Post in Societal and cultural effects of broad consensus (was, Delegate cascade...)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I forgot to introduce myself in my last post (apologies). I am a
software engineer.  I took part in the discussion that Tim
mentions... ['Building consensus online', in DoWire group 'consult'].
The discussion ended with open questions (at least in my mind) about
the societal effects of consensus.  They're difficult for a software
practitioner to answer, but maybe easier for practitioners of dialogue
and deliberation (D&D)?  So I am requesting your help...

My own arguments in the previous discussion are abstracted (with
cross-references) here:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#consensus-and-power

But they can be summarized more succinctly as a 'principle of
sovereign consensus':

  Where a societal-community forms a consensus on a question of
  politics, action will follow in the political sphere.  To the extent
  that consensus forms freely and independently, therefore, and to the
  extent that it covers political decisions in general (which officers
  to empower, which policies to follow, which laws to enact),
  consensus will rule society.

This is intended as a predictive principle, not a normative one.  It
states what will happen, not what ought to happen.  First question:

*(1)* Is the principle of sovereign consensus sound?  (Is its prediction a
reasonable one?)

(Of course, I think the answer is, "Yes."  That was my argument in the
previous thread.)


(2) Assume (for sake of the following questions) that the principle of
sovereign consensus *is* sound.

(3) Assume that a free and independent method to form large-scale
consensus is available to communities.  Assume that it is generally
employed by communities (large and small), in democratic societies
around the world.  Assume that it extends to cover political decisions
in general.

(4) Assume that no economic or political effect of the change imposes
a negative cost on the communities.  (My mental picture of society
follows Parson's schema, shown in the figure here:)

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#communicative-action

*(5)* What are the expected effects, mutatis mutandis, on societal
communities?  I mean the effects that would concern a sociologist (not
those that are internal to the cultural, economic and political
spheres).  I mean both the indirect effects of instrumental control
(via political action), and the direct, reflective effects of holding
such an instrument.

(I think the answer is that the theory of communicative action (TCA)
broadly predicts the effects.  But my own understanding of TCA is
weak.)


(6) Assume that the method to form consensus depends on the following
new media:

(6a) A medium for the collective composition and refinement of
cultural objects (texts).  This is a social medium that assumes the
structure and dynamics of the society in which it is embedded.
Specifically, the structure of the medium is a population, one that
mirrors the community of authors.  In this medium, the text exists as
a population of variant drafts.  Its composition is driven by tensions
among the authors that mirror similar tensions in the society.  As the
text evolves in response to these tensions, it is pulled into a shape
that reflects the society in all of its similarity and diversity (and
even in its contradictions).  (Example, recombinant text.)

(6b) A consensual medium that enables individuals (of the community)
to freely express their agreement or disagreement with each other by
choosing instances from a dynamic population of alternatives ("I like
A, you like B", and so on); while simultaneously, at a collective
level, it encourages the emergence of an unforced consensus ("sure, I
can settle for B, provided you make a few changes...").  On its own,
with only the members of the community itself as the instances of
choice (people choosing people), this medium may be employed to
nominate and elect public officers.  (Example: delegate cascade
voting.)

(6c) A combination of the compositional medium (6a) and the consensual
medium (6b).  The consensual medium has the effect of encouraging the
population of variant drafts to evolve toward a single draft (if
consensus is feasible), or to several co-extant drafts (if not).  This
combined medium may be employed to nominate and promulgate policy
documents and laws.

(7) Assume the compositional medium (6a) is generally employed by
communities (large and small) of artists, utopianists, religous
visionaries, and so forth.

*(8)* What will be the cultural effects?

*(9)* How will cultural effects (8) interplay with societal-communal
effects (5)?


*(10)* How will the practice of D&D fit with the practice of
composition and consensus?  In theory, a political consensus depends
on an open, rational discourse.  But how, technically, will the tools
and media of discourse relate to those for composition (6a) and
consent (6b)?

Aside from (1) and (5), I am in the dark.  Can we answer any of these
questions in advance?  Or can we only self-experiment?  What do you
think?

--
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/