|
July 20, 2005
In a response to an earlier post on digital democracy Cameron Riley, over at South Seas Republic, says that:
"...the decentralised data networks will flatten the present political system of status entirely, making us all equal, and wiser for it, [and that] the present politicians, who enjoy their ability to spray bias at a passive audience from the pinnacle of Australian power will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the new decentralised democratic era."
Spray bias? Politicians grant there are a diversity of opinions in a liberal democracy, often say they don't agree with with the views of their opponents or critics, and that the latter are entitled to to their views. They often avoid debate and/or close down the issue.
Not that the bloggers are much better. Matt over at Pau au dela, responding to this excellent post, by Waggish on blogs as a genre of writing says:
"But the impression persists, and it is a dangerous one: blogs are written only for other bloggers, which also means primarily white, relatively well-off, vaguely resentful, and with too much time on your hands. Well surely that's an impression worth disproving."
Things look grim, if we accept, as I do, Hannah Arendt's argument that debate is the core of political life. By this is meant that it is only through the exchange, modification, and criticism of opinion that political deliberation proceeds.
Arendt says that for deliberation in the public sphere to take place there must be certain preconditions: a genuine plurality, equality, commonality and ability.
Do these preconditions apply in the blogging world? There is a plurality of opinion and a diversity of perspectives; the deliberation takes place amongst peers as bloggers as citizens recognize one another on equal footing; the deliberative speech is anchored in a shared world as the debate and disagreements concerning the direction of collective action presumes a certain minimium agreement in background judgements and practices;and ability as bloggers are capable of making judgements, have a commitment to the public thing, and the virtues specific to politics (eg., courage or integrity) that contribute directly to to the vitality and freedom of the political community.
There are some possibilities there, don't you think, in terms of bloggers fostering a public conversation about political matters? They are well positioned to do this. Their ethos is one of articulating and protecting the public realm, and so their speech is genuinely political. It is about promoting a certain way of acting--endless public debate and disagreement---and the values embodied in it---commitment to a particular public world, preserving the fundamental phenomenon of plurality, and fostering the health of the public sphere.
Does not this free the value of the plural realm of opinion from the instrumental modes of action in both the marketplace and 'getting the numbers' kind of party politics.
start previous
|
Comments have been lost due to an attempt at upgrade.Can people remember what they wrote?