By Frank Furedi
I never thought I would have an allergic reaction to
the word ‘conversation’. I have very happy recollections of the intense
emotions that can be provoked through delicious, thought-provoking
conversations with people on one’s own wavelength. Through intimate
conversations, we cultivate the signals that give our personal communication
special meaning. Even small talk plays a role in the interchange of thoughts
and ideas. Sadly, however, ‘conversation’ has been hijacked by public figures
who try to repackage their monologues as genuine dialogue.
Increasingly, the word conversation is used in an
entirely rhetorical fashion and has become disassociated from the intimate act
of talking between engaged individuals. In the hands of public figures,
‘conversation’ has become a self-conscious, pre-planned exercise in
impression-management. I remember feeling that a very human word had been
corrupted when Tony Blair launched New Labour’s ‘Big Conversation’ in November
2003. He said his aim was to initiate the biggest-ever consultation exercise
with the electorate. In the real world, however, you launch boats, not
conversations.
The very idea of ‘launching’ a conversation shows how
meaningless and hollowed-out the concept has become. Conversation emerges from
human interaction; it is not something that needs to be announced, promoted or
celebrated. A public conversation is a contradiction in terms. The real aim of a
‘public conversation’ is to influence public opinion. Those who initiate such
an exercise are really taking part in a public performance. Such performances
often take the form of an animated public figure having a Q&A with a
handpicked audience. Conversation with a capital C has been embraced by a
variety of interest groups desperate to convey the idea that they are concerned
about our views. But when you have a Big Conversation, can Big Brother be far
behind?
Big Conversations are often promoted by people who use
that disingenuous term: deliberative democracy. Adherents to the idea of
deliberative democracy present it as an enlightened alternative to
representative democracy. Deliberative democracy usually involves having a
small forum where people can engage in face-to-face conversation and allegedly
have time to reason with one another. It is said that deliberative democracy
gives meaning to participation, since the participants are involved in a
dialogue that directly leads to a discernible outcome. But the consequences
these decisions have are rarely discussed. This is not surprising, considering
that deliberative democrats believe that deliberation is an end in itself. The
focus on consultation displaces the old idea that democracy should be an instrument
for genuinely involving the public in the running of society, and replaces it
with a stultified, formal ‘conversation’. As one academic study has argued,
this approach ‘renders the concept of democracy redundant’ as it turns it into
a ‘purely consultative process’ (1).
In these situations, ‘consultation’ is turned into a
tool of management masquerading as genuine deliberation. The demand for
deliberation always comes from above, and the terms of these ‘public
conversations’ are always set by professional consultants. The process of
deliberation depends on ‘procedures, techniques and methods’ worked out by
experts (2). The exercise itself is overseen by professional facilitators,
whose rules are really designed to assist in the observation and management of
the participants. These phoney conversations are not forums where the
participants interact as equals – rather, skilled facilitators are employed to
create the right kind of environment and desirable outcomes. One writer sings
the praises of ‘citizens’ juries’ – a common form of deliberative democracy –
by saying that such juries rely on ‘trained moderators’ who ensure ‘fair
proceedings’ (3). With zero self-consciousness, the writers endorses such a
highly manipulative environment as being superior to ‘liberal institutions’,
which apparently only encourage passivity amongst citizens (4). What we have is
a pretence of deliberation and a reality of manipulation.
Deliberative democracy is neither deliberative nor
democratic. Rather, it is about promoting propaganda through the pretence of
having an open conversation. However, when it comes to manipulating the public
imagination, ‘deliberative polling’ beats deliberative democracy to the
finishing line. Deliberative polling stage-manages an allegedly open discussion
on a controversial issue in order subliminally to alter people’s views and
convictions. According to one of the advocates of deliberative polling, the
beauty of this exercise is that ‘many participants changed their voting
intentions as a result of the dialogue’. The author, Carne Ross, offers a
scenario where, prior to an exercise in deliberative polling, 40 per cent of
people surveyed said they would vote for mainstream centrist parties, 22 per
cent for socialists, nine per cent for centrist liberals and eight per cent for
greens. However, by carefully finessing the wording of the choices available to
the participants, the deliberative manipulators successfully increased the
number of participants who wanted to ‘emphasise the fight against climate change’
from 49 to 61 per cent (5).
Deliberative democrats are not shy about acknowledging
that their support for conversational forums is contingent upon the
participants reaching the ‘right’ decisions. Deliberative democracy is often
promoted on the basis that it provides an environment conducive to changing
people’s minds and having them adopt the ethos of the forum’s organisers.
Deliberation is the preferred method of communication, because it can be a
useful tool for transmitting the outlook of the organisers. To ensure that this
objective is achieved, the group’s interpersonal dynamic is carefully
controlled. To prevent the spontaneous emergence of informal group leaders,
‘most moderators are alert to the manner in which deliberations can be
dominated by confident and outspoken individuals’, assures one assessment of
deliberative democracy (6). It appears that deliberative democracy works best
when ‘confident and outspoken individuals’ are put in their place.
The depiction of an exercise in brainwashing as a new
form of democracy shows that political rhetoric is just that these days – empty
rhetoric. It is a sign of the times that a procedure that could have come
straight out of George Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four can be presented
as an enlightened alternative to representative democracy. The assumption that
the professional facilitator has the moral authority to determine how people
should think and emote speaks volumes about the patronising attitude of today’s
‘deliberators’.
Orwell, in his famous 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the
English Language’, rightly expressed concern about the standard of political
rhetoric in his time. He was also perturbed by the way in which jargon was used
to obscure reality. ‘In our time, political speech and writing are largely the
defence of the indefensible’, he observed. He noted how things such as British
rule in India, the Stalinist purges or the dropping of the atom bomb on
Hiroshima were justified through euphemisms and meaningless phraseology. Today,
too, political rhetoric continues to be used to justify the indefensible.
My new year’s resolution is to devote more time
towards exploring the public language of twenty-first-century society. To that
end, I will be writing a monthly column on spiked titled ‘Hollow Thoughts’. The aim will
be to re-appropriate the sort of language that could help ensure that public
debate really is a debate, rather than an exercise in manipulation and
impression-management.
In February’s ‘Hollow Thoughts’ column: Inclusion.
(1) Gorg, C. & Hirsch, J. (1998) ‘Is international
democracy possible?’, Review
of International Political Economy, vol. 5, no.4.p.598
(2) Pimbert, M. & Wakeford, T. (2001) ‘Overview –
deliberative democracy and citizen empowerement’, PLA Notes, 40, February, p23.
(3) Smith,G. & Wales, C. (2000) ‘ Citizens’ Juries
and Deliberative Democracy’, Political
Studies, vol.4, p.55.
No comments:
Post a Comment