AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION: A CASE STUDY IN MINNESOTA

Submitted by Geoffrey Scott Aikens for the Doctorate of Philosophy in Social and Political Sciences Cambridge University. April, 1997 E-Mail: gscott@aikenspro.com Web: http://www.gscottaikens.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1

1.0 Background 1.1 Constant on ancient and modern liberty 1.2 Burke on the American Revolution 1.3 The founding fathers 1.4 The nineteenth century 2.0 Lippmann in context 3.0 Dewey in context 3.1 Dewey on Lippmann 3.2 Deweyan basis for democratic ideas 4.0 The intervening years 5.0 Democracy and new communications technology 5.1 Russell Neuman updates Lippmann 5.2 Benjamin Barber returns to Dewey 5.3 Abramson, Arterton and Oren survey the field 5.4 Robert Dahl -- from democratic realism to Deweyan idealism 6.0 The communications revolution 7.0 A Deweyan revivall 7.1 The experimental method and democracy 7.2 Two systems of public opinion formation 7.3 Confronting economic realities of mass media 7.3.1 The local community

7.3.2 Filling the media gap 7.3.3 Interactivity and a new public 7.3.4 Elections and representative officers 7.4 From mass media control of agenda to the rise of the information elite 7.4.1 The role of a democratically generated intellectual elite 7.4.2 A system of public opinion formation open to all

PART II
1.0 Introduction 2.0 History of the Internet 3.0 The Minnesota Electronic Democracy Project 3.1 A history of the Minnesota Electronic Democracy Project 3.2 Statistics 3.2.1 Participation and the survey 3.2.2 Usage statistics 3.3 Description of the archive as artefact 4.0 Theoretical Background 4.1 Characteristic properties of CMC 4.2 A Deweyan interpretation by a modern practitioner 4.3 Contested terrain 4.3.1 In theory: Carnegie Mellon vs. Lea and Spears 4.3.1.1 The Carnegie Mellon group 4.3.1.2 Lea and Spears SIDE model 4.3.2 In practice in politics 4.3.2.1 Tensions 4.3.2.2 Citizenship as a unifying self-category 5.0 Management of the boundaries 6.0 The mechanics of participation within the boundaries 6.1 Submission 6.2 Response 6.3 Exchange 6.4 Thread 7.0 Threads 7.1 The first period 7.1.1 The Governors race thread 7.1.1.1 Macroscopic analysis 7.1.1.2 Microscopic analysis 7.1.2 Surfacing knowledge 7.2 The second period

7.3 The third period 7.3.1 Deliberation, gender and democratisation 7.3.2 Context 7.3.3 Context and agency 7.3.3.1 The art of politics in a new arena 7.3.3.2 Backlash 7.3.4 Threads, deliberation and democratic norms 7.4 The candidates and democratic norms 8.0 The media - new knowledge communicated to a mass audience PART III 1.0 Summing up 2.0 Beyond 1994 3.0 Beyond Minnesota 4.0 Beyond the United States APPENDIX 1: MN E-Democracy E-Debate 1994 APPENDIX 2: MN-POLITICS - Description and Guidelines PART I 1.0 Background 1.1 Constant on ancient and modern liberty In 1819 the Frenchman Benjamin Constant gave a speech at The Athenee Royal in Paris. The speech, "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns" provides a broad frame to begin a reflection on American democracy and computer-mediated communication, or what has generally become known as electronic democracy. The speech concerns how conceptions of liberty changed from the time of the Athenian polis to 1819, after a period of revolutionary upheaval in the United States and France. In the ancient world, men defined liberty in terms of their positive participation in the affairs of government. In the modern world, men define liberty in terms of the freedom they have to secure their desires in their private lives. Constant writes, "in the kind of liberty of which we are capable, the more the exercise of political rights leaves us time for our private interests, the more precious will liberty be to us" (Constant 1988: 325). Modern liberty as freedom from interference secured more fully through the exercise of political rights entails certain risks. Government in the modern nation-state is increasingly complex. As a result it is increasingly difficult for the citizen to maintain the knowledge of the affairs of the

state needed properly to exercise political rights. Furthermore, because of the emphasis on private affairs in the vast nation-state it is inevitable that individuals become absorbed in their own concerns, further eroding their knowledge of the affairs of the state. The risk of modern liberty in the complex nation-state is, therefore, that private individuals will cease to exercise their political rights and share in political power. In so doing individuals will undermine liberty. After all, both ancient and modern liberties are functions of and extended through the exercise of political rights and the sharing in political power - what in some cases is called popular sovereignty. The solution to this problem is the construction of institutions that balance modern liberty freedom from interference - and something akin to ancient liberty - active participation. Constant writes, Institutions must achieve the moral education of the citizens. By respecting their individual rights, securing their independence, refraining from troubling their work, they must nevertheless consecrate their influence over public affairs, call them to contribute by their votes to the exercise of power, grant them a right of control and supervision by expressing their opinions: and, by forming them through practice for these elevated functions, give them both the desire and the right to discharge these (Constant 1988: 328). Constant was among the first to focus on institutions that would serve a wide variety of needs to better secure liberty. The problem identified by Constant has not yet successfully been resolved. In fact, until the present there have been continuous calls for a variety of institutions that create a balance between ancient and modern liberty, or what Isaiah Berlin similarly referred to as positive and negative liberty (Berlin 1992). Indeed, many structures have emerged to support, among other goods, the conceptions of liberty outlined by Constant. In the United States, the focus of the current study, the constellation of structures and conceptions supported by networks of other structures such as popular elections, trial by jury, the executive function, congressional procedure, a judiciary founded upon the interpretation of a constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, are aspects of what has come to be considered the democratic process. Instead of focusing on the theoretical goods supposedly furthered by what we now call the democratic process, such as liberty or equality, or focusing on the constellation of institutions that make up the democratic process, I will focus on the development of institutions in one limited domain of the process. Specifically, in terms of Constant, I will focus on institutions that ought to "grant [the citizenry] a right of control and supervision by expressing their opinions". In modern terms my interest is in the function within the democratic process of systems of public opinion formation. While freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of assembly grant protection against the interference in systems of public opinion formation, it is my contention that systems of public opinion formation do not exist which enable the positive participation of the people in the exercise of political power. As Constant explained, the emphasis on modern liberty protection from interference - over ancient liberty - positive participation - is detrimental to any liberty and therefore the project of democratic self-government.

What is called for, I argue in Part I, is the positive democratisation of systems of public opinion formation. The basis for this argument and some guidance on how to achieve the democratisation of systems of public opinion formation rest on the work of the American philosopher John Dewey as he responded to the work of Walter Lippmann. This examination of Dewey is a contribution to ongoing intellectual debate, apart from the empirical study in Part II. Primarily it is meant to contribute insight into an American intellectual tradition that offers some guidance into how computer-mediated communication could and I argue ought to enhance the democratic process. Secondarily, it is meant provide information about the democratic theory of John Dewey, implicitly arguing that recent events have made a Deweyan interpretation of the democratic process increasingly plausible. First, I will examine Lippmann and Deweys thought in relation to the 1920s - the era in which they both wrote. Then I will examine recent efforts to revive both a Lippmannesque and a Deweyan perspective. Finally I will offer a fresh account of Deweys thought in relation to the present era as characterised by the emergence of computermediated communications technology. Before turning to Lippmann and Dewey, however, I will focus on relevant themes in the early years of American history. It will be helpful to note, before continuing, that discussions of new technology and democracy often are associated with ideas related to direct democracy, in which it is hoped the representative system will be replaced by the direct rule of the people. That is not here the case. Rather, the following discourse attempts at all points to consider the feasibility of structures using new technology that will act within existing political traditions to deepen democracy and provide new data about the nature of citizenship. 1.2 Burke on the American Revolution The weight of public opinion, one could argue, was among the forces that pushed the American colonists to declare themselves independent of British rule. As a consequence, they sought to institutionalise the idea of popular sovereignty as formulated, first, in Thomas Jeffersons Declaration of Independence of 1776 and, second, in the Federal Constitution of 1783. The term "public opinion" was documented for the first time in the Oxford Dictionary in 1781. This followed the war in the colonies as well as the English philosopher Edmund Burkes famous defence of the American revolutionaries. Burke, in On the Affairs of America, offered his explanation of the motives of the American revolutionaries as they sought to escape British rule, "I must beg leave to observe that it is not only the invidious branch of taxation that will be resisted, but that no other given part of the legislative right can be exercised without regard to the general opinion of these who are to be governed. That general opinion is the vehicle and organ of legislative omnicompetence." The general or public opinion is, thus, both the cause and effect of legislative omnicompetence, or the power to govern. It is, therefore, constitutive of popular sovereignty. That the opinions of the average citizen take on public significance is of real consequence in a state in which the idea of popular sovereignty is operative. Burke writes, "In free countries, there is often found more real public wisdom and sagacity in shops and manufactories than in the cabinets of princes in countries where no one dares to have an opinion until he comes into them" (Burke 1949: 106). 1.3 The founding fathers

The American founding fathers had varying positions on both the role of public opinion and the need for strong and stable government in a complex nation-state. Thomas Jefferson, the individual behind the so-called "Jeffersonian vision" that has inspired contemporary politicians to extol the reputed democratic potential of the so-called communications revolution, expressed a near mystical belief in the power of public opinion. The deliberation of the local community was key in his vision of a congress of self-governing agricultural communities coming together over a vast territory to form a vibrant nation-state. Public opinion and democratic deliberation were at the foundation of popular sovereignty. Jefferson, for example, wrote the often quoted passage, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion" (Jefferson 1984: 493). Yet even as Jefferson expounded on the power of the people, he noted the need to "inform their discretion". In this way he demonstrated his awareness of the problem the people en masse posed to the stability of a single nation-state. While maintaining his vision of a congress of selfgoverning communities he also believed action was necessary to ameliorate the potential for difficulties. He therefore supported an extensive programme of public works designed to bring the nation together. These included the promotion of public education and the construction of roads and canals. He wrote, "New channels of communication will be opened between the states, the lines of separation will disappear; their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indestructible ties" (529). As Alexander Hamilton surely thought, there was more than a little naivet in Jeffersons adherence to his vision of local autonomy. This is especially the case considering his simultaneous call for a focus on the construction of a single nation-state through the creation of national networks. Even as it remains a powerful political token, the Jeffersonian vision of local autonomy could not prevail in an expanding commercial empire (Trachtenberg 1965). Many of the measures implemented on the suggestion of James Madison were clearly designed to promote public deliberation to form a broad public opinion. Simultaneously, measures were implemented to ensure the establishment of a strong and stable government to oversee the development of a complex nation-state. More of a realist than Jefferson, Madison argued for an "extended republic" as opposed to a democracy. An extended republic would make popular sovereignty viable in a single nation-state as opposed to democracy which allows popular sovereignty only in very small communities. Furthermore, Madison followed David Hume in arguing that a representative system stretched out over a broad territory would create a stable governing structure. The size of the nation-state would mitigate the influence of factions in any single part (Adair 1956-7, Hume 1985). Madison also argued for a system of "filtration" in which popular elections at the local level would allow the general public to discharge its democratic function in electing the first layer of representatives. A system of increasingly fine gradation, such as elections covering a more extensive territory and, further, the establishment of electoral colleges, would ensure that important national legislators were men of high calibre. These men would, Madison thought, place the public interest before their private gain (Fishkin 1996, Harrison 1993, Sunstein 1993). Finally, for our purposes, Madison eventually wrote the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..." (Madison et al. 1988). Madison called for the establishment of popular elections, the representative system, and the prohibition on the interference with certain freedoms deemed essential to the formation of public

opinion. The critical point to note, however, is that he neglected the construction of institutional structures to ensure the opportunity for the participation of the general citizenry in the system of public opinion formation. Perhaps, swept up in the tide of strong opinion among the population, Madison too maintained a faith in the democratic nature of the process by which citizens would come to the opinions upon which they would base their votes for their representatives. 1.4 The nineteenth century Over the course of the nineteenth century, as transportation and communication systems bound the nation together more tightly, local deliberation would lose its importance in the formation of public opinion. Because of the uses of electricity, national media would gain in importance. In the early years of the nineteenth century, however, local deliberation was nonetheless common and important. After his travels in the United States to observe American democracy in 1831 and 1832, another Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, argued that the opportunity for deliberation in the local community about the well-being of the local community provided the most effective anchor for the stability and well-being of the new nation-state. He wrote, "Those who dread the licence of the mob and those who fear absolute power ought alike to desire the gradual development of provincial liberties" (de Tocqueville 1990: 95). The town meeting or the New England town hall is the institutional structure that epitomised the importance of democratic deliberation in the early years of the country. As a quasi-formal deliberative body at the local level the town meeting was the distinctive American variation on the French salon or the English coffee house. Each of these was a venue for a critical debating public to form and express a variety of views on the decisions of governing bodies. As de Tocqueville wrote, "Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the peoples reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it" (61). Unfortunately there was no constitutional protection for the deliberative forums against the effects of changing technologies and changing institutional structures such as the press (Habermas 1989). One pattern of change that had a determinative influence on systems of public opinion formation was the increasing concentration of control over electrical currents and telegraphy. The ability to send messages over wires to any place can fruitfully be viewed with Jeffersons desire to create a communality across a broad expanse to cement the union. In 1853 Donald Mann, Democratic editor of American Telegraph Magazine, made the connection when he wrote, "Nearly all our vast and widespread population are bound together, not merely by political institutions but by a telegraph and lightning-like affinity of intelligence and sympathy, that renders us emphatically one people everywhere" (Czitrom 1982: 12). Those with the democratic vision of the benefits of a unitary common will must have viewed the new technology with hope. It was also an immense boon to the growing news industry. The growth from 235 newspapers in 1800 to 160,000 newspapers in 1899 was largely a function of the distribution system put in place through the establishment of Associated Press wire reports sent by the telegraph monopoly, Western Union. As was confirmed in an 1874 United States Senate investigation into the business practices of the Western Union/Associated Press alliance, the new technology had an immense effect on the delicate, unprotected system of public opinion formation epitomised by the town meeting. The Senate investigation wrote, "the power of the telegraph, continuously and rapidly increasing, can scarcely be estimated. It is the means of influencing public opinion through the press, of acting on the markets of the country and of seriously affecting the interests

of the people" (26). A comparison of the words of de Tocqueville and Western Union President William Orton best illustrates the nature of the change from the beginning to the latter part of the century. In 1832 de Tocqueville observed that "the power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people" (188). Almost 40 years later the relative power of press and people could be said to have switched with the increasing power of telegraphy. In 1870, William Orton told a special house committee investigating the monopolistic practices of Western Union, "The mere fact of monopoly proves nothing. The only question to be considered is whether those who control its affairs administer them properly and in the interest, first, of the owners of the property and, second, of the public" (Czitrom 1982: 27). 2.0 Lippmann in context Walter Lippmann, working on propaganda for the United States during World War I, became concerned with the power of the new media to manipulate public opinion and wield influence over affairs of the state. In his highly influential book of 1922, Public Opinion, Lippmann sets out to clarify the traditionally vague role of systems of public opinion formation in the political process. In so doing Lippmann attempts to reconceive the nature of the political process in which systems of public opinion formation are set. For Lippmann the larger problem for democratic theory is how to overcome the naive faith in a doctrine of popular sovereignty held by traditional democrats. The reason this is a problem is that the public, in Lippmann's time, continues to adhere to democratic ideas in a world in which democratic ideas are unrealisable. As Lippmann writes, "The democratic ideal, as Jefferson molded it...became the political gospel, and supplied the stereotypes through which Americans of all parties have looked at politics" (Lippmann 1960: 270). Yet the Jeffersonian vision was always inadequate to the needs of a vast, technologically advanced, commercial nation-state. The traditional democrat took it as a matter of faith that the citizen would properly be informed. It is as if it were an affront to democratic ideas to work out how the citizen might become informed. Famously, Lippmann investigated the flaws in the proposition that men are naturally well enough informed to possess sound political judgement on matters concerning the nation-state. In order successfully to discharge his democratic function a citizen would, realistically, have to have an exceptional grasp of local, national and international affairs. He would, in other words, have to be an "omnicompetent" citizen. In reality people construct for themselves a conception of the world based on "fictions", "symbols", "fragments" and "stereotypes", or, as Lippmann titled the introductory chapter of his book, "Pictures in Our Heads". He concludes, "Not being omnipresent and omniscient we cannot see much of what we have to think and talk about" (161). His conclusion that citizens are ill-informed about affairs of the state leads Lippmann to reconceptualise the basis of the political process. Lippmann comes upon the issue of consent as he investigates the gap between democratic ideas and political reality. He writes, "How, in the language of democratic theory, do great numbers of people feeling each so privately about so abstract a picture develop any common will?" (193). In broaching the topic of the "common will" Lippmann suggests that an "Oversoul" is necessary. This Oversoul is the crystallisation of the nation-wide wishes of an informed and active citizenbody acting in concert to create legislation and govern itself. In other words it is the crystallisation of a fiction. Lippmann uses this concept of the Oversoul to caricature the belief held by traditional democrats in a common will. By comparison he points out that living human beings must construct the consent of the governed. He writes, "the Oversoul as presiding genius

in corporate behavior is a superfluous mystery if we fix our attention upon the machine (229)". Instead of relying on a mythical Oversoul the realistic analyst would concentrate on the structures through which opinions are shaped. As these are composed of "fictions", "symbols", "fragments" and "stereotypes" it is of significant value to understand the manner in which fictions, symbols, fragments and stereotypes envelop citizens, informing the pictures in their heads. In concentrating on the actual machinery by which a non-existent common will is constructed, Lippmann reveals his hypothesis that democratic ideas are an impossibility. A minority will always dominate. He writes, "Nowhere is the idyllic theory of democracy realized...There is an inner circle, surrounded by concentric circles which fade out gradually into the disinterested or uninterested rank and file" (228). Free of democratic ideas Lippmann can focus on better understanding the perfection of process. This will result in concrete knowledge that will have a determinative influence on civilisation. Lippmann writes, "no matter how power originates, the crucial interest is in how power is exercised. What determines the quality of civilization is the use made of power" (312). Based on his theory suggesting the inevitability of minority domination, Lippmann proposes that the political process requires the replacement of a devotion to democratic ideas with a devotion to a high standard of living. Men do not desire self-government for its own sake but, rather, for its results. Results can be defined in terms of human dignity as traditional democrats are apt to do. However, with such dignity given to the average citizen and the "opinions that happen to be floating around mens minds", control would be impossible and turmoil ensue. On the other hand, by defining results as "a standard of living in which mans capacities are properly exercised", the entire problem of political organisation changes. With the emphasis on producing "a certain minimum of health, housing, material necessities, education, freedom, pleasure", etc. the "criteria can be made exact and objective, which is inevitably the concern of comparatively few people" (314). The driving force behind such a change is the deep allegiance by key sectors to the American ideal of success. A simple doctrine of mechanical progress which fosters a desire "for the biggest, the fastest, the highest, or if you are a maker of wrist-watches or microscopes, the smallest; the love, in short, of the superlative and the peerless..." most notably symbolises this ideal. Lippmann believes uncritically in the virtues of the ideal of success and mechanical progress (109). Indeed he argues that a privately owned system of public opinion formation be constructed to perpetuate the ideal. Particularly relevant is an improving standard of living - the American dream. This system would be critical to ensuring the ongoing vitality of a particular interpretation of reality. Political power thus resides in the construction of the machinery. Lippmann writes, "...the pattern has been a success so nearly perfect in the sequence of ideals, practice, and results, that any challenge to it is called un-American" (110). Three interrelated elements central to the system of public opinion formation proposed by Lippmann are, then, the subsuming of political communication under the economics of mass media, the creation of a culture of "objectivity" in the journalistic profession, and the construction of a system of "organised intelligence" in elite administrative circles. First, it is perhaps the central point that the political media function as a subsidiary sphere of the mass media, generally. The point of the mass media organisation is to run a profitable business. This creates a tension within the organisation between the general motive of profit maximisation and

the special role of the news media in informing the public on matters concerning democratic governance. As Lippmann puts it, "We expect the newspaper to serve us with truth however unprofitable the truth may be" (321). The fact that the media organisation sells advertising space in the media product to the private sphere forces the editor of the media product to be cognisant of the interests and opinions of current and potential advertisers as well as customers. They must pay attention to advertisers because advertisers are often customers and, furthermore, they fund the media product. They must pay attention to customers to maintain circulation and/or audience share to attract advertisers. By subjecting the construction of political media to these pressures, Lippmann portrays a kind of system of accountability. The weight of opinion among the community of respectable citizens and businessmen who buy the media product constrains the decision-making abilities of the news editor, acting as intermediary between the public and government. What is more important the community of respectable businessmen who fund the media product also constrain editorial judgement. Second, Lippmann formulated the importance of objectivity in the news process. To Lippmanns mind a happening becomes news when it can be "fixed, objectified, measured, named". A dispute, for example, becomes news when there is an arrest, or a complaint filed in a court. A "dangerous issue", such as a strike to take Lippmanns example, becomes news only when there is a concrete record of an action in some institution or when there is an event that disturbs the day-to-day activity of the citizen. Thus, in the case of the strike, the news is "the indisputable fact and the easy interest...the strike itself and the readers inconvenience". One of several reasons offered for standards of objectivity is the desire of the editor to have a professional operation and rules of the game. The staff will thus have guide-lines to help them avoid offending, confusing or alienating the loyal reader and/or advertiser with unconventional, insufficient or clumsily described material. Again, another system of accountability is put into place. Finally, for Lippmann, the key to the construction of sound public opinion is the creation of "organised intelligence" through a centrally located intelligence agency staffed by professional scientists, social scientists and administrators. The better the ability of such institutions as the police and the courts and the legislative branch to organise information is, the more likely the objective news service will work with greater precision in reporting the news, and the more likely public opinion will adequately be informed for the political process to function smoothly. The press, then, is merely "a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness, into vision" (364). Perhaps the pivotal nexus of power is vested in the highly rational policy elite that has invested the time and energy in understanding the complex functioning of the modern nation-state - the individuals in the various institutions who organise information. Lippmann writes, "Only by insisting that problems shall not come up to him until they have passed through a procedure, can the busy citizen of a modern state hope to deal with these in a form that is intelligible" (402). 3.0 Dewey in context 3.1 Dewey on Lippmann

