure to interpret the world, navigate relationships, and find purpose in our actions. As humans, we crave meaning—we need to feel that what we do matters, that we belong, and that we are growing. As you can see in my posts, I lean on the SDT framework, which identifies three universal psychological needs:
Agency (autonomy): The ability to shape our lives and act according to our values.
Belonging (relatedness): A sense of connection to others and being valued by a community.
Growth (competence): The opportunity to develop our skills, learn, and make progress.
In this context, democracy stands out as a uniquely powerful system for meaning-making because it engages all three of these needs in deeply personal and collective ways.
Democracy as Agency: A Framework for Shared Power
One of the most significant ways democracy fosters meaning is by empowering individuals with agency. When we deliberate, attempt to persuade, vote, join protests, or participate in community organizing, we are exercising our ability to influence the world around us. Unlike autocratic systems, where decisions are imposed from above, democracy is based on the idea (though not always the reality) that we should have a voice in shaping the policies and structures that govern our lives.
Authentic democracy requires consistent, everyday opportunities for participation—spaces where individuals can deliberate, negotiate, and directly impact decisions that affect them.
Democracy as Belonging: Building Shared Purpose
Democracy is also a profound tool for fostering belonging. In a world increasingly marked by loneliness, polarization, and alienation, democratic practices can create spaces where people can come together, listen to one another, and collaborate on shared goals.
It requires intentional cultivation of inclusive, pluralistic spaces where diverse voices are welcomed and respected. Belonging cannot thrive in a system that excludes or marginalizes large portions of its population.
Democracy as Growth: A Path to Collective Learning
Finally, as I experienced at Goddard, democracy offers unparalleled opportunities for growth, both individual and collective. Engaging in democratic processes challenges us to think critically, listen to opposing views, and refine our own ideas. It pushes us out of our comfort zones, exposing us to new perspectives and teaching us how to collaborate across differences.
A system that prioritizes power over dialogue, or efficiency over deliberation, stunts this growth and leaves citizens feeling disengaged.
The Crisis of Meaning in Modern Democracy
If democracy has such profound potential as a meaning system, why does it feel so inadequate today? The answer lies in how far we’ve drifted from authentic democratic practices.
In many parts of the world, including the United States, democracy has been reduced to a hollowed-out shell. Elections are dominated by corporate money and superficial messaging, while policymaking happens behind closed doors. Citizens are treated as passive spectators rather than active participants.
Reclaiming Democracy as a Meaning System
Expand Opportunities for Participation
Democracy must be more than elections. We need everyday spaces for democratic engagement, from workplace cooperatives to participatory planning initiatives.
Get Money out of Politics
Large corporations and wealthy individuals use their resources to buy off politicians and flood media (including social media) with misinformation—junk meaning—to get their compliant politicians into office.
Reimagine Governance as Relationship-Building
Democracy isn’t just about structures; it’s about how we relate to one another. Efforts to rebuild trust, repair divisions, and create a sense of shared purpose must be at the heart of democratic renewal.
Brian, I hope you will forgive me, I think we are engaged in the same inquiry-- and so it is my responsibility both to keep up on your postings and to find points of dissent. You wouldn't know this but I too attended an alternative education college for two years, where student reflection was put on par with scholarship and decisions were made by consensus. Each semester we defined our own learning goals and designed our own program of study.
Through one lens it was an important experience that allowed me to pursue my own areas of interest. Through another, it was deeply troubling: a bit like boarding an ocean liner and having the steward asking how YOU think an engine should work. ("What do you mean, me... Aren't YOU supposed to know?") Yes, I wanted some say over my own education-- but I also wanted to inherit the wisdom of generations and benefit from the insight that only masters have. My own experience with direct democracy-- empowering the young and ignorant to make strategic decisions for the collective-- left me much more cynical about consensus and much more concerned about the vulnerability of human beings to emotional argument and ideology.
As to meaning: one of the greatest experiences in my life thus far has been to lead a team of people who trust you to make decisions, where you can reward that trust by leading them to victory. A close runner up would be being part of a team and carrying out orders from a leader you trust. Collective decisionmaking sounds great, but it sours when it fails to produce quick, sound decisions or when it holds the collective hostage to the whims of the individual. Put another way: what most people actually want is sound leadership and unity, not egalitarianism. A well-functioning hierarchy rewards performance and gives aspiring leaders opportunities to learn, take chances, and even make mistakes. And it gives talented *followers* security, in being able to focus on their own contributions rather than responsibility for the whole.
We often forget that it was precisely democracy that gave Hitler a path to power, overcoming the opposition of the old guard-- von Hindenburg. We think of Hitler as an authoritarian, but Hitler is who the German people chose when given the opportunity to deliberate, persuade, join protests, and participate in community organizing. People don't realize the Nazi movement was deeply optimistic and inspirational at first, full of adoration for community and the masses. And people loved the Nazis precisely because they felt connected and part of a community; the marginalization of minorities was fine, *because* they were minorities.
So I agree with you that we have a corrupted democracy-- but I'm not convinced that a direct democracy leads to good outcomes. Why should we believe that uneducated people will make better decisions about governance than they would about aircraft design or thoracic surgery? Ideally, we would have a representational democracy where people are elected based on competence-- but it takes about three seconds to realize that when the masses are voting, the true path to power lies in appealing to emotion, fear, and ideology. I still believe in democracy, but I can't say anything about the last ten years has been inspiring or meaningful to me. Mostly it strikes me as obscene and absurd--like firing your doctor mid-operation so a group of bubbas can take over your surgery.