Citizenship As A Contact Sport

Joseph Priestley, a keen observer of the modern condition, noted recently that, “The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.” When Romeo Dallaire declared in London last week that whoever dominates technology shapes the future, he was speaking directly to the younger generation and their potential.There’s just one problem: modern communication methods are proving remarkably resistant to persuasion. Carleton University professor Ellen Saunders speaks of standing in front of a class of keen young minds, asking, “Where do you feel most comfortable in terms of engaging with peers?” Almost universally they said they would rather use text, but if in a pinch would resort to using the phone. Only if everything else failed would they agree to meet face-to-face. Saunders concludes:“That mediated interaction becomes the common currency rather than face-to-face interaction. To me, that’s incredibly depressing information … Their emotional lives are often lived online in very public spaces. What’s interesting to me is that it’s almost like social networks have become the foundation on which intimacy is built. They’re losing the skills of direct interpersonal interaction.”For democracy this represents a troubling portend – as it does for Dallaire’s claim of potential for the next generation. The reason: ultimately democracy depends more on persuasion than communication. Further, it necessitates the ability to compromise instead of just giving an opinion. The real triumph of any civilized society is the triumph of persuasion over force and division. It is for this reason that both hyper-partisans and anarchists have no use for systems – hyper-partisans seek to twist them while anarchists, unable to gain a following, seek to blow them up. The inherent difficulty inherent in both these approaches is that in any complex society they can’t sell their respective visions and thus become angrier – they become more alienated the more they communicate. Think of how many Canadians have turned against the present political construct of negativity or the most extreme parts of the Occupy movement regardless of their access to modern communications technology. With such tools at their disposal they alienate those outside their own small groups, risking ostracism in the process.Facebook and Twitter can become just as dysfunctional as the political system itself. The moment the House of Commons became about “my party or nothing else” instead of finding means for building consensus for the betterment of Canadians, it became the problem instead of the cure. The same happens with social media when its essence is about voicing points of view instead of discovering commonalities and building from there. Of course, democracy is about citizen views and the ability to express them, but if it leads to the same dysfunction as the political system itself, then how can it save our present decline?Presently, some 40% of youth take the time to vote. In the 1960s, about 70% of those who could vote for the first time marked a ballot; today it is slightly over 30%. Those who study such things remind us that youth who don’t vote when they first become eligible are likely to stay unengaged throughout their lives. Can social media fix that? At present the answer to that question isn’t too promising.What is required is interaction – the physical coming together in groups that seek to work out their future in democracy together. This is where persuasion comes in. If the reason we gather is to find a common direction, then persuasion is essential. The full force of personality, debate, concession, principle, compromise and humility come into play to improve the chance of success. But online this proves far more difficult, for it remains hard to read body language, capture the essence in 140 characters, break out into small groups and come back together with consensus, to forgive, reconcile or get over words harshly typed.  Such things require context, humanity expressed through the portals of personality. Yet this is difficult to accomplish if the preferred venue for democratic communication is texting.It’s clear that even physically being in the same room together doesn’t guarantee success. Just consider that battling of Ottawa or the dysfunction of some city councils. Yet the very reason such venues underperform is because the participants refuse to cooperate. What is required are participants who can take physical proximity and use it to advantage – primarily to seek consensus.So our problem is this: If the future belongs to technology and the younger generations are masters of such tools, how can they build the new democracy if their preferred method for interaction is texting? The great irony of our present political system is that on the day we exercise our democratic franchise by voting we also sign away our ability to take part in it by giving responsibility over to selected representatives who decide for us. Our physical presence is no longer required. If the way we choose to get back in is primarily occupied by digital texting then we will be undone. If the new democracy is not to be driven by common decisions, common deliberation and common action, then it simply can’t complement our present political system with affirmative community action.It is now impossible to envision a re-energized democracy without the digital tools of the age. Yet they will prove insufficient if they can’t bring us physically together to deliberate and decide as citizens. Such tools will increasingly become the domain of the angry as opposed to the activated. Democracy can only work as it brings us together; anything else will leave us as we are – divided and deflated.