Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation

Chapter 7: Virtual Deliberations: Talking Politics Online in Hungary

7 virtual deliberations: talking politics online in hungary Ildikó Kaposi Deliberative theories of democracy recognize the importance of “spontaneous, unsubverted circuits of communication in a public sphere that is not programmed to reach decisions and thus is not organised” (Habermas 1997, 57). This stands in marked contrast to traditional political and social thought, which generally fail to deem everyday talk significant enough to merit theorizing or systematic enquiry. From the latter perspective, talk is a “natural” part of everyday life, its pervasiveness rendering it invisible, on top of its being irrelevant to the responsible, enlightened, and capable sphere of political decision making. The resurgence of interest in everyday political talk in the wake of the “deliberative turn” in social science has challenged this view. The new approaches claim that while everyday talk is not oriented toward decision making, and is not always self-conscious, reflective, or considered , it is nevertheless a crucial part of the full deliberative system, which is made up of interrelated parts, including public forums, activists, associations , and formerly private spaces like the home and workplace. Everyday talk matters because it is how people come to understand themselves and their environment better, and it helps participants change in ways that are better for them and the larger polity (Mansbridge 1999). However, assessing the qualities of everyday talk remains difficult because, while “deliberation” has a set of standards and criteria that define the term, the same cannot be said for the terms that characterize more informal exchanges. It even remains questionable what model of communication applies to everyday political talk: the terms “talk,” “discussion,” and “conversation” are used, sometimes interchangeably, to describe people exchanging information and opinions about political issues in the public and private spheres. This neglect in theorizing about talk is hardly new. In classical rhetoric, conversation as a genre was recognized but paid little attention (Remer 1999). Cicero’s writings contrasted conversation with oratory , public judicial, and deliberative speech. Unlike such forms of rhetoric, conversation was to be found in small, exclusive circles. And because conversation was speech among a select group, it was restrained, free of destructive passions that would conflict with deliberation and reason. From this perspective , conversation cannot be the main genre for politics because political speech is public, addressing large audiences, and because conversation is not directed at action in a way necessary for politics (which depends on action). Publicness and the orientation toward specific results are also among the features by which Michael Schudson (1997) differentiates models of conversation . Schudson argues that there are two distinct ideals of conversation: the sociable model and the problem-solving model. In the sociable model, conversation need not have an end outside itself. Conversation of this kind is oriented to the pleasure of interacting with others without the necessity of persuasion. The problem-solving model of conversation, by contrast, starts from the premise that talk is justified by its practical relationship to the articulation of common ends. The focus here is on arguments declaring what the world is and should be like. Problem-solving conversation works as a model of good government, expecting reasonableness from participants in their willingness to listen to others, state their own views, and revise statements in the light of responses. The two types of conversation, says Schudson, are necessary for democracy in radically different ways. The sociable model involves homogeneous conversation , where people talk primarily with others who share their values. The shared assumptions make the testing of opinions and ideas “safe,” free from severe conflict, so that participants are likely to be reinforced in their shared views. In problem-solving conversations, heterogeneity is the norm. Talk occurs among people who do not share the same views; therefore a friendly testing of ideas is not possible. Uncertainty and doubt are penalized, conviction and certainty rewarded. This is the “truly public” mode of conversation, and it takes place in settings where talk is bound to be uncomfortable, threatening to the point where formal or informal rules of engagement are required. The Beginnings of “the Great Conversation” Online The rise and diffusion of the Internet added further fuel to the debates on the merits and models of political conversation. Many celebrated the new 116 public deliberation as rhetorical practice technology’s potential to enhance the deliberative system by creating new arenas for political conversation. In its 1997 decision to strike down the Communications Decency Act (ACLU v. Reno), the...