In 1927 Dewey published The Public and Its Problems, which can be read as a rebuttal of Lippmanns thesis. In the book itself, Dewey notes his debt to Lippmann, although their conclusions diverge sharply. Dewey expressed a great deal of admiration for Lippmann's Public Opinion, writing that it is no longer possible to look at democracy in the same way after absorbing the power of Lippmanns work. In expressing this admiration, Dewey admits his acceptance of much of the Lippmann analysis. For example, Dewey agrees that the machine age, symbolised by steam, cable, telephone, radio, the railway, cheap printing and mass production, is also deeply marked by what President Woodrow Wilson termed the "new era of human relations". Men and women are closely linked by distant events through the rapid communication of information and transportation of material goods. A primary consequence of the machine age and the new era of human relations is the significance of events beyond their grasp on individuals living in local communities scattered across a vast nation-state. This extreme reliance of local people on the business of the nation is responsible for the fragmentation of and deterioration in the significance of the local community in the daily life of the individual. As Dewey puts it, "the machine age in developing the Great Society has invaded and partially disintegrated the small communities of former times..." (Dewey 1927: 127). Dewey agrees with Lippmann: a congress of autonomous local communities was the basis upon which democratic ideas such as popular sovereignty were supposed to function, according to traditional democrats. Because the machine age and the new era of human relations have made such an environment an anachronism, time and events render the democratic ideal of popular sovereignty impracticable and unworkable in the vast, complex nation-state that has developed. The major point of divergence between Lippmann and Dewey is precisely over the significance of democratic ideas. Lippmann rejects any devotion to democratic ideas after suggesting that minority domination is inevitable. He then formulates theories about how the political process can work despite the inability of citizens to govern themselves. Dewey argues that, in doing this, Lippmann indicts democracy altogether. Democracy is central to Deweys philosophy, and especially his conception of associated living. Deweys task is, therefore, to assert democratic ideas against Lippmanns powerful rejection. In this way Dewey interprets Lippmanns antidemocratic political theory and his own democratic political theory as two bodies of ideas vying for supremacy in an era during which the impact of technology on human interaction has disconnected the further development of the political process from previously entrenched traditions. Speaking of the 1920s, an era of upheaval and transformation, Dewey admits uncertainty about which body of ideas will have a determinative influence on the development of political processes. On the positive side he asserts that the literature of democracy, the body of ideals he seeks to uphold, "retain their glamour and sentimental prestige" and "still engage thought and command loyalty". On the negative side, given the patterns of development in telegraphy and radio, he concludes, "...those which have actual instrumentalities at their disposal have the advantage". Dewey agrees with Lippmanns pragmatic assertion that traditional democrats mistakenly focused on the origins of power in the communal will rather than on the processes through which public consent is forged. A pragmatist himself, Dewey follows Lippmann. In calculating how the political process ought to be adjusted to function successfully in a changing world, both men

concentrate on systems of public opinion formation, specifically the operation of the press and the organisations responsible for the deployment of expert information. Lippmanns theory hinges on his argument that neither the press nor any other institution compensates for "the failure of self-governing people to transcend their casual experience and their prejudices by inventing, creating and organizing a machinery of knowledge" (365). The press, in other words, is incapable of upholding the democratic ideas of popular sovereignty. It must, therefore, be organised so that the political process functions despite this fact. It is precisely this point on which Dewey focuses his contrary analysis. At the concrete level he targets systems of public opinion formation as essential to the organisation of power. He writes, "The smoothest road to control over political conduct is by control of opinion" (182). Dewey goes on to contend that the Lippmann system of public opinion formation is a betrayal of the democratic process. It is, therefore, necessary for the community to perfect a "machinery of knowledge" to give substance to democratic ideas. He writes, "When the machine age has thus perfected its machinery it will be a means of life and not its despotic master. Democracy will come into its own, for democracy is a name for a life of free and enriching communication" (184). During the 1920s both Dewey and Lippmann agreed that the set of developments summarised as both the machine age and the era of new human relations clearly favoured the body of ideas promoted by Lippmann against the body of ideas supported by Dewey. In 1927, in fact, all Dewey could do was explain the problems. The powerful new instrumentalities deployed by political and economic elites uprooted the individual in his or her community without his or her knowledge, causing the "eclipse of the public". The result was that political and economic elites found themselves able to control easily the political machinery. Dewey writes, "In a word, the new forces of combined action due to the modern economic regime control present politics, much as dynastic interests controlled those of two centuries ago" (108). The new age of human relations, thus, "has no political agencies worthy of it" because private political and economic interests prevail entirely, shaping the debate through control of the systems of public opinion formation. This does not, however, render the problem of the eclipse of the public insoluble. The necessary task, according to Dewey, is for the public to recognise itself and become organised through the creation of a machinery of "socialised intelligence". Specifically, Dewey is concerned that the public recognises itself to give itself "weight in the selection of official representatives and in the definition of their responsibilities and rights" (77). 3.2 Deweyan basis for democratic ideas Throughout his analysis Dewey is intent on performing intellectual work that is practical. He sets himself the task of defining the problem of the public, by searching for the conditions according to which a public could emerge, and giving a self-admittedly vague account of how the public that emerges ought to be organised to define and express its interests. For Dewey the problem of organisation is impossible without solving the problem of emergence, and is thus secondary to the problem of emergence. The entirety of this labour is, as Dewey writes, "in the first instance an intellectual problem". In the era in which Dewey writes the situation is too bleak for Dewey to be able to offer honest guidance on practical matters. Dewey emphasises conditions and the potential significance of new technology. However, he fails to offer any guide for action or a notion of what the new technologies might be. This has frustrated his interpreters until the present. He is consistently accused of being vague and elliptical (Carey 1989, Damico 1978,

Festenstein 1994, Rorty 1980, Ryan 1995, Westbrook 1991). I argue, on the other hand, that Dewey had a deep understanding of the limits of what he could offer given the time in which he was writing. Neither the conditions nor the technologies to realise his ideas were near the realm of possibility. It is, thus, a tribute to Deweys work that it is so helpful as a sort of message in a bottle to future generations. It has become possible to make the argument I am making here that the conditions and technology he believed to be inevitable have, in fact, come to exist. In the rest of this section I will focus on the Deweyan foundation for democratic ideas, and the importance of an emerging public as an agent of change. In the sections of Part I that follow I will sketch out the context of the current era as opposed to the time in which Dewey was writing. With the socalled communications revolution I will argue that we are witnessing the emergence of a Deweyan public and would, therefore, be well served to consider Deweyan notions on how to organise the public. To understand, however vaguely, the Deweyan basis for democratic ideas it is helpful to focus on his account of how a "state" comes into existence. Very briefly, a public emerges when the consequences of conjoint behaviour come to affect a large enough body of people. This results in the emergence of representative officers who manage the business of the public. The public and the resulting government are, together, a state. As he writes, "A public articulated and operating through representative officers is the state; there is no state without a government, but also there is none without the public" (67). The representative officers are self-interested individuals. The resulting political machinery is, therefore, only as representative of the initial public as is contingently convenient for the representative officers with control over the political machinery. Thus, if representative officers can get away with despotic or oligarchic rule, they will. However, as the locus of power that brings the state into existence is the public, changing circumstances can always bring another public or another aspect of the public into existence. This can force changes in the status of representative officers and in the political machinery of the state. Primarily, Dewey points to technological changes that have a large impact on conjoint behaviour, or the manner in which people interact. Such changes can result in the emergence of a new public able to affect the selection of representative officers and cause the re-organisation of the political machinery of the state. For example, he writes, "The transition from family and dynastic government supported by the loyalties of tradition to popular government was the outcome primarily of technological discoveries and inventions working a change in the customs by which men had been bound together" (Dewey 1927: 144). Underlying the Deweyan view of the state is a proposition that there exists a historical current by which a public, as increasingly it is aware of itself, demands a greater voice in the selection of representative officers and in the design of the political machinery of the state. Thus, on Deweys account, the historical current necessarily leads to the increasing perfection of democratic ideas. In subsequent literature both Deweys account of the formation of the state and Deweys democratic metaphysics in general have been the subject of much controversy. For example, it has been asked, is it not an untenable generalisation to contend that the legitimacy of all "states", including non-democratic "states", emanate from the public? Furthermore, is not the contention that there exists a world historical current leading to the greater assertion of the voice of the public in the selection of its representative officers and the design of political machinery, in other words, towards ever-greater democratisation, also highly disputable. Fortunately, for the purposes of the current dissertation, Deweys account of the formation of the state and Deweyan

democratic metaphysics, although informative, are not vital. At this point, in other words, the prospects for the continuing endurance of democratic norms do not have to hinge on the hypothesis that the "current of history" favours the formation of democratic political machinery. Rather, it hinges on whether people living in a self-proclaimed democratic political unit are prepared to accept the exchange of a democratic political unit, however feeble, for a nondemocratic political unit, however clever the disguise. I will address this issue at a later point. According to Dewey the continuing importance of democratic ideas in the early twentieth century can be measured by the fact that every American political theory, every American politician, and every American journalist, including Lippmann, must seem to be making an appeal to the people. Democratic ideas such as popular sovereignty are still meaningful to the citizenry, even though the public has been eclipsed by self-interested individuals who control the machinery through which the public is supposed to express its voice. Where Lippmann rejects any need for democratic ideas in his effort to perfect the political process, Dewey emphasises the importance of the historical interaction between democratic ideas and the development of concrete democratic political machinery. In explaining how the implementation of democratic ideas became so far removed from democratic political machinery in the United States in the early twentieth century, Dewey demonstrates how a proclaimed devotion to the democratic ideal of popular sovereignty is separate from the happenstance of the manner in which democratic ideas are incorporated in the political machinery of any particular age. New technologies such as the printing press transformed the manner in which individuals interacted and preceded the rise of western democracies including the United States. Eventually, a new public, composed mainly of the increasingly influential business classes, emerged to demand a voice in their affairs. This public challenged the authority of the aristocratic elites in possession of control over the political machinery. Among other things, it established the doctrine of popular sovereignty at the level of the nation-state. According to Dewey the new public, the agent of change, reacted to the organisational structures of entrenched elites such as the monarchy, the aristocracy and the church, by rejecting the virtues of association altogether. The intellectual elites affiliated with this public instead put forward the notion that isolated man is man in his natural state and, in the name of liberty, must be protected to pursue his private interests. Intellectual constructs, such as both theories of natural rights and the doctrine of laissez-faire economics, marked this reaction against association and in favour of the individual. As we shall see in a later section, the prevalence of such philosophies has an important social-psychological basis in the eminence of the printing press. For now, the point is that the conflict between individual and society that has continually marked the development of actual democratic systems of government is largely a byproduct of the specific interests of a long deceased public. In order for the growing business elite to advance its interests it made sense to over-emphasise the existence of a dualism between the ability of the individual to go about his business and the restrictive posturing of the established hierarchical structures. On Deweys analysis the dualism reflected the contingent interests of a specific group and is an inaccurate assessment of the nature of interconnectedness between the individual and the variety of associations of which the individual is a part. Nonetheless, the dualism continues to be embedded in institutional structures, most notably in systems of public opinion formation. Thus, the structures that exist continue to meet the self-interested needs of a once emergent public that has, over time, become an economic and political elite with evergreater control over the political machinery.

Dewey portrays the individual as the result of the continuing effect of conjoint behaviour on a biological organism. The individual so conceived and the varieties of associations of which the individual is a part interconnect subtly and powerfully in innumerable ways. This reality renders the hypothesised dualism between individual and society meaningless. A body of ideas built upon the hypothesised dualism is a mistaken foundation for a political process. This is especially true for a democratic political process in which the nature of the inter-connectedness between the individual and associations is of the utmost importance. The inaccurate contingencies embedded in the previous development of democratic political machinery must, therefore, be overcome to imagine the on-going development of democracy so that democratic ideas are more closely realised. Dewey, on this basis, turns a critical eye on the notion that the solution to democracy is ever more democracy if "more democracy" means nothing but the extension of the already existing democratic political machinery. Rather, the notion that the solution to democracy is more democracy must coincide with a re-examination of democratic ideas as well as an investigation of the conditions for a public to emerge. The result of this re-examination may be an adjustment in the conduct of representative officers and the design of new political machinery. As Dewey writes, "The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy...may also indicate the need of returning to the idea itself, of clarifying and deepening our apprehension of it, and of employing our sense of its meaning to criticise and re-make its political manifestations" (144). 4.0 The intervening years I will now present a thumb-nail sketch of significant trends from the 1930s to the 1960s and the 1960s to the 1980s. These periods fall between the time in which Dewey set out his case against Lippmann and the present, during which time it will be helpful to re-examine Deweys thought. Between the 1930s and 1960s the case presented by Lippmann was very influential with researchers in the social and political sciences, as well as professionals in other relevant fields such as media and public policy. Detailed empirical analysis within tightly delineated disciplinary practices, however, replaced the emphasis on a broad philosophical account of the relations between systems of public opinion formation and democratic theory. In one sphere of academia, a group of democratic realist political scientists further developed a contemporary interpretation of the so-called democratic practice. For the most part this work did not address the systems of public opinion formation that were then controlled primarily by institutional structures of mass media. The Austrian born political economist Joseph Schumpeter, for example, continued to demonstrate the inevitability of political power being accumulated by small elites (Schumpeter 1976). Another democratic realist, Robert Dahl, led the effort to construct a viable political system in which a raw competition for power among interest groups what Madison called factions - in possession of the most resources replaced the Madisonian effort to ensure the election of the virtuous legislator. These groups could then leverage the most support in their bid to control the elements of the decision-making process key to their interests. Such a system has become known as interest group politics or pluralist democracy (Dahl 1956). Dahl, who has subsequently referred to it as polyarchy II, says the system manages to "graft the expertness of guardians to the popular sovereignty of the demos". To a degree such a system, thus, finds some level of accommodation between the realities of elite domination in the technologically advanced nation-state and an interpretation of popular sovereignty (Dahl 1989).

At the same time, the aggressively empirical discipline of communications research was developed. The study of the effects of the mass media on the American consumer was, perhaps, a consequence of the establishment of firmly embedded institutional structures of mass media. The alliance of advertising and commercial concerns in the formation of content and aggressive control over the production and distribution of media conduits into the home characterised these structures (Czitrom 1982). As the launching of the scholarly journal Public Opinion Quarterly in 1937 indicates, the work of Walter Lippmann was influential. One of the leaders in the early years of the field, the Viennese social scientist Paul Lazarsfeld, head of the Princeton Office of Radio Research and later director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University, was explicit about the importance of the powerful new institutions in the formation of public opinion. He wrote, "Broadcasting in America is done to sell merchandise, and most of the other possible effects of radio become submerged in a strange kind of social mechanism which brings the commercial effect to its strongest expression" (Lazarsfeld 1940: 332). In the new discipline the historical and institutional contexts out of which the institutions of mass media emerged were ignored in favour of studies investigating precise social-psychological effects. As a result of this narrow emphasis, an understanding of how individuals perceive media as well as valuable new tools by which both political and media elites might manage public opinion - tools such as polling methods, survey research, focus group research, marketing strategies, etc. - were developed (Marsh 1982). Perhaps more than others in the field, Lazarsfeld was aware of the disassociation between the social-psychological investigation into the group dynamics of public opinion in a mass society, on the one hand, and the importance of the concept of public opinion in traditional political theoretical literature, on the other. In a 1955 study written with Elihu Katz, the authors urged the research community to consider increasingly the human element in their formalistic equations. They wrote, "The traditional image of the mass persuasion process must make room for people as intervening factors between the stimuli of the media and the resultant opinion, decisions and actions" (Lazarsfeld and Katz 1955: 32). The call to consider more seriously the "human factor" may have been a consequence of a belief in the desirability of a "classical-empirical synthesis". However, Lazarsfeld did nothing more than state the desirability of such a synthesis. Perhaps this was due to the pervasive influence of media industry leaders in the development of the field (Habermas 1989). Until the 1960s there was very little critical analysis of contemporary systems of public opinion formation, especially in the context of democratic traditions. In the 1960s an increasingly vocal culture of criticism emerged in academic circles. This culture would become influential and active up to the present by creating and further developing areas such as critical theory, literary criticism, cultural studies, media studies, feminist studies, poststructuralism and post-modernism. This new spirit of critical inquiry drew heavily on the previously marginalised critics of mass society such as the members of the Frankfurt School and C. Wright Mills, as well as mid-century European intellectual currents such as structuralism and existentialism. In the United States this spirit fuelled the social upheaval and student unrest that characterised the 1960s. It is wildly beyond the scope of this dissertation to make sense of the various currents during the period. One point of importance, however, is that the democratic theory of John Dewey was pivotal in the development of the democratic theory of German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, the primary protg of Adorno and Horkheimer, and other members of the Frankfurt School (Habermas 1971). In turn Habermas has had an influence on American academics in a wide variety of disciplines, including each of the fields identified

above. This is one interesting way in which Deweyan democratic theory has influenced American intellectual life without the connection being explicitly realised. Since the early 1970s there has been an increasing amount of commentary about Dewey and Deweyan concerns. For example, the growing body of literature on participatory democracy reflects a desire for a spirit of critical inquiry in societal institutions that sounds very Deweyan. One factor driving this movement is a worry that widespread cynicism among the mass public towards politics could lead to breakdown in the democratic process. Although most of this literature does not examine directly the relationship between systems of public opinion formation, the institutional structures of mass media and democratic theory, the influence of Dewey as well as Habermas on, for example, Etzioni, Boyte, Pateman, Miller, Cohen, Guttman, Fishkin, Sunstein, Sandel, et al. is clear. More directly a number of thinkers have consistently been aiding a Deweyan revival. Richard Rorty in the 1970s and 1980s, Robert Westbrook (1992) and Alan Ryan (1995) have offered the most important general approaches to Deweyan ideas. The accounts of Westbrook and Ryan, especially, have perpetuated an ongoing inquiry into what Deweyan institutional structures might look like. For instance, Ryan writes of a Deweyan creed: Only when people can communicate on free and equal terms can they achieve the deep selfunderstanding that we have hankered after since the Enlightenment. If freedom and equality are absent what can be said and thus what can be thought will be limited. How this translates into a concern for democracy in the usual institutional sense complete with voters and ballot boxes and average venal politicians may be hard to say. (Ryan 1995: 357) Additionally, a number of thinkers concerned with the media have focused on the Dewey and Lippmann exchanges. John Carey has argued that the discipline of cultural studies ought to make a claim to fill the role of the Deweyan public (Carey 1989). Christopher Lasch invoked the Dewey-Lippmann debates when he expressed a concern about the lack of public discourse in a society increasingly driven by technological change (Lasch 1995). Others such as Jay Rosen and James Fallows have used Dewey/Lippmann as an intellectual foundation for a movement to reform the profession of journalism from within. This movement is variously called civic - or public - journalism (Fallows 1996, Rosen 1992). 5.0 Democracy and new communications technology The best way to build the context for a re-examination of Deweys suggestions on a democratic system of public opinion formation is to investigate the development of the literature that began in the 1980s combining democratic theory and studies of new communications technologies. As a reasonably close investigation of recent thinking on technology and democracy will demonstrate, the tensions that emerge increasingly reflect issues brought to light by the Lippmann-Dewey interaction. This will provide insight into the political and technological status of electronic democracy as it has developed from a fringe topic in the mid-1980s to an issue with important global repercussions in the mid-1990s. In addition, the investigation will serve as a brief literature review for the current dissertation. 5.1 Russell Neuman updates Lippmann

