My Thoughts on Jodi Dean

In class a couple of weeks ago we read Jodi Dean's article "Why the Net is not a Public Sphere." in this article, Dean uses Habermas' work to critique the internet as public sphere and ultimately declares it incompatible with the notion as articulated by Habermas. 

Her first argument is that the Net does not have the architecture of a public sphere. She states that "What Habermas has in mind with his account of the public sphere and what tends to be assumed, even if only tacitly, in invocations of the public sphere, are actors meeting face to face. According to Dean, since the net cannot facilitate face to face meetings, it does not fulfill this criteria of what is a public sphere. I take issue with this assumption, because in my interpretation of Habermas' work, he seems to embrace letters and newspapers as extensions of the Salons and Coffeehouses, which nurtured the early bourgeois sphere. In Habermas' "Social Structures of the Public Sphere," he states that the individual "had to be able to find a hearing before the entire public, which grew well beyond the narrow circle of the salons, coffee houses, and societies … Soon the periodical (the handwritten correspondence at first, then the printed weekly or monthly) became the publicist interment of this criticism." (Habermas, p. 41) If periodicals and newspapers, which also do not share a face to face architecture, are considered part of a public sphere, why is the internet held to this standard and deemed wanting? Especially with the advent of programs such as Skype, which allow video teleconferencing, the Net is beginning to find enclaves where "face to face" communication can occur.

Dean then goes on to claim that the internet "is not a vehicle for rational discussion at all: it's television, injecting banalities into passive consumer-junkies." (Dean, p. 99) Once again, I think that this is a leap when the statement is applied to the internet in it's entirety. Blogs and activist websites act as centers for rational discourse on topics that the "consumer" finds interesting, or worthy of reaction. In this week's reading, Jaime Loke examines online reader's debates through comments left on the website of a local newspaper. Loke concludes that the online public space was an accurate "gauge of the 'community's heartbeat'" (Loke, p. 192). While many of the comments revealed that the public held damaging and regressive views, they were found to be representative of the social sentiment as a whole in the Shenandoah area. Loke's article shows that the internet can be used as a vehicle to register socially an opinion that affects the public. These arguments were often shallow, and did not take into account broader realms of responsibility beyond immediate interest. Unlike Dean, Loke attributes this lack of rational debate to the social censorship of "political correctness" and does not dismiss the idea of internet as pubic sphere. Instead, the internet's failed potential to deliver a mode for rational debate is attributed to a failure within society to nurture critical thinkers. The internet is flawed because there are few who are capable of using the internet to realize the social perspectives of other groups.

Another criticism leveled by Dean is that "neodemocracies" focus on "contestation instead of consensus" (Dean, p. 109). According to this view, the net promotes a stalemate by encouraging a "hold your own" approach that undermines the need for norm building. This is an interesting point, because it seems that in recent years even the traditional political sphere has seemed to polarize. The left has gone further left and the right has gone further right, and rarely has progress towards a consensus seemed even remotely possible. I would argue that this criticism ignores the polarization that has occurred politically in the "real-world" and that this is not a signal for the absence of a public sphere, but a continuation of Habermas' original argument that the public sphere is in decline. By this I mean that the ideal of Habermas' bourgeois public sphere is slipping further out of reach (not that it was ever attained, but that it seems less possible with larger and more varied publics). 

The public sphere is different now than it was even at the time of Dean's article. What it will become will be a direct result of how people are educated and taught to navigate within the spheres of influence that have been provided.

Dean, Jodi. "Why the Net is not a Public Sphere." Constellations 10.1 (2003): 95-112. Wiley. Web.

Loke, Jamie. "Readers' Debate A Local mURDER tRIAL: "Race" in the Online Public Sphere." Communication , Culture & Critique (2013): 179-200. Web.

The DREAM Act

This week's reading on race in the public sphere interacted nicely with the topic I have been looking into for the final paper. I have been attempting to find a topic in the area of education reform that I could examine to identify power relations and the democratic topos that underpins the discourse. In this search, I came across the DREAM act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). 

This issue is particularly interesting in the state of Texas, because Texas is one of a dozen states that has enacted its own brand of the DREAM act. In 2001, Governor Rick Perry enacted the Texas DREAM act, which allowed the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition if they met the program's eligibility criterion.

