An Emergent Meritocracy?

Via Alphonse, Al Gore is calling for a renewal of the public sphere.  Invoking the ghost of Habermas, he dares to speak out against the "refeudalization of the public sphere:"

The German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, describes what has happened as "the refeudalization of the public sphere." That may sound like gobbledygook, but it's a phrase that packs a lot of meaning. The feudal system which thrived before the printing press democratized knowledge and made the idea of America thinkable, was a system in which wealth and power were intimately intertwined, and where knowledge played no mediating role whatsoever. The great mass of the people were ignorant. And their powerlessness was born of their ignorance. American Democracy in Trouble

He goes on to summarize how television, and market based concerns, has come to dominate the "marketplace of ideas."  In fact, Gore believes "it effectively no longer exists."  The absence of this realm leaves those in government without an essential check on their power.

The three most important characteristics of this marketplace of ideas were:

• 1) It was open to every individual, with no barriers to entry, save the necessity of literacy. This access, it is crucial to add, applied not only to the receipt of information but also to the ability to contribute information directly into the flow of ideas that was available to all.
• 2) The fate of ideas contributed by individuals depended, for the most part, on an emergent Meritocracy of Ideas. Those judged by the market to be good rose to the top, regardless of the wealth or class of the individual responsible for them.
• 3) The accepted rules of discourse presumed that the participants were all governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement. That is what a "Conversation of Democracy" is all about.

    What resulted from this shared democratic enterprise was a startling new development in human history: for the first time, knowledge regularly mediated between wealth and power. American Democracy in Trouble

Leaving aside the naivete of a "meritocracy of ideas," or even a committment to "general agreement," at least Gore favors the idea of being involved in a common undertaking for a common good. This type of language is radically absent from most public discourse.  Can we even imagine a popular politician espousing such thoughts today?  Could we imagine Gore himself saying these things 5 years ago?

Unfortunately the speech ends with some nonsense about creating a television network that promotes "a multi- way conversation that includes individuals" and promotes a "diversity of voices and opinions."  Nevertheless, a good piece of rhetoric in this the era of pimping political drones.

Comments

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

One problem with Gore talking about restorting "the marketplace of ideas": a massive consolidation that followed the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1995, and TelCom '95 was written by...the Gore Commision. Maybe a mea culpa?

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

'86 that "that," obviously.

[alphonsevanworden]

He's "waded so far in Gore, to return were as tedious as to go o'er...." (MacB.)

[Jason]

Please allow me to recommend one Slavoj Zizek, "Self-Deceptions: On Being Tolerant and Smug:"

http://www.lacan.com/zizek-self.htm

comment edited, naturally

[bob]

Jason, You'd better not be startin on that anti-semitic shit.

[Jason]

"My mother, of course, didn't know all these ideas, all these theories abou the position of women. But she knew all these things in practice. I learned a lot from my mother but I also learned a lot from other people, especially when I had the opportunity of talking to women who aren't from our country. We discussd the organisation of women and we came to the conclusion that many women so often take other people's problems upon themselves and push their own to one side. This doesn't do us any good. It shows us that we must solve our problems ourselves and not ask someone else to come and solve them, otherwise it's dishonest...I know that no-one can take my Christian faith away from me. Not the government, for fear, not weapons. And this is what I have to teach my people: that together we can build a people's Church, a true Church. Not just a hierarchy, or a building, but a real change inside people. I chose this as my contribution to the people's war. I am convinced that the people, the masses, are the only ones capable of transforming society. It's not just another theory. I chose to stay in the city among the people, instead of choosing to take up arms, as I said. We all contribute in different ways, but we are all working for the same objective.
That is my cause. As I've already said, it wasn't born out of something good, it was born out of wretchedness and bitterness. It has been radicalized by the poverty in which my people live. It has been radicalized by the malnutrition which I, as an Indian, have seen and experienced. And by the exploitation and discrimination which I've felt in the flesh...I'm still keeping secret what I think no-one should know. Not even anthropologists or intellectuals, no matter how many books they have, can find out all our secrets."

