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.