Public orientation means that part of one’s attention and action is directed toward matters that people share. This may involve a workplace, a school, a neighborhood, an association, a shared resource, or a broader political issue. “Public” here does not mean that the person must be visible in public. Many important civic actions take place in small groups, through organizational work, or by someone making knowledge available to others.
This chapter brings together three dimensions of ABT. Citizenship is about the relationship to shared concerns and the ability to take on a defined responsibility together with others. Attention is about what people learn to notice and what fades into the background. Focus is about combining knowledge about something specific with an understanding of the larger system in which that knowledge is applied.
These dimensions can support one another. An issue that truly resonates can capture attention. In-depth knowledge can make action more effective. Collaboration can provide perseverance and help correct one’s own judgment. But the connection can also go awry. Moral outrage can capture attention without leading to knowledge. Specialization can lose touch with the consequences for others. Engagement can turn into overload or group conflict.
Public engagement is therefore an option, not a prerequisite for using the book correctly. For someone experiencing deep depression, severe anxiety, an acute crisis, or exhaustion, rest, care, and reconnection may be the most reasonable course of action. The goal is first to reduce constant self-monitoring and show that life does not have to be measured solely by one’s own state of well-being. Greater responsibility comes later, if the capacity, willingness, and support are there.
Citizenship Is More Than Legal Status
Citizenship can mean legal membership in a state. In this chapter, the term is also used to refer to practices in which people participate in, nurture, scrutinize, or change matters of common concern. This can involve voting, but also managing an association, participating in a union, sharing local knowledge, helping to draft a regulation, or making a public institution more accessible.
ABT uses the term “heroic citizenship” to highlight courage, responsibility, and a willingness to bear a cost for the common good. The word “hero” should not be understood as grandeur, self-dramatization, or a demand for self-sacrifice. In a useful interpretation, the heroic lies in the fact that a person sometimes does something difficult and necessary with no guarantee of reward, while remaining embedded in cooperation, responsibility, and criticism.
There are two closely related pitfalls. One is a privatized form of citizenship in which communal issues fade into the background and nearly all energy is tied up in work, consumption, and the intimate sphere. The other is “hyper-citizenship,” in which everything becomes political, every opponent becomes an enemy, and constant reaction replaces steady, long-term work. Between these two extremes lies not a fixed amount of activity. The balance lies in whether the commitment is grounded in reality, responsible, sustainable, and open to reevaluation.
Michael Burawoy describes public sociology as a dialogue between sociology and various publics. A public sphere is a group of people who are affected by an issue, develop knowledge about it, and can discuss or act on it. This perspective reminds us that social knowledge does not simply flow from experts to passive recipients. People living with a problem carry experiences that can reshape the issue, while sociological concepts can help the group see institutions and power relations.
Attention is socially organized
Attention may seem like a purely individual ability: I concentrate or I don’t. Cognitive sociology shows that people also learn what is worth seeing. Eviatar Zerubavel describes “communities of attention”—groups that, through education, profession, culture, and everyday conversations, teach their members what should be brought to the foreground and what should remain in the background. A nurse, a construction worker, and a tenant may notice different things in the same building because they have been socialized to focus on different issues.
This socialization of attention is necessary. No one can notice everything. The problem arises when this selection is treated as a given or left to environments whose goals do not align with the individual’s. Workplace metrics, news media curation, and platform recommendations make certain events visible and others irrelevant. This influences which problems people consider urgent and which solutions seem possible.
ABT’s term “caring curiosity” refers to a kind of attentiveness that both seeks to understand and takes into account the impact that understanding has on others. “Outward-looking insight” means that one’s gaze moves between one’s own experience and the world outside. This insight does not disappear; emotions, the body, and needs must be acknowledged. But they do not become the sole yardstick. The individual can ask what their own reaction reveals about a relationship, an institution, or a shared issue.
Roland Paulsen’s reasoning about “external care” is used in the project to shift part of that care from constant monitoring of one’s own self to something outside that actually needs attention. This could be a person, a place, a knowledge-based endeavor, or a social issue. This shift must not become a command to forget oneself. Care without boundaries, support, and feedback can lead to overload or misplaced responsibility.
Platforms Shape Moral Attention
Social media are not merely neutral channels for what people already want to say. The platforms’ design, audience metrics, and recommendation systems influence which actions are rewarded. A review by Jay Van Bavel and colleagues shows that morally and emotionally charged content often goes viral. Social media can amplify anger, the pursuit of status, and conflict between groups, but it can also foster support, altruistic behavior, and collective action.
This dual outcome is important. A sociological analysis should neither describe the platform as the sole cause nor the user as entirely free. Moral acceleration arises from the interplay between an issue, an emotion, an audience, group identity, and technical rewards. A visible reaction can confer status within one’s own group while simultaneously making careful scrutiny slower or less appealing.
