local dialogue heard around the world

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 04:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

World Futures: The Journal ofNew Paradigm ResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwof20

Local Dialogue Heard Aroundthe WorldSusan Collins a , Michael Kersey a & Cindy Savage aa St. Edward's University , Austin, Texas, USAPublished online: 28 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Susan Collins , Michael Kersey & Cindy Savage (2007) LocalDialogue Heard Around the World, World Futures: The Journal of New ParadigmResearch, 63:5-6, 353-364

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604020701402731

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwof20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604020701402731

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

World Futures, 63: 353–364, 2007

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0260-4027 print / 1556-1844 online

DOI: 10.1080/02604020701402731

LOCAL DIALOGUE HEARD AROUND THE WORLD

SUSAN COLLINS, MICHAEL KERSEY, AND CINDY SAVAGESt. Edward’s University, Austin, Texas, USA

The authors of this article examine deliberative democracy and the value ofdialogue in promoting the engagement of communities in deliberation and in-volvement in public issues. Focusing on the Texas Forum (TF), a member ofthe National Issues Forum (NIF), the authors discuss how diverse individualsare brought together with the purpose of cultivating public dialogue and dis-course about significant policy issues, with a focus on the public’s participationin the democratic process. The article addresses changes in civic engagement,dialogue, and the use of technology to mediate civic discourse and create vir-tual civic communities. The TF and NIF provide practical examples of the workneeded in promoting deliberative democracy and civic engagement.

KEYWORDS: Civic engagement, deliberative democracy, dialogue.

In the spring and summer of 2006 public libraries in Austin, Texas hosted a series ofcitizen forums to discuss “democracy’s challenge.” The forum material literaturewas prepared by the National Issues Forums and presented in Austin by Texas Fo-rums. National Issues Forums and Texas Forums exist to cultivate public dialogueand discourse about significant policy issues. The focus of the Austin forums wasto solicit dialogue regarding the public’s participation in the democratic process.Why are fewer citizens participating in government processes? What can be doneto more fully engage citizens in the process of democracy? Texas Forums ini-tially helped train people to moderate the discussions. Additionally, Texas Forumscollaborated with the Austin public libraries to publicize and host the forums.

The stated purpose of Texas Forums, an initiative of the Lyndon Baines JohnsonLibrary and Museum, is to promote the engagement of communities in delibera-tion and involvement in public issues. In the United States, with our elective anddemocratic form of government, we, the citizens, are decision makers who mustunderstand and ultimately decide what is to be done about pressing problems in-volving our future and finite resources. When citizens choose to participate withTexas Forums, they have the unique opportunity to connect with other individualswho desire to seek new perspectives on and solutions to complex problems. Texas

Address correspondence to Michael Kersey, c/o Organizational Leadership and EthicsProgram, Graduate School of Business, St. Edward’s University, CMB 1049/332 TrusteeHall, 3001 South Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78704. E-mail: [email protected]

353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

354 SUSAN COLLINS ET AL.

Forums is a non-partisan organization that seeks to establish a growing communityawareness and acceptance for deliberation. The organization’s goal is to providea means for local diverse groups of citizens with differing values to meet togetherand discuss issues of importance to their community. As people meet togetherand begin to understand the complex issues, the organization’s hope is that theywill see the issues from a different perspective. If people change their personalthinking, they will be able to take back a new understanding to their community,hopefully to help in making positive change in the society.

Texas Forums is a participating member of the National Issues Forum (NIF)network. The NIF is

a network of civic, educational, and other organizations, and individuals, whosecommon interest is to promote public deliberation in America. . . . NIF does notadvocate specific solutions or points of view but provides citizens the opportunityto consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those choices,and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they holdin common. (http://www.nifi.org/about/index.aspx)

Currently, Texas Forums uses the NIF materials as their primary resource.The NIF issue books are “non-partisan booklets that describe the problem andpresent citizens with the advantages and costs of alternative policy choices”(http://www.nifi.org/about/index.aspx). The research used to formulate the NIFmaterials comes from various sources and is coordinated by the National IssuesForums Institute. Funding and support of the research comes from a variety ofsources, including the Kettering Foundation, a nonpartisan and non-political re-search organization currently focusing on “What does it take to make democracywork as it should?” (http://www.kettering.org).