In 1986, Russell Neuman wrote The Paradox of Mass Politics, thus up-dating Lippmann as well as mid-century democratic realists such as Schumpeter and Dahl. Working in communications research, Neuman suggests that a general re-examination of the function of mass media in the political process is needed. Given the culture of criticism prevalent in many disciplines including, increasingly, communications research, Neuman can be interpreted as responding to a general climate supportive of ideas threatening a long line of American scholarship and practice. According to Neuman there exists an enduring expectation that the citizen of a democratic society be adequately informed. The reality demonstrated by powerful social scientific investigation is that the citizenry is not, on the whole, so informed. In The Paradox of Mass Politics Neuman writes, "The paradox of mass politics is the gap between the expectations of an informed citizenry put forward by democratic theory and the discomforting reality revealed by systematic survey interviewing" (Neuman 1986: 3). According to Neuman the paradox is, however, not problematic in practice because the system works remarkably well although the mass public is for the most part uninterested and unsophisticated. Thus, the paradox of mass politics does not present a problem that must be remedied but is, rather, a characteristic of a political system that works remarkably well. There is an implicit assumption beneath the paradox of mass politics that if one can demonstrate that an informed citizenry does not exist, there is no need to consider democratic ideas more fundamental than the expectation for an informed citizenry. In adhering to the carefully constructed framework of pluralist democracy Neuman is thus able to carry forward a discussion of the modern American political process without a positive reckoning with democratic ideas such as popular sovereignty. Given the heritage of the Lippmann analysis combined with hard data about the mass public, Neuman seems to have decided that he does not have to confront directly the claims of the Jeffersonian tradition. Nonetheless, that tradition continues to resonate within the political culture from the time of the founders through Lippmanns 1920s to Neuman in 1986. Neuman admits, "It is the persistent character of the American political culture to assume that when a crisis arises, the citizenry will mobilise and respond." Even so, Neuman concludes, "This is a political culture of naivet" (188). Such a characteristic is clearly not an aspect of the political culture he feels he must take seriously in his analysis of political reality. Neuman simply reaffirms Lippmanns effort to reconceptualise how the political process might work well despite the existence of an ill-informed citizenry. It is not, therefore, necessary for Neuman to explain the rejection of democratic ideas. As a result Neuman does not express an interest in the reasons why Lippmann re-conceptualised the function of a system of public opinion formation in the American political process. Rather, the fact is that the institutional structures of the mass media have come to dominate the American landscape. As Neuman writes, "Common to both the boosters and the critics of the mass media...is a shared sense of the media as the central political educator." Furthermore, because the mass media function in a manner strikingly similar to the Lippmann analysis, Neumans task is simply to further the notion that these immense structures are not likely to change. Neuman writes, "Theoretically, the media could do more to inform and educate the public. But in fact they cannot do much more" (134). Specifically, Neuman demonstrates the importance of the function of the mass media, while defusing criticism by using the paradox of mass politics to argue that there is no other way for a political system to be structured in a complex nation-state.

Of the centrality of the mass media Neuman quotes Lippmann, "In the industrialised nations of the twentieth century the democratic polity cannot function as such without the institutional structure of independent mass media" (133). Neuman admits the accuracy of the observation that there is a wide variety of opinion within the citizen-body. However, as the "social psychological insight about human sensitivity to the social environment" would have it, individuals tend to develop a sense of the predominant shape and direction of public opinion. Without stating whether individuals are genetically constructed to adopt the predominant shape and direction of public opinion as their own, or whether this results from a process of socialisation, Neuman concludes, "Thus, the content of the mass media is relatively homogeneous, as is the pattern of political concerns of the mass electorate" (152). Clearly, then, the mass media plays the pivotal role of aiding in the construction of a homogeneous body of public opinion in a vast nation-state. The political elites who best articulate the particular symbols that epitomise the flow of public opinion at any given time can then effectively guide the country. At the same time, Neuman writes, "The media are seen as potentially powerful forces and the audiences seen as relatively defenceless. The power of the media, however, has been exaggerated" (156). There is here an apparent contradiction with his conclusion that the role of the mass media is central to the American political process. This latter position is, however, understandable when one realises that Neuman is using the paradox of mass politics as a tool to argue for the necessity of the institutional system of mass media to ensure that the system, and the larger political process of which it is part, continues unchanged. In a democratic society on the scale of the nation-state, the institutionalised structures of the mass media, in part, constitute a bridge necessary to take account of the paradox of mass politics and yet enable the political system to work reasonably well. It is not a matter of the mass media being powerful as much as it is a matter of the mass audience being inadequately informed and in need of guidance. As Neuman concludes, "the critical factor appears to be the cognitive style of the electorate" (27). Because of the cognitive style of the electorate the mass media are necessary in a complex nation-state. 5.2 Benjamin Barber returns to Dewey Set against the neo-Lippmannesque manoeuvring of Neuman, Benjamin Barber was, in his 1984 Strong Democracy, among the first theorists to link participation and new communications technology. In so doing he explicitly acknowledges his debt to Dewey and Habermas. Barber presents his conception of strong democracy as a replacement for the liberal democratic tradition, which he calls thin democracy. In opposition to Neuman, among others, he accuses political scientists of contributing to a widespread political malaise who put forward a passive citizenry as necessary for the health of the political process. The result of this malaise could be either the emergence of an anarchistic or authoritarian political system. Barber sets forth an ambitious agenda of reforms that would institutionalise strong democratic practices, allowing people to "govern themselves in at least some public matters at least some of the time" (Barber 1984). One proposal is for a nation-wide civic video-text system through which citizens could use new communications technology to engage in local, regional and national political meetings. In this way Barber draws together a conception of the New England town meeting and the power of a new generation of electronic technology such as cable, satellites and a relatively primitive notion of two-way television. The over-arching idea is that new institutions can come into existence to

make the Jeffersonian vision a reality. On Barbers analysis it is essential to construct these participatory institutions that will either greatly enhance or, perhaps, replace the representative system altogether. Barber acknowledges the concern of the authors of the Federal Constitution that direct democracy in a nation-state, eschewing the representative system, relies on a naive faith in a unitary common will - what Lippmann called the Oversoul. In response to this concern Barber differentiates unitary democracy from strong democratic practices. On the other hand, unitary democracy lends itself to demagogic manipulation and an authoritarian solution, in seeking to reveal a mystical communal will. Strong democracy, on the other hand, relies on extensive "political talk" among the citizenry and an institutionalised ethic of reasonableness. Furthermore, Barber suggests the need for an institutionalised ethic of regret so the citizenry will be prudent in their deliberations on what has and what has not worked in the past, and cautious in the advancement from thin to strong democracy. Although it is outside the scope of the current dissertation, it is questionable whether Barber creates enough distance between his strong democracy and unitary democracy to quell the legitimate concerns of those protective of institutions that ensure accountability. It can be argued that he does not offer a convincing account of how his strong democracy would act as a buttress against parochialism or the ability of a demagogue to exploit the public. Even so, in his emphasis on the revitalisation of democratic ideas and his suggestion about the possibility of institutionalised "political talk", Barber both clears the way for and presages the construction of democratised systems of public opinion formation. In 1984, however, Barber's ambitious theoretical labour is a long way from being realisable. Questions abound. What agency will muster the power to construct his many ambitious institutional structures, including the civic video-text system? How will ethics of reasonableness and regret realistically operate in the new institutional structures? More to the point, how will his society accommodate the paradox of mass politics, the notion that many citizens are not informed or interested in being informed, although they very well may become interested in participating? Barber writes, "At the moment when masses start deliberating, acting, sharing, and contributing, they ceases to be masses and become citizens" (Barber 1984: 155). The juxtaposition of the mass society and citizenship is central, as we shall see in later sections. But how will this transformation of the "masses" into "citizens" take place, specifically considering the already existing institutional structures of mass media and the role these play in the construction of public opinion? Barber does not answer these questions and, therefore, neither directly confronts nor overcomes the paradox of mass politics or the reality of the political economy of the mass media, as presented by Lippmann and updated by Neuman. 5.3 Abramson, Arterton and Oren survey the field In The Electronic Commonwealth and Teledemocracy: Can Technology Save Democracy?, Abramson, Arterton and Oren research a large number of projects using new communications technology for democratic purposes. Considering that most of these experiments used either twoway video technology or the primitive (relatively speaking) computer-mediated communications technology that existed before the recent generation, it is no wonder the vast majority of these projects were seen as fringe experiments. The overall study, however, is a useful illumination of

the electronic landscape with many of the observations holding up through time. Most fundamentally, the authors conclude there is a distinctive conception of democratic theory underlying the institutional structures of each experiment. They observe two broad trends in the various institutional structures. These trends successfully pull into the digital age the contrasting body of ideas set out by Lippmann and Dewey. The authors refer to the more prevalent of the two trends as "the quickening of democracy". This is democracy by plebiscite, through hyper-sophisticated political polling, instantaneous assessment of public opinion and electronic voting. Projects such as Hawaii Televote, Honolulu Electronic Town Meeting, and the QUBE system in Arlington, Ohio sponsored by Time-Warner all reflect an effort to achieve a common will, or perhaps a sophisticated public opinion construction. This trend towards direct democracy in which individuals vote either their assent or dissent on issues using a TV remote control-style key-pad is extremely problematic. According to the authors the process is subject to an immense amount of elite manipulation and presents the opportunity for the emergence of a demagogue. The quickening of democracy is the result of the continuing influence of the mass media culture on democratic decision-making. Even while the environment continues to change as a result of new communications technologies, the authors fear the mass media culture will continue to dominate systems of public opinion formation and preclude the possibility for a democratic revival. They cite four distressing developments. First, they fear the rules against crossownership may be relaxed so that individual firms will be able to own multiple media franchises in a single community. This will limit the diversity of opinion and opportunity for access to media essential to democratic decision-making. Second, they express concern over concentration in ownership, citing the cable industry in which Telecommunication Inc. and Time-Warner are the biggest operators, as a case in point. Third, the advertising driven mass media work against necessary democratic norms in biasing the delivery of "soft" entertainment and information to the isolated consumer. This problem worsened during the 1980s when pressure in the media business increased as a result of competition from new media organisations. At the time the owners of the three traditional broadcasting corporations in the US concluded they must view the news division, once a public-service money loser, as a marketable commodity like every other division. Finally, the need for good visuals in TV news and the ability of elected officials to manipulate this need by staging media events and gaining additional exposure, have caused the media and government officials, "once supposed adversaries", to become increasingly "secret sharers". Referring to advertising experiments in new media, but generalisable across the range of issues, the authors offer the following gloomy conclusion, "Any potential the new media might otherwise have had to support a more civic culture is fast retreating" (Abramson et al. 1988: 290). The other trend presented by the authors emphasises "the slowing down of democracy" through the encouragement of an ongoing process of assembly and democratic conversation. They viewed Berks Community TV, Alaska LTN, North Carolina OPEN/net, as well as any number of small-scale computer conferencing systems, as representing a conception of democratic practice in which various individuals and groups engage in political dialogue. This dialogue helps those involved pin-point "emerging demands" and "aggrieved parties" to adjust public policy accordingly (Arterton 1987: 66). The authors support the introduction of this extensive political

dialogue within the traditional pluralist framework. Unlike Barber they are unwilling to consider either the gradual phasing out or the abandonment of the representative system. They are cognisant of the problems of what they call a purely communitarian democratic theory in which citizens engage in "self-government" at the local level. They are suspicious of this communitarian democratic practice, of whom they incorrectly refer to John Dewey as a patron saint. They believe it can lead to a community dangerously closed to the standards of larger political units, thus contravening the positive effects of the Madisonian extended republic. In their conception of "pluralism with a communitarian face" they endorse both the need for a national system of media as well as extensive political dialogue at the local and regional level. One instructive example of the pragmatic notion that power determines the ability to impose the definitive interpretation of events is the case of Berks Community TV. The authors regard this project as the greatest success among the experiments they investigated. In my opinion, it most closely presages a democratic system of public opinion formation. Berks Community TV in Reading, Pennsylvania undertook a project initially funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to engage senior citizens in community affairs. Organisers did this by creating interactive, participatory programming in which the seniors could engage community leaders in dialogue. The programming was so successful it developed into a slate of community government programmes aimed at a general audience. In one of the programmes, Inside City Hall, City Council members engaged in dialogue with the audience about a variety of topics. Karen Miller, who had only recently moved to Reading and was the first woman on City Council, benefited so much from the exposure that she ran a successful campaign to become Mayor of Reading in 1979. Given Lippmannesque and Deweyan potentialities it is instructive to observe the difference in the authors and Neumans interpretation of the project. The authors suggest as plausible that BCTV and Inside City Hall had a "revolutionary" impact on Reading politics; that open deliberation of issues in the context of the participation of elected officials led to a democratic revival in local politics (Abramson et al. 1988). Neuman, on the other hand, explained the success of the Reading experiment as a function of BCTV becoming a convenient tool for Karen Millers rise to power. The success of BCTV, in other words, was contingent on how useful it turned out to be for the political elite (Neuman 1991). 5.4 Robert Dahl -- from democratic realism to Deweyan idealism While the struggle to interpret the significance of passing events is crucial, perhaps most will hinge on the struggle to impose the accepted interpretation of the larger geopolitical context. On the one hand, in his 1991 book, The Future of the Mass Audience, which summarises the results of a 5 year study of the impact of new technologies on mass media conducted in co-operation with the senior corporate planners at ABC, CBS, NBC, Time-Warner, the New York Times and the Washington Post, Neuman offers an analysis of political change related solely to the regular phenomenon of political party realignment. He suggests that current political turmoil is a result of perhaps the largest such realignment since the beginning of American party politics. He offers no context for change greater than can be explained by the party system, which is one of the bedrock institutions of a modern pluralism that emphasises "interest-group politics". It is conceivable that those wielding power could force the imposition of such a narrow interpretation

of historical change. The result would most probably be the quickening of democracy, which would protect the interests of entrenched elites and preclude the possibility of a democratic revival (Neuman 1991). On the other hand, the interpretation of Robert Dahl, the eminent theorist of twentieth century interest group politics, is much more incisive and disturbing. Dahl argues that "the proliferation of transnational activities and decisions reduces the capacity of the citizen of a country to exercise control over matters vitally important to them by means of their national government" (Dahl 1989: 319). It is, indeed, increasingly clear that economic and political organisations are, with the aid of global computer networks, conducting business without regard to the boundaries of the nation-state. Furthermore, Dahl suggests that the ability to argue for any given boundary in which the judgement of a particular demos ought to hold - either a city or a nation or the entire world - is beyond democratic theory. There is in other words no theoretic reason for the demos of a nation-state to be the primary political unit. Such things are, rather, a matter of historical contingency. The result of these two factors is a prediction that the change in the scale of political decision-making will trigger changes in the political process. These changes will be as important as the change in decision-making at the level of the city-state to the level of the nationstate. Dahls primary concern is to ensure that democracy survives the changes. He is not, however, certain democracy will survive. There is here an immediate and crucial conflict between Neuman and Dahl. On the one hand Neuman, the modern heir to Lippmann, asserts that an ill-informed electorate and the power of the institutionalised system of mass media will continue to anchor a pluralist democratic system in which competing elites achieve power through competition in a marketplace of ideas. This will be a new pluralist democratic system, with more information, slightly more diversity of opinion and slightly more participation (Neuman 1991). On the other hand, Dahl, one of the chief architects of pluralist democratic theory during the middle decades of the century, asserts that there is a major difference between then and now. Dahl contends that he participated in the necessary work of adapting a democratic system of governance to the needs of a vast, complex nation-state by "grafting the expertness of guardians to the popular sovereignty of the demos". Now individuals are engaged in the work of "grafting the symbols of democracy to the de facto guardianship of policy elites" (Dahl 1989: 337). This conflict between Neuman and Dahl hinges on the perception of whether or not some belief and devotion to democratic ideas is necessary for the survival of the democratic process. As we have seen, Neuman carefully separates any reference to democratic ideas from a pluralist political process that, supposedly, works either despite or because the mass electorate is woefully ill-informed. Dahl, on the other hand, argues that even the highest office-holders in pluralist democracy throughout the mid-twentieth century were forced to compete for the support of the popular vote, although gross inequalities in opportunity to participate existed. This meant that power was to an extent derived from a conception of the "demos". Popular sovereignty was, therefore, approximated crudely at the level of the complex nation-state. Dahl argues that the institutional structures of what he calls polyarchy II - including universal suffrage, regular elections, a free press, the right to form parties - were and continue to be necessary to ensure a process of decision-making in a large political unit that is accountable, to as large a degree as possible, to the concerns of citizens. However, because of the increasing complexity that will

result from the changes he identifies, Dahl does not believe the traditional institutions of polyarchy II root any longer the process of decision-making in any conception of the demos. He argues, therefore, that modern societies need to make a concerted effort to form new institutional structures that allow for the realisation to some extent, however imperfect, of democratic ideas. There must, in other words, be a movement beyond polyarchy II to an as yet unrealised polyarchy III. The new structures need to offer the citizen the opportunity to practise such democratic rights as free speech, free press, free assembly and the right to form political parties. Furthermore, the new structures, rooted in a belief and devotion to the democratic ideas of popular sovereignty, need to allow for a healthy democratic process at local, regional, national and international levels. Dahl confronts directly what he calls "theories of minority domination" that argue that a small elite will always possess a radically unequal amount of power and that the mass of the population will always be subject to the control of the small elite. He concludes that there is no way definitively to prove or disprove the major claims held in common by theorists of minority domination. Nonetheless, it is necessary to reject such theories as a basis for the conduct of policy formation because such theories engender either a devotion to "apocalyptic revolution" as in the case of Marx and Gramsci, or a paralysing negativity and sense of "hopelessness" as in the case of Mosca and Pareto. The fact is a member of an elite can never know better than a given citizen what is needed for that citizen to flourish. To construct a political system that allows an elite to determine what is best for a body of citizens with no effort to construct a functioning system of accountability, is, simply, ill-advised. Significantly, Dahl turns his attention away from situations characterised by a direct display of power by elites over the mass of people. Instead he focuses on the subtle instances in which elites manipulate the "popular will" to ensure predetermined electoral outcomes through the covert control over the "chain of command" between elites and the mass electorate. It is extremely difficult to prove the existence of minority domination through the complex process that is so similar in description to the two-step or multistep system of public opinion formation described by Neuman. On the one hand, a democratic process, however weak the definition of democracy, can be said to exist if the institutions of polyarchy II are functioning properly. On the other hand, what if the policy elites and media professionals most closely associated with the system of public opinion formation operate on the basis of interests that transcend the political boundaries of the nation-state? What if these elites acquire significant power over elected officials as well as the ability to construct public opinion? There is, then, no accountability of these elites and the elected officials who serve them to any conception of the demos. The political system is, therefore, a "de-facto quasi-guardianship". It is not a proper guardianship because the elites in a proper guardianship assume the responsibility allotted to them by a system constructed to be directed by guardians. A quasi-guardianship is worse than a true guardianship because the system continues to be, in name, a democracy. The quasi-guardians are not, therefore, forced to assume the responsibility for the decisions made on the basis of the power usurped from the demos. Dahl suggests that new communications technology could be useful in moving the political process from polyarchy II to polyarchy III. Pragmatically, Dahl concludes that we ought to "abandon philosophical perfection of substantive principles of common good and look instead to the practical perfection of the processes for achieving it". Specifically, he targets public opinion. He suggests that the creative use of new communications technology could result in new

institutions constructed to ensure the development and continuing existence of a wider "attentive public". This public could create a check on those elites "influencing governmental decisions, not only directly but also indirectly through their influence on public and elite opinion". In any event, new technology may be used in ways harmful to democracy "without a conscious effort" to use new communications technology "on behalf of democracy" (339). Towards the end of Democracy and Its Critics Dahl offers a suggestion for a way to use the new technology to create a new institutional structure, the "minipopulus", in which a sampling of 1,000 citizens is trained to become the "attentive public" Dahl desires. While there is much value in Dahls work to restore devotion to the democratic ideal of self-government, he does not overcome the paradox of mass politics or the power wielded through the political economy of the institutionalised system of mass media, perhaps because he lacks expertise in understanding media. Nonetheless, theorists such as James Fishkin have attempted to realise Dahls vision in the form of the deliberative public opinion poll (Fishkin 1991). 6.0 The communications revolution In 1997, 70 years after Deweys The Public and Its Problems, virtually every commentator will confirm that new communication technology alters conjoint activity. Computer-mediated communication allows for the active participation of the individual in the information environment rather than passive consumption of mass produced information. CMC is creating a new, digital environment in which textual, audio and video data can be manipulated at will, and sent to or received by as few or as many people as is desirable at any geographic distance. The new technology, it turns out, has characteristic properties that tend in the direction of increasing user choice, control over information, and horizontal, person to person, as against vertical, top down, information flow (Abramson et al. 1988, Sola Pool 1983, Bonchek 1996). The new technology favours active communication among medium sized social groupings, filling what Tetsuro Tomita, in 1980, demonstrated was a "media gap" between the immediate interaction of communication such as face-to-face conversation and the telephone, as against the various mass media, such as the book, movie, magazine, television and radio (Tomita 1980). It is widely believed that the constant creation and continuing activity of medium sized social groupings outside the purview of either geographic boundaries or traditional media institutions are having an impact on social, political and economic institutions. With the application of new communications technology to politics, a dramatic increase in participation is likely to have an impact on a political process that discourages the active participation of citizens. Instability in the political process will likely result from a conflict between a citizenry that demands, on the grounds of its heritage, to participate in the political process and a political process designed to function well in spite of an uninformed and largely passive citizenry. The increased ability for participation has, in fact, sparked interest in Jeffersonian ideas. In his 1992 campaign for President of the United States, Ross Perot popularised the concept of an "electronic town hall". In 1993 the Vice-President of the United States, Al Gore, wrote, "We would like to see a National Information Infrastructure [NII] that allows individuals to be producers as well as consumers of information, that enables many to many communication...we are interested in working co-operatively with industry and academia to promote a shared vision of a versatile general purpose infrastructure with a Jeffersonian architecture" (Gore 1993). In 1995 the new

computerised Congressional information service was named Thomas, in honour of Thomas Jefferson, at the behest of the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. These are potentially consequential sentiments and actions given that most actors within the political system jettisoned any real attempt to adhere to Jeffersonian ideas generations ago. Clearly, political stability will be renegotiated, in large part, as the new media technology is incorporated into new political, social and economic institutions that meet the needs of the populace and therefore enable the continued working of systems of power. A democratic system of public opinion formation is not, however, a priority of forces in politics, the mass media and the social sciences who would rather advance a Lippmannesque political philosophy in which democratic ideas are not a variable to be considered in regards to the working of the political system. Entrenched elites, as Russell Neuman argues persuasively in The Future of the Mass Audience, rely on the passive psychology of the mass audience and the economics of the institutional structures of mass media to ensure the function of the media within the machinery of the political process. Particularly central, on Neumans account, will be that the mass audience is extremely resistant to the impact of new technology on conjoint behaviour. As Neuman writes, "When it comes to the market place for information and culture, the population as a whole is quite satisfied. Widespread frustration and unmet demand for new ideas and new media are, for the most part, favoured fantasies of a small artistic elite and wishful thinkers" (Neuman 1991: 146). In particular, according to Neuman, the passive psychology of the mass audience results in a negative reaction by most to the characteristic of new technology termed interactivity. With the pro-industry political environment ushered into Washington DC after the January 1994 elections, and the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act which Vice-President Al Gore called at one point "abhorrent to the public interest", entrenched elites are well positioned to further their goals. For one, the 1996 Act relaxes cross-ownership rules and encourages conglomeration. In the wake of the legislation, Disney has merged with Capital Cities/ABC, CBS with Westinghouse and Time-Warner with Turner Broadcasting, adding to a small cluster of transnational economic concerns potentially capable of placing virtually any form of content through any medium into any home in the world. While some public service requirements remain in the bill, there is as yet no place for civic uses of new technology that will have an effect in the face of the global power of the new conglomerates. Individuals affiliated with the new conglomerates, however, are actively organising projects that will carry electronic democracy forward, one way or another. One possible example is the DemocracyNetwork, created by the Institute of Government Studies and funded by the second largest cable franchise in the United States, Telecommunications Inc. TCI, owned by John Malone, also owns 20% of Turner Broadcasting, which just merged with Time-Warner, the largest cable franchise in the United States. While they are now experimenting with the interactivity offered by the Internet, the definition of interactivity originally underlying the original Democracy Channel was twoway TV (Grossman 1995, Schwartz 1994). It is likely the public trials conducted by TimeWarner in Orlando, Florida have been strongly influenced by the sophisticated TV-remotecontrol-with-a-lot-of-extra-buttons that John Malone and the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, presented to the television audience as the forefront of interactivity during a February programme on the conservative National Empowerment Television Channel.

I contend, in contrast, that a new public has already emerged as a result of computer-mediated communications, and that this public is beginning to recognise itself as such. I argue that, increasingly, opinion leaders and other political and non-political elites will overlap with the active user of interactive computer-mediated communications technology. These two groups will intersect directly with what Robert Reich calls a new class of "symbolic analysts". This will result in yet another class I will call simply the "information elite". I argue that the psychology of so-called opinion leaders, the user of interactive computer-mediated communications technology, the symbolic analyst, and the information elite will be pivotal as regards the future of democratic norms, the political machinery and the aristocratic structures of mass media within the reputedly democratic political machinery. This emerging new public will have a strong selfinterest in revitalising democratic ideas; will seek to hold its representative officers accountable; and will be motivated to secure the construction of new political machinery to secure a democratic procedure for decision-making into the twenty-first century. Specifically, this new public will be the agent to ensure the democratisation of systems of public opinion formation. Dewey asks, "Is the public a myth? Or does it come into being only in periods of marked social transition when crucial alternative issues stand out?" (Dewey 1927: 123). If the communications revolution coincides with a democratic revival it will be because the technology fills the need for greater community, for greater autonomy, and the marketplace is forced to accommodate this need. 7.0 A Deweyan revival With the development of the new medium, the identification of an emerging public, and the identification of a motivation for the public to work to secure the future of democratic norms against anti-democratic possibilities, it remains to investigate how Dewey argued the public needed to be organised to give substance to democratic ideas in actual political machinery. Dewey ruefully noted the absurdity of his effort to illuminate possible modes of organisation in a time when the conditions for the emergence of a public were so far from actuality. Yet he does offer ideas that are remarkably helpful in the context of the new technology. In fact, Deweys seemingly utopian analysis is a more precise guide to current potentials than the work of writers such as Barber, Arterton and Dahl covering the nexus of new communications technology and democratic theory before the Internet. One reason Deweys analysis is a better guide to action is that he gives himself the freedom to imagine a communications technology powerful enough to be organised to render visible certain truths he works to clarify in his philosophy. Another related reason is that he seeks to explain how to incorporate a devotion to the democratic ideal of selfgovernment in actual political machinery, and so offers a direct answer to Lippmanns analysis of the need for a mass media to ensure the political process works despite an uninformed citizenry. In other words, Dewey imagines a communications technology that would favour the body of ideas in which he believes as against the body of ideas in which Lippmann believes. Modern pre-Internet writers, on the other hand, tend to perceive the Lippmannesque structures of mass media as, to a degree, inevitable because they are powerful and have been in operation for so long. They do not, therefore, have the ability to imagine a new technology with enough power to challenge the function of the mass media in the political process. On the whole they fall back on the need for government intervention to ameliorate the situation. As the anti-democratic tendencies within the government are a large part of the problem, this course becomes an impractical remedy. Thus, today, in a period of transformation caused in part by the new

technology, Dewey offers unique guidance on how to organise an emergent public and provide a solution to the political economy of mass media and, especially, the paradox of mass politics, both outlined by Neuman. 7.1 The experimental method and democracy Dewey calls for the application of the experimental method to social inquiry as a foundation for a system of public opinion formation. Simply put, he believes that the natural sciences have adopted a powerful procedure through which evidence from concrete experience is collected, put through a period of rigorous testing, interpreted, subjected to discussion and re-testing among the concerned community of scientists, ad infinitum. For Dewey the development of this experimental method is a perfect model for an improved democratic practice because it is grounded in the concrete world and depends on open and searching discussion among a community of peers. Specifically, it reflects a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of interconnectedness between an individual scientist, a community of peers and a particular body of knowledge. Even as Dewey praises the development of the experimental method in the natural sciences, however, he argues that men continue to be afraid of it in human concerns. Furthermore, it is problematic that men have through mastery of the experimental method and the development of the natural sciences "placed in their hands physical tools of incalculable power". Despite the fact that man has come to wield this incalculable power, man has not gained the sophistication in the conduct of human concerns that would enable man to put the power to constructive use. Thus, Dewey writes, "The instrumentality becomes a master and works as if possessed of a will of its own - not because it has a will but because man has not." (Dewey 1927: 175). The conclusion is that the experimental method must be applied to human concerns. As the machinery of public opinion formation stands at the nexus of technological innovation and human concerns, the experimental method must be applied there. 7.2 Two systems of public opinion formation Dewey creates a portrait of two alternative systems of public opinion formation, one of which he deems true to the expression "public opinion" and the other not. The first system is critical to the realisation of a devotion to democratic ideas in actual political machinery. Dewey writes, "Communication of the results of social inquiry is the same thing as the formation of public opinion. This marks one of the first ideas framed in the growth of political democracy as it will be one of the last to be fulfilled" (177). For Dewey truly public opinion is the widespread communication of the results of social inquiry. The democratic political process relies on the level and quality of judgement exhibited by the citizenry. Democratic ideas will not be realised more closely until a system of public opinion formation emerges that aids in the construction of a high level of political judgement by the citizenry. Key to Deweys imagined system of public opinion formation is that the process of social inquiry be both systematic and perfected in operation, "in application to observing, reporting, and organising actual subject matter." It must be constructed methodically so it is capable of resulting in a high level of socialised intelligence. To be truly democratic, however, this socialised intelligence must be constructed in practice through full, open and free communication.

The second system portrayed by Dewey is his interpretation of the Lippmann analysis of what public opinion ought to be. Dewey writes, "Opinion causally formed and formed under the direction of those who have something at stake in having a lie believed can be public opinion only in name." Such a system of public opinion formation is highly problematic because it is neither a systematic process nor open and free. The result, therefore, is neither a high level of political judgement in the community nor a political judgement that reflects the operation of the democratic ideal of self-government. It is, rather, haphazard political judgement under the control of private economic interests. As Dewey writes, "Whatever obstructs and restricts publicity, limits and distorts public opinion and checks and distorts thinking on social affairs" (167). Deweys belief that democracy will have its "consummation when free social inquiry is indissolubly wedded to the art of full and moving communication" is based on his belief that, ideally, democracy and community life are synonymous. As he writes, "The clear consciousness of a communal life, in all its implications, constitutes the idea of democracy" (149). Apart from the reality of the democratic political machinery when he wrote, Dewey envisions a time when the merger between social inquiry and communications technology will embody his understanding of both democratic ideas and the significance of communal life. In the new machinery of public opinion formation a new kind of knowledge and insight will be generated for the community by both the individual participant and the community of participants. This knowledge about the nature of interconnectedness between individual and community will help the individual "to learn to be human" and, in the process, overcome the individual/society split embedded in the political machinery that has developed over the course of time and is perpetuated in the suggestions of Walter Lippmann. Of this knowledge, Dewey writes, "To learn to be human is to develop through give and take of communication an effective sense of being an individually distinctive member of a community; one who understands and appreciates its beliefs, desires and methods and who contributes to a further conversion of organic power into human resources and values" (154). Elsewhere Dewey writes, "An individual cannot be opposed to the association of which he is an integral part nor can the association be set against its integrated members" (191). Considering his analysis of what is needed for a machinery of public opinion formation to uphold democratic ideas, Dewey attacks a privately held system of public opinion formation that favours the transference of information directly from the media organisation to each, isolated audience member. Democratic decision-making must be based on knowledge of social phenomena and such knowledge cannot exist when information is "cooped up in the private consciousness". Dewey argues the notion that "men may be free in their thought even when they are not in its expressions and dissemination" had its origins in the idea that there could be a mind "complete in itself, apart from action and from objects". This wrong-headed hypothesis dates to a time when earlier democrats advanced their self-interested notions of the free individual as an isolated individual apart from associated behaviour. As has been discussed, to realise more fully democratic ideas, an emerging public must overcome this false dualism. Knowledge of social phenomena must, therefore, be distributed so that information can be further obtained and the knowledge that results from the discussion of that information can be further tested through ongoing process within the community. 7.3 Confronting economic realities of mass media

In seeking a democratic system of public opinion formation Dewey understands that economic realities must be confronted. He writes, "It is futile to ignore and deny economic facts. They do not cease to operate because we refuse to note them, or because we smear them over with sentimental idealisations" (156). To succeed, any alternative system of public opinion formation must confront the economics of the system of public opinion formation proposed by Lippmann and, today, the economic weight of the institutionalised structures of mass media. Today, questions surrounding the future of private property are particularly relevant. As the authors of A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age ask, "Who will define the nature of cyberspace property rights, and how? How can we strike a balance between inter-operable open systems and protection of property?" (Dyson et al. 1994). The complex literature of property rights in an "information age" is beyond the scope of this paper. However, Deweys conceptualisation of two systems of public opinion formation offers guidance on how an emerging public might extricate a system of public opinion formation for the purpose of democratic decision-making from the privately held system of mass media in which it is embedded. Such action by a public is necessary to overcome the long embedded false dualism and provide an avenue for democratic revival. 7.3.1 The local community First, Dewey is emphatic that new technology be applied in the local community if democratic ideas are more closely to be realised. Dewey writes, "Only when we start from a community as a fact, grasp the fact in thought so as to clarify and enhance its constituent elements, can we reach an idea of democracy which is not utopian" (149). The need to tie a system of public opinion formation more closely to the local community is one of the most important requirements if democracy is to survive in the twenty-first century. The reason it is important is that the new technology enables individuals to communicate with others regardless of geographic boundaries. This "release from geography", and the resulting conception of "virtual communities", (Rheingold 1994) has, for some, become one of the defining qualities of an on-coming "information age". Briefly, I take the position that the concept of "virtual communities", while possessing many virtues, becomes a threat to the democratic process when the suggestion is made that democratic ideas are applicable primarily to "virtual communities" rather than geographically situated communities. Significantly, some interested groups have taken the ascent of the virtual community and the further eclipse of the local community as given. The authors of A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age, for example, write, "It is clear...that cyberspace will play an important role knitting together in the diverse communities of tomorrow, facilitating the creation of electronic neighborhoods bound together not by geography but by shared interests" (Dyson et al. 1994). Such rhetoric works to extend the current system of public opinion formation into a new era by continuing the separation of the individual and his or her context. This allows people more easily to believe the notion that the isolated individual is at liberty. The key to a Deweyan system is that it is rooted in a living local community. Dewey writes, "In a word, that expansion and reinforcement of personal understanding and judgement by the cumulative and transmitted intellectual wealth of the community which may render nugatory the indictment of democracy drawn on the basis of ignorance, bias and levity of the masses, can be fulfilled only in relations of personal intercourse in the local community" (Dewey 1927: 218). 7.3.2 Filling the media gap

Second, Dewey seeks to understand a need that it has only recently become possible to fill. Specifically, Deweys emphases on the importance of local community, communications systems and democratic decision-making, enable him to approach the communicative space which Tetsura Tomita refers to as the "media gap" between immediate forms of communication and mass media (Tomita 1980). Deweys writings on the importance of face to face interaction (Carey 1989, Lasch 1995), on the one hand, and his suggestion that the process of socialised intelligence be conveyed quickly into the print medium, on the other, are an indication that his imagination was functioning in the same area as the bright potential of computer-mediated communication. Particularly important is the characteristic of interactivity that allows groups of individuals of virtually any size to communicate freely amongst themselves. Interactivity can allow the construction of a context in which citizens can leverage the benefits of face to face conversation and the benefits of the mass publication of the written word. What is needed and what is possible is the merger of oral and print cultures (Harnad 1996). 7.3.3 Interactivity and a new public Third, Dewey suggests that once the technology is available, a public will discover itself. In so doing the public will become highly politicised, potentially changing the political process. More specifically, Dewey seems to seek a specific intermediate communication form that will allow the community to create a bridge between the isolated individual and national communications systems. In so doing the technology will support the restoration of communal life while retaining the attachments to the national conversation that protect the community and the nation against the dangers of parochialism. As he writes, "Somewhere between associations that are narrow, close and intimate, and those which are so remote as to have only infrequent and casual contact lies the province of the state" (Dewey 1927: 43). In other words, when a new technology allows a public bigger than an agricultural community but smaller than a nation to emerge, and when the technology is flexible enough to allow for local deliberation as well as regional, national and even international deliberation, this will have major consequences for the political unit. 7.3.4 Elections and representative officers Fourth, on Deweys account the formation of a state in a democratic society is contingent on the election of representative officers by the public. Therefore, the establishment of a new system of public opinion formation is most likely to spring from changes in this aspect of the political process. Although Dewey does not state explicitly that a new system of public opinion formation will necessarily be implemented during the election cycle, the suggestion can be inferred from his emphasis on the importance of this point where public and potential representative officer meet. He writes sarcastically of this point of contact under the political process as it exists in his day, "there are citizens who have the blessed opportunity to vote for a ticket of men mostly unknown to them, and which is made up for them by an under-cover machine in a caucus whose operation constitutes a kind of political pre-destination" (120). This is in sharp contrast to a Deweyan system deployed in the local community for the creation of socialised intelligence, the education of public opinion about potential representative officers, and as an aid in the process of election. Of course, once implemented the new machinery of public opinion formation would serve as a check, a system of oversight over the representative officers. This would assist in the creation of a high-level assessment of performance for the public to act on during the next

election cycle. Dewey writes, "Only through constant watchfulness and criticism of public officials by citizens can a state be maintained in integrity and usefulness" (69). 7.4 From mass media control of agenda to the rise of the information elite A flexible, intermediate communications system, allowing for the emergence of the voice of a new public, applied to the political process during the election cycle within a local community, once it exists, must not be constrained by a private system of public opinion formation. The public that has emerged and is so organised must be the agency to ensure that the new system of public opinion formation is designed to serve the new public in the project of democratic selfgovernment. To achieve this it must be disentangled from private media concerns. Otherwise, the false duality will easily be perpetuated in the minds of people. According to the dated Deweyan analysis the function of the press ought to be extricated from its reliance on pecuniary interests. Once extricated the nature of news will change dramatically for the better. Dewey writes, "Just as industry conducted by engineers on a factual technological basis would be a very different thing from what it actually is, so the assembling and reporting of news would be a very different thing if the genuine interests of reporters were permitted to work freely" (182). The notion that reporters who must make a living to feed their families can extricate themselves or become extricated from the private interests that run the media concerns is, perhaps, impracticable. Private media concerns are not going to disappear in an "information age" and they will employ reporters. But the separation of the new system of public opinion formation that operates within the election cycle, as outlined above, from the domination of pecuniary interests is necessary. There is no way such a system could be considered democratic unless open to the entire community of potential participants. Furthermore an open communications system is feasible. The technology that currently exists is flexible enough to allow for the construction of an open system. Also, there is in existence an agency to ensure that an open communications system is constructed. Where Russell Neuman suggests the result of the communications revolution will be an improved "multi-step process" of public opinion formation wherein information continues to move from the mass media to the elite stratum to the mass public, I suggest a democratised system of public opinion formation where the new public, the information elite, participates in an open system of social inquiry in context to the election cycle. The resulting democratic deliberation will necessarily be a part of the beat of the journalistic community. In this way other media will communicate it to the mass public who choose not to participate. Thus, the information at the heart of the process will be the subject of community debate as well as subjected to community debate instead of information collected by reporters working for privately owned organisations. The resulting knowledge then will be what is distributed to the passive mass public by reporters working for privately owned organisations. In other words, rather than media concerns driving the system of public opinion formation, a Deweyan conception of democratic deliberation will drive the system of public opinion formation. Mass media organisations will play an important but secondary role. 7.4.1 The role of a democratically generated intellectual elite