Rigoberta Menchú, from _I, Rigoberta Menchú_ (Verso, 1984)

[Jodi]

It's really quite astounding, really. One wants to be enthusiastic and support intellectual notions becoming part of mainstream political discussion. But, the notion Gore turns to was already obsolete when it was coined, explicitly so in Structural Transformation. His television position indicates the unfortunate truth of the notion of the public sphere, the way its materialization leads to the worse sorts of audience-oriented, sound bite, consumption and entertainment driven media environment. It's like communicative capitalism 2.0.

[Alain]

Jodi, while I'm largely in agreement with your sentiment I think it is interesting that Gore thinks (or at least pays lip service) that television can be transformed into a more critical, interactive medium. He ends his speech with a brief discussion of the promise of the internet, but indicates its major weakness: Real time moving video:

"Make no mistake, full-motion video is what makes television such a powerful medium. Our brains - like the brains of all vertebrates - are hard-wired to immediately notice sudden movement in our field of vision. We not only notice, we are compelled to look. When our evolutionary predecessors gathered on the African savanna a million years ago and the leaves next to them moved, the ones who didn't look are not our ancestors. The ones who did look passed on to us the genetic trait that neuroscientists call "the establishing reflex." And that is the brain syndrome activated by television continuously - sometimes as frequently as once per second. That is the reason why the industry phrase, "glue eyeballs to the screen," is actually more than a glib and idle boast. It is also a major part of the reason why Americans watch the TV screen an average of four and a half hours a day."

He believes that untill the internet can provide this same level of "real time movement" it will not be nearly as important as T.V. I am not saying that I advocate his anachronistic view of a "public shere," but the fact that he is trying to think of working within the dominant medium of television, and talk about its detrimental affects to democracy, is a start.

[Joseph Mujale]

He's certainly been boning up on something or other. Gotta love the politicians inspired by the neoliberal imagination of their college-age kids to become intellectuals. Gore obviously suffers from that multi-millionaire syndrome of thinking he's the first person to understand the popular implications of science. Then again, given the power multi-millionaires have in this country, the podium complex, when they decide to actually do something to good effect, is understandable.

Really though, this is inspiring. Just imagine: leaves moving!

[alphonsevanworden]

"that television can be transformed into a more critical, interactive medium"

This is the thing though: Interactive television has been attempted over and over since the technology became available over two decades ago. What the history of these ventures have proven is that interactive television is an oxymoron. Television is not an interactive medium; its culture is not interactive; its consumers very specifically don't want to interact with television. A platform operator can make money selling interactive tv functions - people will subscribe to them, to have them 'available,' but will not actually use them.

Since the late 70s, which saw the introduction of PPV, this is what investors and media companies have been trying to predict - will the pc ever merge with the television and if so how. There is now quite a lot of data on audience behaviour with PVRs and with interactive television services. Its not mysterious. And the results are no - people don't want to do anything when watching television. To get the audience to use a function of any kind you have to make it effortless. There is an absolute threshold of activity which can be accomodated to television consumption: Ordering a PPV, changing the channel, operating the effortless functions of PVRs to eliminate commercials.

That it is the passivity of television that is the main attraction is supported by data across all markets showing that where guides are available split screen, they are very frequently in use. Meaning viewers are settling for the LOP which is so detestable and unsatisfying they are constantly on the lookout for something less objectionable. Doing something requiring interaction however is not preferable to consuming television in the traditionally passive mode, that is, consuming the programme guide with part of the screen tuned to a programme. Even when interactive functions are available on the same handset as channel selection - games, banking, shopping, internet - they are not turned to as an alterative to viewing the programme guide.

[Alain]

Alphonse, thank you for the response. I had no idea that there had been such an extensive history to this technology. I guess my question would be what of the possibility of television and the computer being integrated into one unit with mulitiple functionalities? Perhaps there are reasons we would not want this but I think the convenience of it could be attractive to some people. Entertainment, news, internet, bill paying, music, video phone, etc... could all be accessed through one portal or one piece of equipment. Would this possibly enable the technology to be interactive? I realize I am being totally naive about this but I wonder what you think?