Four entities—Texas Forums, LBJ Libraries, NIF, and Kettering—providestructure, materials, research, and support for the community forums process.Community forums are the conduit for deliberative dialogue, which leads to civicengagement. Deliberation is a key aspect of the Texas Forums process. Abelson etal. (2003) define deliberation as:

. . . the act of considering different points of view and coming to a reasoned deci-sion that distinguishes deliberation from a generic group activity. . . . Collective’problem-solving’ discussion is viewed as the critical element of deliberation, toallow individuals with different backgrounds, interests and values to listen, un-derstand, potentially persuade and ultimately come to more reasoned, informedand public-spirited decisions. (p. 243)

Deliberative dialogue enables participants to better understand issues of mutualconcern and move away from defensive dialogue into a relationship with commoninterests and benefits, and reach for an understanding of how different people canhave shared interests as stakeholders. Citizens who come to believe they have astake in the civil issues that impact their communities are more likely to desireto work collaboratively with their fellow citizens to create positive, productivesolutions to those issues. A group of global leaders summarize the importance ofdeliberation:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

LOCAL DIALOGUE HEARD AROUND THE WORLD 355

There is no better way to reach that status than to build something together acrossthe divide. In this way, we will have something at stake to jointly protect andnurture. A dialogue at the highest level . . . would be between two [or more]stakeholders—stakeholders not only in what they inherited but also in what theycreated together. The very success of dialogue will thereby be measured by what[is built] together across the divide. (Picco et al., 2001, pp. 153–154)

Whether the issues are of a global nature or a local nature, the impacted stakehold-ers are civically engaged. The objective of Texas Forums is to develop a networkof moderators who in turn convene diverse representatives of their communitiesto deliberate about public issues using the National Issues Forums (NIF) curricu-lum, which emphasizes thinking, reflection, and an understanding of ideas andvalues relating to the issues. It is through the network of moderators that TexasForums reaches into the community, through deliberation, to stir the spirit of civicengagement.

An organization such as Texas Forums, which aspires to bring citizens togetherto explore civic issues through the process of deliberative dialogue, can be re-searched through many frames of reference. At the most fundamental level, TexasForums provides an approach by which people can gather to exchange ideas, feel-ings, experiences, and viewpoints in order to impact others on an individual andgroup basis. This human endeavor may be explained and considered through the-ories regarding factors in society, sociology, and psychology. On a more technicallevel, Texas Forums is building its organization by facilitating networking oppor-tunities, maintaining a website, and providing workshops to introduce people tothe concepts of deliberative dialogue and prepare them to serve as moderators,recorders, or observers at issues forums.

A review of literature with respect to the Texas Forums organization has beenexamined through three conceptual frames: (1) Changes in civic engagement; (2)Dialogue and civic engagement; (3) Use of technology to mediate civic discourseand create virtual civic communities.

Changes in Civic Engagement

In 1834 Alexis de Tocqueville toured the United States, which was then a relativelynewly formed republic. De Tocqueville looked with keen interest on Americansociety for clues as to how it supported its new republican form of government. Henoted that “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and in all types of dispositionare forever forming associations. There are a thousand different types—religious,moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and veryminute” (de Tocqueville, 1834, p. 359).

Things have changed, however; we are no longer a nation of joiners and form-ers of associations. Robert Putnum in his book Bowling Alone (2000), notes thatparticipation in organizations and associations both civic and otherwise has beendeclining since the 1960s. He uses survey data and other sources to chronicle indetail the decline of American social and civic engagement. Additionally, the bookdiscusses how a growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance,safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


honesty, and even our health and happiness. He succinctly defines “social capital”as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocityand trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). In an interview, Putnum (2000)further points out that “researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty,unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discov-ered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities”(p. 65). Putnum goes on to say:

. . . life is easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital.In the first place, networks of civic engagement foster sturdy norms of generalizedreciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Such networks facilitatecoordination and communication and amplify reputations, and thus allow dilem-mas of collective action to be resolved. (p. 67)

Although there is not any clear data which demonstrates a specific cause for thedecline in civic engagement, Putnam proposes several issues which may havecontributed to it: generational change, the increase in two income households,sprawl (key elements of many communities are now further apart), a generationraised on television, and other factors as yet unidentified.