The key to a Deweyan system of public opinion formation is that it accepts what Neuman refers to as the "paradox of mass politics". The mass citizenry is not well enough informed to fulfil democratic ideas. Behind this acceptance there is a struggle with theories of minority domination that would have it that a small elite will always possess an inordinate amount of power. The struggle is over how to work with such a truth while simultaneously constructing a system of public opinion formation that brings the political process closer to the realisation of democratic ideas. The answer to the struggle is in the reconstruction of the functioning of those elites that work at the nexus of the political process and systems of public opinion formation. The emergence of a new public wielding a new communications technology will cause this reconstruction. Instead of a privately held system of public opinion formation at the heart of the political process that works to the advantage of economic and political elites who are not forced to consider goods beyond those that advance their interests, there must exist a free and open system of public opinion formation at the heart of the process that works to the advantage of those able to excel in public deliberation, whether because of their expert knowledge, literary style, wisdom, courage, empathy or what not. Dewey writes, "It is argued that the check upon the oppressive power of this particular oligarchy (the oligarchy of big business) lies in an intellectual aristocracy, not an appeal to an ignorant, fickle mass whose interests are superficial and trivial, and whose judgements are saved from incredible levity only when weighted down by heavy prejudice" (204). There is no doubt that such a system favours an elite, but it is an elite raised into power through its ability to contribute fruitfully to the community through a procedure for the creation of socialised intelligence. Dewey does not suggest the utopian formation of a classless society or cynical acceptance of elite domination. Rather, he suggests the construction of a system of communication that allows for a democratically generated elite to place a check on representative officers and private interests. Certainly such a system is more apt for an "information age" in which the individual in possession of knowledge and with the ability to utilise knowledge is supposedly at an advantage over the old economic and political elites of an industrial order able to rise into a position of power because of their allegiance to a system of private property. It is this flexible "information elite" that must, for its own welfare, consider the meaning of democratic ideas, and in so doing, transform the political machinery so as to more closely realise the meaning. 7.4.2 A system of public opinion formation open to all Finally, a Deweyan system of public opinion formation accepts the need put forward by Lippmann and Neuman, among others, for a rich governmental system of expert, or organised, intelligence. However, he rejects the idea that such a system ought to be linked to a privately held system of public opinion formation. Instead a rich system of expert, or organised, intelligence will become richer through the active engagement of experts in the system of public opinion formation at the local level. Knowledge separate from distribution amidst an open public is not socialised knowledge. Dewey writes, "No government by experts in which the masses do not have the chance to inform the experts as to their needs can be anything but an oligarchy managed in the interests of the few" (207). Furthermore, it is not necessary that all participants possess expertise, but it is necessary that all citizens possess the opportunity to judge the posted positions of those who do possess expertise. Dewey writes, "It is not necessary that the many should have the knowledge and skill to carry on the needed investigations: what is required is that they have the ability to judge the bearing of the knowledge supplied by others upon common

concerns" (209). Thus, it is not a matter of raising the cognitive faculties of every individual citizen in a political community or forcing every citizen to be an active participant. Rather, it is a matter of raising "the level upon which the intelligence of all operates". As Dewey concludes, "the height of this level is much more important for judgement of public concerns than any difference in intelligence quotients" (211). The function of citizenship in public deliberations common to all in the political community thus emerges as the vessel for the generation of socialised intelligence central to the project of democratic self-government. We will return to this in a later section. PART II 1.0 Introduction Part II offers an analysis of the Minnesota Electronic Democracy Project (MN E-Democracy), focusing on the MN-POLITICS list archive. The analysis will demonstrate the potential possessed by the Project as a Deweyan system of public opinion formation. Section 2.0 and section 3.0 introduce the reader to the Internet and to MN E-Democracy. This introduction is accomplished through general histories, followed by various perspectives - including an analysis of participants, of usage statistics, and a description of the Project archive as an artefact. Section 4.0 offers a background to some literature on the social effects of CMC that apply within the framework of the Dewey-Lippmann tension developed in Part I. I argue that Deweyan interpretations of social effects, such as the position that the medium can encourage adherence to normative behaviour depending on context, are more accurate than individualist interpretations which claim the medium encourages anti-normative behaviour. Furthermore, an initial survey of the material collected from the Project supports the accuracy of the approach. This survey moves us from a consideration of social effects of CMC to a consideration of political effects. Section 5.0 focuses on the design of the Project and the manner in which boundaries between antinormative and normative behaviour are constructed as well as how activity outside the boundaries can be managed by organisers and participants. Section 6.0 approaches the mechanics behind the process of participation within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. The important product that results from participation is a thread. This section also attempts to account for the mechanics of thread generation. Section 7.0 focuses on the threads that were generated over the course of the Project. At different periods there are different patterns of thread generation and these patterns offer insight into the development of the Project and the potential impact on politics. The data suggests that over time the new knowledge generated within the thread emerges to guide the construction of threads as objects, resulting in a deliberation over normative and anti-normative behaviour among participants as well as the opportunity for democratisation. When included in this form of interaction, a candidate for office must be cognisant of the deliberation over normative values or risk failure in the forum. Section 8.0 offers an account of how the media communicated the new knowledge generated during the Project to a mass audience. 2.0 History of the Internet The MN E-Democracy Project provides material for a case study of how the Internet has affected, and may continue to affect, the American democratic process. To gain an understanding

of the MN E-Democracy Project as well as how the Internet might ultimately effect politics I will begin with a brief history of the Internet itself. During the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the United States Department of Defence sought to develop a distributed communications network for the United States military. The result - in collaboration with the private firm Bolt Beranek and Neuman (BBN), the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Stanford Research Institute, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah - was ARPANET. For the military, the purpose of ARPANET was to provide a system of communication that would be fully functional even though one or more points might be destroyed by enemy attack. From the point of view of many of the computer scientists who contributed to the Project, such as Paul Baran and JCR Licklider, the goal was to create a means of communication that would allow any user or program on any of the networked computers to be able to utilise any program or subsystem on any other computer without having to modify the remote program. Three important ideas that underlie the concept of computer networking need to be explained: "packet-switching", "time-sharing", and the connection of the computers to one another through ordinary telephone lines. Packet-switching allows digitised information to be broken down into chunks (the 0s and 1s that make up bits and bytes) at the point of departure from one computer, sent through different paths to a destination in another computer, and reassembled on arrival (Bonchek 1996). Time-sharing enables a computer to devote its resources to multiple tasks within a span of seconds or less, so that a user at the host computer as well as a user at a remote computer can interact with the machine and therefore each other, simultaneously. Third, the decision to connect all the computers on the network through dialup telephone allows a cheap and easy way to implement packet-switching and time-sharing techniques for a limitless number of potential users. As individuals began to communicate over phone lines through computers a broad range of applications made new forms of interaction possible. The key applications that continue to lie at the heart of the Internet include File Transfer Protocol (FTP), which allows for the sharing of files and other resources between remote computers; telnet, which allows for remote login access; and electronic mail (e-mail), which allows for users on remote systems to exchange personal messages and other information. In 1971 two programmers at BBN who wanted to communicate with one another through personal messages developed electronic mail, arguably the most important application of new technology (Lynch et al. 1993). With computer-mediated communication possible through the phone lines, a new form of mass communication was clearly being developed. The roots of ARPANET mesh extraordinarily well with Deweyan thinking about the role of scientific investigation as a model for democratic practice. For example, during World War II, Vannevar Bush was the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and was responsible for the work done by physicists on behalf of the war effort. After the war and under the weight of the newly emerging nuclear threat, Bush attempted to inspire the community of physicists to apply their skills to the task of perfecting a new machinery of knowledge. In "As We May Think", a piece that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1945, Bush wrote:

The applications of science have built man a well-supplied house, and are teaching him to live healthily therein. They have enabled him to throw masses of people against another with cruel weapons. They may yet allow him truly to encompass the great record and to grow in the wisdom of race experience. He may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good. Yet, in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as to the outcome. (Bush 1945) Bushs vision continued to be influential among the generation of scientists working on computer networking in the 1960s. For example, Fernando Corbato and Robert Fano, both at MIT, developed the concepts such as time-sharing at the foundation of the new technology. Like Bush they saw the positive potential in creating a new machinery of knowledge. They also envisioned how networking would enable this machinery to work for the benefit of community collaboration. They wrote: The time-sharing computer system can unite a group of investigators in a co- operative search for the solution to a common problem, or it can serve as a community pool of knowledge and skill on which anyone can draw according to his needs. Projecting the concept on a large scale, one can conceive of such a facility as an extraordinarily powerful library serving an entire community, a sort of intellectual public utility. (Corbato and Fano 1966, Hauben and Hauben) Finally, in the ARPANET Completion Report, written in 1978, the authors stated that a new communications medium comparable to the telegraph and printing press had successfully been developed. Pointing to the tremendous impact the new medium would have on society at large, specifically, in this instance, in relation to e-mail, the authors wrote, "The largest single surprise of the ARPANET program has been the incredible popularity and success of the network mail. There is little doubt that the techniques of network mail developed in connection with the ARPANET program are going to sweep the country and drastically change the techniques used for intercommunication in the public and private sectors." From inception to completion, visionaries in the scientific community seemed set on, as John Dewey might say, altering the modes of conjoint behaviour through computer networking. While military goals were central to the Projects original purpose, the undertaking soon became a general research project without a specific application. One reason for this is that ARPA (which changed its name to DARPA in 1972) did not and does not perform research or have laboratories but rather funds research performed at other locations. Furthermore, although the Pentagon supported the project, JCR Licklider in turn gave a great deal of support to the computer science community in academia. Thus a variety of scientists working in a variety of situations for a variety of reasons drove the development of computer networking. Furthermore, as host sites were added to the network it increasingly became a tool for the academic research community. Beginning in 1969 with 4 sites, the network had 15 host sites by 1971, 45 by 1973, 111 by 1978, and 4,000 by 1983. In 1980, MILNET was formed for the military and split off ARPANET, thus disappearing from public view while ARPANET would continue to be used for research and development.

Many innovations and stories about bringing the new medium to more people would drive the development of the new technology from the early and mid-70s to the almost omnipresent Internet of today. Among the early innovations was the development of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), a protocol that would allow various types of computers operating various software applications to exchange information if part of the network. Also important was the combination of the release of Digital Equipment Corporations relatively lowcost VAX family of mini-computers and the development of UNIX, an operating system specifically designed to allow for the easy development of applications in and for the open, interactive arena of computer networking. Cheaper computers and easier to understand operating systems made computer networking feasible for many in the research community and private sphere (Hauben and Hauben, Internet Unleashed 1994). Of course, compared to the mass public the community of users in the 1970's was still minuscule. The principles of user-friendliness being developed at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (XeroxParc) were, therefore, an important parallel development to computer networking. Xerox Corporation funded a research and development division which drew some of the most talented individuals in computer science. Although Xerox was not quick enough to capitalise on their work, they designed key interface concepts such as the "desk-top", "files", "folders", "trash", the "pull-down menu", the "mouse", "point-and-click", and "windows". It was left to others such as Steven Jobs, the founder of Apple, and Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, to capitalise on these ideas and over a period of two decades bring the personal computer (PC) to a mass market of billions. Without such a critical mass the Internet would not be on the verge of universality, connecting the worlds satellites and TVs. Instead, it would still be an arena for computer specialists (Cringely 1993, Levy 1994). Another series of stories involves the way in which computer networking led to the emergence of a variety of networks formed for different purposes. In 1979, an academic group that had been using the slower UNIX to UNIX Control Program (UUCP) for computer networking, created the Computer Science Research Network (CSRN) and attached it to the faster ARPANET through a single gateway, thus beginning the web-like interconnections among various networks that has come to characterise the Internet. Also in 1979 Steve Daniel and Tom Truscutt, two students at Duke University, created Usenet News. This application eventually became so successful that a new protocol called Net News Transfer Protocol was created to carry the Usenet News feed over the TCP/IP connections that tied host sites into the Internet. Usenet News is an almost completely open networking space where anyone with access can participate in ongoing conversations on several thousand topics. Although the future of Usenet News is uncertain, its existence has contributed a great deal to the anarchic reputation of the Internet. In 1983 a relative of the Usenet Newsgroup and a core technology of the MN E-Democracy Project, the Internet listserv, gained popularity through a service developed at the City University of New York called Bitnet. The listserv is a mode of group communication by e-mail. A program - "majordomo" in the case of MN E-Democracy - is located at a central computer (a server) that distributes e-mail messages to every individual who "subscribes" to a particular listserv. The individual joins by sending an e-mail message to the program at the central server informing it the individual wishes to subscribe. Once subscribed, the individual will receive every message sent to a central list address. Thus, if 10, 100 or 1,000 machines subscribe to the list, all 10, 100

or 1,000 will receive each message sent to the central address. This creates a method of interaction that exemplifies computer interactivity. It is an example of the new technological concepts that I propose will, in Deweyan terms, alter our methods of conjoint behaviour, be a catalyst for the formation of a new public, influence the selection of our representative officials, and alter the political process. These technologies will do this by rendering apparent false dualities, as well as enabling sophisticated processes in replacement. By the early 1980s local computer networks began to spring up. These created a way for enthusiasts to network from their homes through modem. As increasingly the population absorbed the technology, thousands of independent computer networks emerged and eventually merged into the Internet. For example, in the mid-1980s a group of 1960s activists developed the Whole Earth Lectronic Link (the WELL). The WELL was one of the first and continues to be one of the most successful electronic communities in which computer networking enthusiasts could interact with others around the world. Perhaps part of its success has been that it is firmly rooted in the San Francisco region. Nonetheless, the success of the WELL began an era in which computer networking became increasingly big business (Rheingold 1994). America Online, Compuserv, Prodigy, Delphi all emerged from a pack of computer networks that appeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s, offering customers the virtues of cyberspace and "virtual" - nongeographically rooted - "community", for a subscription fee. At first these independent networks sought to restrict customers to the use of their closed, or proprietary, networks. As the nonproprietary Internet becomes the standard, this is no longer possible. Proprietary networks increasingly have to open themselves to the Internet, becoming filters and Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In 1990, as a result of the commercial success of computer networking, in any event, the Department of Defence disbanded ARPANET and, for a short time, used other government funded networks (such as the NSFNET) as the principal backbone of what was, by that time, known as the Internet. In the fall of 1995, because the Internet follows a mesh design and a central backbone is not necessary, NSFNET and the other government funded networks ceased to provide public support for the maintenance of the Internet. The future of the Internet was, thus, turned over to many private networks working, loosely, in concert. While the business of creating "virtual community" has been popularised as the Internet is increasingly supported by the private sphere, the local character of the early history has led to a community or civic networking movement. Local issues and consideration of the public good, rather than profit, feature heavily in this movement. Because the Twin Cities Freenet hosted the MN E-Democracy Project, the freenet movement and the community networking movement as a whole are particularly relevant. In 1986 Thomas Grundner, an employee at a medical clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, decided to put medical information on-line to better serve the community. The service proved so popular that Grundner expanded beyond solely medical information. He began to supply general community information, including government records, chat lines, educational information, etc. Several hundred thousand people in the Cleveland metropolitan region joined the facility, giving birth to the Free-Net and community networking movement. For a time Grundner tried unsuccessfully to guide the movement through his National Public Telecommunications Network (NPTN), modelled after National Public Radio. He also sought to guide others about how to form a freenet in their communities. As a result, there are now over a hundred freenets and many more networks based on the freenet model spread across the world.

Even though NPTN has not itself survived, the contribution of Grundner and his freenet to the culture of the Internet is significant (Miller 1996, Schwartz 1996). Key to pulling the Internet together in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the development of a number of tools to allow less computer literate individuals to use the concepts behind computer networking, allowing them to exchange personal messages and information. The continuing development of these tools has driven and continues to drive the use of the Internet. The number of users is reported to be growing at a rate of 10% each month. "Hypertext", the "World Wide Web", "Mosaic", and - subsequent to the MN E-Democracy Project 1994 - the "Netscape Navigator" and "Microsoft Explorer" have replaced early tools such as "gopher-space". Ted Nelson, influenced by Vannevar Bushs conception of a world of readily available knowledge, developed the concept of Hypertext in the 1970s. Hypertext was a method to access this knowledge by creating links between ideas on a computer network, so that an individual might be looking at a given text, see a link in the text to another idea or point of interest, touch the link, or point-and-click with a mouse, and be moved through the network to a new text. Of course, the concept of links can be and has been used equally well to connect pictures, sounds and video presentations. During the 1980s many in Silicon Valley sought unsuccessfully to capitalise on the hypertext concepts. A hypertext system designed to distribute multi-media scientific information across computer networks was not successfully developed in the United States. Rather, it was developed at the European Particle Physics Laboratory (CERN) in Switzerland. In 1989 Tim Berners-Lee circulated a proposal and the World Wide Web (WWW or Web) was introduced to the High Energy Physics community as a reality in 1991. Since then the Web has helped bring the Internet to the attention of the general public in many parts of the world. This is because it is relatively easy to create a document on the Web and embed links in the document to take the user anywhere else on the Web. In a sense the Web has provided a glue that holds the Internet together for the general user. The development of increasingly user-friendly Web "browsers", or tools on a hard drive that enable the user to view the Web, have made increasingly the Internet popular. In 1993 the Web browser Mosaic, developed by Marc Anderssen, then a graduate student at The National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, was released (December 1994). It was the standard during the MN E-Democracy Project, which was located on the Web at the Twin Cities Freenet. By 1993 the intricate threads had come together, creating a juggernaut ready to push beyond the consciousness of specialists, into the popular imagination. The principal pathways by which the knowledge of the new technology moved into the mainstream were through political and media institutions. Certain actors receptive to the new technology and operating within these intermediary institutions facilitated this process. Many were beginning to have a relatively more or less shadowy understanding that the new technology would eventually transform the manner in which political and media institutions operate. While the new technology will have an impact on most institutions, political and media institutions are here primary and, therefore, the primary institutions under consideration. Key among the earlier popularisers was Al Gore, who, in the early 1990s, as a Senator from Tennessee and head of the Senate Science Committee, fashioned the metaphor of an Information Super-Highway. This innovation was a derivative of the national super-highway initiative championed in the Senate a previous generation by Gores father. Gore carried his belief in the potential of computers and an information super-highway further into the mainstream as a part of the Clinton-Gore literature in the 1992 Presidential campaign. At that

time the Independent candidate for President, H. Ross Perot, also brought the concept of an "Electronic Town Hall" into the mainstream. Traditional media institutions gave the rhetoric about the beginning of an information age even more immediacy through reports that the Clinton-Gore and Perot campaigns were beginning to bypass traditional media institutions during the campaign (Schwartz 1994). Increasingly they reached the public through radio call-in, satellite television, cable television, C-Span, talks shows and the like. This caused an as yet unabated interest in stories about new technology, computers and the media business. There was also concern about convergence in the forms of media such as print, audio and video through computer networks, etc. The new administration again furthered interest in these issues when it launched a National Information Infrastructure initiative and then a Global Information Infrastructure initiative, as well as calling for a re-write of the 1934 Communications Act (Browning 1996, Miller 1996, Schwartz 1996). 3.0 The Minnesota Electronic Democracy Project 3.1 A history of the Minnesota Electronic Democracy Project Steve Clift, a 25-year-old student at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs in Minneapolis, Minnesota, founded the Minnesota E-Democracy Project in July 1994. Clift had been active in Minnesota politics since his college days at Winona State University, where he was the Chairman of the Young Democrats of Minnesota. Clift was also interested in studying the impact of new communications technologies on governmental organisations and the political process. Originally, the Project was designed to create a place on the Internet for the public to access information from the candidates and about the candidates running for office in the upcoming State and national elections that November, 1994. Clift drafted a preliminary proposal and sent it to several local electronic discussion lists. The idea was warmly received by others interested in both information networks and Minnesota politics. Several well-attended meetings were organised. An infrastructure was quickly put in place. Although the Twin Cities Freenet (TCFN) was not yet open to the general public, the main organisers, Scott Fritchie - a systems manager at St Olaf University - and Olaf Holt - at the University of Minnesota - had put TCFN on the Web. As TCFN was itself a new organisation intent on being involved in the community, Fritchie and Holt offered TCFN as the host site for the MN E-Democracy Project. A connection between Steve Clift, who had considerable experience and understanding of Minnesota politics, and the technical people involved with TCFN was forged, developing a pathway for political information to migrate on to the Web. Clift would create contacts with people in the political campaigns, put the information on computer disks and give the disks to volunteers to code so it could appear at the Web site. Another key innovation of Project organisers was the decision to create an e-mail based public discussion forum using listserv technology. Dennis Fazio, President of Minnesota Regional Network, a non-profit Internet Service Provider, agreed to host the forum, MN-POLITICS, using computers at their site. MN-POLITICS was open to anyone who had the ability to send an e-mail message to "Majordomo@MR.Net" asking to subscribe. Furthermore, anyone could send an email message to all the individuals subscribed to MN-POLITICS by sending a message to "MNPOLITICS@MR.Net". Mick Souder, an Internet educator and student at the University of