And of course this part of the discussion touches on the broader part of Gore's talk -Is some (even limited) form of participatory democracy possible in the United States? He even quotes the Lippman line about the "manufacture of consent" with a certain disdain - that this is not the kind of cynicism he wants to accept. I guess I am interested in these topics because it is so obvious that television is part of "the problem" and it is inconceivable that things can change without that medium being addressed.

[alphonsevanworden]

" I had no idea that there had been such an extensive history to this technology."

Ted Turner launched an experimental interactive TV service in Rhode Island or something in like 1982. I have to look it up, but a long time ago.

The first article to pose the question you are posing - will your television be a computer and when - was published in TV guide in, I think, 1976.

"Entertainment, news, internet, bill paying, music, video phone, etc... could all be accessed through one portal or one piece of equipment"

This is available in a lot of markets and has been for several years - not videophone I don't think but the rest. There are different capabilities for platforms of course - cable has the good easy return path; satellite and DTT require using a phone line so there different sets of services. As you would expect; there is a tiny tiny tiny percentage of consumers - just who you'd expect - using it. So as a vehicle for advertising messages its good, its getting attention, because the users have arranged themselves for targeting. American Express and Mercedes can find them there paying their bills and checking their stocks on tv. But there are really not many of them.

People theorize about the obstacles, all cultural and business-model in origin. Interactive options take the viewer out of the programme stream; advertisers obviously don't want this; channels still dependant on advertising income don't want it. It's a problem. Interactive services offered by platforms are competition for the channels they carry - this is really a dilemma.

But you sit at a desk to use the internet. The TV is different - you sit on the sofa, you walk around, you eat, you socialize, its a light, you don't want to do anything. Americans have the TV on basically every moment they are not at work or driving; Europeans are approaching this level of consumption. Millions of them can do their banking or pay their bills or play games or other things on tv; they don't though. They watch it, passively as ever.

[Alain]

Alphonse, thanks again. I guess I show my ignorance on techno-teevee matters. I see your point regarding passivity - it is the desire of both the consummer and the advertisers to not allow for interaction and thought. As you say, "interactive options take the viewer out of the programme stream;" but I still wonder if it will not become a more popular mode of access - certain consumers (perhaps the more affluent) will want this form of technology - and will be willing to pay for it. So, in a perverse way, this type of innovation may in fact increase the chasm separating the wealthy and everyone else.

Is there no hope?

[Matt]

Alphonse and Alain, sorry to interrupt,

But we're waiting for the lego Alphonse and lego Alain very patiently here.

[alphonsevanworden]

Hope! Not without regulation!

The biggest issue is, there was a button on your remote which took you to the internet, or to some other interactive space - one button, just like changing the channel. Commerical TV networks don't want you to have that; you'll go, you'll never come back.

The provision of such services are in the control of the platform owners. These are all private - its Murdoch, John Malone, a couple dozen guys control all the cable and satellite platforms in the world. The intersticial spot which was the all but sole income stream of television is doomed by PVR technology;it will be finished in 10 years at most; solutions are sought; the business model is shifting; but the platform owners aren't going to move to a model chosen by technology's own capabilities and what people would like, a model where for 50 dollars a month they sell you a service you can use to go somewhere to get away from them, away from commerce. Ideally they want to take you to a casino where you are also getting indoctrinated foxnewsishly. How that technology develops will depend on how it can be exploited most profitably.

[Alain]

Matt, because my computer at home is not working I am unable to do that at work (my company server blocks me from even going to the site). So until I am up and running at home (which unfortunately will not be for a while) I am unable to participate in the fun. Though I do think they are tres cool!

[Alain]

Alphonse, of course you are making perfect sense - I am just trying to think of the short circuits, or loop holes, within techno-capital. It seems that technology is one site where the ruling class sometimes has to play catch-up, that innovation does not always come ready made for exploitation. That said, you are right to point out that "How technology develops will depend on how it can be exploited most profitably."

Again, my ignorance showing ( I do not even have cable TV) what about TeVo (sp?)? Doesn't that allow you to skip commercials? And I know that with product placement, and cross selling within different shows, this is not a solution but it certainly seems to hinder the ability to market product. No?

