Response to James Cross

A fellow blogger, James Cross, who writes at Broad Speculations left some comments that I thought raised enough interesting questions to qualify for a response
in the form of a full blog entry.

Here is part of James’ response to my recent post:  The Shirky-Morozov Debate Or How Facebook Beat Linux.

I am interested in Shirky’s ideas but I am a little at a loss to understand how it would actually work. The Internet and social media have potential for making major changes in collaboration and political activity, but those things are mainly the theater aspect of politics whereas actual politics is about how resources are divided up and who has power.

Shirky’s position, or at least my understanding of it that I laid out in  The Shirky-Morozov Debate, was that Shirky: “sees the potential of governance to follow the open source model of software development found in collectively developed software such as Linux and Github that allow users to collaborate without being coordinated by anyone from above- as opposed to the top-down model followed by traditional software companies i.e. MicroSoft.”

James sees  potential for collaboration and political activity offered by the Internet as  “theater aspects of politics whereas actual politics is about how resources are divided up and who has power”. If I understand James correctly, Shirky et al are pushing on a string; the Internet and related technologies may offer real opportunities for collaboration and political activity, but at the end of the day these aren’t the things that actually count; real politics is about power and dividing up resources.

James’ position as stated in the quote above is a powerful and succinct summation of a realist’s conception of power. It put me in mind of the definition offered by Hans Morgenthau:

Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man. Thus power covers all social relationships, which serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another.  (Politics Among Nations)


With all due respect to both James and the late Morgenthau, while this understanding of power appears to gel with our commonsense notions, I do not think it is correct. For my part, I hold to the definition of power offered by Morgenthau’s friend, Hannah Arendt:


Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together (The Crisis of the Republic)

Under this understanding political activity and collaboration aren’t something separate from, less real, in James’ word “actual” than power, instead, political activity, collaboration, and power are all effectively synonymous.

This collaboration or political activity does not need to be understood in a purely positive way: a secret police may collaborate in a country to exercise political control, a conqueror needs the help of local “collaborators” to effectively rule over a conquered  territory. In a positive sense a minority group can join together and with others- collaborate- to secure political rights, a resistance can engage in political activity to overthrow a dictator.  In either sense, collaboration and political activity are the essence of politics not its surface.

Even if we substituted the word “authority” for “power” in James’ formulation so that he would read:   “actual politics is about how resources are divided up and who has authority” I do not think the view of political activity, collaboration, and power being synonymous would change.  Imagine, if you will, that tomorrow some major scandal breaks upon the Obama Administration that is so deep that it alienates not just the people who already oppose him, but the majority of Americans (such as myself) who voted for the man. In such a scenario, the authority of his position as president would be almost useless, and he would be essentially politically paralyzed, not because he had lost his actual position of power, but because he would have lost the base of political support- the political activity and collaboration- that makes such a position meaningful and effective.

Once you start to look at power in this way I think a whole new set of questions start to open up. The questions are no longer necessarily “who holds power?” or “what resources does some group control?”, but, “How open is the system?” “Can any group participate or is political activity- the exercise of power- limited to some select group(s)?” “What are the barriers to participation?”

But, for me, perhaps the most important question  is “what is meant by political participation?” That is, what kinds of political activity/collaboration are encouraged/permitted by the political system.

As mentioned, Clay Shirky, among others, has thought that the Internet in particular, and the communications revolution more generally, would have lowered the barriers to political participation in a way that would make something like truly citizen-directed government possible. An example he cites in one of his talks is the open source crafting of legislation in Utah where the people collectively wrote one of the state’s laws online.  In this view, the answer to the question of “what is meant by participation?” would be decentralized collaboration between citizens who work together to achieve self-chosen ends. It is a model of politics analogous to open-source software creation such as that found with Linx.