Minnesota, agreed to be the list-manager, meaning he would watch over the unfolding discussion to make sure the technology and dialogue ran smoothly. Scott Fritchie, who would become the technical co-ordinator of the Project, decided to create an archive of MN-POLITICS at the site. He was able to do this using an application called Hypermail. This application posts the exchanges in an e-mail based listserv discussion to a Web site. As a result, all of the comments from participants in the discussion became available over the entire Internet through hypertext links. In this way a globally accessible conversation about politics in Minnesota was created. The infrastructure for the Project was in place and open to the public by late August, in time for the primaries in early September, when the major parties would choose their candidates. As a result of the contacts made at the campaign offices, position papers on a variety of subjects by candidates running for the United States Senate and Governor of Minnesota had been solicited and made available. Furthermore, by mid-August a group of individuals had signed on to participate in the conversation in MN-POLITICS, creating another important dynamic to the Project. The stated purpose of MN-POLITICS is as follows: The Minnesota Politics and Public Policy E-Mail Forum (MN-POLITICS) will promote the sharing of information on and discussion of Minnesota politics and public policy during the election season and beyond. The list encourages discussion from diverse political perspectives that is respectful in nature. This forum is more about the presentation of ideas and information than being right with ones ideology [see APPENDIX 2] Given the stir that had been building in Washington and around the world about information super-highways and electronic democracy, the early experiment was of interest to the media. On 1 September the metropolitan daily, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, ran a piece in the Metro section, "State Politics Exploring Cyberspace". The subheading of the Star Tribune piece indicated the angle of reporter Bob von Sternberg, "Fringe Parties, Political Junkies Beat Mainstream Candidates to Electronic Bulletin Boards". While the media had an eye on the Project, they were careful to emphasise the distance between the new technology and the mainstream. They did, however, allow Clift to express his view that the new technology could eventually alter the locus of political power. Von Sternberg quoted Clift, "Its novel and new now, but a few years from now it could help set the agenda, determine how political power is distributed." Although sceptical perhaps, von Sternberg also raised the subject of the democratic potential associated with the new medium, writing, "In effect, the experience of MN-POLITICS bears out what computer aficionados have said all along about the Internet: Its the ultimate democratizing tool, where everyone (and every idea) is equal." Based on a press release distributed across the Internet by e-mail in early September the potential of the Project was clear. The effort possessed the features necessary to facilitate a Deweyan system of public opinion formation. As the press release said, "This is the first citizen-based, state-level, multi-candidate election effort that we are aware of in the United States." At the time no other project had the combination of features possessed from the start by the MN EDemocracy Project. It was designed for the electoral process; it was locally based; it was organised by citizens and civic organisations; it sought to distribute political information directly from the candidates; and it featured an interactive public forum. Most important was the combination of the contacts created with candidates and the e-mail based listserv for citizen

dialogue being preserved in a Hypermail archive at the Twin Cities Freenet. Finally, the organisers possessed an experimental approach. They wanted to insert this into the political landscape in Minnesota and observe the results. As the press release concluded, "We hope to learn something about how electronic communication can help improve our representative democracy." I became aware of the existence of the Project on 6 September, 1994 when I received the press release in another e-mail listserv forum in which I was a participant. Realising the potential of the Project, I decided to travel to Minnesota to conduct field research on the development of electronic democracy during the 1994 elections. I was particularly interested in observing the development of MN-POLITICS. Methodologically, it is important to situate my activities beginning with the move to Minnesota in relation to the continuing development of the Project. This is particularly important as, over the course of the Project, I became increasingly involved. Immediately after meeting with Steve Clift the opportunity for involvement was clear and hard to refuse. First, Clift and I possessed a compatible interest in observing and participating in how the new technology would change the distribution of power in the democratic process. It is not insignificant that Clift was a student at the University of Minnesota, working in a programme under the direction of Harry Boyte, who has written extensively on John Dewey and American pragmatism. Second, Clift had the attitude that he was the founder of an infrastructure in which volunteers would have as much latitude to get involved as they desired. Third, Clift had accepted a job at the Minnesota Government Information Access Policy Council, assisting in the design of State information services and the development of State policy. While he would stay involved in the Project throughout, his new position in government required that he step into the background. Not only did the MN E-Democracy Project possess tremendous potential, but organisers were eager for assistance. The history of the Internet and the early days of MN E-Democracy outlined thus far has described a variety of agents acting in society, designing technology and/or organising systems that would be used in increasing numbers, leading to the design of new technology and/or the organisation of systems. This process would lead to actors implementing previously designed technology and organising the MN E-Democracy Project. In terms of the current discourse, the MN E-Democracy Project is like an uppermost layer of soil and rock covering one area of a massive edifice composed of many layers. When I arrived in Minnesota in September, I would become another agent acting on the edifice. For the sake of the present analysis it will be helpful to continue by offering two historical perspectives. The first is the history of the Project apart from any overt consideration of my agency. The second is the history of the Project in consideration of my agency. The reason that these two perspectives will be helpful is that my agency had a major effect on the development of the Project. Thus, the first history will offer a general overview of the development of the Project. In the second I will isolate some of the decisions I made that influenced the development of the Project. Between 1 September and 18 October the public forum became an established venue for public discourse about the political season in Minnesota. The combination of the e-mail listserv technology and the Hypermail archive proved to be a very effective unit of political machinery. I will deal with the content of the archive in detail in later sections. Furthermore, for the purposes of the current discourse, the official history of the Project begins on 1 September, when Scott

Fritchie created the archive. Although MN-POLITICS was created in early August the messages from participants were not archived automatically until 1 September. Because of the inconsistency of the archive early on, this period will be considered the pre-history of the Project and will not receive detailed treatment. On 19 October an official announcement was made about the two political debates that would be hosted in MN-POLITICS on the Internet. The on-line debates were called Electronic Debates or E-Debates. They occurred between 23 October and 5 November. The first E-Debate involved candidates running for Governor of Minnesota; the second involved candidates for the United States Senate. A separate e-mail listserv, MN-DEBATE, was created to provide a secure candidate-only platform for formal debate. While MN-POLITICS was open subscription and open submission so anyone could join and contribute, MN-DEBATE was open subscription and moderated submission. Anyone could join MN-DEBATE, and therefore read submissions, but a moderator was in place who permitted only submissions pertaining to administrative matters and submissions from candidates. Not only did this provide a secure platform for the candidates but it allowed citizens the option of viewing the E-Debates without themselves participating. Of course as the E-Debates were forwarded into MN-POLITICS, citizens also had the option of joining in and commenting on the E-Debates along with fellow participants. Each E-Debate lasted five days. The first ran from Monday, 24 October to Friday, 28 October; and the second from Monday, 31 October to Friday, 4 November. Five candidates participated in each E-Debate, including all major party candidates. The candidates were given three debate questions on the Saturday before the E-Debates. They were required to send a 500 word response to the first question to MN-DEBATE on the following Monday between 9:00 am and 12:00 pm. They were required to send a rebuttal to an opponents original response that afternoon. The candidates were required to send in responses and rebuttals to the second and third questions in like manner on Wednesday and Friday. From the time of my meeting with Steve Clift I became an active volunteer, meeting other volunteers and working in Minneapolis. I was not always active in the subject of inquiry, MNPOLITICS, however. The general history of the Project breaks down into two periods - the development of MN-POLITICS and the history of the E-Debates. From my perspective, however, there were three qualitatively different periods. During the first period, from 6 September (when I joined the public forum) to 27 September, I observed MN-POLITICS. I submitted only a couple of messages seeking to add value to the work of other organisers. During this period, as MN-POLITICS developed, it was possible to learn about the new technology apart from my input. During the second period, from 28 September to 18 October, I became an active participant in MN-POLITICS. I intended my contributions to experiment with what I discerned to be the potential of the medium and the particular implementation of the medium. For this purpose I created my own vehicle for communication within MN-POLITICS, a journal called AGORA THE MN E-DEMOCRACY CHRONICLE. The name "agora" is from the name of the marketplace in which citizens discussed the issues of the day in the classical Athenian City-State. In the Statement of Purpose of AGORA I listed three aims: "1. To facilitate the democratic process in MN. 2. To discuss the construction of a new public space, a proto-type for an

electronic townhall. 3. To explore the relationships between the new electronic medium and the traditional media." Through AGORA I aided the further development of the Project into a Deweyan system of public opinion formation. The primary strategy was to increase awareness of the presence of MN E-Democracy in the community and to involve actors in the political process in MN-POLITICS. The first entry was the story of my effort to establish the MN E-Democracy Project as an official member of the media by securing a White House Press Pass to a rally for Ann Wynia, one of the candidates for the Senate, at which President Bill Clinton would be the featured speaker. Subsequent entries included a critical account of the campaign process by a former campaign manager; a report of my experiences on the campaign trail with Republican candidate for Senate and eventual victor, Rod Grams; a piece written by a woman running for Lt. Governor of Wisconsin; and press releases in electronic form from Minnesota candidates. The last two offerings were part of a deliberate strategy to involve candidates in the deliberation taking place in MN-POLITICS. This strategy culminated in a challenge to the candidates to contribute to AGORA. Eventually, Steve Clift and I agreed that it would be possible to organise the E-Debates. Approximately four weeks before the election, I wrote a proposal for the EDebates that I gave simultaneously to the candidates, the League of Women Voters of MN (who were asked to sponsor the debates) and the media (see APPENDIX 1). Once the proposal had been submitted to the relevant parties, the other organisers and I began to publicise the E-Debates on MN-POLITICS, elsewhere on the Internet, and in the local and national media. The media took an interest in the Project, the League of Women Voters of MN agreed to co-sponsor the Project, and, one by one, the two major party candidates running for the United States Senate, as well as the candidates running for Governor, agreed to participate. During the third period, from 19 October, I assumed the title of E-Debate Co-ordinator and was responsible for the design, organisation and co-ordination of the E-Debates. During this time I was no longer an active participant in MN-POLITICS. Instead, I became responsible for the conduct of MN-DEBATE and the flow of information from MN-DEBATE into MN-POLITICS. Thus, I had removed myself from MN-POLITICS and could once again view myself as an observer. This time, however, I was observing an information system I had helped realise. There were countless decisions to be taken before the E-Debates had ended. Each decision was necessarily influenced by both practical concerns and a notion of what a democratic machinery required. First among the practical concerns was a calculus about what it would take to persuade the candidates to participate. For example, the primary goal leading into the E-Debates was to involve the major candidates for the Senate race and the Governors race. In focusing on securing the participation of the four primary individuals the fact that the E-Debates would be open to both major and minor party candidates was not emphasised. Once the major candidates agreed to participate the rest of the candidates were invited as well. The importance of this concession to practicality is that it emphasises the power wielded by candidates in negotiating the terms of participation. In other venues the candidates invariably backed out when it became clear that minor party candidates would be involved. They did not back out of this venue, I assume, because the campaign staffs realised that the venue was experimental and believed it unlikely to have a long reach into the population. Furthermore, the candidates were not required physically to type the responses and rebuttals to the questions themselves but were required to be involved in drafting the responses. This was necessary to minimise the effort required by the candidates to

take part in the E-Debates and maximise the potential for discussion in the public forum. In fact, for the most part, the major candidates did not draft their own responses. The minor party candidates did and, as we shall see in a later section, this had significant repercussions in the forum and in the reports of journalists covering the forum for other media. Second among practical concerns are a large cluster of decisions that resulted in the basic format of the E-Debates as described above. For example, there were two E-Debates running consecutively over a two week period. Each E-Debate consisted of three questions, responses and rebuttals, and each debate was stretched over a five day period. The intention was to concentrate on a few specific issues and stretch each debate over a week so that participants in MN-POLITICS would have time to discuss the E-Debates and issues as they developed. Furthermore, the inclusion of the rebuttal feature was an effort to highlight interactivity between the candidates; an encouragement to the candidates to learn how to use the interactive feature of the technology. Some used this feature better than others and therefore had an advantage in the forum. What is more important, in using the rebuttal feature effectively such individuals demonstrated how it can be a powerful tool for candidates in the future. Finally, two lists - MNPOLITICS and MN-DEBATE - were used. The manner in which these lists were implemented and interconnected reflects the democratic theory underlying the Project. As has been described, one list was an open forum for citizen dialogue and the other was a moderated forum for focused candidate debate. The lists were linked because the candidate debate was forwarded to the open citizen dialogue. Several respondents commented on the lack of a moderator in MN-DEBATE and MNPOLITICS. In MN-DEBATE these respondents wanted someone to make certain the candidates answered the questions. In MN-POLITICS they wanted to impose some sort of editorial function on the many submissions. In MN-DEBATE I thought it unwise to impose strict rules on the candidates. It would be difficult to demand too much from them, especially as the forum reached only approximately 700 citizens directly. MN-POLITICS was not moderated either. There are many reasons for this. One reason is that the technology makes it difficult. Another reason already mentioned is that I wanted to minimise my role in the development of the public forum once it was underway. For methodological reasons I was, therefore, careful to separate my perceptions of events in MN-POLITICS from my function as E-Debate co-ordinator. Organisers did occasionally make suggestions to guide the forum along, however, by urging people to make contributions or setting limits on the number of posts once it became apparent certain individuals might well seek to monopolise the conversation. Finally, the original intention was to develop the questions used in the E-Debates through consultation with participants in MN-POLITICS. Participants did not provide a substantive contribution at first. Perhaps they were sceptical about whether the debate would actually take place, as the candidates had not yet accepted invitations. I formulated most of the questions used in the E-Debates by gleaning ideas from conversations in MN-POLITICS, in conversation with Steve Clift, and in consultation with the League of Woman Voters of Minnesota. Once it was clear the E-Debates would take place, I again returned to MN-POLITICS to ask for suggestions. The second time, a number of replies were submitted from which the final question of the Senate E-Debate was fashioned. This demonstrates that it is feasible to ask the participants in the public forum in which the debate will take place for the questions if there is some certainty that a debate

is, in fact, going to take place. I believe the best way to develop questions is through a consultation between the debate moderator and the citizens-participants. The notion that underlying theoretical constructs influence the manner in which actor/s design a given technology or information system is here relevant (Orlikowski 1991B, 1992). The more specific notion that a vision of democratic theory underlies the formation of any given democracy project is significant as well (Arterton 1987). From the ideas set out by Vannevar Bush in The Atlantic Monthly after World War II to the development of the ARPANET and the spread of the technologies that would result in the Internet, there have been many actors working on the design and implementation of the new technology. In 1994 a further step was taken in applying the new technology to the political process. The MN E-Democracy Project was a part of this step. As Graeme Browning writes, "The Internet has been evolving in a linear fashion, from point to point, since the 1960s, but on October 18, 1994, (when the E-Debates were announced on the Internet) it took an abrupt turn straight toward the soul of the nation" (Browning 1996). 3.2 Statistics 3.2.1 Participation and the survey On 14 November, 1996, approximately one week after the 8 November elections, I submitted a survey to a group of 517 individuals still subscribed to the discussion forums, MN-POLITICS and MN-DEBATE. After my initial submission, I received 93 responses; after submitting the survey on 28 November, I received 40 responses; and after submitting the survey on 19 December, I received 54 responses. In total I received completed surveys from 187 individuals or 36% of the 517 individuals. This section offers a statistical overview of this sample population. The sample population is a self-selecting group; people who heard about the Project and, for whatever reason, decided to become involved. They are also people who continued their involvement with the project for some time after the election and who, once involved, were the most willing to respond to a survey. One might, therefore, assume that these individuals are particularly motivated in terms of technology and/or politics. It is not easy to compare the group that responded to the majority that did not. One can only assume that among those who did not respond there existed more who did not participate as actively, who were not impressed enough to respond, or who were not interested in participating in academic research. One certainty I should note is that there were many who did not respond for professional reasons. For example, a number of journalists participated and even wrote articles about the Project but did not return the survey. There were also many state and national government addresses among the list of participants. Some of these individuals may have understandably felt disinclined to respond. There were, nonetheless, a number of professional journalists and individuals in government who did respond. Before turning to the survey data, it is possible to gain some insight into a larger 600 person sample of Project participants through an analysis of e-mail addresses. First, an e-mail address is made of several pieces of information that increase in generality as one moves from left to right.

For example, I have two different e-mail addresses, "gsa1001@cus.cam.ac.uk" and "aikens@freenet.msp.sp.us". On the far right is the domain name, ".uk" and ".us", which signals the nature of the e-mail account. ".uk" signals the United Kingdom and ".us" the United States. Individuals and/or organisations request a category when they apply for a domain name for the purpose of creating a customised e-mail and/or Web address. Although country codes are used in these examples there are other categories such as educational institutions in the United States (.edu), companies (.com), organisations (.org), government addresses (.gov), network specific addresses (.net) and military (.mil). The use of country codes is most common among organisations in countries outside of the US. In addition, other countries have their own institutions to process domain names, and alternative abbreviations. For example, in the US, educational institutions are (.edu). In the UK academic institutions are (.ac). Moving to the left, an e-mail address begins to differentiate the nature of the account. In the first example, "cus.cam.ac" informs one that the e-mail address is an academic account (.ac), from the University of Cambridge (.cam), and more specifically from the computer user services (cus) at the University. In the second example, "freenet.mpl.sp" informs one that the account is located in Minneapolis/St Paul (mpl.sp) at a freenet. The symbol @ separates the full domain name on the right from the personal identifier assigned by the service provider to the individual user on the left. Thus, "gsa1001@" and "aikens@" are the personal identifiers assigned to me by the University of Cambridge and the Twin Cities Freenet, respectively. Because there are many complex variations in an e-mail address, I will concentrate on the domain names for the current sample of Project participants. Chart 3.2.1a provides a breakdown of participation by domain name.

Summary:

Domain names: The two most common domain names were ".edu", signifying users from American educational institutions, at 52% of the total, and ".com", signifying users gaining access from private businesses, at 30% of the total. The majority of users from ".edu" accounts, at 43%, were from the University of Minnesota. Other ".edu" accounts included a number from Minnesota schools such as St Olaf and Hamline, as well as a scattering of participants from schools around the country such as Harvard, Duke, Stanford, the University of Wisconsin and Berkeley. The majority of those gaining access through ".com" addresses possessed accounts with national and local Internet Services Providers (ISPs). Among ".com" addresses 34% possessed accounts with American Online, the largest ISP in the country. Other .com addresses were used by individuals with large companies based in the Minnesota region, such as Westlaw.com, Honeywell.com, 3M.com and Cray.com. A handful of the .com addresses were used by media organisations such as the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Nine per cent of the sample had ".us" domain names and these included all freenet accounts, 5 State Senate addresses, 5 State House of Representative addresses, and a handful of K-12 addresses. The ".org" addresses were used by individuals affiliated with non-profits such as Minnesota Public Radio. The ".net" addresses were used by organisations closely associated with the Internet. The ".gov" addresses were used by 4 from the United States House of Representatives, as well as other governmental organisations in the USA and, in one instance, Australia. There were 7 individuals with domain names from foreign countries, including Finland (.fi), the United Kingdom (.uk), Australia (au.) and Denmark (dk.). Finally, two were from the United States military, ".mil". The e-mail addresses make it clear that the sample includes a mixture of people gaining access to the Internet through a wide range of methods. Besides the general trends that emphasise the importance of both the educational community and companies there are many cases where a user is clearly located in an intermediary political and/or media institution. As has been mentioned many of the domains in the group indicate an affiliation with, for example, state and federal government offices and agencies, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio, WCCO TV or The Utne Reader magazine, etc. Furthermore, many of the anonymous .com addresses were used by national journalists such as Peter Lewis from The New York Times, Graeme Browning from National Journal and David McIntyre from Deutsche Presse Agentur, as well as national political figures such as Richard Bell, special assistant to the chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee, and Jock Gill from the White House. Finally, the campaign staffs of the candidates also set up e-mail accounts, whether, like Ann Wynia and Rod Grams through American Online, or like many minor party candidates through a complimentary Twin Cities Freenet account. Statistical overview of sample population: In the following I summarise the personal information supplied by the 188 individuals who responded to surveys.

