Michael Allan
Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:19:28 -0700
(Draft section 2 of "A medium of assent for the support of large scale communicative action".) http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht 2. SOCIETAL INSTITUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION ----------------------------------------------- COMMUNICATIVE ACTION is a type of social action that is coordinated by discussion aimed at mutual understanding or agreement.^[3] This section is an overview of the structural means by which large scale communicative *assent* may be put into practice, thus fulfilling it as communicative *action*. In other words, after people agree to something, it actually gets done. A combination of three structural components is required. The first two are pre-existing in all representative democracies. No structural changes to these two are assumed. They are: (1) the administrative institutions of state and local government, and (2) the media of mass assent (mass electoral systems) that are constitutionally bound to them. 1. Administrative institutions of state and local government 2. Media of mass assent (mass electoral systems) 3. Medium of communicative assent The proposed change is to introduce a new structural component: (3) a medium of communicative assent. It would be introduced into the communicative part of society known as the "lifeworld".^[TCA2] It would be anchored there by tying the formal identities of online users to the actual identities of people. Thus anchored as an institution of the lifeworld, the medium would provide the necessary supports to build consensus by way of open discussions in the public sphere. People could use it to reach large scale agreements. For example, consider this scenario: A group of young people wish to make improvements to their neighbourhood park. They come up with a plan and begin to promote it locally. Some of them are in disagreement and propose alternative plans. They all share access to a medium of communicative assent. They use it to highlight their differences and to resolve them one by one. Eventually the whole neighbourhood agrees on a consensus plan. The City sends a safety inspector to the site, and trucks in some sand. With a little help, the young people complete the improvements to the park. The improvements might be as simple as adding a new sandbox for children, or as complex as renovating the athletic facilities. The number of participants might be a hundred for a small neighbourhood, or ten thousand for a large one. The basic argument is that, once they reached a rough consensus, government would act. In technical terms, the communicative assent of the public sphere would find action in the non-communicative part of society known as the "system".^[TCA2] The overall effect would be communicative action by society as a whole. FIGURE 5. Relations between lifeworld and system from the perspective of the system. Shows a transformation of the citizenship interchange relation (2a to 2a') in response to large scale communicative assent. [Modified from Habermas.^TCA2.320] http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/society-relations.png >From the perspective of the system, the institution of communicative action would transform the citizenship interchange relation that exists between the public sphere and government. The transformation is shown in figure 5. Instead of receiving what Habermas characterizes as "mass loyalty" from the public sphere, government would receive communicative assent. Instead of responding with political decisions, it would respond with action. The reason why government would respond in this way can be explained by looking at one particular aspect of the citizenship interchange: the electoral relations between citizens and government. In the remainder of this section, I will examine the probable effects of communicative assent on these relations, in particular on the election of public officers. Then I will examine the possibility of its more general effects, first on societal power structures (section 3), then on norms (4). Understanding the electoral effects is the key to understanding the others. FIGURE 6. Electoral relations between the public sphere and the administrative system. Detailing the transformed citizenship interchange (2a' from figure 5) as it functions in the act of granting public offices. The only structural difference from the original interchange (2a) is a medium of communicative assent (green) that is added to the public sphere. http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/electoral-relations.png Adding a new medium to the public sphere cannot change the overall electoral relation, but it can change who is elected. Ordinarilly a candidate of an organized political party is elected. The steps are shown in figure 6. The candidate is first chosen by party members in a primary election (1), then wins mass assent from the wider electorate (2), and then finally enters office (3). A medium of communicative assent is not a political party. It has no leader, no staff and no members. It has no name, serves no particular interests, and has no recognized status. Nevertheless it can serve the same functions as a party. A voter who did not wish to support a party candidate might use the medium to nominate her own candidate. She could do this simply by casting a vote. Other participants might join her, casting their own votes, and possibly nominating their own candidates. If the medium were generally used in this way, then it would come to occupy exactly the same political "niche" as the parties, without itself *being* a party. It would therefore be competitive with the party system as a whole. To compete effectively, however, it must meet two requirements: 1) sufficient voter turnout in the medium; and 2) faithful carriage of votes from the medium to the principal polls. First of all, its voter turnout must be high enough to