The problem with this view is that it is detached from reality.  Nothing like citizen-directed government has really emerged from the Internet, which is far from a “new” technology.  Indeed, if the Obama campaign in 2012 is any indication , in political terms, the Internet is best thought of as a tool of mobilization not direct participation in the form of discussion and debate. Participation is defined here almost purely in terms of mobilization.

In a really interesting way, these developments seems to have brought us back to the era before television when party machines and unions would get out the vote- only now mobilization is done using social media and GOTV efforts targeted at specific individuals.  My lament here is that this politics of mass mobilization has left all the characteristics of political participation Shirky had hoped the Internet would make possible in the dust. Rather than citizen-to-citizen debate and discussion issues are already decided upon in the higher echelons of the political party. Instead of groups being organized horizontally, we are back to the world of the pyramid, with the new technologies being used to foster mobilization receiving centralized direction from the party’s data rich “war-rooms”.

To be honest, I am not even sure you could have something like truly collaborative politics as in Shirky’s Utah legislation example on the mass level of a nation even if all of the technological-political trends would have played out the way he had hoped. If you think the process is ugly now- imagine the Federal budget being crafted as an open source project by the entire country!

Still, I continue to believe that the kinds of possibilities for citizen-directed government cyber-utopians have been preaching about for years still have some potential to be realized, only at a smaller scale. I think the first step in doing this is to remember that the kind of representational democracy we have isn’t the only form of democracy to have ever existed, or perhaps even the best for all purposes.

Lately, for a book I’m working on, I’ve been looking at the most famous democracy of them all, Athenian democracy, which at the very least, offers us an example of a system that tried to maximize the opportunity for individual citizens to engage in political activity.  In what follows immediately below I will not address the glaring flaws of Athenian democracy- imperialism, the condition of women, slavery. Rather, I just want to lay out the mechanics of how their participatory system worked.

Athenian democracy differed from modern democracy in many ways, but most especially in this: that the citizens themselves, rather than their representatives, gathered together in their assembly, called the Ekklêsia, to make political decisions.
The Athenian Ekklêsia included all male, Athenian citizens, of whatever class who were over 18 years of age. It met on a hillside, the Pnyx, south-west of the Agora or marketplace. The assembly began with the words of the herald that seemed to sum up
the whole world-view that underlie Athenian democracy: “Who wishes to speak?” Here, any Athenian citizen, of whatever station, was free to bring to discussion, debate, and a vote anything which they wished.  On the Pnyx, Athenians made decisions such as whether to start or end a war, when to ostracize a citizen ( most famously Socrates),  who to name as a general, whether to found a colony, inaugurate a religious festival, or literally any other question or issue that a member of the Ekklêsia wanted to discuss and decide upon.

Citizens of Athens bore direct responsibility for their decisions in a way citizens today might find hard to grasp.  Especially in decisions of war, Athenians were asked to make complex choices which were likely to have an immediate impact on either themselves or their children.

The Athenian courts or, Dikasteria, represents another of the sharp differences between Athenian democracy and our own.   Whereas our societies are guided by the input of persons deemed to be experts in some distinct domain of human knowledge: lawyers and judges on issues of law, economists in matters of economic policy, foreign policy professionals in areas of international affairs etc. Athenian democracy had a deep distrust of experts, or more clearly, a very narrow range of fields deemed by the Athenians to be capable of true expertise- generalship and water management topped their list, and they possessed a much more widespread faith in the ability of average citizens to come to reasoned decisions on public questions.

A Dikasteria was effectively judge and jury in one. It decided whether to take a case, what evidence was permissible, came down on the question of guilt or innocence, and decided upon the final sentence.

The only qualification for serving as a dikast was being over the age of 30, which suggests that the “expertise” being selected for was life-experience more than anything else.  Dikasteria for a particular trial were huge when compared to modern juries. They  could number anywhere from a low of 500 to a high of 6,000 members. Unlike in modern legal systems, there was no public prosecutor- Athenians brought other Athenians to trial.  Nor were there lawyers, Athenians prosecuted fellow citizens or defended themselves before the dikasts.

