FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Stolen Fire: the Future of Democracy in the Age of Network Technology

Few may have noticed that precisely at the moment when many exhausted left intellectuals were putting away their critical tools for the long winter ahead, cyber-romantics were busy crafting new grand narratives about the hope for democracy in the age of network technology. These dreamers imagined network technology (NT) as the “medium through which a democratic revolution is being, or will be, enacted” (Darin Barney, Prometheus Wired: The hope for democracy in the age of network technology [2000, p. 264]).

While admitting that computer networks ae “not completely without democratic benefits,” Barney is sceptical about NT as harbinger of strong democracy. He argues that NT “fails to live up to its democratic image precisely because of its many non-dialogical applications are un-or anti-democratic, and these eclipse, and even undermine, the democratic potential of applications such as network-mediated civic discussion” (p. 264.

Indeed, Barney wonders why so many of us have become “seduced by a democratic potential that is at best marginal in relation to the predominantly anti-democratic attributes of this technology. Is it simply that, as the children of Prometheus, we have been blinded by hope?” (ibid.).

For Barney, a viable definition of democracy must have three elements: “equality, participation, and a public sphere from which sovereignty emanates” (p. 22). Equality refers to an “equality of ability to participate, rather than simply to an equality of opportunity to do so” (ibid.). His definition also “stipulates that citizen participation must be meaningful in order for it to qualify as democratic” (p. 23). In other words, participation cannot be frivolous or merely symbolic.

He states: “Democratic participation must be clearly and decisively connected to the political decisions that direct the activity of the participants’ community. By this definition, polities in which citizens’ participation is limited to legitimizing deliberations and decisions made without their participation is not a democracy. This, democracy requires that citizen participation be specifically linked to policy outcomes, rather than relegated to the general role of system legitimation” (ibid.).

Barney wants to differentiate strong democracy from liberalism, namely that “democracy is not constituted wholly by freedom of consumer choice in a market or the freedom to do privately whatever one likes. Instead, democracy is about the taking of collective decisions that are to govern the common and public practices of the members of a community” (ibid.).

Barney’s version of the post-political thesis hinges on his belief that our globalized, networked world has closed off political options. “Taken together, capitalism, liberalism, and technology form a trinity of sorts, outside of or beyond which there exists no political options capable of being persuasive in the modern (and even more so the postmodern) world. The modern capitalist, liberal, technological state is thus “a universal and homogenous state [that] is the pinnacle of political striving” (p. 252).

This trinity is the master signifier of our symbolic universe, now so utterly taken for granted that their distinctive ideological character saturates our psyches, the human lifeworld, colonizing our sense of what is good and worthwhile. Thus, liberalism “cannot tolerate a good that flatly prohibits certain activities or ends by deeming them unambiguously harmful. Technology cannot realize its essence if its setting upon the earth and human beings is constrained by the limitations imposed by a transcendent good. Beings committed to the belief that their essential humanity is expressed in their ability to make themselves and their world cannot be obligated to a good emanating from some other conception of their essence” (ibid.).

Like Zygmunt Bauman’s “migration of power” thesis, Barney’s “closure of the political universe” is shocking. Barney illustrates his provocative thesis by arguing that North American, European and some Asian governments have not been able to resist embracing making massive commitments to building network infrastructures. The ethos guiding them all is “animated by liberal notions of progress, capitalist visions of prosperity, and an abiding faith that technological progress is central to both” (p. 260).

Barney thinks that there can be no vital political meaning and life unless we can make choices about the direction of our public life. He states unequivocally: “In a democracy it must be possible for people to allow certain virtues to constrain the untrammelled expression of human freedom, material accumulation or technological advance. In genuine democracies, in other words, citizens must at least have recourse to a good that might impose significant limits on the pursuit of these ends. No such recourse is available in a liberal, capitalist, and technological society, in which a human being’s essence is believed to be his or her freedom, and the fulfilment of that essence is achieved through unlimited acquisition and endless progress” (p. 263).

As long as the universal homogenous state is a liberal, capitalist and technological one, it must, by virtue of its ends and what it truly is, “deny outright the imperatives of the good—in which ‘the people’ as a collectivity cannot effectively choose virtue over liberty, wealth, and progress—it cannot be a democracy….The homogenous state of modern capitalist, technological liberalism denies people this opportunity, and so cannot accommodate genuine democracy. In so far as it contributes substantially to the entrenchment of this state, network technology is an instrument of democracy’s continued impossibility in the modern world” (pp. 263-264).

Barney asserts that many people believe that NT is a revolutionary democratic medium. During the Arab Spring uprisings, many young activists were shouting this maxim out to all who could hear. He thinks that our strong appetite for good self-government and community with our fellows and sisters bewitches us into accepting NT as the “ultimate stand-in, capable not only of satisfying the baser human appetites for material wealth and mastery, but also of gratifying certain nobler human appetites without actually satisfying them” (p. 265).

He maintains that digital networks cannot stand in for the genuine arts of government and democracy. Networks are able to distribute information and facilitate communication. But these attributes “do not encompass the resources necessary for the practice of the genuine arts of self-government, politics, and democracy….In a time of weakened spirit, wherein wisdom and courage are conspicuous by their absence from public life, these surrogates are able to flatter our collective appetite for a more genuine politics. They are, however, ultimately unable to satisfy the appetite, a fact that may account for the residual cynicism, alienation, and dissatisfaction afflicting many of the so-called advanced democracies. This malaise provides fertile soil for claims that network technology can satisfy more substantially our yearning for an authentic democratic politics….Under the sway of these stand-ins, we have become habituated to practising a diminished politics that bears a name it does not deserve. The regime of network technology offers scant hope for the shattered of this ignoble delusion” (p. 268).

In Prometheus Wired Barney thinks that the story of modern technology teaches us that those who do not recognize their limits are dangerous to themselves and to their gods. He explores the human desire for command and creativity in relation to the categories of space, time, matter, biological life and the capacity for consciousness.

Prometheus, who tried to steal fire from the gods, is the archetype for this desire to go beyond limits and proclaim one’s exceptionality to the heavens and the earth.

More articles by:

Dr. Michael Welton is a professor at the University of Athabasca. He is the author of Designing the Just Learning Society: a Critical Inquiry.

April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Paul Bentley
A Velvet Revolution Turns Bloody? Ten Dead in Toronto
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
Ted Rall
Stop Letting Trump Distract You From Your Wants and Needs
Steve Klinger
The Cautionary Tale of Donald J. Trump
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Conflict Over the Future of the Planet
Cesar Chelala
Gideon Levy: A Voice of Sanity from Israel
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail