Posts in Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation
John Miller wrote:
>
> ... The real problem I think this whole thread might be about is the
> shift politicians make into selling themselves in public rather than
> governing.
I wonder if the government is confused about roles. Mick inspired
this thread by pointing to a distinction of roles for people:
* consumer of government services (passive)
* citizen (active)
Here's an overview of all the roles. (I hope you can see this. You
may need to switch to a fixed-width font.)
Relations between Lifeworld and System
from the Perspective of the System
Institional
orders of the Interchange relations Media-steered
lifeworld subsystems
=================================================================
1)
P'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Labour power
M
< - - - - - - - - - -
Income from
employment
Private Economic
sphere 2) system
M
< - - - - - - - - - -
Goods and
services
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Demand
=================================================================
1a)
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Taxes
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Organizational
accomplishments
Public Administrative
sphere 2a) system
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Political
decisions
P'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Mass loyalty
=================================================================
M = money medium, P = power medium
(From Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2.)
This shows that the government (bottom right) has come to see us in
two roles. First, it sees us as a "public consumer", exchanging taxes
for services (1a). This is mostly a passive role. We are *forced* to
pay taxes, and we have neither *final* nor *immediate* say on the
services we receive in turn. (Note how this is unlike our role as a
"private consumer" (2), where we usually have choice. Simon is
concerned with mechanisms to help overcome this problem, and to
improve the efficiency of the exchange.)
But the problem mentioned by John (and hinted earlier, by Mick) seems
to issue from our other role, where we exchange mass loyalty for
political decisions (2a). It's a little unclear - what exactly is
this role? Is this the role of a free and responsible citizen? Or is
this where the "selling" is going on, and the "circuses" are being
organized?
>> But why set up an opposition between the roles of customer and >> citizen? Can't we do/be both? >(I assume that is rhetorical question and not central to your identity, so I will challenge the idea and hope you take no personal offense.) No offence taken! Actually mine was a more of naive than a rhetorical question. Rhetorical implies one knows the answer, and I wasn't claiming to. As for my identity, it's multiple and fragmented. In common with most people, I play several different roles in the course of each day (e.g. family member and worker as well as citizen and consumer), and I was assuming the two roles we're discussing would be relevant in *different*situations (i.e. not 'at the same time, on the same topic in the same way'). Although reading Miles' interesting contribution, those dividing lines might not be as clear-cut as I thought.... I guess most of us probably have a negative reaction when we read in policy documents or hear politicians and officials using the words customer or consumer when we feel they ought to be addressing 'citizens'. A straightforward substitution like that *is** *a narrowing of our rights (as well as our responsibilities), and I would join you in resisting it. But remember that action by people as *consumers* can often be very powerful. Think of the impact the health consumer movement has had on the whole healthcare sector over recent decades. In the UK, it's issues like the right to choose doctors and hospitals, to co-decide treatment options, to access drugs not available through the National Health Service (or sometimes in a particular health district), not to mention demand for/experimentation with alternative therapies, that have brought together groups of people, latterly as virtual communities. Only more recently have policy-makers taken up the cause of 'patient empowerment' in response. Or take the idea of devolving the running of some public services to neighbourhood-based user groups: that's also arguably an example of people mobilising as consumers rather than as citizens. Though one can lead to the other. I'm trying to think of a way to bring this discussion back towards eGovernment and eDemocracy! Maybe Mark's point about inclusiveness provides an opening. I'd suggest that it's often easier to engage not just immigrants but a range of other 'hard-to-reach' groups as users of a particular service rather than as citizens per se *as a first step*. For example, in eGovernment take-up has been improved by re-training the staff of agencies who deal with socially-excluded groups to act as information intermediaries, becoming proxies for their clients' access to online services across the range of their everyday needs (see the section on Inclusive eGovernment in the progress report on the EU's i2010 eGovernment Action Plan<http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/index.php?env=-inlink/visit_link:m1757-1-1-8-s-0:l-8369-1-1-->). Maybe that's an example of how 'consumer empowerment' (in this case 'service user empowerment') can pave the way towards expressions of a broader sense of citizenship for groups who, whether they are officially recognised as citizens of a jurisdication or not, currently tend not to exercise their citizenship very much? Enjoy your holiday, John :-) Simon Smith
On 23-Jul-08, at 10:20 AM, Mark Cassell wrote:
> when a public official asks a bureaucracy or agent of the state to
> treat customers with more respect, I think included in that notion
> of customer are all individuals who have contact with that public
> institution whether it's users of public utilities, public
> education, or public services.
Exactly the kind of distinction that needs to be held in mind by
everyone in our public institutions: governance and operations.
Sometimes as a resident of a particular jurisdiction I am a consumer
of services delivered by public sector institutions. As a citizen I
heap expectations upon politicians to govern the public sector
institutions in a manner that suits my perceived needs.
If the politicians who govern in this jurisdiction are of any
description (from dictators to popularly and directly elected
democrats) there's still a whole lot of interpretation going on in
that relationship between governing politician and citizen. Hackneyed
example: Mussolini made the trains run on time, so he was meeting the
needs of consumers not by becoming a train engineer but by governing
in a manner that somehow reflected some of the expectations of citizens.
On 23-Jul-08, at 10:20 AM, Mark Cassell wrote:
> as representative of citizens, the connection between a public
> official and non-citizen is ambiguous and vague. Some argue that we
> have little responsibility for the needs of non-citizens. Others
> take a more altruistic or pragmatic view, arguing that we should
> address the needs of non-citizens because it's the right thing to do
> or because it makes the most economic sense.
I think most elected politicians don't have a problem with this. If
they rely on popular votes for re-election then they know that non-
voters know voters and the issues always overlap. eg: the immigrant
was sponsored by a voter, and the youth will become voting age some
day. They still might choose to demonize immigrants and blame those
pesky teenagers for problems or address the issues. The real problem I
think this whole thread might be about is the shift politicians make
into selling themselves in public rather than governing.
...john miller (sorry to post so much yesterday and today. I just
started a bit of vacation and haven't shut off the computer yet. I'll
stop now. Thanks for the ongoing stimulation)
Hello all,
I find the citizen vs. customer discussion interesting. I've also made many of
the same points in the past. But I wonder in an age of globalization, is
citizen really more inclusive than customer?
Citizen is a legal term that excludes a large number of individuals that live,
pay taxes, and contribute to the economy of a country. John Miller seems to use
the term "citizen" in a much broader sense as "a state of being." But most
people think of citizen as something much more tangible - a set of rights,
privileges, and responsibilities. Who is or is not a citizen is very much
defined by government. But when talking about public services I can see
customer being much broader than citizen.
For instance, as representative of citizens, the connection between a public
official and non-citizen is ambiguous and vague. Some argue that we have little
responsibility for the needs of non-citizens. Others take a more altruistic or
pragmatic view, arguing that we should address the needs of non-citizens
because it's the right thing to do or because it makes the most economic sense.
But when a public official asks a bureaucracy or agent of the state to treat
customers with more respect, I think included in that notion of customer are
all individuals who have contact with that public institution whether it's
users of public utilities, public education, or public services.
I do not dispute the earlier points. As I say, I think they're on target. But
as immigration increases I wonder about inclusiveness of citizen vs. customer.
An interesting exchange all around. Michael Allan wrote: I cannot imagine that anyone would *choose* to be illiterate, or that others would want to *keep* them so. My comment: Education can be dangerous. Dictatorships might limit or at least not prioritize education because the more knowledgeable the individual the greater the likelihood he/she might contest the system politically in the future. The large percentage of illiterate Portuguese at the time of the April 24, 1974 military coup that overthrew the dictatorship is an example. Even most of those that were literate had only the most basic education (4 years of primary school). Carlos Cunha >>> Michael Allan <> 07/23/08 6:56 AM >>> Taylor-Smith, Ella wrote: > > A public without women then. (No offence Michael - it's a problem > with Habermas, that women are not considered necessary for a public > sphere) Do you mean - not considered necessary by the authorities? By those who wrote the electoral rules? They wouldn't have considered my vote necessary, either. I'm working class, and I couldn't have passed the means test. To hell with them! I'm educated, so I would have been an honourary member of the middle class - so would you, on that basis - and from there to the public sphere. If you could read and write, then you were in. Letter writing, for example, was all the rage. People poured themselves into their correspondence. Letter collections were published to a wide readership. The first novels were in letter form. Many of the novelists were women, and some of them were great artists, such as George Eliot. Her books were *talked* about, and had political influence. > But what proportion of the population could then read? Or have > access to the newspapers? It was small by today's standards, but it was growing fast. > ... 10% of the adult population of the UK, all excluded from access > to written information, in 2008. Maybe they get their "political" > information (sensu lato) from watching television. But if they > cannot read and write, they almost certainly don't vote in any > public elections. Do they participate (effectively) in other ways? > .. Can these 5 million adults use computers? Do they use computers? > Maybe they can and do, to gather information from on-line videos? > Implications for eDemocracy, eParticipation? I think the solutions will be partly technical, and partly social. Some voting mechanisms are very open. The one I'm working with can be used, in theory, even by small children and the mentally infirm, allowing them to contribute positively (net improvement of decision quality). Work still needs to be done to make that a reality. On the social side, maybe people will take the influence they gain from e-democracy and turn it to improving the situation for those who are less fortunate. I cannot imagine that anyone would *choose* to be illiterate, or that others would want to *keep* them so. I think that people in the future will take a lesson from their ancestors - those who built the last public sphere. Didn't they also build the modern world? They had ingenuity, and a kind of power. But they also had compassion. Ingenious philosophers tell you, perhaps, that the great work of the steam-engine is to create leisure for mankind. Do not believe them: it only creates a vacuum for eager thought to rush in. (George Eliot, "Adam Bede", 1859.)
Taylor-Smith, Ella wrote:
>
> A public without women then. (No offence Michael - it's a problem
> with Habermas, that women are not considered necessary for a public
> sphere)
Do you mean - not considered necessary by the authorities? By those
who wrote the electoral rules? They wouldn't have considered my vote
necessary, either. I'm working class, and I couldn't have passed the
means test.
To hell with them! I'm educated, so I would have been an honourary
member of the middle class - so would you, on that basis - and from
there to the public sphere. If you could read and write, then you
were in. Letter writing, for example, was all the rage. People
poured themselves into their correspondence. Letter collections were
published to a wide readership. The first novels were in letter form.
Many of the novelists were women, and some of them were great artists,
such as George Eliot. Her books were *talked* about, and had
political influence.
> But what proportion of the population could then read? Or have
> access to the newspapers?
It was small by today's standards, but it was growing fast.
> ... 10% of the adult population of the UK, all excluded from access
> to written information, in 2008. Maybe they get their "political"
> information (sensu lato) from watching television. But if they
> cannot read and write, they almost certainly don't vote in any
> public elections. Do they participate (effectively) in other ways?
> .. Can these 5 million adults use computers? Do they use computers?
> Maybe they can and do, to gather information from on-line videos?
> Implications for eDemocracy, eParticipation?
I think the solutions will be partly technical, and partly social.
Some voting mechanisms are very open. The one I'm working with can be
used, in theory, even by small children and the mentally infirm,
allowing them to contribute positively (net improvement of decision
quality). Work still needs to be done to make that a reality.
On the social side, maybe people will take the influence they gain
from e-democracy and turn it to improving the situation for those who
are less fortunate. I cannot imagine that anyone would *choose* to be
illiterate, or that others would want to *keep* them so. I think that
people in the future will take a lesson from their ancestors - those
who built the last public sphere. Didn't they also build the modern
world? They had ingenuity, and a kind of power. But they also had
compassion.
Ingenious philosophers tell you, perhaps, that the great work of the
steam-engine is to create leisure for mankind. Do not believe them:
it only creates a vacuum for eager thought to rush in.
(George Eliot, "Adam Bede", 1859.)
Simon Smith wrote:
> it could be argued that this type of consumerist democracy still
> constitutes what Eriksen calls a general public sphere of consumers,
> 'co-deciding' (in the current jargon) about public policy outcomes through
> their spending decisions
but that's in contrast to most public services, where customers/consumers don't
make any spending decisions, and it's not obvious how the decisions they can
make influence spending. It's more like the private sector, where customers'
spending decisions at the supermarket or the car showroom have a direct
influence on issues like fair trade, retail location and climate change which
might be considered matters of public policy. Often the individual decisions
made in those contexts are in conflict with the policy approach that
democratically chosen representatives decide.
Maybe the consumerisation of citizens is not so much a ploy by politicians and
their servants to reduce opposition to their authority, more a retreat (both by
citizens themselves, and by politicians and their servants) from democratic
mechanisms that aren't perceived as working to market mechanisms that are; or
from a situation that exposes conflicts between individual and collective
interests, to one that hides the conflicts within individual choices.
John, In my opinion, citizens have a larger role in governance of the state or community, whereas consumers have rights as long as they are a consumer of goods or services. The consumer role ceases once you are no longer a consumer, but a citizen's role extends from birth to death or womb to tomb and even beyond! Kris Dev India On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:10 AM, John Miller <> wrote:
Steve Magruder - Louisville History & Issues forums administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:52 PM
> Wow! Thank you John! My sentiments exactly. I too often bristle at
> these two words being used interchangeably, and for the same reasons.
Like Steve, I would support John Miller's analysis and position. But I would
remind the international membership of this group,
that here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are
no "citizens" - we are all "subjects of the
monarch" (English constitutional law taking de facto precedence over the
constitutional law of the other parts of the UK). In
saying that I am not playing with words, nor am I expressing some anti-royalist
sentiment. Rather I am concerned with the residual
(but very real) political effects of being a "subject" and not a "citizen".
This is most obviously manifest in the "royal
prerogative", exercised in all matters of any importance by "the crown in
Parliament", i.e. the Prime Minister of the day. Some PMs
have reduced the sole ability of their office to exercise the royal prerogative
by making some decisions subject to a vote of the
(horribly unrepresentative) UK Parliament. But all that has done is to spread
"the crown in Parliament" among a very slightly
larger political elite. This has reinforced the view of most professional
politicians, and many others, that Parliament is
"sovereign" - it most certainly is not the "subjects" who are sovereign.
(There is a different view in Scottish constitutional
law, but English constitutional law takes de facto precedence in such matters
within the UK.)
We have had devolution in governance at various levels within the UK, and that
is to be welcomed, but devotion ("from the top,
down") is all part of our being "subjects" and not being "citizens". That was
expressed succinctly in the phrase "Power devolved
is power retained" (attributed to Enoch Powell MP, an opponent of devolution).
If we were citizens, power would be built from the
bottom, up. That would be subsidiarity, not devolution.
I live in a development of 146 dwellings (mainly flats) in which subsidiary is
provided and enforced through a Deed of Conditions
that both burdens and benefits every property within the development. I alone
am sovereign in making decisions that affect only the
inside of my flat. The proprietors (owners) of the 21 flats in my block are
sovereign in making decisions that affect the common
areas of this block. For decisions that affect, say, the roof of the whole
building (four blocks comprising 62 flats), the 62
proprietors of those flats are sovereign. For decisions affecting the common
areas of the whole development (e.g. gardens, car
parks), sovereignty lies with the 146 proprietors. So the power of
decision-making is built from the bottom up. I sometimes wonder
whether any of the new opportunities e-facilities provide could help make
subsidiarity a reality in the wider public sphere - but
I suspect the real barriers to such a revolution will remain.
(However, don't think such "citizen power" will automatically result in great
increases in participation, e- or otherwise. If our
experience within the development where I live is anything to go by, only a
very small proportion will participate, even when it’s a
simple postal vote that directly affects their future personal expenditure!
Perhaps they have lost sight of their being "citizens"
and have accepted their lot as "customer subjects"!!)
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1565 - Release Date: 21/07/2008
18:36
Interesting responses from John & Steve - some days ago I put this in my research blog - http://greatemancipator.com/2008/07/15/bread-and-circuses/ Juvenal in the Satires referred to the political practice of populism as the people abdicating their duties for 'bread and circuses', this compares with the emphasis placed in traditional Roman society upon 'civis Romanus sum' or 'I am a Roman citizen', by which the privilege of being a member of Roman society was balanced by the acceptance of rights and duties. What has this to do with e-government? Its back to the current practice of describing citizens as customers! By talking about customer need, satisfaction or whatever I would contend that we are in danger of offering them 'bread and circuses', and forgetting to associate it with the privilege of citizenship and all it entails, such as the duties. This was captured in a Canadian document of 1996, 'A Strong Foundation - Report of the Task Force on Public service, Values and Ethics' from a group chaired by John C. Tait QC. Tait's task force picks up on the tensions between treating citizens as user, customer or client and makes a number of important points such as on page 36: "In every public service transaction or activity, the true public servant must be alive to issues of equity and fairness to a degree that is rarely required of private sector managers." Tait's report also identifies the conflict between New Public Management (NPM) and public administration but importantly does not state that we mustn't use the expressions but be actively aware of the tensions they introduce. We can call the citizen a customer but ensure that both the public servant and the citizen are aware of their respective duties and obligations. With government's concern over active citizenship I purport that it is time to focus on the expectations of citizenship and that this can be used to encourage feedback on services and assistance in improving or developing them.
Wow! Thank you John! My sentiments exactly. I too often bristle at
these two words being used interchangeably, and for the same reasons.
The following file was added to this topic.
- Name: steve.vcf
- Type: text/x-vcard
- Size: 0.72KB
On 22-Jul-08, at 12:45 PM, Simon Smith asks:
> But why set up an opposition between the roles of customer and
> citizen? Can't we do/be both?
(I assume that is rhetorical question and not central to your
identity, so I will challenge the idea and hope you take no personal
offense.)
I'd say no, we cannot perform both roles at the same time on the same
topic in the same way.
However we could juggle the two roles like this: I was in a coffee
shop having a lively spontaneous discussion about the possible closure
of the neighbourhood school. I was having this discussion with some
neighbours and the school trustee who seems to hang out in this
particular shop.
- Citizens were having a discussion.
- Consumers bought cups of coffee.
They were the same biological life forms in the same space and time
but purchasing coffee and discussing politics were quite different
activities.
Here's the distinction I impose on the definitions.
The word "consumer" explicitly identifies one half of a transactional
relationship -- the half that pays for something.
Citizen implies a state of being. I could be three-legged, purple
skinned, and mentally eccentric BUT intrinsically a citizen of the
place where I was born. I was a citizen before I was a consumer and
will remain one afterwards too.
Calling citizens consumers is an attempt to diminish the role -- a
subtle coup when applied to political discussions instead of economic
transactions.
Using the term "consumer" to describe citizens in a public
consultation process implies that "someone else" actually "owns" the
public realm where discourse can occur. If I accept the term then I am
delivering even more power to those who claim ownership of political
power, what I jokingly call "autodisempowerment". As a result, a) in
the future I will need to "pay" for access to discussions that affect
me, and b) I get to whine, complain, blame, and resent.
"Citizen" implies that I have the right -- even an obligation -- to
discuss and act on the issues that affect everyone. I may not have
absolute power over any singular decision, but I live among and am
affected by my fellows. I am a citizen when I volunteer and whenever I
demonstrate care.
So I implore public officials to refer to me as a "citizen" when I am
engaged in discourse about public issues on any level. When you are
selling me something, you place me in the role of "consumer" so when
one starts by calling me a "consumer" I assume they have something to
sell.
By typing out these lines in this forum I am participating as a
citizen because there is no transaction, not even of the ideas I am
sharing. Perhaps I should print and sell a t-shirt that exclaims,
"I'm a citizen not a consumer!"
naw. Some other time.
Have a wonderful day.
John Miller (BA, MA, CPF, CTF)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Simon
Thanks (also for references). You clarified my position but where I am
getting to is the consumerisation of the citizen. In the context you
describe that is perfect but there is a tendency for politicians or
their servants to label them as customers without giving them a choice!
Michael wrote (in response to Mick):
> You contrast the roles of:
* passive consumer of government services
* active citizen
> But maybe the active citizen needs as much mistrust and opposition to
> government, as trust and participation? Historically anyway, the
> public sphere of active, private people was critical of government and
> often in opposition to it. It was not a willing and cooperative
> partnership. Though maybe it will be different, this time around -
> there are reasons to think so.
Without having read it, I think that's probably a misinterpretation of Mick's
work. Customer versus citizen is not passive versus active. On the contrary,
customer-based relationships can be extremely active, both in commerce and in
public services. The growing use of personal budgets in health and social care,
for example, is an example of a customer-based relationship which
invites/demands service users to become proactive, even creative, in how they
spend their benefits. It's essentially an individualised relationship with the
state, but it could be argued that this type of consumerist democracy still
constitutes what Eriksen calls a general public sphere of consumers,
'co-deciding' (in the current jargon) about public policy outcomes through
their spending decisions.
Citizenship in the type of deliberative democracy you are proposing actually
often tends to manifest itself in smaller, 'strong publics' - in different
segments of the public sphere, which act as policy networks, project teams,
communities of critical reflection (like this one!) or oppositional/subaltern
enclaves.
But why set up an opposition between the roles of customer and citizen? Can't
we do/be both?
You might be interested in the following references:
Bovaird, T. (2005) ‘Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a
network society’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(2):
217-28.
Eriksen, E. (2007) ‘Conceptualising European public spheres. General,
segmented and strong publics’ in Fossum, J. & Schlesinger, P. (eds.) The
European Union and the public sphere: a communicative space in the making?
London: Routledge: 23-43.
Simon Smith
Michael Allan > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:13 AM
> This happened roughly two centuries ago.
<cut>
> These proceedings began to appear in the press.
But what proportion of the population could then read? Or have access to the
newspapers?
We have undoubtedly made progress since then, but last night a Channel 4
documentary stated that 5 million adults in the UK could
not read or write. That is 10% of the adult population of the UK, all excluded
from access to written information, in 2008. Maybe
they get their "political" information (sensu lato) from watching television.
But if they cannot read and write, they almost
certainly don't vote in any public elections. Do they participate
(effectively) in other ways?
Can these 5 million adults use computers? Do they use computers? Maybe they
can and do, to gather information from on-line videos?
Implications for eDemocracy, eParticipation?
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1565 - Release Date: 21/07/2008
18:36
Hi, A public without women then. (No offence Michael - it's a problem with Habermas, that women are not considered necessary for a public sphere) -Ella Ella Taylor-Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email:http://itc.napier.ac.uk Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland and 5th in the UK. (Guardian University Guide 2009) This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373
Ella wrote:
>
> Which parliament are you referring to? I can't think of a period
> when the UK parliament has been the institutional embodiment of the
> public sphere. (Though at its best is may have aspired to
> be). Equally I can't think of a time when the Parliament did not
> largely represent the country's various authorities -whether due to
> the prevalence of wealthy landowners in both houses or those with
> religious power in the Lords.
(I hope I don't distort this, by summarizing it.)
This happened roughly two centuries ago. Owing to certain rule
changes, the House of Commons was extending itself a little further
into society. There it came into contact with the public sphere. The
rule changes included a lifting of restrictions on the publication of
parliamentary proceedings. These proceedings began to appear in the
press.
The exclusion of the public from the parliamentary deliberations
could no longer be maintained at a time in which "Memory" Woodfall
was able to make the Morning Chronicle into the leading London daily
paper because he could reproduce verbatim sixteen columns of
parliamentary speeches without taking notes in the gallery of the
House of Commons, which was prohibited. A place for journalists in
the gallery was officially provided by the Speaker only in the year
1803; for almost a century they had to gain entry illegally. But
only in the House of Parliament newly constructed after the fire of
1834 were stands for reporters installed - two years after the first
Reform Bill had transformed Parliament, for a long time the target
of critical comment by public opinion, into the very organ of this
opinion.
(Habermas. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.)
The newspapers at the time were unlike their modern counterparts.
They weren't so much the business of a publisher, and they weren't
under the tight control of an editor. They were more like independent
blogs or mash-ups. So it happened that the public opinion, in the
form of critical correspondence and commentary, came to be printed
alongside the Parliamentary deliberations.
The Reform Bill also extended the Commons by enlargement of the
franchise. This brought a larger proportion of the middle class into
the electorate. At the same time, nascent political parties had been
forming. They were almost the opposite of modern parties - they were
a constellation of numerous small groups, without any central control
or discipline, and they tended to form around individual MPs,
candidates, or prominent people. The members of these little parties
met frequently, discussed the latest news, and expressed their views.
So Parliament and the public sphere came together along these
channels. At their intersection, they confronted the authorities of
the establishment - the landed aristrocracy, the merchant monopolies,
the King and his ministers. It was not "anarchy" (as someone
suggested), but it wasn't business as usual either. People were fired
up. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was bitterly fought, for
example, and it hit the land owners and merchants hard.
> I'm not really too convinced by the public/mass dichotomy either. I
> like the idea of public as it's set out here, but in practice...
It's true that Mills's polarization of "public" and "mass" is
something of an invention. But I think it's a useful one. It's like
the two lenses of a stereoscope - it provides a contrast of
perspectives. If the tool is used properly, it can reveal features
that are otherwise hidden. It won't work to focus it on the current
practice alone, for instance. It needs a dimension of historical
change (then and now) as introduced in Habermas's study; or of
technical possibilities (this and that) as I have been trying to
describe (my punditry, as someone said).
Maybe this dichotomy can contribute to answering Steven's question
too. I doubt that e-democracy is going to uphold the status quo -
it's almost certain to bring changes. So maybe the best way to avoid
the fate of becoming "e-waste" is to view the alternatives with a
critical eye.
> ... some people prefer to express their opinions (regardless of
> quality) and some prefer to keep their own council or only talk to
> one or 2 people in private. I think that's human nature. I think
> we should design systems to be useful to both types of people.
> Otherwise we are trying to change people to fit the system (which
> represents our idea of how they should behave).
I agree. Your points apply especially to the design of the human
interfaces. The public sphere is necessarily a "public of private
people", a place where the two come to meet. The historical context
is interesting, because the author situates the original institution
of the public sphere, not in Parliament, but in the salons of the
middle-class families. It was there that the private and the public
came to meet.
Hi Mick/Michael sorry for the name mix-up Ella Taylor-Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email:http://itc.napier.ac.uk Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland and 5th in the UK. (Guardian University Guide 2009) This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373
Ella I think we haev confusion between Michael & Mick. That statement was by Michael - I don't recall England having been quite so anarchistic -even during Cromwellian times the Levellers sidn't get a look in! I also agree with you view of it as aspirational and that we do get a lot of people sat in the background. Its perhaps a split btween the neophiles and neophobes and the can'tbearsed. Mick http://greatemancipator On Jul 21 2008, Taylor-Smith, Ella wrote: Hi Mick, It's interesting to have this discussion across so many territories, with different experiences of democracy and difficult to do it without getting caught up in semantics. However, you have really intrigued me with this line: "Then again, parliament was once the institutional embodiment of the public sphere, in direct confrontation with the authorities" Which parliament are you referring to? I can't think of a period when the UK parliament has been the institutional embodiment of the public sphere. (Though at its best is may have aspired to be). Equally I can't think of a time when the Parliament did not largely represent the country's various authorities -whether due to the prevalence of wealthy landowners in both houses or those with religious power in the Lords. I'm not really too convinced by the public/mass dichotomy either. I like the idea of public as it's set out here, but in practice some people prefer to express their opinions (regardless of quality) and some prefer to keep their own council or only talk to one or 2 people in private. I think that's human nature. I think we should design systems to be useful to both types of people. Otherwise we are trying to change people to fit the system (which represents our idea of how they should behave). -Ella Ella Taylor-Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email:http://itc.napier.ac.uk Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland and 5th in the UK. (Guardian University Guide 2009) This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373