c. scott andreas

I’ve been reading bits and pieces of Benjamin Barber’s Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. It’s an excellent (if a tad dated) book on how to save America.

The author suggests that “democracy” as practiced in the U.S. suffers largely because it is based upon the assumption that human beings are fundamentally incapable of living together in peace. As such, the question of liberal politics for many is simply a question of resource distribution; the government functions as a zookeeper, deciding who gets what and protecting individuals from others. For Barber, these “thin democratic” responses to conflict fail in that they opt to deny, repress, or tolerate it rather than transform it. He proposes that “strong democracy” as politics in the participatory mode depends on citizens who talk to one another.

Talk can be understood as a democratic political ritual, part of a “never-ending process of deliberation, decision, and action” (151). But what sort of talking is this? Barber suggests that productive talk calls for participation, listening, and empathy. As such, discussion creates the citizens a functioning democracy requires by abolishing the differences that divide individuals and communities. Once this safe discursive space is christened, talk seizes this newfound connection as an opportunity for both reasoned and affective discourse in which participants come to recognize and honor each other’s common humanity in words and actions.

Barber’s final chapter is strikingly hopeful. Citing numerous empirical examples of “strong democracy” at work about the world, he suggests that implementing the structures necessary to support democratic talk as a package deal just might save Americans from disinterest in each other and in their government. These structures include neighborhood assemblies, a civic communications network, and improved access to education and information.

Might it be possible to realize such a dream today? The book’s 1984 copyright is disconcerting. Yet we have all of the technology and infrastructure necessary to support a “strong democracy” (save for front porches and sidewalks in some areas). Perhaps Barber’s “taste-and-see” approach to empowering would-be citizens is the problem. Perhaps it’s time to take democracy, to take talk, to take reasoned, affective discourse to the masses.

It might be possible, but it will certainly be difficult.