Revision rinsed III

If we can accept that different communication systems are embedded in different cultural arrangements, then the social relations which make the arrangements up become a central concern. We may borrow from concepts explored in political economy as well as community development literature.

Amartya Sen [1] outlines five critical functions of the media in society:

1. To enable direction contribution from the public;
2. To enable information to be disseminated to the public;
3. To protect public voice;
4. To facilitate the formation of public value; and
5. To enable public reasoning.

Here, Sen does not attempt to theorize communication. He assumes much of it: That it is increasingly 2-way, that sometimes the public talks and other time the public is talked to, and that values are inherent in these relations. By these assumptions, he makes a strong argument of the media in support of democratic, just societies. 

Similarly, Paolo Friere [2] assumes that modes of communication - and their respective values - change, but some stuff remains in the public. This stuff is grounded in very few but common values we all come to the world with. As with Sen's focus on justice, Friere's focus is on the pedagogy we need to interact to realize these few common values.

In both cases, a strong assumption needs to be made about values being embedded with the production, distribution and consumption of media. Once those values are assumed, the structure of power becomes clear. 

And from here, one can evaluate whether any communication system is participatory or superficially-revised diffusion.

Even here, however, we need to check ourselves. Let us consider an example of a "truly" participatory approach. In this case, is it possible to envision systems of communication where factors such as agenda-setting, management, technical-knowhow, etc. are perfectly available in the public sphere? Habermasian [3] derivations of the Public Sphere define three characteristics:

1. All participants have equal access to the sphere;
2. All participants have the right to question activities and discussions in the sphere;
3. All participants have a right to suggest modifications to activites and discussions.

It's that last characteristic we need to consider. Will a "truly" or perfectly participatory system of communication make available to every producer and consumer of information on the system the right to suggest modifications? And if this right was granted, is it realistic to think that their suggested modifications would be followed through, thus enabling public reasoning as Sen suggests?

Notes:

[1] Sen, Amartya (2009). The idea of justice, Alan Lane Publishing.

[2] Friere, Paolo (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed, Penguin.
[3] Habermas, Jurgen (various years). On wikipedia\. Also see interpretations by Chantal Mouffe.