In still another sharp contrast to modern democracies, ancient Athens possessed no executive or permanent bureaucracy. What it had was The Council of 500, or Boule.  Members of this body, which was chosen by lot from members of the Ekklêsia served
for a period of one year.  The Boule acted in a coordinating and supervisory relative to the Ekklêsia engaging in such detail oriented tasks as the supervision of public finances, or the assessment of tribute from allies.

The way in which members of the Boule were chosen by lot was indicative of the way in which Athenians viewed the idea of elections.  The idea of electing someone to political office is based on the underlying assumption that someone is, in a sense, more qualified for some position than another person. Given the narrow definition of expertise held by Athenians, the idea that most public offices demanded anything more than requirements in the form of the personal characteristics of morality and judgement, that were possessed by almost everyone, was untenable. All citizens were deemed equally qualified for most public offices.  Election as a consequence was limited to the aforementioned experts such as generals and engineers.

The whole point of the Athenian system was to maximize the possibilities for citizens to engage in substantial political participation. Our system does not have this as a primary goal. Hell, we don’t even have off of work on election day!

Athens then, is at least one model of how politics in a society that put a premium on substantial participation could be organized. Today, I can imagine all sorts of ways that technology could be used today to increase the possibilities for citizens to engage in politics above and beyond voting in elections or working for campaigns while electoral contests are being fought. Technology could help make participation easier, and more compatible with the non-political aspects of modern human life.

For example, cities and towns could adopt something like the Athenian assembly rather than the mayoral and city-council systems now commonly used. Not everyone would have to physically attend an “assembly” if those who wished to participate in some sort of political debate and decision were able to do so virtually.  The key is to make participation as easy, integrated, and seamless with the rest of our lives as possible.  If I can receive updates via Twitter on fantasy football picks, why shouldn’t I be able to get an update on the town council meeting such as “ Proposition X will be held to a vote in so many days. Log-in and vote before such and such a date if you have a position on this issue”.  If I can spend hours of time in a virtual world such as World of WarCraft, can’t I spend a fraction of that in a virtual assembly whose decisions at least have some real world impact.

Would the majority of citizens participate in this sort of decision making?  Probably not, but I have no issue with such participation being self-selecting. If all debates concern you, participate all the time, if some, then just those, or if none, devote yourself to your private concerns, but remember that you now have no justification to complain. The point is to make it as easy as possible for those who want to to have their say- let the numbers shake out whatever way they do. Participation will likely vary over the course of life of the individual and with the general social mood of the society at large.

The limits to the political influence of experts found in Athens are no doubt impossible in our complex technological society, but I can imagine software systems, and expert services that provide information to citizens so they can test assumptions about the potential impact of their decisions from tax policy to water and resource management to zoning rules.  I can imagine the application of a blended model (real world/online) of the Athenian Dikasteria to non-criminal trials, and much of litigation supplanted by community based mediation.

And there I think is a very long background in response to James’ second comment:

I find myself in a rather odd political position of being a small government progressive. I want to find ways to organize society to accomplish progressive goals without an intrusive government.Do you or anyone else have ideas on that?”

A problem, I think, is that if the goal is meaningful participation where the individual can have a substantial impact on the society in which he or she lives, then the level at which many important decisions made by the government emerge will have to move downward. Right now, the level of government where an individual can most easily have an impact, municipal government, falls off the radar of most people. Part of the reason for this is certainly the role of national media which can only cover government at the Federal, and on rare occasions the state level. But, a large part of this inattention to municipal government probably also stems from the fact that almost all important political decisions are made at the higher levels of government.

