A couple thoughts on Coleman & Blumler
While I enjoyed Coleman & Blumler immensely, I take issue with a couple of assertions that they make:
- “The disembodied nature of online interaction benefits those who have traditionally been most silent, ignored, or disrespected within the public sphere” (29). I find this an overgeneralization — yes, some marginalized groups have found increased voice (e.g. autistics), but basing this on the psychological nature of the communicative act seems wronghead, and I doubt that anyone would consider, for example, technologists to be marginalized.
- “The fluidity of online civic and political networks militates against structures of central leadership based upon firm ideological positions. Holding together a network calls for a negotiated approach not only to day-to-day tactics, but to the very basis of group identity, strategy, and normative commitments” (126). Ok, this might be somewhat true, but lets not overstate it. Social networks are subject to a great deal of groupthink — peer-based patrolling of norms can be more confining than an authoritative model. While the authors sing the praises of Slashdot, I’m not so convinced that they’ve spent much time there. Thats a bastion of groupthink, from the stories that are posted to the responses.
2 Comments
→
totally. i really liked coleman & blumler (i keep writing “bumbler”) for their stances and explicitness, though there were points that i commented on re: overstating or disagreeing.
on the other hand, i think their orientation is exciting (away from behaviorist or rationalistic models), and i appreciate that they spell out what it looks like to believe in something kind of in the middle, or more nuanced, than a position that stands on one side or another. i like that they recognize that channels of participation, norms of engagement and power, and personal experiences all matter in civic engagement. it’s not just — change this and people will do that.
How good to see the beginnings of such a lively debate about a book that’s still in the course of being published. I appreciate this critical feedback – and so will Jay Blumler (rarely a bumbler in my experience) when I pass it on to him.
Travis: both of your criticisms are well taken. The first point is certainly an over-generalisation. It would read much better this way: “The disembodied nature of online interaction benefits some social groups that have traditionally been most silent, ignored, or disrespected within the public sphere” We are not suggesting that all groups whose voices are enhanced online (i.e. technologists) were hitherto marginalised, but that some that were marginalised are less so now.
Your second point questions our claim that networks weaken central leaderships. I think that the empirical evidence supports our claim: online networks tend to be less prone to the kind of control-freakery that has made political parties so unattractive. You’re right to point out that peer-based decision-making can sometimes result in groupthink, but it can also lead to more deliberative opportunities. Which of these paths is taken is a consequence of culture rather than technology; hence our argument for the civic commons.
We don’t quite ’sing the praises’ of Slashdot, but use it as an example of how large-scale collective decisions might be made in ways that undermine the consequences of rational choice problems. You’re right to have spotted that neither Jay nor I spend much of our lives in or around Slashdot.
Irene – many thanks for your encouraging comments. It’s precisely this kind of nuance that we were aiming to achieve.
Do keep the comments coming. I’m about to send the proofs back to Cambridge University Press. Now’s our last time to eradicate major howlers.