In 2004, three sociologists recreated a 1984 study of social networking (McPher-son, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears, 2006). In both the 1984 and 2004 studies infor-mation was gathered regarding whom Americans chose as discussion partners forimportant and confidential issues. In the two decades between which the studieswere conducted, the percentage of Americans without confidants with whom theycan discuss important subjects tripled. The authors concluded that “the Americanpopulation has lost discussion partners from both kin and outside the family. Thelargest losses, however, have come from the ties that bind us to community andneighborhood” (p. 371). The authors found it significant that those ties are equiv-alent to “[the] types of community ties that have been stressed in the public policydebate over civic engagement (e.g., Putnum 2000)” (p. 359).

Although the study did not focus on the causes of the decline in social networks,the authors speculate on three distinct possibilities. The first is a vague possibilitythat people may have interpreted the inquiries to be centered on “terms of nationaland world-level events, [and] more people might now think that they have nothingimportant to say” (McPherson et al., 2006, p. 372). Secondly, the use of cellphones and Internet (e-mail, list serves, chat rooms, and instant messaging) mayhave influenced how respondents interpreted the word “discuss.”

While these technologies allow networks to spread out across geographic spaceand might even enhance contacts outside the home (e.g., arranging a meetingat a restaurant or bar), they seem, however, to lower the probability of havingface-to-face visits with family, neighbors, or friends in one’s home. (p. 373)

Lastly, perhaps most significantly, the authors hypothesize that the decline in socialnetworking may be due to:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Shifts in work, geographic, and recreational patterns . . . [which] combined tocreate a larger demarcation between a smaller core of very close confidant tiesand a much larger array of less interconnected, more geographically dispersed,more one-dimensional relationships. . . . Just as Sampson et al. (2005) discovereda shift in the type of civic participation, and the Pew Internet and AmericanSociety Report (Boase et al., 2006) showed a shift in modes of communication,the evidence that we present here may be an indicator of a shift in structures ofaffiliation. (p. 373)

Harwood (2005), another scholar who has explored the decline in civic engage-ment, notes that Americans have lost confidence and hope in the structures of civicengagement. Such a loss is of particular importance to a nation, which AbrahamLincoln so famously described as having a government “by the people, for the peo-ple, of the people.” Harwood echoes the conclusions of McPherson et al. (2006)when he points out that “Americans have been retreating from politics and publiclife into close-knit circles of family and friends” (p. 15). Harwood suggests thatAmericans are not civically engaged because they have given up hope that theirvoice will be heard in a political realm dominated by sound bites, mud-slingingpolitics, and big money. “Authentic hope comes from seeing and engaging in col-lective conversations, which reignite people’s belief that they can talk togetherand, even when they disagree, sometimes vehemently, can still make progress oncommon challenges” (p.157).

Dialogue and Civic Engagement

The tradition and benefits of public dialogue and deliberation are documentedthrough a lineage of the works of political philosophers, including Plato and Aris-totle, in the classical era; Machiavelli, in the Italian renaissance; Locke, Hobbes,Rousseau, and Jefferson in the Age of Enlightenment; Marx, in the 19th century,and more recently Arendt, Friere, and Habermas.

Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs (2004) note:

. . . the celebration of public deliberation by citizens has a long history that flowsfrom the city-states of ancient Greece to the town hall meetings of colonial NewEngland to the salons and cafes of Paris to, most recently, internet forums andchat rooms. At least one tradition within democratic theory has long designatedpublic deliberation as a cornerstone of participatory democracy and representativegovernment. (pp. 315–316)

Delli Carpini et al. (2004) also provide an overview of recent sources aboutpublic deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement. They citeliterature that explains the embedded assumptions about the rewards brought aboutwhen the public participates in deliberative democracy. Many of the works summa-rized speak of the benefits of a deliberative public who “are informed, enlightened,and authentic” and the assertion that “deliberation [is] a means to more sound in-dividual and collective decision, as well as to collective action and to greatersupport for responsive public officials” (Delli Carpini et al., p. 320). They note a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


counter-theme regarding public participation that for some individuals, participa-tion in representative government is limited to voting for elected officials. Theirresearch suggests that a majority of the population might hold this counter themeas their reality. Delli Carpini et al. conclude that additional research on publicengagement is needed.

Hyman and Clinehens (1997) studied the process of local issues forums and theimpact on the citizens living in Centre County, Pennsylvania. This study providesan overview for assessing and analyzing other instances of deliberative democracyon a local rather than national level. The methodology of their study introducesthe voluntary deliberation forum into a community, pushing the citizens to clar-ify their values while seeking common ground on community development fordiverse interests. At the conclusion of the nineteen-month project, the percent-age of citizens who understood the issues increased from 52–79% in the firstforum, and 59–78% in the second forum. As citizens became more informedthrough the forum discussions, the post-forum surveys documented an increasein their attitude in feeling empowered to participate in community change. Theforums benefited the community, specifically the leaders, giving them new in-sight and direction for change. The final report from the group confirmed theopinion that increased public support was essential to effectively deal with theirproblems.

The idea of citizen involvement in deliberative democracy transcends nationalboundaries. Canada has an initiative to involve its citizens in policy-making, be-ginning with dialogue on governmental issues to ultimately build a stronger civilsociety (Phillips, 2002). Phillips reports that the Canadian government committed asignificant portion of its budget to a five-year initiative concentrating on improvinginteraction with civic organizations for policy and program development.

Implementing a structured facilitation when using deliberative dialogue is sig-nificant. Briand (2005) asserts that “dialogue is an interpersonal process of listen-ing, clarifying, and explaining, undertaken for the purpose of increasing under-standing (and appreciation) of people’s concerns, experience, fear, needs, anger,sensitivity, priorities, and so forth” (p. 19). Briand also discusses the need forpublic discourse and points out that people often show a change in perspectiveduring the process of discourse, but the change does not last. He notes “peoplewho participate in constructive, productive face-to-face exchange often revert toprevious beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors upon leaving the artificial situation inwhich dialogue or deliberation has been achieved” (p. 19). If Briand’s hypothesisholds true, it would suggest that there is a need for sustained dialogue beyond thescope of facilitated forums in order to support a public who will engage in theircommunities with a more enlightened perspective.

McCoy and Scully (2002) describe several essential components for successfulpublic deliberation. They report that, “. . . deliberation, brings . . . the use of criticalthinking and reasoned argument as a way for citizens to make decisions on publicpolicy” (p. 117). Their research indicates that people want to participate in publicpolicy decisions, but do not always participate due to lack of formal gatheringsand lack of a talk-to-action connection. McCoy and Scully also suggest that “theneed to expand and deepen civic engagement is a central theme of a loosely

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


defined and growing civic movement” (p. 117). McCoy and Scully (2002) foundthat although there tends to be human interest in coming together to participate inpublic decision-making, few people will make the time unless several things arepresent:

. . . a process of deliberative dialogue that aspires to engage the whole communitymust do the following: provide opportunities to consider various kinds of actionand change; provide ways for people to see themselves as actors in the community;make clear (from the outset of organizing) that the community-wide dialogue isaimed at action and change; provide explicit connections to change processesand institutions; validate action and change at individual, group, institutional,and whole-community levels; and give people a wide variety of possibilities forinvolvement so that they can become engaged in change processes as their interestand time allow. (p. 130)

New relationships can be established, and changes can be made in the commu-nity through education and deliberation. The community members, affected by aproposed program, can bring issues to the table. As officials discuss the imple-mentation of new solutions, the citizens can immediately relay how those solutionswould impact the community. The officials and community members are able toaddress the problems by evaluating the impact of decisions through a deliberativeprocess.

