Social scientists' initial forays into the field of political socialization were directly linked to goals of creating good citizens beginning in childhood (Merriam 1931, 1934; Sears 1990; Wallas 1908). With the advent of behavioralism, however, researchers began viewing the study of political socialization as an end in itself (Ball 1995). The emphasis on objective, scientific analysis caused researchers to abandon participant observation, in-depth interviews, and classroom experiments, thus precluding the collection of interesting and valuable data that could be used to inform the development of civic education programs. Further, the dominant theoretical model assumed that political orientations are transmitted from family members and teachers to young people. This model led to rather sterile debates about which agent was the most influential, rather than to discussions about how agents might successfully inspire the development of democratic citizenship values in children and adolescents (Torney-Purta 1999).

Problems of theory and method, contradictory research findings, and evidence of the volatility of political orientations over time contributed to declining scholarly interest in the field of political socialization in the 1980s, especially investigations of preadults (Cook 1985; Merelman 1986). However, political socialization research is currently experiencing a renaissance sparked in part by concerns about citizenship education, of which service learning is an important component. Networks such as the APSA Task Force on Civic Education have been formed to unite educators and researchers. These networks allow for an unprecedented exchange of ideas linking academic inquiry and service learning.

Trends in the political engagement of America's high school students present a paradox. At the same time that an unprecedented number of opportunities exist for American adolescents to get involved in activities with a political flavor like student governments, model United Nations, model Congress, Young Republicans and Young Democrats, and debate clubs, both interest and participation in political activities among high school students is low and declining. This is not unlike what has been observed among adults in the general population. A proliferation of advocacy groups has not resulted in more Americans getting involved in politics. Nor has a never-ending supply of political news on TV and radio, in print, and online led to an increase in the nation's attention to political matters.

It would be too presumptuous for me to claim that there is a direct causal connection between an increasing supply of opportunities for extracurricular political activities among young people and their declining rates of civic engagement. A more modest claim does seem plausible, however: politics has increasingly become a niche activity, pursued by that relatively small slice of the population who are, as Robert Dahl (1961) famously put it, “homo politicus,” i.e., “political junkies.” Television channels provide a telling analogy. Whereas once, events like national political conventions and presidential press conferences would preempt all network programming, they are increasingly shunted off to all-news cable channels and C-SPAN. Ironically, a greater supply of political news has meant that it is easier for people who are not pre-disposed to seek out politically-oriented programming to avoid it.

Over the past few years, I have experimented with a classroom exercise that encourages students to think about how they perceive service and politics. I ask the students to create lists of service activities and political activities in which they and their friends and families engage. The service list typically includes such activities as working in a soup kitchen, delivering meals to the homebound, tutoring in the school system, and cleaning up parks. The list of political activities usually includes things like voting, protesting, raising money, lobbying, letter writing, and running for office.

Turning students' attention to the list of community service activities, I ask them to give some adjectives that people might use to describe the listed projects. The students usually offer such descriptors as altruistic, caring, helping, selfless, and giving, as well as individualistic and one-on-one. Often, the students will also add the words selfish or insincere to describe those students who engage in community service to enhance their resume or earn academic credit.

Asked for adjectives that describe politics, the words come fast and furious—dirty, corrupt, ambitious, crooked, dishonest, compromising, slow. After the initial rush of negative descriptors and with little prompting on my part, students will also talk about politics as a means to affect social change and make a difference for groups of people.

I have used this exercise with audiences ranging from young women uninterested in politics, to young people planning careers in politics and policy making, to foundation officials.