Taking a pause before sharing is therefore not just a technique for staying calm. It makes it possible to distinguish between several issues. What do I know about the facts of the matter? What emotion is being triggered? For which audience am I acting? What action is the platform likely to amplify? Is there a slower-paced forum where the issue can be addressed with more knowledge and responsibility?
Pausing does not mean indifference. In cases of immediate danger, ongoing violence, or a concrete need for help, rapid communication may be necessary. In other situations, ten minutes can create space for fact-checking, asking a question, or deciding not to contribute to a conflict that lacks a clear goal.
Attention Mentors and Conscious Selection
Zerubavel’s perspective suggests that attention can be trained socially. The main text uses the term “attention mentor” to refer to a person or tradition that helps someone notice things they would otherwise miss. The mentor could be a researcher, author, professional expert, artist, local organizer, or any other person with a developed way of paying attention to a particular field.
A remote mentor does not need to be contacted directly. Reading, lectures, and documented working methods can reveal the questions the person returns to, the evidence they seek, and what they refuse to oversimplify. A personal mentor can provide feedback, but the relationship must be based on reasonable expectations and respect for time and boundaries.
The point is not to replace an algorithm with an authority that is never questioned. A conscious selection also requires variety. Someone who only follows their own political group may become skilled at spotting the opponent’s flaws and blind to those within their own group. An attention mentor is useful when she develops observation and judgment, not just delivers ready-made opinions.
Focus combines specialization and the big picture
Focus is closely related to attention but emphasizes the organization of what has been selected. ABT refers to a higher level of balance as “specialized systematics.” Specialization involves developing knowledge about a specific subject. Systematics involves understanding how this work relates to other parts, what consequences it has, and what common problem it helps to address.
Specialization without systematics can make a person highly skilled in a limited task but blind to what that task contributes in a broader context. An organization can optimize a metric while simultaneously undermining the very purpose for which it exists. Talk of systems without specialization presents the opposite problem. The person discusses grand solutions but lacks close contact with the work, data, people involved, and practical conditions.
Specialized systems thinking moves between the details and the big picture. A teacher can deepen their instruction while simultaneously examining how assessment systems, resources, and collegial work affect students’ opportunities. A member of a housing association can delve into a specific issue while also considering finances, accessibility, mandates, and long-term maintenance. These examples are drawn from the types of organizational issues addressed in the main textbook and the exercise bank; the point is that this knowledge is linked to the common good.
Focus also requires making choices. It is not possible to follow every social issue with the same depth. A well-defined area of responsibility can therefore be more civic-minded than constantly keeping abreast of all conflicts. However, this definition needs to be reevaluated when the expertise has consequences beyond one’s own area or when other stakeholders point out what the specialist has overlooked.
From Public Opinion to Collaborative Work
Public life consists of more than just expressing opinions. It also includes work that rarely comes to light: reading documents, writing minutes, organizing meetings, assigning tasks, securing funding, addressing objections, and following up on decisions. A form of engagement that focuses solely on the visible moments risks turning participants into spectators or casual commentators.
Elinor Ostrom’s research on common-pool resources shows that, under certain conditions, people can create sustainable institutions that transcend the simple dichotomy between private ownership and centralized state control. Here, “institution” refers to stable rules and practices that determine who may use a resource, how decisions are made, and how conflicts are managed. Her empirical work focuses on topics such as irrigation, forests, and fishing. It should not be treated as a universal checklist, but it does make several issues more concrete.
A shared resource often requires clear boundaries: what is being shared, and who is affected? The rules must be tailored to local conditions, and those affected must have a genuine opportunity to participate. There needs to be follow-up and a reasonable process for conflict resolution. Rules must also be flexible enough to be changed when they have unintended consequences. This is citizenship as everyday governance, not merely as an identity or a belief.
There are shared resources in many settings: a community center, a local natural area, a digital knowledge bank, time spent in a working group, or a budget that affects multiple activities. Not all of these have the same owner or legal framework. Therefore, the analysis must begin with mandates and existing rules. A person who uses a resource does not automatically have the right to change it.
Collective capacity is more than individual will
Social engagement is sometimes described as a person needing to care more. But the capacity for action can be collective. Robert Sampson and his colleagues use the term “collective capacity” to describe a combination of social cohesion and a readiness to act toward shared goals in a neighborhood. Their seminal study focused on violent crime in American neighborhoods. The results cannot be directly applied to every Swedish community, but the concept helps distinguish personal helping behavior from local relationships and expectations that make coordination possible.