Another scholar, Ryfe (2005), found that it is possible to develop and sustaina deliberative democracy framework. Ryfe’s research suggests that there are fiveessential components that are necessary for creating an environment in whichdeliberative democracy can be practiced:

It seems to require a mixture of knowledge/skills, motivation, and civic identity. Itis difficult to create conditions to bring these elements together. It is perhaps evenmore difficult to sustain them once they are created. At every step of the process,basic concepts such as equality, legitimacy, reason, autonomy, representation anddemocracy are at stake. But although deliberation is difficult and fragile, it is notimpossible . . . five mechanisms seem to be particularly associated with successfuldeliberation: rules, stories, leadership, stakes and apprenticeship. (Ryfe, 2005, pp.62–63)

Use of Technology to Mediate Civic Discourse and Create Virtual CivicCommunities

McPherson et al. (2006) and Putnum (2000) point out that society and the waypeople relate to each other have changed. Americans have, in general, becomemore inward-looking in their relationships, spending more time with close familythan in community. Americans are not as engaged in public organizations andactivities as they once were. In order to grow and be successful, organizationsthat involve public participation must compete for attention and time against thesame factors that contribute to the decline in participation—“more sprawl, genera-tional change, longer working hours, television and other factors” (Putnum, 2000,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


p. 284). Organizations that plan to successfully exist and operate must acknowledgethe impact of the constant societal change and the challenges which come withchange.

Communication and technology development. The recent advances in commu-nication and technology are creating new opportunities for connecting people in away that has previously not existed. Howard Rheingold (2002), a founder of a longlasting virtual community known as “The WELL” (http://www.well.com), arguesthat networked communities coupled with new tools will allow society to tap intoa collective intelligence and create what he calls “Smart Mobs.”

Additionally, technology can be used effectively in organizing as presentedby Wolf (2005) in his exploration of the 2004 Howard Dean presidential cam-paign. Rather than rely on an existing infrastructure of politically active peo-ple and groups, the Dean campaign used the website meetup.com to provide ameans for supporters to discover their physical proximity to one another and con-vene actual, physical meetings. Rallies that would have been expected to bringa few hundred people together using traditional publicity techniques were at-tended by thousands of people because campaign organizers used the Internetand e-mail to quickly and effectively carry their message to the networked com-munity. What is more, anyone could be a campaign organizer. The Dean cam-paign used decentralized authority to make key points and post essential infor-mation on the Internet. People used their own creativity to put the informationto use.

Surprisingly, a large amount of the research on the use of technology in publicdeliberation is centered at law schools because it pertains to the legal rights ofvirtual groups. The Democracy Design Workshop (http://dotank.nyls.edu), formedby a group of researchers at the New York School of Law (NYLS), has developedprototypes of “deliberative bus stops” and programs for “civic cyberspace.” Theseare public kiosks and supported networks where people can identify, discuss, andbuild solutions for their own problems and dispute resolutions using networkedscreens.

NYLS professor Beth Noveck (2005) argues that technology is changing theway people deliberate by providing a means of connecting people across largerdistances. People can now access data and hold discussions in “real time.” Shereviews several alternatives to the traditional facilitation of people in a public space.The new digital communication tools she discusses includes tools for forminggroups, facilitating dialogue in virtual groups, balancing input in the group, andallowing for the charting of ideas as the conversation develops.

Noveck (2005) points out that “new technology enables new forms of publicexchange of reasoned ideas that do not resemble town meetings of old” (p. 3).She also asserts that current American law is not prepared to deal with new virtualgroups and communities that are being created. She suggests that there should belegal means of recognizing some of the communities that are generated online ina fashion similar to the way the law recognizes business corporations. She alsoproposes the creation of “citizen juries” comprised of demographically diversepeople who could comment and give feed-back online and in physical meetings,if need be, throughout the process of implementing policy and legislation. Noveck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


(2005) notes that “technology in every age creates the conditions and boundariesfor collective action” (p. 33).