In order to place real and substantial power at the level where individuals are actually able to shape it, one would have to shift many of the responsibilities and capacities now the prerogative of the Federal and state government, to a level closer to the individual. Oddly enough, this is a change in the direction of more democracy many conservatives would get behind. My guess is that the bottom level for such a unit would be a mid-sized city and its surroundings. If you go much smaller you cannot support the cultural institutions and ways of living that form the bones and sinews of a truly distinct community, go much larger to the level of a nation and the scale no longer supports a true sense of distinct community which is a matter of shared institutions and ways of living, not shared ancestry or ideology.

Perhaps oddly enough, libertarians are at the forefront of attempting to experiment with local level governance. There is Peter Thiel’s idea of utopian seasteading  and the grandson of Milton Friedman who is hoping to create cities based on libertarian principles from scratch in the Third World, at least partially inspired the similar idea
for charter cities of the economist, Paul Romer.

My guess, however, is that, at the end of the day, such experiments won’t work and any shift of responsibility to the municipal level will actually trend in the the direction of progressive government. Even the incredibly successful city-states whose economic performance these movements hope to emulate, such as Singapore, have governments that minimize social divisions and hold the well-being of the poor to be the responsibility of the community.

What the architect of Singaporean society, Lee Kuan Yew, understands is that no true community- as opposed to some gated enclave where wealthy people live- can be composed of only the rich. (It is a disaster for a community when it is composed of only the poor).  The wealthy seem more likely to pony-up if their money goes into the community where they and their children live.  To support progressive politics a community cannot be so small that the rich will simply put up and move, or so large that the wealthy cannot see that from their largess comes a community they and their children want to live in because of the quality of its cultural institutions, its schools, and general social and physical health.

This all may seem utopian, and perhaps, especially in terms of participatory politics it is.  Much of this, however, is echoed by someone like Jane Jacobs who saw a large part of the reason for the decline of the city in the 20th century in the shift of taxing authority away from the city to the Federal government. Though, I have yet to read the book, I believe they are also echoed by in Benjamin Barber’s recent If Mayors Ruled the World where he lays out just how much more effective the mayors of large cities have been at addressing endemic social problems than the ideologically driven national political parties. The danger here is paternalism as both Mayor Bloomberg’s New York, and the aforementioned Singapore of Lee Kuan Yew, seem to attest.

Relocating much of Federal authority to the level of cities might spur major innovations: in energy systems and climate policy, educational systems, food systems, criminal justice, tax policy, promoting economic equality, care for the elderly, health care, and the way we relate to and integrate technological and scientific innovation, which could prove scaleable and serve as solutions to the wider and more important national and international aspects of these issues. It might balance out the mind-numbing homogenization of modern industrial society: ”And each town looks the same to me the movies and the factories” (Simon & Garfunkel, Homeward Bound) from Shanghai, to Moscow, to London to New York.  As mentioned,  it might also put a brake on the tendency of the rich to avoid taxation because the effect of their taxes will be immediately manifest in the communities it which they live.

This century will be the first in which the majority of the human population will live in cities, if they can be allowed to get it right, things will work out for all of us- even for country dwellers like myself. One way to do that would be to relocate some of the powers of national governments regarding taxation, economic, and social policy back to the cities. Here also, I think a different, more participatory, and even more progressive form of democracy could find its 21st century home.

Thanks for inspiring this post James! As always, critical comments from everyone are desired.

Advertisements

6 comments on “Response to James Cross

  1. James Cross says:

    Did we ever have a discussion about The Dictator’s Handbook?

    The argument of the book is that democracies and tyrannies operate in a similar fashion. The difference between them is “how many backs have to scratched and how big the supply of backs available for scratching.” In dictatorships the dictator only needs to scratch a relatively few backs. In democracy a leader or leading party has a lot more that need to be scratched. In a way Romney is right about gifts but all politics is about gifts and Romney would have bestowed his gifts tilted more to corporations and the well-off had he been elected. The key point is that politics is still about the distribution of resources and the cooperation and collaboration we see is democracies is simply the lubricant that moderates the distribution so violence doesn’t break out (most of the time).