Collective capacity does not require everyone to be close friends. It may be enough for people to recognize one another, expect a certain level of assistance, and know which actors can be called upon. A community may have strong networks but still lack the ability to influence the municipality or the property owner. Conversely, formal channels may exist on paper but be difficult to use for those who lack time, language support, or trust.
A sociological assessment therefore examines both what people are already doing and where coordination breaks down. This is reassuring because those who feel alone in the face of a local problem can look to existing relationships and institutions for support. It is also corrective: residents should not be held responsible for insecurity caused by a lack of resources, discrimination, or decisions made at other levels.
Look for institutions that are already trying something different
When a social problem feels overwhelming, it’s easy to swing between abstract hope and despair. Erik Olin Wright uses the term “real utopias” to describe institutions that realize aspects of desirable alternatives within the existing reality. “Real” means that the system exists or can be concretely examined. “Utopia” means that it points toward more democratic, equitable, or humanly enriching ways of organizing life.
The concept shifts the focus from a perfect vision of the future to comparable practices. An association, cooperative, participatory budget, commons, or other institution can solve part of a problem in a different way. The analysis should not romanticize the example. It needs to ask who is included, what resources are required, how power is distributed, and what side effects arise.
This is a form of public attention that seeks opportunities without turning a blind eye to limitations. An example may show that a change is institutionally possible, but not that it can be replicated everywhere. Differences in legislation, economics, history, and the group of participants matter. The learning comes from comparing mechanisms and conditions.
Values require practices and institutions
Moral convictions are socially shaped and socially implemented. A value such as equality, care, freedom, or sustainability takes effect through everyday practices and institutional conditions. If an organization claims to value participation but schedules meetings at times when certain people are systematically unable to attend, there is a discrepancy between its stated value and its organized practice.
The new sociology of morality examines morality as boundary-setting, everyday judgment, and institutional order. This does not mean that all values are reduced to group preferences or that abuses are relativized. This perspective shows how people learn what constitutes a good person, how respect is distributed, and how rules make certain moral actions easier than others.
Public policy therefore requires more than good intentions. A small practice can express a value, but sustainable change often requires that time, resources, and responsibility be organized. At the same time, institutions must not be used to avoid personal responsibility. The sociological intermediary role consists of linking people’s actions to the rules that reinforce or counteract them.
Who owns the issue, and who benefits?
Public knowledge can be harmful if people are turned into fodder for someone else’s project. Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s work on decolonial methodology shows how research has historically been linked to colonial power and how the collection of knowledge can appropriate narratives, categorize people, and benefit institutions far removed from those affected. Her perspective has been developed in relation to Indigenous peoples and cannot be applied as a universal framework for all groups. Nevertheless, it raises a central question of responsibility toward those affected.
Anyone who wants to conduct a survey, write a public narrative, or launch a project must therefore ask who owns the issue. Who decides what the problem is called? Who can control how experiences are portrayed? Who benefits from the results? Do people have a real opportunity to opt out? Consent is not merely a one-time “yes” from a person; it depends on information, power, and the ability to change one’s mind.
This oversight is particularly important when some individuals have higher education, organizational status, or access to the media. Good intentions do not eliminate power imbalances. A more responsible approach may involve allowing those affected to frame the issue, review the text, decide what should not be published, and benefit from the resources or changes the project generates.
Action must be taken at the appropriate level
A public call to action can easily become overwhelming if every problem is immediately translated into “do something.” Actions differ. An individual action changes one’s own behavior or immediate environment. A relational action is taken together with or directed toward others. An organizational action changes rules, resources, or working methods. A collective or societal action coordinates multiple people around a public issue.
The type of action must be appropriate for the problem. Reducing one’s personal energy consumption can be meaningful, but it does not replace decisions regarding infrastructure and production. Reaching out to a friend can reduce isolation, but it does not solve the lack of accessible meeting places. Conversely, a person may talk so much about the system that she overlooks a small action that is actually within her reach.
The right level does not always mean the highest level. It means that the recipient, mandate, and expected mechanism are clearly defined. An action without a recipient or decision point risks becoming symbolic. An action that is too large can drain the person attempting it. An action that is too small can give a sense of activity without addressing the root cause of the problem.
Public engagement requires rhythm and feedback
Citizenship, attention, and focus are not three outcomes to be maximized. They require a rhythm between gathering information, discussion, action, recovery, and reassessment. Those who merely take in information may become overwhelmed spectators. Those who merely act may repeat mistakes. Those who merely delve deeply may lose touch with the public at the heart of the issue.
Feedback means observing the consequences of an action and allowing them to influence the next step. This might involve discovering that a rule actually reduced conflict, that a communication effort failed to reach the affected group, or that the level of engagement began to harm sleep and relationships. A negative consequence is not always proof that the goal was wrong. It may indicate that the scope, method, timing, or division of responsibilities needs to be adjusted.
