Epower Today: Building Our Right To Participation (Want to help?)

Is the opposite of our Right of Privacy, our Right of Participation?

The former is premised upon an assumption that who we are, what we do, what we think, how healthy we want to be, which gender we love or aspire to, what we write, read or worship and so on are generally rooted in secrecy; something that we do not have to divulge unless we want to and something that others have no absolute right to know about us (unless we are hurting others). The latter, a Right To Participation, on the other hand, fundamentally assumes that all things become open to public scrutiny once we have decided that we want to play an active role in the interchanges that make for a functioning, collective society.

Privacy is paramount, as our founding parents professed, when government is distant and representative; participation is paramount, though, when it becomes convenient and interactive. And in walks technology!

Benjamin Franklin inadvertently caught the gist of this distinctin as he backhanded his rationale for accepting the draft US Constitution, premising his comments on the fact that the final document did "above-average justice" to privacy rights and concerns: "For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom," he shared in his opening speech to the ratification conference, "you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, the Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected?"

When the Founders conceived of the critical issue now legally incorporated as our Right To Privacy (something we will hear allot about in the Harriet Hearings), there were few ways to make government convenient or interactive, at least as we conceive of the concept today. Technology has changed the game. The question is how do we adapt and fill in the blanks of an as yet undefined Right To Participation?

I suspect that the components of any such Right to Participation will be the next great dispute in public, legislative and legal domains. Computer technology and wireless access have placed the idea of public involvement on a precarious teeter-totter of opportunities. As Howard Rheingold says in his under appreciated "Smart Mobs: Transforming Cultures and Communities in the Age of Instant Access," "Loss of privacy is perhaps the most obvious shadow side of technological cooperation systems. In order to cooperate with more people, I need to know more about them, and that means that they will know more about me."

Nice, Forgiving and Retaliatory: Where is technological participation heading?

In the 1980s, a political scientist named Robert Axelrod did some landmark studies on the issue of cooperation. He concluded that whether or not people trusted each other was linked to what he called "the shadow of the future," which meant that trust was not really the issue so much as their perception of the durability of a relationship. What was important was whether there was a hope of future constructive interactions. So, he thought, cooperative behavior was best obtained by being nice, and even forgiving, but to retain a sense of retaliation for those who did not return the favor in the future—something a lot of businesspersons and others still hold close to their hearts.

But even Axelrod now concedes that he might have overestimated the role of these future interactions. James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of the Crowds" captured this reconsideration well with the following sentiment:

"The interesting thing, ultimately, isn't that we cooperate with those we know and do business with regularly. The interesting thing is that we cooperate with strangers. We donate to charities. We buy things off eBay sight unseen. People sign on to Kazaa and upload songs for others to download, even though they reap no benefit from sharing those songs and doing so means letting strangers have access to their computers' hard drives. These are all, in the strict sense, irrational things to do. But they make all of us (well, aside from the record companies) better off. It may be, in the end, that a good society is defined more by how people treat strangers than by how they treat those they know."

But just what does happen to us all as the ease of access to such relationships becomes more commonplace? And what happens when critical social, community, educational and even civic responsibilities take their place online in the great interchanges of the day?

Building A Right of Participation

A Fox newscast recently showed one of the more conservative talking heads laughing, as his form of introductory commentary, about the very idea that a "leftist" had on the idea of claiming that wireless access should be a protected right to all people.

Obviously the Fox newscaster gave little credence to the underlying argument, because his focus was on past working models that favored private, commercial ownership. But there is a growing trend away from that model already. Many are questioning whether the public got its due from that model vis-à-vis either television or radio, and with an unprecedented public response to phenomena like blogging and podcasting, there is a growing recognition of the public interest AND corporate opportunities available as a result of technological refinement.

My intention in the future is to review these changes and to put them in the context of a Right To Participation. But at this point I am seeking ideas for just what kind of language and ideas should define such a right incorporate? What do we as average, ordinary citizens believe is due us in this new game of influence and control?

I have established a website (using an Open Source domain called pbwiki, in recognition that making a site should be as simple as making a peanut butter sandwich) called http://OurRightToParticipation.pbwiki.com. It is viewable to the public. However, I am seeking your direct input, right down to the writing and editing of the text.

Simply click to that site and you will see my introduction. If you wish to contribute, click on the Edit tab and enter the password (Public1005). This will open the page for you to add your own language. Basically just type as you would a word processor, though there is no spell check or other editing tools. We just need your words. (For those who must, there is a Wiki Styles page that shows you basic editing commands if you feel the need to make your contribution look fancy.) The password will remain active for about one month.

Please DO NOT destroy what is already there. Simply add your ideas under a heading with your name or email address. I will monitor the site on a regular basis and save what is there. After a reasonable time, I will clean up the text and re-enter it for purposes of further, monitored editing.

Thanks for contributing. You can also send a message directly to me at AllanShore@msn.com. I do nonprofit and small business consulting, helping these folks learn to use empowerment strategies in their success. You can see more about my work at http://www.EverydayAdvocacy.org.

Allan Shore