    This began with a discussion of the open source model as a aid to the democratic process. Of course, technology can be an aid but it doesn’t change the fundamentals in any way. Even in open source projects there are always the inside groups which created the project and guide its direction. Others are admitted to the inside group as they prove themselves. Conflicts in direction will be resolved by this inside group. The software does not grow completely organically from unorganized contributions of developers. The source code control is simply a technology that merges changes but it doesn’t guarantee that any given change gets promoted to become part of the project.

    • Rick Searle says:

      No, James, we never discussed the Dictator’s Handbook- it is now on my reading list.
      I wish we had discussed it beforehand, the reviews of it I was able to find did give me some insight into where you are coming from politically. From what I was able to gleen from the reviews, Mesquita’s and Smith arguments, at least regarding democracy reminded me a lot of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic that “justice is the interest of the stronger”, or, for that matter, Plato’s critique of democracy found near the end of the book.

      What I am curious to ask you is if or how your ideas regarding politics fit with your larger philosophy of the evolution and nature of life, consciousness, and the fate of the universe?

      You wrote of consciousness in your post “Why the Future Needs Us Part II

      http://broadspeculations.com/2012/05/26/why-the-future-needs-us-part-ii/

      “Consciousness has both of the two key characteristics of life. It carries information about the environment. We might say it devours the environment. And consciousness also is a dissipative system that maintains itself through the dynamic interchange of energy with its environment. In the most basic sense, the brain and neural network are huge consumers of energy and producers of entropy. In the broader sense, consciousness provides the sense of purpose to consume the resources and energy to maintain the organism. In the most conscious creatures that we know of (ourselves) consciousness creates culture and technology which allows for the increasing large consumption of energy and resources.”

      Now to my lights, democracy itself can be understood as just such a “dissipative system”. Unlike dictatorships, democracy provides a feedback system embracing the whole of society between policy makers and the citizens whom they serve. Such information is often in the form of the needs of the citizens, but needs here are pretty broadly understood. Romney’s cynical, though honest, comment to his donors about people voting for Obama because of the generous “gifts” he had promised them seems a little off to me. Is not being pressured to “self-deport” a gift to Hispanics? Or avoiding a rollback of reproductive rights for women a gift? Or standing up against disenfranchisement by onerous voter rules applied only weeks before the election a gift to blacks? Is declaring it unfair that a person like Romney who makes thousands of times a person of my station’s salary pays 10% less than my effective tax rate a gift? Nah, people who voted for Obama weren’t out for spoils- they were standing up for their rights. They were giving the ultimate feedback to the political powers that be that their rights are not something to be trifled with.

  2. James Cross says:

    I am still working on fitting my ideas about politics with my larger philosophy.

    In part it is a matter of time frames. My Broad Speculations typically deal with time frames of thousands or millions of years whereas my political statements are more grounded to the present.

    I think the view point of Dictator’s Handbook is more a statement of how things actually work than a prescription for ideally they should . Democracy for this viewpoint still has as its primary but not exclusive role the distribution resources – who gets what. People who voted for Obama (and I did) were for something like the status quo in this distribution equation.

    Regarding resources and my larger philosophy, I may have a post in the future on my blog. There are two aspects to the resource problem. One is the actual resources required for life – food, water, shelter, etc. This aspect is still important in many Third World countries and in many governed by oligarchies and dictatorships. The second aspect is the superfluous needs we have that are driven by the human psyche. In my Utopian future both needs must be resolved.

    I think you are right about democracy being a dissipative structure. But the same can be said for all of culture. Culture itself is a sort of externalized consciousness.

  3. Rick Searle says:

    I still have my doubts regarding the Dictator’s Handbook- it smells too much of the rational choice model in economics that just blew up in our face, or even the selfish-gene model of Richard Dawkins- which I find wanting.