Public initiatives become more sustainable when supported by many. Collaboration distributes the workload and makes it possible to identify what one’s own group is overlooking. However, groups can also reinforce moral certainty and status struggles. Therefore, mechanisms for objection, conflict resolution, and withdrawal are necessary. An individual should be able to reduce their participation without losing their sense of belonging entirely.
A reasonable measure of progress is not just how much was accomplished. Ask whether the work increased understanding, connection, feasibility, and actual benefit, as well as what side effects arose. If safety, health, or functional ability deteriorate, the work needs to be paused and other support sought.
A gentle way to frame a public issue
A gentle phrasing summarizes a situation without locking the person into an identity. It might begin: “When this public issue becomes visible in this environment, my attention is drawn by … and …”. Then, no more than two mechanisms are identified, such as the platform’s reinforcement of strong emotions and the group’s expectation of a quick reaction. The phrasing adds a resource—such as a knowledgeable organization or a slower-paced forum—and a small step.
The phrasing should also include what the person is not taking responsibility for. This could be an organization’s decision, an expert’s assessment, or another person’s consent. This clarification reduces the risk of citizenship becoming boundless. It makes it easier to work persistently on something specific while also seeing the bigger picture.
Concept Overview
Aristotelian Balance Theory (ABT): Anders Berglund’s theoretical framework for examining trade-offs in various aspects of social life. In this book, it is used as a testable guide, not as a validated test or medical diagnosis.
Balance: A context-dependent trade-off and an ongoing process of balancing. It does not imply a static middle ground, equal distribution, or a requirement for harmony.
Imbalance: A deficit, an excess, a misdirection, or a blocked balancing process in a specific situation. The term should not be interpreted as a defining characteristic of the person.
Balance dimension: A defined area of inquiry in ABT, such as citizenship, attention, focus, relationships, time, or the body.
Micro-level: The individual’s actions, body, and concrete situation. The micro-level does not imply that the cause automatically lies within the individual.
Mesolevel: Relationships, groups, and organizations that allocate roles, resources, rules, and responsibilities.
Macro level: Institutions, social structures, and historical patterns that shape the conditions of many people.
Agency: The ability to act and exert influence. Agency is socially conditioned by resources, relationships, rules, and the actions of other actors.
Capacity: The power, time, knowledge, and resources actually available for an action.
Mandate: The recognized right to make a decision, use a resource, or intervene in a matter.
Public orientation: Directing a portion of one’s attention, expertise, and actions toward matters of shared concern. This does not require public exposure.
Citizenship as a practice: Participation in nurturing, scrutinizing, or changing shared concerns, beyond the legal status of citizenship.
Public sphere: A group of people who are affected by an issue, develop knowledge about it, and can discuss or act on it.
Caring curiosity: ABT’s term for attentiveness that seeks to understand the world while taking responsibility for how people are affected.
Outward-looking insight: A movement between one’s own experience and the outside world, where the two perspectives inform each other without either becoming the sole measure.
Community of Attention: Zerubavel’s concept for a group that teaches its members what to pay attention to and what can be left in the background.
Attention socialization: The social process through which people learn what is relevant to see or ignore.
Moral acceleration: An interaction in which moral and emotional content is rapidly amplified through the audience, group identity, and platform logic.
Specialized Systematics: ABT’s term for a focus that combines in-depth knowledge of something specific with an understanding of broader contexts and consequences.
Institution: More stable rules and practices that organize roles, resources, decisions, and expectations. An institution does not merely refer to a building or government agency.
Shared resource: Something that multiple people use or are affected by and that therefore requires rules governing access, responsibility, and conflict resolution.
Collective capacity: Coordinated capacity within a group or an area, grounded in relationships, expectations, and the ability to act toward shared goals.
Real utopia: Wright’s concept for a real or investigable institution that realizes aspects of a desirable societal alternative.
References
Berglund, Anders. 2026. The Mediocre Society and Aristotelian Balance Theory. Cited in the main manuscript as the theoretical foundation for ABT.
Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “2004 Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.” *American Sociological Review* 70(1):4–28.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American Economic Review 100(3):641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Paulsen, Roland. 2020. What If: A Study in Anxiety. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” *Science* 277(5328):918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books.
Van Bavel, Jay J., Claire E. Robertson, Kareena del Rosario, Jesper Rasmussen, and Steve Rathje. 2024. “Social Media and Morality.” Annual Review of Psychology 75:311–340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258
World Health Organization. n.d. “Social determinants of health.” https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health
Wright, Erik Olin. 2010. Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 2015. Hidden in Plain Sight: The Social Structure of Irrelevance. New York: Oxford University Press.