A common discourse techniques that I have encountered in relation to this issue has been the use of storytelling. There are literally hundreds of narratives out there on blogs, in newspaper articles, on political websites, etc. Each narrative gives the background of an individual who will be positively affected by the new act.

Young's article discussed the use of narrative as a rhetorical technique that "reveals the particular experiences of those in social locations, experiences that cannot be shared by those situated differently but that they must understand in order to do justice to the others" (Young, p. 131). In the narrative on this political website: http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hot-topics?ContentRecord_id=d17ca59b-7420-441b-9ac2-2faf7549e9d0, the story tells us that Pierre's experience is not indicative of the stereotypical conception held by the masses of illegal immigrants. 

Loke's article provided an analysis of discourse related to illegal immigration, and highlighted some of the stereotypes that are held regarding illegal immigrants. One of these stereotypes is that immigrants refuse to integrate and learn English, and another is that illegal immigrants do not want to assimilate, if they did, they would apply for citizenship the legal way (Loke, p. 190). Both of these stereotypes are contradicted by Pierre's story. The narrative asserts that despots not knowing "a word of English when he first arrived in Carrolton, Texas… he worked hard and quickly became fluent." Pierre was also brought here when he was a child, which relieves him of the responsibility for the illegal act of entry. 

Pierre's experience combats the negative stereotypes associated with illegal immigrants. The following statement sums up the intent of such a narrative " I am not a criminal, a monster, a predator, or someone who sits at home doing nothing substantive or meaningful. I care for this country; I care for its successes as well as its struggles, for its joys as well as its sorrows. I am not asking that our government maintain an open-door policy for immigrants. I am simply asking that it give an opportunity to those of us who have proven ourselves."

The use of narrative, according to Young, "exhibits the situated knowledge available of the collective from each perspective." (Young, p. 132) By giving real-world examples of individuals that contradict the negative stereotypes attributed to this group, stakeholders supporting the DREAM act can simultaneously work to dismantle race/ culture-based stereotypes and provide insight into the world of the "other." 

Young's article on communicative discourse will be useful in identifying discourse types that encourage communicative democracy in the public(s) that are discussing the DREAM act. I see links between this article and Asen's conception of a multiplicity of public spheres that are fluid and ever-changing. Discourse can take place between many publics, and the publics do not necessarily change their self-identification, but opinions can be changed due to a new understanding of the experiences of others. This link may need some further clarification and exploration.

Young, Iris Marion. "Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy." Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. 120-35. Print.

Loke, Jamie. "Readers' Debate A Local Murder Trial: "Race" in the Online Public Sphere." Communication , Culture & Critique (2013): 179-200.

Where does educational activism take place online?

In preparation for the submission of my pre-proposal, I have been researching the existing public spheres for education reform in the United States, specifically online. I expected to find areas that called for action only, as in the instrumental view of social media use, which Shirky talked about in the article from my last blog post. Instead, I found spaces that attempt to disseminate information, encourage discourse, and call for community action, which seems to fit more closely with the environmental view of social media use. 

Each space that I encountered seemed to be speaking to different publics, and about different aspects of education reform. The Center for Education Reform (http://www.edreform.com/) for example, claims to make a difference by; creating connections, fact-checking, and mobilizing grassroots campaigns. While their issues cover areas that could potentially interest a broad audience, their target audience seems to be mostly parents, teachers, and high-level administrators/ decision makers. References to stakeholders on various sections of their website mention family and teachers as the most important groups involved in the issues of education reform. Perhaps this targeted audience is a result of the Center’s strong belief in testing and assessment as a means of demonstrating successful instruction. While this website has some great information, the information is very focused on their “shared” perspective. This led me to question where other groups go to find a reform group with different priorities.

For the student activists, I found Students for Education Reform (SFER) (http://www.studentsforedreform.org/), which was founded by students for students. This site has a decidedly different focus. They claim to be interested in a just social order that enables equitable education for all. While education standards are included on their list of “What we stand for,” this issue appears 4^th on the list after high expectation regardless of background, quality school choices and great teachers and leaders. This movement is housed in over 140 campuses across that nation in chapters that attract current students and recent graduates to share their stories about their experiences with public education. The great thing about the SFER webpage is that their strategy and mission are clearly laid out and easily accessible. Information is easy to find and in some cases, presented graphically, in a way that allows information to be found without reading lengthy manifestos or policy manuals. By presenting the information in this way, the webpage developers have understood that the current generation (current/recent students) respond to information that is easily accessible. 