Summary: Age: The median age of the sample population was 35.5. TABLE 3.2.1a Gender: Male 74% Ethnicity: Euro-American 95% Location: Minnesota 82% Location in MN: MPL/SP 53% Religion: Prot/Catholic 57% Female 26% Other 5% Elsewhere in USA 17% Outside MPL/SP 47% Atheist/Agnostic 31% --Jewish/Other 11% ----Outside USA 1%

Summaries: Gender: Seventy-four per cent of the sample population were male and 26% female. Ethnicity: Ninety-five per cent of the respondents considered themselves European-American. Only 5% considered themselves from a minority group, and two of those were half EuropeanAmerican and half something else. No African-Americans responded to the survey. Location: Eighty-two per cent of the respondents lived in the state of Minnesota at the time of the survey. Eighteen per cent were from locations including California, Texas, Georgia, Washington DC, New York, and Australia. Within the state of Minnesota 53% live in the twin cities, in either Minneapolis or St Paul. Forty-seven per cent live elsewhere in the state. Religion: Forty-two per cent of the sample identified themselves as Protestant and 15% Catholic. Thus 57% of the sample is Christian. Thirty-one per cent of the sample checked atheist or agnostic. Eleven per cent checked either Jewish or other. TABLE 3.2.1b Education: Some HS 0.5% Fields of Knowledge: SS/Hum 46% Summaries: Education: Forty-nine per cent possess post-graduate degrees; 26% possess college degrees; 24 % possess some college; and only .5% - or one person currently in high school - possess some high school. Considering the fact that the numerous participants still in college were placed in the "some college" category and those studying for graduate degrees were placed in the "college" category, the high level of educational achievement among this self-selecting sample is more marked than the raw statistics suggest. Fields of knowledge: The social sciences and humanities were cited most often, 46%, among the respondents as the primary area of study. The cited fields, in order of popularity, included political science, literature, economics, fine arts/art history, sociology, history, law, psychology, philosophy, environmental studies, religion and rhetoric. Individuals trained in the sciences made up the second largest group at 33%. The cited fields, in order of popularity, included computer science, mathematics, engineering, physics, microbiology, chemistry, neuroscience, soil science and geology. The next most common fields of study at 11% could be defined as those that have arisen with the increasing importance of information and means of communication. These Some College 24% Math/CS/NS 33% College 26% Comm 11% PostGrad 49% PP/Man 10%

included communications, library sciences, journalism, medical infomatics, information system studies and telecommunications. Finally, there were 20 respondents who studied the way institutions work, including business and/or administration, criminal justice, policy, public health, management, planning. Occupation: The responses to the "occupation" question were diverse. Yet almost without exception the responses fit in Robert Reichs definition of the symbolic analyst. According to Reich, "Symbolic analysts solve, identify, and broker problems by manipulating symbols. They simplify reality into abstract images that can be rearranged, juggled, experimented with, communicated to other specialists, and then, eventually, transformed back into reality." The list of occupations included by Reich are research scientists, design engineers, software engineers, public relations executives, investment bankers, lawyers, real estate developers, financial consultants, agricultural consultants, management information specialists, strategic planners, systems analysts, architects, production designers, publishers, writers and editors, journalists and university professors (Reich 1993). The sample population was composed of symbolic analysts with few exceptions. Among the possible exceptions were one law enforcement officer, one secretary, one social worker and one high school teacher. The types of professions represented included a strategies specialist, an environmental consultant, research scientists, a computer applications analyst, a technical systems specialist, a user services specialist, a knowledge engineer, a realtor, a lawyer, 7 individuals in the library sciences, historians, legal scholars, a Deputy State Treasurer, a Legislative Auditor, the Director of the MN Senate Publications Office, 5 journalists, a radio producer, an editor and a museum registrar. TABLE 3.2.1c Political Affiliation: DFL+ 44% Did Respondent Vote?: Yes 94% Did Forum Affect Vote?: Yes 33% Summaries: Political affiliation: Thirty-four per cent of the respondents perceive themselves as members of the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) and another 10% of the respondents perceive themselves as members of the national Democratic Party, for a total of 44%. The State of Minnesota DFL is the result of a merger between the MN Democrat Party, Farmer Party and Labor Party. Eleven per cent of the respondents perceived themselves as members of the IR+ 16% No 6% No 66% None 32% ----Other 8% -----

Independent Republican Party (IR), and 5.0% as members of the Republican Party, for a total of 16%. The IR separated itself from the national Republican Party during the 1970s to gain distance from controversies involving Richard Nixon. Twenty-one per cent of the respondents perceived themselves as having no political affiliation, with another 11% perceiving themselves of mixed affiliation, whether "DFL-No Affiliation", "IR-No Affiliation", or a mixture of others such as the Grassroots Party, the Libertarian Party and the Independence Party. Thus 32% of the respondents, almost 1/3, are not sure about where they stand within a society long dominated by two political parties. The final 8% cited affiliation with one of the minor parties, including the Libertarian Party, the Independence Party and the Grassroots Party. Did respondent vote?: For all practical purposes, 100% of the respondents living in Minnesota were voters. Ninety-four per cent voted in the fall, 1994 elections. Six per cent did not. However, all of those who did not offered an excuse such as "recently moved", "out of town", "not old enough" and "not a US citizen". Did forum affect vote?: Of Minnesota voters 33% overall said "yes" and 66% overall said "no". It should be noted that "to affect" meant to change a vote for some. For others it meant simply "to affect" in some way or another. Additionally, approximately 50% said "no" with a qualification of some sort, such as "No - I vote the party line", or "No. It didnt change my vote, but...this was the most informed I have ever been for an election", or "I think that it could well have, but the problem is that in a two-party system where you really dont like one of the major candidates, a vote for a small-party candidate is essentially a wasted vote." TABLE 3.2.1d QUESTIONS: 1.Media/Pol: 2. Potential: Summaries: 1. Media/Politics: Of 175 respondents to the question, "What do you think of the modern political campaign as focused through traditional media outlets?", 36% chose "Highly unsatisfied"; 47% chose "Unsatisfied"; 5% chose "Indifferent"; 10% chose "Satisfied"; and 1% chose "Highly satisfied". A total of 83% of the respondents were, thus, either unsatisfied or highly unsatisfied with the modern political campaign as it is focused through traditional media outlets. 2. Potential: 180 responded to the question, "How would you characterise the potential impact of this type of forum on the American democratic process in the future, when the technology is more prevalent?" Thirty per cent said that such forums have major to revolutionary potential. Fifty-one per cent said that such forums have positive potential. A total of 81%, therefore, said such forums have positive to revolutionary potential. Eighteen per cent were neutral about the potential of such forums. Two per cent thought there was potential for a negative impact. -36% 0% 47% 2% o 5% 18% + 10% 51% ++ 1% 30%

Analysis of statistics The most basic information indicates that the sample is quite homogeneous. Participants are predominantly European-American, well-educated males in the twin cities and outlying areas. Some reasons for the homogeneity, it seems, are a result of characteristics peculiar to Minnesota. For example, the 95% European-American figure mirrors the state-wide figure of 94.4%. Other reasons for the homogeneity seem to result from biases in the sample of those that use the technology. There are more females than males in Minnesota, for example, yet 74% of the sample is male (Population Notes 1992). This figure mirrors similar figures for the general population of Internet users in 1994 (Technology in the American Household 1995). On the one hand, when considering the effects of the new technology, this homogeneity means the variance in the characteristics of the sample population is diminished. When attempting to focus with some precision on effects this is quite useful. On the other hand, while homogeneity is useful in the short term, there will be a number of new obstacles when it is time to account for effects in an increasingly heterogeneous sample population. Within these parameters, however, the sample population possesses a diverse range of expertise. As a group these people are equally well-trained in the social sciences and natural sciences. This is likely a result of the two primary components of the Project. It is political. It involves advanced technology. Although there is a diverse range of expertise, the common thread is that individuals in the sample almost all belong to the category of "symbolic analyst", people who make their living through the manipulation of abstract symbols. Politically, the sample population is active. Ninety-four per cent of the sample population cast a vote in 1994. This figure is far higher than the 52% of the general population and 61.2% of registered voters in Minnesota who cast a vote. The figures in Minnesota again are higher than the 36.6% of the general population and 53.1% of registered voters in the US who cast a vote (Scammon and McGillivray 1995). The sample population appears to be an active part of a region with a seemingly robust political culture. Adding to the picture of a vigorously active group is that the average age of the sample is 35.5, the age at which the individual is the most active politically (Neuman 1986). As a politically active slice of the category "symbolic analyst", this group corresponds to the category of "opinion leader", which is critical to opinion formation in the political process (Neuman 1991). The sample population tends towards liberal and/or independent political views. Forty-four per cent identified themselves with the DFL, 32% as independent, and 16% as Republican. Although more liberal, these statistics are close to a 1995 Times Mirror study which portrays the general Internet population as possessing strong independent political views and liberal social views relative to the general population. The study concludes that individuals with "direct access to the internet" have the most independent political views and liberal social views (Technology in the American Household 1995). The large number of independent voters appears to mirror turmoil in the American electorate symbolised in 1992 by, among others, Ross Perot. According to the Times Mirror study, while the number of "direct internet users" who are independent voters is higher than "all respondents"

and "online users", the number of supporters of Ross Perot is the lowest. This population, one might conclude, prizes independence but not Mr Perot. Significantly, the number of independent voters (32%) is approximately the same as the size of the sample who said the Project affected their vote (33%). This is a solid indication that the technology as formatted has the potential to influence the pivotal slice of the American electorate both among the category of "opinion leaders" and dissatisfied with the two dominant political parties. The statistics about the sample population portray, in outline, a potential agency for change in the political process. The responses to two of the qualitative questions offered in the survey outline possible motivation for action and a glimpse of direction. Over 80% of the sample have a negative view of the institutional structures responsible for facilitating the democratic process. This level of dissatisfaction has for some time been well known as an important force in contemporary politics (Fallows 1996). When coupled with the processes enabled by new technology, this force surely takes on greater urgency. That over 80% of the sample believes projects like MN E-Democracy have the potential to have a major to revolutionary effect on democracy reflects this urgency and, perhaps, the potential to use the new technology in a beneficial way. 3.2.2 Usage statistics It is possible to understand better what participation entails after an investigation of tables summarising data concerning usage. Table 3.2.2a offers a weekly account of statistics for MNPOLITICS and MN-DEBATE from August through the E-Debates. TABLE 3.2.2a
---------- MN-POLITICS ---------DATE PRE-ARCHIVE Joined Left Total Authors MN-DEBATE Messages Joined Left Total

Aug.2-31
MN-POLITICS

133

128

na

na

--

--

--

Sept.1-7 Sept.8-14 Sept.15-21 Sept.22-28 Sept.29-Oct.4 Oct.5-11 Oct.12-18

86 65 28 30 22 15 20

14 21 7 22 4 14 4

200 244 265 273 291 292 308

23 37 26 20 24 16 20

57 125 64 49 42 35 59

--------

--------

--------

BUILDUP

Oct.19-22
E-DEBATE 1

106

24

390

26

83

42

42

Oct.23-29
E-DEBATE 2

132

79

443

51

185

78

18

102

Oct.30-Nov.5

178

110

508

80

244

46

13

135

Table 3.2.2b offers a day-by-day account of the statistics for MN-POLITICS and MN-DEBATE during the E-Debates: TABLE 3.2.2b ---------- MN-POLITICS ---------DATE E-DEBATE 1 Joined Left Total Authors

MN-DEBATE
Messages Joined Left Total

October 23 October 24 October 25 October 26 October 27 October 28 October 29

E-DEBATE 2

11 24 45 23 11 14 4

5 12 9 16 9 16 12

396 408 444 451 453 451 443

7 15 9 28 19 23 9

9 28 11 49 34 40 14

3 18 23 19 6 6 3

0 5 7 3 1 0 2

45 58 74 90 95 101 102

October 30 October 31 November 1 November 2 November 3 November 4 November 5

4 114 31 7 9 13 2

5 26 18 20 24 17 5

442 530 543 530 515 511 508

9 19 32 32 37 27 13

12 27 45 48 44 45 23

2 17 12 9 4 2 0

0 4 0 1 5 3 0

104 117 129 137 136 135 135

The qualitative difference between the data found in the same fields from the first to the second table suggests that MNPOLITICS was qualitatively different during the two periods. The inclusion of the subscribers to MN-DEBATE from 19 October onward does much to explain the difference. While these subscribers could not submit

messages to MN-POLITICS, they were among the total population observing the E-Debates, during which time the candidates submitted responses and rebuttals to questions in MNDEBATE. As has been mentioned, these were all forwarded to MN-POLITICS. This does much to explain the dramatic increase in participation in MN-POLITICS, due both to the added submissions of the candidates and the added interest that resulted from candidate participation. Summary of statistics Over the duration of the Project a consistent growth rate is clear. The patterns of growth are, however, different for some categories than others and at certain points there is a reduction in participation. As mentioned there are also clear differences between the period before the EDebates and during the E-Debates. One week of activity before the E-Debates produced approximately the same levels of participation as one day during the E-Debates. The change in participation was, of course, the major cause of growth in certain categories such as authors submitting messages and the number of messages submitted. While this increase in participation indicates the health of the forum, there are negative changes in certain categories as well, indicating the negative impact of increasing participation. It is also important to note that variations in the statistics may often reflect events outside of the actions recorded by the archive or of the particular content of events inside the archive. Thus, these statistics are highly dependent on the context of the historical period and the context of the participation of specific individuals. When appropriate I will discuss some of the correlations between the statistics and other factors. Joined/left/total: The increase in the number of subscribers to MN-POLITICS is relatively consistent over the life of the Project. The amount of growth at a given period is less consistent. There are bursts in the total number of participants in early August, early September, during the buildup to the E-Debates, and during the E-Debates. Between early September and the buildup the amount of the increase is much less. Exactly what is happening becomes clear when this data is broken down further into the rates of subscription (JOINED) and unsubscription (LEFT). When this is done the bursts in the rates of subscription are shown to be inconsistent in time while the rates of unsubscription remain consistent. The first is due to important events outside the archive and the second appears to correlate closely to overall totals. There was a strong correlation between media coverage of the Project and the number of subscribers. The media coverage was a result of the continuing development of the Project. This coverage increased near important dates in the campaign. For example, during the two weeks after a 1 September Star Tribune article 151 people subscribed. This was in time for the primary on 13 September. Between the primaries and the official E-Debate announcements on 19 October there was a steady climb in the number of subscribers - an average of 23 per week. Then there was another sharp burst in participation. One hundred and six subscribed in the buildup period, 132 during the Governors E-Debate, and 178 during the Senate E-Debate. During this latter period the E-Debates were covered heavily by radio, television and newspapers. This most likely contributed to the dramatic increase. The day-to-day statistics during the E-Debates, however, show the clearest correlations. An editorial in the 23 October St. Paul Pioneer Press coincided with 92 new subscribers between 24 and 26 October. A report on the completed Governors E-Debate in the 31 October Star Tribune coincided with 145 new subscribers between

31 October and 1 November. This suggests a particularly strong connection between the newspaper audience and those interested in new media projects. This data is significant because it demonstrates the importance of traditional media sources for the life of the Project. Survey research done after the elections supports these trends. Twenty-three per cent of the respondents said they had heard about the Project through the Star Tribune and another 13% through "a newspaper". Interestingly, another 23% of the sample population said they heard about the Project from a colleague, friend, close relative or word of mouth. It is entirely likely that a large percentage of this 23% heard of the Project from someone who had read about the Project in the newspaper. Such a method of information dissemination tends to support a traditional model of public opinion formation in which the press distributes information to highly interested "opinion leaders" likely to impact upon those around them (Noelle-Neumann 1984). In this way, the Project can be seen as entering the pattern of public opinion formation as traditionally conceived. Of course, over a third of the sample population said they heard of the Project through the Internet in some way, suggesting that a wholly new system of information distribution is being developed simultaneously. While the subscription rates proceeded in bursts, the unsubscription rates were relatively consistent. While outside reasons most often caused participants to subscribe there were rarely significant outside reasons causing participants to unsubscribe. Rather, participants most frequently unsubscribed as a result of their experiences with the Project. Until the buildup to the E-Debates, unsubscription rates fluctuated from 4 to 22 per week. These rates do not demonstrate much of substance, although perhaps there is a correlation between events in the forum and fluctuation from week to week. More telling is the consistent increase in rates of unsubscription through the E-Debates. In total 79 during the first and 110 during the second E-Debate unsubscribed. Unlike rates of subscription these numbers are relatively consistent across time, averaging 12 unsubscriptions per day during the Governors E-Debate and 21 per day during the Senate E-Debate. This consistency suggests that variables internal to the Project were the cause in the fluctuation of unsubscription rates. Like other variables under consideration, such as number of authors and number of messages submitted, one day during the E-Debates was equivalent to one week before the E-Debates. Thus, as an increasing number of subscribers joined the forum and as more subscribers participated, more subscribers quit. The fact that each of the variables - number of subscribers, authors, messages, unsubscribers - increased from the first E-Debate to the second E-Debate, supports this trend. The correlation between variables reflecting growth and deterioration indicates the construction of a dynamic communications system. The variables of this system must necessarily be gauged in relation to each other to determine the overall well-being of the system at any moment. As the current discourse focuses on a specific period it is not here possible to incorporate experimental designs that will provide some indication of how to maintain a balance of growth and deterioration to perpetuate a well-functioning communication system. It is, though, possible to indicate in more detail some of the variables responsible for deterioration. The primary explanation is rather simple. An e-mail in-box is, for many, a personal space on ones own computer system. On the one hand, this is a strength of e-mail based conferencing because it indicates a personal commitment to a given forum. The user must act on new

messages each time he or she enters his or her e-mail in-box to retrieve new items. Contrast this with a Web-based conferencing system that the user must actively seek out to become a participant. Because of the effort it is, for many, less likely that a Web-based conferencing system will be incorporated into the daily activities of the user. (This is subject to changes as email and the Web are integrated.) On the other hand, when an individual begins to receive upward of 40 e-mail messages per day in his or her e-mail in-box, many might consider this too much. In addition, marketers and advertisers are becoming increasingly adept at indiscriminately sending their messages to forums on the Internet. Of course, with e-mail it is easy to delete unwanted messages and it is possible, with a "digest" mode, to receive all at once messages for a given day from a given e-mail listserv. Furthermore, e-mail listserv software is designed increasingly to filter out unwanted messages. Nonetheless, for many the frantic pace of so much information is hard to ignore yet hard to process and is, therefore, a distraction and inconvenience. This is particularly true in normal circumstances. The Project under consideration did not, however, occur during normal circumstances. This was, rather, a so-called electronic town-hall during an electoral process that takes place every two years. Perhaps this special circumstance is one reason why many individuals did not unsubscribe despite the enormous amount of e-mail. During this special circumstance, reading the opinions of ones fellow citizens may have seemed fitting. Such a conclusion suggests that e-mail is well suited for democratic practices. In any event, it is clear that there are numerous variables to consider when calculating the well-being of a forum from subscription and unsubscription rates. Also clear is the degree to which the well-being of a given forum is dependent on the larger context in which that forum is set. Authors: Like the subscription rates there was a burst in the number of contributors during the primaries, the buildup to the E-Debates and during the E-Debates. For the week of the primaries there was a jump to 37 authors, during the two E-Debates there were jumps to 51 and 80. Between these periods the number of different individuals posting to MN-POLITICS each week hovered around the twenties. These patterns suggest more individuals are likely to contribute to public discussion near in time to key events in the democratic process. In addition, the continual upward movement in the number of contributors indicates the success of the Project in creating an institutional structure allowing an increasing number of people to voice an opinion during the election season. After focusing on the two E-Debates independently, it should be noted, differences become apparent. The first E-Debate is inconsistent in the number of authors per day, fluctuating from 15 to 9 to 28 to 19 to 23 while the second E-Debate is much more consistent, moving from 19 to 32 to 32 to 37 to 27 per day. The difference is attributable to a number of factors. I will discuss these in more detail in later sections. TABLE 3.2.2c: DATES % of AUTHORS/ Subscribers 12% 15% Messages / AUTHOR 2.5 3.4

Sept.1-7 Sept.8-14

Sept.15-21 Sept.22-28 Sept.29-Oct.4 Oct.5-11 Oct.12-18 Oct.19-22 Oct.23-29 Oct.30-Nov.5 Nov.6-Nov.8 Nov.9-Nov.15

10% 7% 8% 5% 6% 7% 12% 16% 5% 13%

2.5 2.4 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.0 1.8 2.9

Per cent of authors/subscribers: Importantly, only a relatively small percentage of subscribers ever chose to submit messages. During the week of the primaries only 15% of all subscribers submitted. During the five weeks before the E-Debates the average was 7%. During the highly active Senate E-Debate it was 16%. At all times a minority of participants interacted in the public forums. The majority only read. The phenomenon of authors, or individuals who submit messages, and "lurkers", or individuals who read only, is of widespread interest in studies of computer-mediated communications. Theories abound as to why some contribute and others remain silent. The difficulty with unifying theories that explain authors and lurkers is that there are most probably a wide variety of reasons why the few submit messages and the many lurk. While the underlying reasons for the phenomenon are potentially fascinating, the topic will not be pursued here. I will suggest that many of the lurkers in MN E-Democracy derived benefit from reading the forums even as they chose not to participate actively. For one thing, all participants who remained subscribed maintained a commitment to deal with the many messages they found in their e-mail in-boxes each day. One can assume that those individuals willing to do this found benefit in the activity although they may have declined to participate actively. This conclusion is based in part on the fact that 88% of the respondents to the surveys after the EDebates stated that they read the contents of MN-POLITICS either "all of the time", "a great deal of the time" or "a medium amount of time". In addition to active authors it is reasonable to conclude that there was a sizeable population of lurkers active in the Project. Indeed, the subject of authors and lurkers raises the topic of what it means to be active in public forums. Even if one does not contribute to discussions, one may be extremely active in reading and learning from others. In any event, creating an environment in which relatively more lurkers chose to participate, moving from 7% of authors/subscribers in the weeks before the election to 16% during the Senate E-Debate, might be an important index of the success of the Project. This is particularly true if a goal of the Project is to create an institution in which increasing numbers feel comfortable enough to share an opinion on the issues of the day.

