Skip to main content

Networked Discourse

Sorry to let the flow of posts dry up, but I'm preparing to move abroad for a really interesting teaching opportunity. In the meantime, here's a fragment from some thinking about the rational discourse and communication technology.


Information and communications technology enables a raft of networked communications platforms. Email, IRC, and various social networking platforms are all designed to facilitate communication between individuals. Of course, we must also be aware that communication platforms shape the content of interpersonal communications. By creating a vessel for content, content must also fit within the vessel. 

Consider three stages of human communication technology:
Discourse Cacophony – with written language and symbol as the only communication technology, much human communication takes the form of spontaneous utterances in natural language. Discourse means nothing other than holding a conversation. With the sense of individuality arises the individual voice, idiosyncrasies in style and phrasing, so we have a wide diversity of potential expressive acts, all mutually intelligible within linguistic communities.

Discourse Hegemony – with the invention of the printing press and other mass communication technologies, discourse changes yet again. Books and television are largely one-way channels. Telegraph, radio, and telephone allow for two-way communication more or less along the lines of natural conversation. Nevertheless, the power of mass media to reach large audiences with a uniform message is staggering, and much public discourse is released through such channels. Popular feedback is stifled because mass communication channels are disproportionately available to the economically advantaged. Money in effect buys speech power (or communication power). Even if free expression is held as a popular right, most people are not able to exercise that right beyond the limits of direct interpersonal communications.

Discourse Plurality – with the rise of networked communication, the nature of communication changes yet again. To existing technologies we add a communications infrastructure capable of linking more people across longer distances. The most remarkable development in this stage is real-time multiparty communication available to a wide audience. On social networking platforms, conversations between individuals are broadcast to audiences who can then participate in the conversation.

At the Discourse Plurality stage as we have realized it, communication is, as usual, formed by the platform. With a variety of platforms available, the architecture of the chosen platform matters. Twitter allows for only 140 characters, Reddit and Slashdot are governed by reputation economies, and Google+ emphasizes broadcasting and rebroadcasting content. Personal blogs are no more constrained than a written letter, but may be less visible to a broad audience.

To take up the Rawlsian question of which platform is most appropriate for public reason, or the parallel Habermasian question regarding communicative action and discourse ethics, is to misunderstand how individuals use these platforms. The architecture of a platform makes it more suitable for some expressive acts rather than others, and the culture of users that develops on each platform creates a unique communication environment. In this communications environment, we need to understand public discourse as distributed conversations taking place across platforms.

We have moved beyond the simple public speech or debate and into a communication culture of analysis and meta-analysis.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RPG Systems: An Analogy with UI Design

The current game in our weekly role-playing group is Deadlands. The previous game was Shadowrun. Both rule systems lie closer to the “chunky” side of the spectrum. Shadowrun has a particular reputation for its complex and somewhat cumbersome rules, and while Deadlands has less overall complexity, the system has a degree of granularity that interrupts play more often than it enhances narration. I enjoy role-playing games because I like participating in a good story. The rules system provides a set of constraints for the characters, the setting, and the conflicts. They help give the narrative structure, a background against which the story will take place. Too few rules, and telling an interesting and well-developed story becomes difficult. Too many rules tend to get in the way of individual scenes or events. With the right balance, it’s possible for the game master, usually me, to be sufficiently fluent in the rules system to resolve any conflict without extended consultation of on
Post a Comment
Read more

Some Thoughts on Dharma Decline

Many of these blog entries have concerned my main research in political philosophy, intellectual property and technology. Now for something a little different, I thought I would write up some thoughts on another area of interest: Buddhism. For those who don't know, I've taught courses in Buddhism since I began teaching, having learned a great deal from my undergraduate advisor, Donald Hanks, and Ashok Aklujkar, a now-retired professor of Indian languages, literature and philosophy for whom I served as teaching assistant during my time at UBC. Thanks to their instruction, I developed a solid knowledge of the Indian Buddhist tradition, and I've used what they taught me to deepen and develop that knowledge to improve my teaching and my personal meditation practice. While I don't want to write a full tutorial on Buddhist thought, I would like to discuss a notion that prevails in some traditions, and that discussion will require one to know a few basic ideas. At its cor
1 comment
Read more

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial. There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, th
Post a Comment
Read more