As I move forward I want to locate other sites of activism to see how they are reaching out to their publics. In particular I will be looking at any references to a public, how their information is presented, which issues are emphasized, and the type of action they are promoting. My first action items is to look at teacher and administrator unions to uncover how they compare to these other spaces of the education reform environment.

The Environmental View of Social Media Use

This week I encountered an interesting article on the power of social media to enact political change. The author discusses two views on how social media can be used in the public sphere. The first is the instrumental view. This view suggests that social media can be utilized as an expedient public organization tool to enact swift and extreme social and political change. While the author is critical of this view, he provides examples of political movements that began this way. Protests in the Philippines, Spain and Moldova are a few of the examples provided, but for each example of success, there is an example of failure. The Occupy movement, which began in New York in 2011, is a recent example of an American-borne protest movement that attempted to utilize social media in this way, and fizzled before accomplishing any substantive reform.

The author argues instead for an environmental view of social media use. According to this view “pro-democratic regime change, follow, rather than precede, the development of a strong public sphere.” (p. 5) Social media should be used to garner communication between individuals and not simply for eliciting action. This view calls for slow political change on the basis of public dialogue, rather than swift crowd-based protest that seek to obtain immediate results. 

This article is useful for the consideration of my tracing topic, because I aim to explore the public spaces that are available to publics interested in education reform. No doubt social media will be a huge part of the online landscape. According to Shirky, it is social media, and not internet-based information storehouses, that provide the greatest opportunity for public engagement in social issues. In this article the author describes a two-step process for changing public opinion. Step one is the distribution of information by media outlets, and the second is the resulting conversation and debate among family, friends, and acquaintances (p. 6). Social media allows for a broader range of participants in the conversation step, and this, according to Shirky, is where social media’s real power rests. 

Shirky goes on to assert that the information step is less important than the resulting conversation when it comes to producing social action. This conclusion seems problematic to me given my understanding of how social movements occur. The need for information and conversation seem to be symbiotic. The populace needs the information to inform their discourse, and they need their discourse to inform which outlets they trust to provide their information. In relation to education reform, this translates to a need for the citizenry to be informed on the issues affecting education (information) and a place for conversation to occur online (social media). My exploration into the online landscape of education reform will need to encompass both the informational outlets, and the online forums for discourse.

In my opinion, the environmental view of social media use has far reaching implications that extend beyond the need to provide open access to chat rooms, blogs, or twitter feeds.  In order for these social media tools to be put to their full potential, the populace must be educated on their use. Here I am afraid that my thinking takes a cyclical turn. I am arguing that we need education reform in order to create an informed populace, but we may need a pre-existing informed populace to enact education reform.

Shirky, Clay. "The Political Power of Social Media Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change." The Council on Foreign Affairs (2011): n. pag. Web. 6 July 2013. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media>

Can we change our mind?

I found the YouTube video (link below) of the educational activist Diane Ravitch speaking at Duke University. I originally started looking at activists because of the Simmons book. She indicated that activist organizations are a good place to begin looking at publics that surround an issue because they form in reaction to feelings of exclusion. This reminded me of the Cintron reading from the week before because he suggests that counterpublics form based on a shared feeling of exclusion by the status quo.

The video is a little lengthy, but I found that it related to our recent readings in the following areas:

The Fluidity of Publics

Diane Ravitch served in the administration of George H. W. Bush and spent many years working with conservative think tanks on education-related issues. She became a political turn-coat as the No Child Left Behind legislation was taking shape (it was implemented in 2003). At this time, with increasing emphasis being placed on testing and performance standards, Dr. Ravitch began to question the very premise of her political and educational philosophy and saw a problem with her assumption that the education system can function as part of the free market  economy. Since this time, Dr. Ravitch has joined the liberal side of the argument on education reform, armed with her new democratic rhetoric.

Did Dr. Ravitch change publics when she moved from the conservative to the liberal side of the debate? Or is she still part of the same public, since the issue of debate is still the same?