indicate solid electoral support for the leading candidates. It need not equal the levels of principal turnout, nor perhaps even primary turnout, but it ought to be high enough that the candidates could extrapolate the results, and accurately gauge their support among the wider electorate. Otherwise they might not bother to register for the principal election (step 1 in figure 6). FIGURE 7. Translation of assent from a communicative to a mass medium. Each voter first identifies the candidate who holds her vote at the end of the cascade (red). She then re-casts for the same candidate in the principal election (bottom). http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/cascade.png http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/star.png The second requirement is that the voters must faithfully carry their votes over to the principal polls on election day (step 2). They would have to translate assent from a communicative medium to a mass medium. Figure 7 shows what is involved in the translation. From the perspective of the voter, she recalls the name of the candidate who currently holds her vote in the cascade (a name she knows well enough, or her delegate reminds her) and then she casts a vote for that same candidate at the principal polling station. If these requirements are met, then it is possible for a candidate from the medium of assent to win an election and enter office. To the extent that her electoral support at the principal polls (step 2 in figure 6) were a translation of original assent from the communicative medium, the granting of office (step 3) would be a communicative act by society as a whole. Furthermore, if turnout in the medium were ever to approach or exceed the principal turnout, then the process would likely be irreversible. The election of public officials by communicative action would be institutionalized. The ramifications of this would extend beyond the simple act of election. The mode of election will affect the behaviour of elected officials and how they allocate their powers of office. These changes will in turn reflect back on the mode of election, re-shaping it. Furthermore, communicative action on power structures will open up the possiblity of communicative action on norms, such as laws, plans and policies. Before attempting to trace these ramifications in further detail, it may be helpful to illustrate a few of them in the context of the park improvement scenario: Mae is a community leader in the neighbourhood. She is the local delegate for the Mayor. When she learns of the plans to improve the park she takes an interest. Mae speaks to Hal. Hal is the local delegate for the Public Health Officer. Mae asks Hal to look into the safety issues of the proposed plan. Hal agrees. He takes the lead in drafting a set of safety amendments. His amendments attract the votes of many parents in the neighbourhood. The votes are numerous enough to ensure that safety concerns are going to feature prominently in the plan. The young planners have a question about the delivery of the sand, so they approach Wen. Wen is a local building contractor, and a delegate for the Public Works Office. He explains that several types of sand are available from the City yards. He says that delivery, however, will depend on budgetary approval. So they add "sand" to the budget section of their plan. Later, when it appears that a consensus is likely to form at some point, Mae requests approval for the plan. She does not speak directly to City Hall, rather she speaks to her delegate - the person she is voting for in the Mayoral election. In reply she receives a signed email from the Comptroller of the Parks Department, authorizing a preliminary safety inspection of the site. Mae then forwards the authorization to Hal, who arranges for the actual inspection. When the safety inspector arrives, Hal guides her to the site... NOTES AND REFERENCES -------------------- [TCA1] Jürgen Habermas. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1. Reason and Rationalization of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy, 1984. Beacon Hill, Boston. [TCA2] Jürgen Habermas. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2. Lifeworld and System: a Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by Thomas McCarthy, 1987. Beacon Hill, Boston. [3] The basic types of social action are:^[TCA1.85-86] * Teleological action - an actor attempting to reach a goal * Strategic action - teleological action in which success depends on the decisions of others who do not share the same goal * Normatively regulated action - an actor fulfilling expectations common to the group * Dramaturgical action - an actor self-presenting to an audience * Communicative action - two or more actors coordinating by discussion aimed at mutual understanding or agreement GLOSSARY -------- candidate - an object of assent - one who receives a vote communicative action - a type of social action that is coordinated by discussion aimed at mutual understanding or agreement communicative assent - expression of agreement, particularly of agreement that arises from discussion delegate - a subject and object of assent - one who is both a candidate and a voter, who both receives and casts votes delegate cascade - a voting mechanism in which received votes are carried along with cast votes mass assent - expression of agreement that arises through mass media vote - a formal unit of assent voter - a subject of assent - one who votes for a candidate Copyright 2008, Michael Allan. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Votorola Software"), to deal in the Votorola Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicence, and/or sell copies of the Votorola Software, and to permit persons to whom the Votorola Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The preceding copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Votorola Software. -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
