no_known_address@via_email (Jacques LeCavilier) (10/15/87)
Article from
NETWEAVER, Volume 3, Number 9, September 1987
Copyright(c) by Electronic Networking Association (ENA), 1987
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS AND DEMOCRACY:
A DOWN-TO-EARTH VIEW
by Jacques LeCavalier
Here in the NETWEAVER and elsewhere, a variety of individuals
have put forth generally optimistic views about the future
political impact of computer-mediated communications. While I
agree that the conditions for non-dominative rational
discourse--essential to any democratic endeavour--can probably
be achieved better through CMC than in any other manner (Boyd,
1987), I reject the implication by some that CMC is at the
leading edge of major socio-political changes in North America.
While continued development of the medium's capabilities for
facilitating and enhancing intellectual group work is highly
desirable, efforts aimed at simply furthering the spread of
socially conscious CMC are for the most part wasted. The
electronic linking up of citizens, interest groups, and/or
politicians is neither necessary nor sufficient for moving
North American society closer to participatory democracy.
A decade ago in THE NETWORK NATION, Hiltz and Turoff were (and
undoubtedly still are) clearly in favour of CMC being used to
further democratize institutions and political processes. As
have others since then, the authors did address to some degree
the important political issue of general access to the medium
for those groups and individuals in society who may be
constrained financially or physically (e.g. the use of CMC by
handicapped persons, the placement of terminals in public
places, and so on). However, the skills and attitudes required
for productive use of CMC, which are bound to limit its
acceptance to those members of society who are already
`politicized', are rarely if ever raised by those who work with
and write about the medium. At the lowest level, literacy (and
some sort of typing ability) are necessary in text-based CMC,
and not surprisingly, the less literate in the so-called
information society tend also to be the disadvantaged and
non-participants in the political process. (For a very visual
approach to CMC in a social context, see Youngblood, 1986.)
While it is true that the very use of computer technology
furthers the development of literacy, a number of intermediate
steps along this vein precede active participation in a computer
conference. So from the perspective of skills, CMC is a medium
much less likely to empower the disadvantaged than face-to-face
communication or the mass media, upon which most popular
education or social animation are based.
More fundamentally, attitudes favorable to CMC (in a social or
political context) are highly correlated with generally positive
attitudes towards thinking about and resolving problems in
concert with others. Here again, the medium preaches to the
converted minority. (Sadly, and at the risk of contradicting the
perhaps overstated view of John Naisbitt in MEGATRENDS, the
current prognosis for participatory democracy--in Canada,
anyhow--does not lead one to believe that these attitudes are
foremost in the minds of most citizens.) A number of political
communication and action channels already exist in our countries
(open-access parties, constituency meetings, letters to
legislators or the press, special interest groups, etc.), and
these continue to be used by a rather small number of us. There
is little reason to believe that the advent of CMC will wag the
dog of complacency any more than the several tails which have
already sprung forth.
An example which, to some degree at least, exposes the
limitations of computer technology in general for affecting the
public mindset is that of the major computer manufacturers and
their quest for the `home computer' market. They have apparently
been forced to revise their optimistic prediction of the 1970's
that PC's would soon be as common as TV's and telephones in
North American households.
Slow acceptance of the home computer concept and by extension,
of home-based CMC, is probably directly related to the matter of
skills and attitudes brought up earlier. The computer is a tool
for manipulating information, and thus not very attractive or
useful to a large proportion of us who seem happy to lead a
rather passive intellectual existence beyond (but too often
within as well!) the realms of work, school, and serious
hobbies. Similarly, CMC is ideally a communication medium more
demanding of certain thinking skills and related attitudes than
existing media. Its popularity should therefore continue to
follow the social trends, whether negative or positive, in
the perceived importance of such skills and attitudes.
Politically then, computer technology and its communicative form
appear destined to reinforce and hopefully consolidate the
already existing networks of the democratic socially conscious
minority, and with luck, provide a voice to a modest number of
thinking individuals who require computers to circumvent
communicative handicaps. These smaller prizes are still worth
the considerable effort, however, needed to make CMC more
accessible and intellectually powerful. If the quantity of human
political interaction cannot be increased dramatically, we
should still do whatever is possible to improve its quality.
For example, a number of blueprints for more participatory
democracy have been proposed which totally exclude electronic
communication (e.g. community parliaments [Lyon, 1984]). Perhaps
supporters of politically oriented CMC should make good on their
inter-disciplinary promises and accept the less grandiose task
of integrating the medium into such ENDS-oriented proposals,
rather than attempt to democratize the globe with but one
nascent MEANS of communication.
REFERENCES
Boyd, G.M. (1987). Emancipative educational technology. CANADIAN
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION, 16(2), 167-172.
Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (1978). THE NETWORK NATION: HUMAN
COMMUNICATION VIA COMPUTER. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lyon, V. (1984). Houses of citizens. POLICY OPTIONS, 5(2),
43-45.
Naisbitt, J. (1982). MEGATRENDS: TEN NEW DIRECTIONS TRANSFORMING
OUR LIVES. New York: Warner Books.
Youngblood, G. (1986). Virtual space: The electronic
environments of Mobile Image. INTERNATIONAL SYNERGY, 1(1), 9-20.
[Author's note: Jacques LeCavalier is currently a student in the
Graduate Programme in Educational Technology at Concordia
University in Montreal. He has been involved in formative
evaluation and on-line publishing activities on CoSy, and has a
background in engineering and continuing education]