Some tools and resources for using technology to develop groups and facilitatedialogue include:

1. Unchat. “Unchat allows users to share the task of moderating their ownonline discussions. It improves the quality of conversation and decision-making inside the virtual conference room by allowing a group to seeitself around the table and structure the rules of its own conversation”(http://dotank.nyls.edu/unchat.html).

2. “The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling Scalable Virtual Organizations.” I. Fos-ter, C. Kesselman, S. Tuecke. International J. Supercomputer Applications,15(3), 2001. Defines Grid computing and the associated research field, pro-poses a Grid architecture, and discusses the relationships between Grid tech-nologies and other contemporary technologies (http://www.globus.org /al-liance/publications/papers/anatomy.pdf).

3. The Social Physics Project “experiments to explore models in digitalself-governance and alternative intellectual property regimes” (http://www.socialphysics.org). The Social Physics Project is an open collaborative projectsponsored by Parity Communications. The goal of Social Physics is to givepeople more control over their digital identities: their online identities, personalinformation, and social relationships. The project, affiliated with the BerkmanCenter for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School.

4. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/).

5. Cairns is graphical groupware designed to help those working collaborativelyto evaluate and compare their own experiences and to search and learn from theexperience of others. The Cairns Project and software are discussed in Noveck(2004).

6. Deliberative Bus Stop and Civic Cyberspace are two “Conspiracy Projects” ofthe Democracy Design Workshop at http://dotank.nyls.edu

7. wiki: “a wiki is a tool for creating web pages that can be openly edited; thatis to say, more than one person can change the content of the page and itsorganization. A Wiki is what is known as a collaborative editing tool as it allowsa group to create content together. For more information, see, the WikiMediaFoundation, at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/home

8. LiveJournal: allows users not only to create online diaries like a weblogbut to connect with other users to form groups and communities. It is anew form of more social, group-oriented weblogging (http://www.livejournal.com).

The advances in technology and communications make available to the dis-posal of individuals tools that once required the resources of nation states ormega-corporations in order to wield them. Globalization has integrated com-munities and people across expanding distances for a very long time. What is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


different about globalization now? Changes in communications, transportation,and regulations have changed the way the world has worked and communicatedideas. The Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and established theconcept of the nation-state. However, the workings of the world have changedsince 1648. Today a message can be sent out of a country, to a satellite inouter-space, and bounced back to another country. It’s much more difficult tostop a stream of digital bits than it is to stop a border crossing messenger ortraveler. In 2007, we are in a period where the structures (existing treaties andperhaps nation-states themselves) that have guided globalization in the past arechanging. 1

The Internet provides a means of creating communities, communication, anddialogue that transcend the capacities of few people getting together for a dis-cussion at a local library. Within the realm of a multi-user shared habitat likeSecond-Life, participants project a representation of themselves or avatar in theshared community which does not necessarily reflect who they are in the physicalrealm.

A fundamental idea of democracy is the exchange of ideas. Democracy isfounded on the testing and tempering of ideas through discourse. In a democraticsociety deliberation is expected so that no single idea rules on the basis of tra-dition, power, or prestige. It is a democratic ideal that the best idea will prevailthrough discourse and discussion; because, the best idea will have been subjectedto questioning amendment, modification and, competition with other ideas. Thebest idea will ultimately be a combination of all the ideas brought to light by thediverse group who will act on it. The democratic ideal does not always prevail.We are susceptible to manipulation, power, awe, intimidation, and other factors.Not all the participants or ideas in the debate are given equal voice. The Internetcreates a more perfect realm of ideas in that the interlocutors are not physicallypresent. Height, weight, gender, race, background, and other factors of charismaticleadership are not as relevant in presenting the ideas. The ideas potentially standon the their own (or ability to create good graphics or create sticky content). Therisks are different. The truth may be clouded in rhetoric or a sticky website. Weare susceptible to manipulation because words can be market tested and packagedfor maximum affect.

