Week 14: e-democracy

Question 2:
This essay will analyse the Online Opinion website using Peter Dahlgren’s four
criteria, and will firstly look at computer mediated communication and virtual
cultures, before secondly analyzing the website. Finally, it will evaluate the site, but
also include a critical discussion around some other important factors. Bourdieu
(1991) wrote of identity, its relation to different capital, and the idea that people
occupy positions in society based on the amount of capital they possess.

Social capital can be defined as the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, available
to an individual or a group through a durable network of relationships based on
mutual acquaintance and recognition. The distribution is unequal, and social capital
increases the ability of an actor to advance her/his interests. Virtual communities are
Internet-based, geographically unrestrained social networks founded on common
interests. Many people use the Internet to extend an already existing social reality,
but the Internet also allows users to pursue interests more freely, and to develop
alternative identities (Flew, 2002, p.82). CMC allows a person to ‘obscure or re-
create aspects of the self’ and express opinions and feelings more freely (Reid in
Gackenbach, 1998, p.29). This means that it can be viewed as a democratising force.
The definition of e-democracy is the use of Internet-based technologies in the
democratic process as a means of communication, discussion, organisation,
influence, or decision making. Because of the interactive and anonymous feature of
online communities, it means people that felt they had difficulties in expressing their
opinion could do so without constraints. According to themselves, ‘On Line Opinion is
a not-for-profit e-journal that aims to provide a forum for public social and political
debate about current Australian issues (website).

Relevant information
According to Dahlgren, this means that ‘people must have access to reliable reports,
portrayals, analyses, discussions, debates and so forth about current affairs
(Dahlgren 2000, p. 301).’ O.O does facilitate these criteria by listing essays and
comments by community leaders and has a separate forum where people can
comment or debate. Although it is likely that this site will cater for educated people,
its format is nonetheless open for anyone who is interested in politics. However, the
level of debate is fairly complex, and could deter certain groups of people.
Loyalty to democratic values and procedures
The editors focus on not dominating content:
[I]t is not the editors’ intention to dominate these pages – these
articles are gathered from a variety of independent sources and are
published in the belief that ideas are the essence of progress and
that issues and opinions should be addressed, not suppressed. We
welcome any rational contribution to what we hope will be a robust
public debate not available in any other media or forum.
(Website)
There are laws of decency and respect on the website, and it can therefore
be argued that the site does attempt to emulate democratic behaviour
among its members.

Practices, Routines and Traditions

Dahlgren states that ‘democracy must be embodied in concrete, recurring practices –
individual, group, and collective – relevant for diverse situations (Dahlgren 2000, p.
401).’ He also argues that the habits of discussion and debate are a part of this. As a
website, content is provided in a certain format, and the O.O website has a concrete
format that makes the user conform to its specific routines.

Identities as citizens
Dahlgren also argues that an individual’s identity is multifaceted and that in an
environment where multifaceted identification is common, democracy must
incorporate this. He also argues that ‘[f]or people to see themselves a citiziens, and
for a civic culture ro flourish, involves thus the mutual interdependence of knowledge
and competencies, loyalty to democratic values and procedures, as well as
established practices and traditions (Dahlgren 2000, p. 403).’ Just by being able to
directly respond to comments made by community leaders and decision makers, it
could be argued that the O.O website facilitates or reinforces the identity of its
members as involved, democratic citizens.

It is a common feature of communities to create their own internal language and

culture that includes some, and excludes others (Turkle, 1995). Outside aspects act
as limitations on what and how media can be used and on the availability of
alternatives for non-media. Socio-economic factors, personality traits and
communication behaviour influence awareness of technology and subsequently the
way in which media is used. The lower the socio-economic status, the more
dependent an individual is on one segment or medium, and the more they will be
affected cognitively, affectively and behaviourally by that segment. This is important
to remember, because although the idealistic idea behind a site such as Online
Opinion is noble, it doesn’t help democracy if the digital divide that exists between
groups in society excludes others and includes only a small portion, usually the
people with the education and income to afford such technology. When that is said
though, the Online Opinion website is unique in the way that it blends formal public
debate among community leaders and decision makers and feedback by citizens. In
that way, it is a strong democratising force.

Computer mediated communication is a good way for people who are limited in
social capital to enter the democratic process on a more equal basis. Dahlgren sets
four criteria for media to facilitate democracy, and the Online Opinion website fulfils
these criteria quite neatly. However, in a larger picture, factors like the digital divide
in a society must be considered when evaluating the equal access to democracy, and
the different literacy that exists because of socio-economic background, gender, age
and so forth.

Bibliography:
Flew, T. (2002), ‘Virtual Cultures’, in New Media: An Introduction, South Melbourne, Oxford University
Press, pp. 76-95.

Dahlgren, P. (2000), “The Internet and the democratization of civic culture” in Political Communication

Cherny, L. (1999), Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World, Stanford, CSLI

Reid, E. (1998), 'The Self and the Internet: Variations of the Illusion of One Self' in Gackenbach, J. (ed.)
(1998) Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Implications, San
Diego, Academic Press.

Littlejohn, S. (1996), Theories of Human Communication (5th Edn), Wadsworth

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the age of the Internet, New York, Simon & Schuster.

Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language & Symbolic Power, Cambridge, Polity Press.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/ - last accessed 18th June