Skip to main content

On public reasoning

On May 11 last year, I briefly discussed Amartya Sen's recommendations for how media could be more useful in the promotion of justice.

One of these recommendations was to use the media as a tool for public reasoning.

"Reasoning" can be defined here as the act of thinking logically, rationally and/or analytically. Public reasoning, then, can be understood as logically, rationally and/or analytically thinking as a group or as the citizenry.

For this to happen, two things need to be in place: There need to be people who are thinking, and there needs to be a way for them to deliberate on thoughts collectively.

Everybody has thoughts, so I will assume that there are thinking people wherever you look.

But not everybody has a way to deliberate their thoughts with other actors in the public sphere. Sure, they may be able to exchange thoughts with their neighbor, local storekeeper or family members. But will this really be "public" or private?

In order to have a public deliberation, a few more things seem to be needed:
  1. A space where all thoughts can be shared indiscriminately, save for constraints created by scarce resources, such as time.
  2. Free and open access to spectating this space by any citizen. 
  3. A form of expression that can be easily understood by any citizen.
  4. Free and open access to contribute to this space by any citizen.
  5. A mechanism to periodically draw up conclusions when deliberations reach stalemate status.
Given these five suggested needs for a public deliberation framework, which seems to give way to "public reasoning", here are a few tangible systems that I think may be useful:
  1. A physical space in every city; all spaces are somehow centrally coordinated.
  2. A space based on radio channels.
  3. A space created online. 
Out of all the spaces that already exist in this respect, why are they not seen as central, dependable systems of public reasoning? Herein lies the argument against public deliberation in general: That it may not be possible to achieve a space where the freedom of expression is perfect, ie: every citizens willingness to spectate and/or contribute to this system is ground in the same motivations and resources to do so. 

It seems futile, however, to end the investigation here. Motivations change, as do resources. The philosophical need for a system of public reasoning is important enough to warrant a continuous reflection on this goal and its implications for a more equitable, resilient and peaceful society. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or
Post a Comment
Read more