[alphonsevanworden]

Yeah Tivo is a PVR (personal video recorder). That's what I was talking about ending commercial spots. TiVo is a brand of PVR.

[alphonsevanworden]

Digital Terrestrial is a kind of opening, potentially, sort of - the DTT platform in the UK was launched privately, lost billions of pounds and was taken over by the BBC - but would require a lot of political action. Only the BBC, of all public broadcasters in the world, could really afford to experiment a little. But still the problem is no one will use interactive services on television. People pay for them already, but using is another thing. The way to change the culture of television consumption has not yet been discovered. Internet usage appears to be a kind of 'key' to possibilities, but it's usage is not all controlled, its not all commercial, so its not going to be the direction Murdoch takes Sky in, etc.. And its really a complement, as Gore pointed out, not in any position to replace passive tv consumption or, really, to meld with it.

The TiVo threat to channel income is serious. There is a panic. People using Tivo really don't see commercials AT ALL. Pay channels for really desireable content - sports - are okay but everything else is really doomed. All kinds of alternatives in the works - superimposed ads, but they have to be silent. Expanded and inventive forms of product placement, sort of working back to the original soap operas, mixing programme and ad. But its an earthquake under the industry. What the answer will be remains to be seen. Possibly the prohibition, or effective prohibition, of the technology, in certain markets anyway.

[Alain]

Alphonse, thanks again. I feel like that image, shown over and over again, from the 1992 Presidential election when President Bush Sr. was at a supermarket - he was amaaaaazed at the electronic scanners and their ability to read the prices of everything. I guess I play the part of President Bush.

So unless someone invents a way to force viewers to be more interactive, TV has simply sucked-out our ability to engage in civil discourse. I am embarrassed to say it but I watch quite a bit of TV(even without cable) but obviously I have other sources of entertainment and information. I wonder if anything short of restrictions on ownership of the media could really make a difference?

[alphonsevanworden]

"So unless someone invents a way to force viewers to be more interactive, TV has simply sucked-out our ability to engage in civil discourse."

Ah but, why television? Why is different tv the alternative? Every weekend, a mile long procession of rollerbladers passes under my window. Membership in political parties remains substantial. This may be why the French public can still put up a little bit of a fight - chirac was forced to pay lip service to 'social europe' last week.
The problem in the US is the workweek is so long people have neither time nor energy for anything but passively consuming tv.

I think Gore has an idea for something he wants to sell which he would like the government to force people to buy. I think he is imagining massive expenditure by the public for the benefit of private companies - the Internet Corporate Welfare Saga Part II: high definition tv, interactive. Its a casino, a shopping mall, a cinema, but because its also the virtual public square, and essential for the preservation of the public sphere, initial costs are public, only profits private.

[Alain]

Alphonse, your cynicism is appropriate. And I do not mean to equate the TV with all of political and social discourse. But clearly television plays a decisive role in the "colonization" of the everyday. I am merely hoping for the unlikely (or the impossible), that people could be informed and participate in the decisions that most effect their lives. But the importance of television would seem to preclude that possibility.

And I completely agree with you about the work week. It isn't simply 40-50 hours of work, but little time off, time involved in commuting, time to get to school or daycare to pickup les enfant. It is exhausting and leaves little time to think or to empathize with others.

[alphonsevanworden]

I don't want to be cynical! But as Scott Eric K. pointed out, Gore is a servant of the big media conglomerates. Not that he wouldn't actually imagine something positive coming out of developments in interactive - positive things did come out of the internet despite every effort, ongoing, to commercialize and control it, and even alongside the vast private profits generated on the foundation of public investment, including those fabulous fortunes of Gore's current partners there, Google. Gore is what he appears I think, an old fashioned member of the old fashioned US political oligarchy; he'd like to see the territorial US a relatively prosperous society, with an underclass limited in size and a big, high consuming, high borrowing middle class, buying lots of pay tv and stuff from internet emporia. As an alternative to the quest for the giant global slave labour camp currently underway, it looks mighty good.

[Alain]

Thanks Alphonse. I didn't really mean that you were cynical as much as our Oligarch's are the one's inflicting their cynicism on us.