Do the Internet and Web-based communities radically change the way in whichhuman beings engage in discourse? In her 1958 book The Human Condition, Han-nah Arendt noted that “the earth is the very quintessence of the human condition.”Arendt wrote at the time of Sputnik’s launch and wondered if we sought to tran-scend our humanity by yearning to escape this earth. Perhaps it is not the yearningto escape represented by Sputnik, but it is the communications made possibleby that first satellite, and its successors, which are effectively transforming howwe co-exist in our communities. The Internet, and the potential for social net-working it provides, offer a means of changing the nature of how we engage indialogue and with whom we engage. More importantly, it opens the communi-cation frontier to the network of humans who must survive together as a globalcommunity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


NOTE

1. The Treaty of Westphalia incorporated four basic principles: (1) the principle of the sovereigntyand the concomitant fundamental right of political self-determination; (2) the principle of (le-gal) equality between nation states; (3) the principle of internationally binding treaties betweenstates. (4) the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of other states(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty of Westphalia retrieved 17 June 2006) .

REFERENCES

Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., and Gauvin, F. 2003. Deliberationsabout deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participationprocesses. Social Science & Medicine 57(2): 239–251.

Arendt, H. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Boase, J., Horrigan, J., Wellman, B., and Rainie, L. 2006. The strength of internet ties.

Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project, January.Briand, M. K. 2005. Deliberation in the balance: A cautionary note on the promise of

deliberative democracy. National Civic Review 94: 15–21.Delli Carpini, M., Cook, F., and Jacobs, R. 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participa-

tion, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review ofPolitical Science 7: 315–344.

de Tocqueville, A. Bevan, G. (Trans.). 1998. Democracy in America. New York: PenguinClassics.

Harwood, R. 2005. Hope unraveled: The people’s retreat and our way back. Dayton, Ohio:Kettering Foundation Press.

Hyman, D., and Clinehens, B. 1997. Seeking common ground: Deliberative democracy andsustainable communities. Paper presented at the 29th Annual International Conferenceof the Community Development Society. Athens, GA. July 1997.

Kettering Foundation. n.d. Retrieved 7 February 2006, from http://www.kettering.orgMcCoy, M. L., and Scully, P. L. 2002. Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement:

What kind of talk does democracy need? National Civic Review 91(2): 117–135.McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Brashears, M. 2006. Social isolation in America:

Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review71: 353–375.

National Issues Forum. n.d. Retrieved 12 July 2006, from http://www.nifi.org/about/index.aspx

New York Law School. The Institute for Information Law & Policy. n.d. Democracydesign workshop: Ideas for democratic action. Retrieved 21 July 2006 from http://dotank.nyls.edu

Noveck, S. B. 2005. A democracy of groups. Retrieved 6 February 2006 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10 11/noveck

Phillips, S. D., and Orsini, M. 2002. Mapping the links: Citizen involvement in policyprocesses. Canadian Policy Research Networks, CPRN Discussion Paper No. F21,April 2002.

Picco, G., Aboulmagd, K., Arizpe, L., Ashrawi, H., Cardoso, R., Delors, J., Gelb, L.,Gordimer, N., el Hassan bin Talal, Kapitza, S., Kawai, H., Koh, T., Kung, H., Machel,G., Sen, A., Jian, S., Spring, D., Weiming, T., von Wezsacker, R., and Zarif, J. 2001.Crossing the divide: Dialogue among civilizations. South Orange, NJ: School of Diplo-macy and International Relations, Seton Hall University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Putnum, R. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Putnum, R. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democ-racy 6: 65–78. Retrieved 7 July 2006 from http://xroads.virginia.edu/∼HYPER/detoc/assoc/bowling.html

Rheingold, H. 2002. Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: PerseusPublishing Group.

Ryfe, D. M. 2005. Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science8: 49–71.

Sampson, R., McAdam, D., MacIndoe, H., and Weffer-Elizondo, S. 2005. Civil societyreconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action.American Journal of Sociology 111: 673–714.

Wolf, G. 2005. How the internet invented Howard Dean. Retrieved 7 February 2006, from:http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/dean pr.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

49 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

local dialogue heard around the world

Documents