    Realist theories always claim they are reflecting true reality and not being prescriptive. But the combination of the words “realist” and “theory” is an oxymoron. You have to step away from reality to compose a theory in the first place. The way realists typically do this is to pose a simplified model of human beings as a power seekers, or Ferengi, or Darwinian machines, or what-have-you ,whose behavior is as a consequence easily explained, and therefore, to a degree, predictable.

    I just find human nature and reality too complicated for that: people are inspired by multiple motives high and low virtuous and vicious. I think we often lose more than we gain by these theories in terms of the complexity and depth of human political behavior (something that might be better captured by a strong acquaintance with history, political biography, or even drama) especially when realist descriptions serve as a justification for the status quo, cynicism, or the inability to make reasoned moral judgments as to the value of one system compared to another or one political figure over another without regard to our own individual interest.

    That much of politics is about gaining or preserving access to resources is undeniable- this is what Marxism is all about. Yet that’s only a large slice of a very big pie. I want the whole dessert.

    But I should not say more until I have read the book.

    Looking forward to your resource post, especially regarding the needs driven by the human psyche, should it come to fruition.

    • James Cross says:

      This is great discussion.

      When you initially said you were going to reply to my comments, I thought you might be replying to my statement: “I want to find ways to organize society to accomplish progressive goals without an intrusive government. Do you or anyone else have ideas on that?”

      My own ideas are still forming in this area but I think the key to it in part is in redefining the corporation as well as making other mechanisms of organization, such as syndicates, more viable. The role of unions is also important.

      It is really quite odd that we somehow have come to regard the existence of corporations almost as natural. And libertarians seem to regard the economic freedom of corporations almost as on par with the rights of individuals. Yet corporations, in fact, are creations of government and the their legal status is maintained and preserved by government. We might argue that individual rights come from God or Nature but we cannot say the same of corporations which are granted their existence by the State itself. Unions, which to most libertarians seem to intrusions on economic freedom, are simply other forms of economic organization recognized by government and really should be on par for corporations.

      Things I think are needed are:

      1- Expansion of individual liberty by freeing individuals from almost all governmental control and regulation in personal and economic activity.
      2- More control of corporations, especially large ones, to ensure their activities do not affect adversely the common good.
      3- New labor rights legislation to empower the ability of unions to negotiate and organize.
      4- Intentionally downsizing our economic organizations by making it difficult for corporations to grow too large.
      5- Encouraging the development of worker owned companies and other cooperative forms of organizations.

      Of course, I see small chance for any of this to happen in our present political situation.

      • Rick Searle says:

        I would agree with all of your suggestions, James, though I might add or amend an end to the finacialization of our economy which could start with the brake up of the largest and most systemically risky banks- something even a minority of conservatives (Niall Ferguson) support. Along with controls on corporate spending on political campaigns- the undoing by Constitutional amendment if necessary of the “Citizens United” by the Supreme Court.

        Aside from the improbability of all the things you outlined and I added happening, I think there’s the outstanding question of what happens to globalization? My judgement of globalization is somewhat ambiguous. I think it is certainly helping to lift many people in the developing world out of poverty, and I think it also helps spread progressive values such as tolerance and values that originated in the West- freedom of speech, the right to criticize the government, and the rule of law as in “nobody is above the law”.

        Just this week I had a heated discussion with a Chinese student over Internet censorship in China in which he attacked the actions of Google and sung the praises of the huge Chinese search engine company- Baidu. Break apart Google without some international treaty in which the biggest companies are broken up world-wide, and you’ve just given the world’s search engine market to a company that thinks little of following to the letter a countries censorship rules.

        The same can be said for all other industries even if these values issues don’t come into play. For better, and for worse, we now truly live in “one world”
        which makes unilateral decisions- even by a large and rich country such as the US- increasingly irrelevant. So while I agree with your steps, I am at an absolute loss as to how we would ever get there, or even if we did (by ourselves) if it would even be relevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s