Dr. Ravitch’s experience makes me lean even more strongly toward the idea of a multiplicity of public spheres. (This is another idea that Cintron mentioned in his article). She is still active in the same debate (sphere), but she is arguing something completely different. Even as I type my preference for this idea, new questions arise. How do these public spheres develop? How do publics know where their public spheres are? I hope that our readings will shed some light on these questions over the remainder of the semester.

Topos of Democracy/ Assumptions of Justice

In making her switch from the right to the left side of the argument, Dr. Ravitch had to deeply examine where her ideas regarding education reform came from. During her conservative years, she indicates that she was operating under the assumption that schools should be able to thrive under the same market conditions as corporations. According to this view, a just society would reward the schools that thrive, and punish/ close the schools that struggle or fail.  From this assumption, she could justify the following based on cost/benefit analysis:

-          Higher performance standards through testing

-          Merit pay for teachers whose students perform well

-          School closures for underperformance

-          De-professionalization of teachers

-          Larger class sizes

It was not until she adopted a new idea of social justice, one that valued equal access to education as a cornerstone, that she began to view the list above as part of the problem, not the solution. Her new perspective transformed her opinion of the purpose of education in society. In the past, education was a means of ensuring global economic competition by producing the best and the brightest. Now, Dr. Ravitch believes that education should prepare students for the world by fostering creativity, innovation and critical thinking. With this new lens, she can no longer justify the list above. In fact, she argues that the reliance on testing is both misleading and incapable of producing the desired results.

This video has left me wondering whether Candace Rai and Ralph Cintron are pessimists or realists. They both claim that Democracy is a flawed system that will inevitable meet its expiration date, or morph into something completely unrecognizable. The fact that Dr. Ravitch went from one extreme to the other demonstrates the power that surrounds the idea of social justice. She did not compromise and develop a middle-of-the-road ideology.

Perhaps the recent increase in political polarization is in part due to our reliance on the rhetoric of democracy to frame our arguments and our resistance to changing sides. No doubt this is compounded by the social stigma of being a turn-coat. Dr. Ravitch experienced mixed emotions in response to her change of heart, from the congratulatory to scolding. If democracy is built on discourse and rhetoric, shouldn’t we applaud changes of opinion? Aren’t these changes a sign that discourse is working?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J64ANpowYo

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962.html

Reshaping the Conversation (Part 1)

You often hear complaints about the rising cost of higher education and the crippling debt that is left in its wake. The conversation usually focuses on how this generation of students is paying significantly higher tuition rates than the previous generation. For example, the AASCU’s January 2013 policy brief reported that “since 1987, tuition and fees at public four-year universities have doubled, while state funding for higher education has decreased by one-third.” (3) While this may be shocking for many, it is often shrugged off as someone else’s problem and less important than more immediate threats to the American way of life.

In my reading for this week I encountered an article by Ferguson and Stewart that reframes the issue into one not only about equitable access to education, but a matter of global economic competition. Equality is a topoi that we frequently encounter in democratic rhetoric, but it is easily subjugated for the more immediate concerns of economic stability and national security. By reframing the discussion on student debt, the authors are appealing to a public more concerned about economic competition than they are about equality. This seems to be what Simmons and Grabill are calling for when they discuss the public’s ability to invent and perform as an avenue of participation (433). The public does not have the technical knowledge to overcome all exclusions, but a key weapon in their arsenal is the ability to reframe the conversation and ask “the right questions.” (Simmons and Grabill, 440)

The question asked of the Ferguson/ Stewart audience is not whether everyone should be able to afford education, but whether the nation can afford to deny education to the populace?

"Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013." American Association of State Colleges and Universities, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2013. <http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/topten2013.pdf>.

Ferguson Jr., Roger W., and Debra W. Stewart. "The student loan debt perfect storm." Politico 28 Jun 2013. <http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/the-student-loan-debt-perfect-storm-93517.html>. (Accessed 06/28/2013)

Simmons, W. Michele, and Jeffrey T. Grabill. "Toward a Civic Rhetoric for Technologically and Scientifically Complex Places: Invention, Performance, and Participation." CCC. 58.3 (2007): 419-448. Print.