Messages: The number of messages submitted to MN-POLITICS follows a similar pattern to the number of subscribers and number of authors. There is a burst of activity around the time of the primaries; the number of messages tapers off to 35 per week in the second week of October; then there is a building up in the number of messages in the weeks leading to the E-Debates with increasing bursts of activity through the Governors E-Debate and the Senate E-Debate. Likewise, there are similar patterns during the first and second E-Debates. During the first E-Debate the number of messages fluctuates, moving from 28 to 11 to 49 to 34 to 40. During the second EDebate there is both an increase in number of messages and greater consistency, moving from 27 to 45 to 48 to 44 to 45. Messages/author: An aspect of the Project becomes clear from the messages/author ratio. There is a burst in messages/author to 3.4 around the primaries, a cooling off to a low of 1.7 in the weeks before the E-Debates, a burst to 3.2 in the lead-up to the E-Debates, another burst to 3.6 during the first E-Debate, but a drop to 3.0 during the second E-Debate. The dramatic increase in participation from the first E-Debate to the second E-Debate, from 51 authors and 185 messages to 80 authors and 244 messages, is partly a function of the drop from 3.6 messages/author to 3.0 messages/author. That the Governors race was not as highly contested as the Senate, provides one explanation for the change. There is also a clear correlation between excessive productivity by some and inclusivity. In fact, from 19 October to 22 October one participant alone submitted 24 messages; during the first E-Debate the same participant submitted 27. Towards the end of the first E-Debate a two-message-per-day rule was implemented and accepted by participants. The two-message-per-day rule was largely the cause of the dramatic increase in participation from the first to the second E-Debate. 3.3 Description of the archive as artefact The MN E-Democracy Project 1994 archive can be accessed by anyone through the current MN E-Democracy menu at the Twin Cities Freenet on the World Wide Web (http://freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy). The menu includes hypertext links to, among other things, a Project Description, various forms of candidate information, the E-Debates and the Minnesota Politics and Public Policy E-Mail Forum and Archive. A mouse double-click on the E-Debates hypertext link leads to a description of the E-Debates and an archive of the candidates interactions. Double-clicking Minnesota Politics and Public Policy E-Mail Forum and Archive, leads to a description of MN-POLITICS and how to subscribe. Here there is another hypertext link to the MN-POLITICS archive. I will investigate primarily the MNPOLITICS archive rather than both this and the MN-DEBATE archive. While the MN-DEBATE archive contains the candidates contributions, MN-POLITICS contains both the candidate and citizen contributions. Thus, it will be possible to account for MN-DEBATE as a part of MNPOLITICS. Once one double-clicks the hypertext link to MN-POLITICS one finds this: MN-POLITICS List Archive: About this archive Messages from past months: December 1994, 240 messages November 1994, 536 messages October 1994, 548 messages September 1994, 298 messages...

The archive is broken down by months. In the current analysis we are concerned with both the months of September and October, as well as the first 5 days of November. During this period 1,157 separate messages were submitted and archived. A double-click on any month takes one further into the archive, moving one automatically to a list of all messages for that month. The messages in the default list are displayed in the order in which the messages were submitted to the forum, or by date. However, the entire texts of the messages are not on display. Rather, only the subject-headings and the names of authors are displayed. The subject-heading is a part of an e-mail message that allows an author to provide a brief message about the contents of the e-mail. Generally, in person to person e-mail, this provides the receiver an opportunity to know something about the contents of new messages. In the case of the hypermail archive, the subject-heading creates the symbol used to list each message in the archive. Furthermore, the subject-heading, unlike the authors name, is also a hypertext link. If one double-clicks the link one is taken to the content of the particular message. Before the list begins one finds some data, including the starting and ending dates of the particular section of the archive, the number of messages submitted, and links to several alternative methods of listing messages. Conceptually, the links to alternative methods of listing messages are important. Besides listing by date it is possible to list by author, subject and thread. Each of these choices is represented by a hypertext link. When one double-clicks one of the choices the archive will be re-sorted according to the preference of the user. I will now focus on the information conveyed by the methods of sorting messages. As mentioned, date simply lists the messages for each month in the order received. The computer software notes the relevant information - such as subject and author - upon receipt of each message and creates a list. Thus, it is possible to know who said what at what time. The archive is recording the self-described activity of a given agent in time. The accumulation of messages into a list is then a history of the self-described activities of individuals over time. The structure of the archive is composed of and bound by individuals acting in time. The point here is that time matters in this medium. The importance of time indicates the extent to which the on-going development of the activities within the archive is contextually bound (Fulk et al. 1993, Walther 1992). Requesting messages by author provides a list of messages submitted in a chosen month according to the name of the individual author. This list, arranged alphabetically, provides the name of each author and a sub-list of all the messages submitted by each author during the month. The sub-list includes the subject-heading of each message and the date and precise time of delivery. This sub-list is arranged in descending order according to date, with the most recent message at the top and the earliest at the bottom of the sub-list. As a result, although the author is the primary unit, the date continues to be a primary organising principle. The subject-heading, which is the hypertext link into the body of the message, continues to have an important function as well. That date and subject-heading continue to be primary to the structure of the archive despite the archive being listed by author is further indication of the importance of time and topic to the structure of the archive and medium. At the same time the author can clearly be abstracted from the context of participation and made into an independent unit of organisation. While it is

necessary to remember context, it is also clear that the author, or the individual agent, is a primary unit. An interesting tangential point about listing messages by author involves self-presentation. All email applications request a name that, in person to person e-mail, will appear in the in-box of the individual to whom a message is sent, along with the subject-heading. In a hypermail archive this name is used to mark the author of a given message. The default setting for this e-mail application uses the e-mail address as the name. Thus, many of the authors are represented in the archive by their e-mail address. This can provide information about an author, or cues. 9283@tccn.com is, for example, an individual or a number of individuals who get internet access at tccn, an Internet Service Provider in Minneapolis. DEBRA.ANDERSEN@STATE.MN.US is, it is a reasonable assumption, a state of Minnesota account used by Debra Andersen. Andersen is probably a female affiliated somehow with state government. Boland@vento.house.gov is, perhaps, used by someone associated with the name Boland. This person is clearly affiliated with the United States House of Representatives. Furthermore, if one is aware that Bruce Vento is a Congressman from Minnesota, it becomes clear that the individual is affiliated with Vento in some way. Most individuals provide a straightforward name, such as "Don Homuth" or "John Logajan". On the one hand, proper names tell less than an e-mail address which provides interesting cues. On the other hand, a great deal of meaning has most frequently been associated with a given name and therefore represents an honest act of self-presentation. Of course individuals do not have to use their given names and can, in fact, refer to themselves in any way they desire when setting the parameters of the e-mail program. For example, one author used the name "Concerned Citizen" to designate his or her messages, while another used the name "Sanity is for wimps anyway". Clearly there is a great deal of latitude afforded to the individual agent in choosing how to represent him or herself. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the medium is inherently anonymous. In the current case, for example, most individuals gave their proper name. It is not inevitable that conventions concerning self-presentation will not emerge in certain contexts. Subject provides a list arranged according to subject-headings. The subject-headings are listed in alphabetical order and there is a sub-list of individual authors who submitted a message with that particular subject-heading. In this list the individual author rather than the subject-heading is a hypertext link to a given message. Along with the individual author the sub-list provides the date and time of the message. As the subject-heading is a joint product of one or more individual authors there is clearly a primary unit of analysis other than the individual author. The existence of this unit is a function of the fact that an individual can press "r" for respond upon receipt of an e-mail message. This causes the appearance of a form with the same sub-heading as the message that the individual is responding to. It is simple, then, to write a response to the original message in the form and send it back to an individual or the listserv, depending on if one is involved in person to person e-mail or a listserv discussion. As a result a number of messages in a series will often have the same subject-heading. Of course, authors often make slight or major changes to a subject-heading when responding. These messages on related subjects will appear separately when listed by subject. In any event, when listed this way the e-mail forum plus hypermail archive contributes to the construction of objects of analysis beyond individual messages from individual authors. However, because the list by subject, like the list by author, is arranged alphabetically it remains abstracted from the flow of time and therefore context. Again, this

creates a disjunction which makes it difficult to understand fully the process of participation that results in the archive. Listing messages by thread provides arguably the central organisational principle of the archive. It is central because it most closely communicates the experience of participation. This concept of thread, which means the listing of the subjects of messages submitted by individual authors through time, will here be the central unit of analysis. The intended result of a thread is a list of messages that, like date, includes the subject-head and author. Unlike date this list also incorporates subject units as they are formed in time by multiple authors. The responses to an original message that starts a thread are contained in a sub-list beneath the original. These responses are taken out of the exact sequence of time in which they are submitted relative to other messages that are submitted at a similar time but with a different subject. They are, however, listed according to the time of submission relative to other messages with the same subject. The result is the creation of threads of messages, each linked to one another through time. Other messages outside a subject are listed in parallel. Thus, two separate threads can be constructed simultaneously. This most closely approximates the experience of participation in a listserv public discussion forum. It approximates the process of a number of individual authors constructing a conversation on a given subject over time. There are, however, a number of "flaws" in the threading of a hypermail archive. First, single messages are often submitted by an individual as a point of information apart from any deliberation. Such messages are not intended to be a thread, yet the hypermail archive considers each message a thread. Second, if a slight change is made to a subject-heading when an individual author composes a reply, the message will be considered apart from a thread. Third, if a certain amount of time elapses before an individual author replies to a given subject, the message will most likely be considered a separate thread. Fourth, if individual authors purposefully change the subject-heading to make some sort of statement about the thread even though the author is remaining in the same topic, this will be a new thread. As a result of these flaws there are far more independent threads than subjects that are the topic of messages. In September, for example, there are 298 messages in 186 threads. The last so-called flaw, in which authors purposefully alter the subject-heading, is important because it leads to an expanded notion of threads in which the subject-heading becomes a contested terrain where individual authors interact within the boundaries of a topic. In this situation, however, the boundaries are malleable, changing as individual authors make decisions affecting the course of the thread. This expanded notion of a thread will in the following be what is meant by threads. I will use a broad set of criteria in deciding what to include in this notion of a thread. Basically, if individual authors are engaging in the exchange of messages, and these messages develop from one subject to another in time, yet remain within a broad topic area such as crime, or a specific electoral contest, or negative campaigning, or gender, the messages within the broad subject will be parts of a thread. Given this interpretation of a thread, there might be many strands, or subjects-headings, that go into different topics yet remain within the same general subject. According to this notion, then, there are 298 messages in approximately 48 threads during the month of September. It should be noted that this approximation is very unstable given the inadequacy of the hypermail archive application in sorting threads. Perhaps the application provides the user too much leeway in moving outside the boundaries of subjects

and in submitting single messages. On the other hand, this leeway creates an open environment and allows a great deal of flexibility in choosing the subject-headings to be discussed, and therefore provides a wide terrain to be contested. These issues will not be addressed here, although they ought to be considered as designers continue to develop conferencing technology. 4.0 Theoretical background There has been a considerable amount of literature attempting to understand the effects of the new technology (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991, Walther 1994). This research is recent and carried out in many loosely affiliated and even unrelated areas such as management studies, communications research, social-psychology, cognitive science, linguistics and discourse theory. As is often the case, the existing literature itself creates a contested terrain. Some of the contemporary work fits remarkably well with a Deweyan perspective. Other work is in the tradition of and unsurprisingly supports the methodology and conclusions of generations of communications research scholarship. It will be helpful for the current analysis to investigate a selection of these trends. As we shall see such an investigation supports the notion that a Deweyan perspective is entirely conceivable. Furthermore, a look at contemporary work will provide theoretical tools with which to better understand the social and political effects of the technology in the case of MN E-Democracy. Finally, an initial inspection of the data from the MN-POLITICS archive will add further evidence that the Deweyan perspective is the most apt and provides a framework that allows us to begin to understand potential political effects of new media. 4.1 Characteristic properties of CMC Most theories are based on a general investigation of characteristic properties of the technology that facilitate and constrain communication. This approach is itself contested. Some argue that it is pointless to generalise about characteristic properties because of the importance of context (Fulk et al. 1992, Lea 1991, Walther 1994). Nonetheless, to enter the theoretical domain it is best to consider some of the characteristics generally considered important. Thus, for purposes of clarity I will begin with a list of six characteristics of the technology that both facilitate and constrain communication. 1. The unit: A computer terminal is a small, free-standing appliance. Often it is shaped like a box, possesses a screen through which a user can view text and images, and possesses units enabling a user to input text and images. This interaction calls for near proximity and relatively intense levels of concentration. 2. Time: The technologies at the foundation of computer networking (packet-switching and timesharing) potentially enable the user to reorganise his or her activities in time in substantive ways. For one thing, communication becomes basically instantaneous. For another, while authors are communicating in time, sequentially, they are not necessarily engaged in straightforward exchange. Rather, e-mail messages are submitted and sent from the e-mail in-box of the author. The author has control over the manner in which he or she will process new messages and submit replies. The author can reply to a message immediately or see how events develop both in the exchanges and in the larger context. That one is able to control the sequence of interaction in

e-mail correspondence to a relatively greater degree than in other mediums of communication such as the telephone or face to face interaction has been referred to as the asynchronous quality of the medium. 3. Geography: The technologies at the foundation of the medium also potentially enable the user to reorganise his or her relationship to geographic space. This reorganisation is interrelated in large part to the reorganisation of communication in time. Besides being able to maintain greater control of one's activities within time, the medium affords the ability to communicate across geographic spaces without a regard for time. Thus, the user can communicate with an individual in the same building as quickly as with an individual on another continent. Furthermore, e-mail is delivered to an e-mail in-box that is accessible by any computer with the necessary applications. Thus, an individual author can access the exchanges from any geographic location if they have access to an adequately fitted computer terminal. 4. Text-based: The author of an e-mail message is attempting to communicate by submitting to others his or her effort to manipulate abstract symbols. In other words, this has been a text-based medium, although this is changing with the integration of audio and video into e-mail applications. 5. Quote and comment: When replying to a message the e-mail application invariably offers the user a choice of including the original message or not. Once the original message is included it is easy to respond to the entire message, individual paragraphs or individual words, intercutting new text with the text of the original message. This characteristic has been called "quote and comment" and has substantial importance (Harnad 1996). 6. Branching: An e-mail message can easily be sent to one other person or replicated any number of times and sent to multiple users. The listserv technology facilitates the automatic duplication of messages to any number of individuals taking the appropriate action to receive the messages (Harnad 1996). Each of these six characteristics is worthy of detailed analysis. Furthermore, there are certainly more significant characteristics. Tracing the significance of each and searching for more would, however, take us far afield. Each characteristic must necessarily be untangled independently in diverse areas of discourse. Yet sums of the various characteristics, one in conjunction with the other/s, produce various facilities and constraints as well, but at a higher level of complexity. The efforts to understand the effects of these have yielded important theoretical discussions and tools. 4.2 A Deweyan interpretation by a modern practitioner Stevan Harnad, painting with a very broad brush, has termed the e-mail listserv and hypermail archive combination "skywriting" (Harnad 1992, 1996). According to Harnad skywriting is a conceptual product - a cognitive technology - representative of a use of technology capable of causing a fourth revolution in knowledge. The revolution will be just as significant as the three preceding revolutions caused by the development of language, writing and print (Harnad 1992, Skoyles 1996). The significance will result from the fact that this new technology improves on

the strengths of the printed word by adding the strengths of an oral culture without losing the strengths of the printed word. The possibility of a revolution in knowledge along Deweyan lines can be constructed directly from a consideration of the constraints and facilities listed above. First, the speed of communication makes the technology as interactive as communication in an oral culture. Yet, the technology is asynchronous so the user has as much time as is needed to reflect on exchanges before replying. Furthermore, the technology makes instantaneous communication across the world as feasible as face to face interaction. Thus, the benefits of instantaneous interaction possessed by a small oral community are scaled up to encompass individuals across the globe. Third, this application of technology is text-based yet fully interactive. It thus retains the advantages of the written word and adds the advantages of oral communication. Fourth, the quote and comment feature allows a level of precision that is remarkable. The problem of remembering lengthy speeches and the difficulty of replying point for point typical of oral communication disappear. The e-mail program reproduces the text of the message and the author either immediately or after reflection is able to reply with the degree of precision he or she chooses. Finally, through branching it is possible to include any number of people in a given exchange. Again, the combination of precision enabled by, for example, textual communication, asynchronous communication and quote and comment, along with the ability to scale communication to include groups of people, is significant (Harnad 1996). In these ways the email listserv and hypermail archive combine the precision provided by print needed to maintain complex intellectual communication with the immediate interaction characteristic of an oral culture. Although Harnad is most interested in how the technology will change relations among people in research, education and commerce, it is also evident that major changes will affect political structures. This is where his analysis fits well with a Deweyan interpretation. It is not an accident that technologies of communication and political philosophies achieve prominence simultaneously. For example, the invention of the printing press and the ensuing ability to communicate more precisely through the solitary production and circulation of lengthy monologic treatises coincided with philosophical traditions in which a man isolated from society is a man at liberty. These technologies and philosophies have had profound influence on the development of economic, political and legal institutions. As we have seen they had an impact on Walter Lippmann and the mass media in the twentieth century. Dewey was critical of these philosophies and the institutions continuously raised on the basis of them. For Dewey the dualist opposition between the individual and society was inaccurate. The complexity of the relationship among men and women in society was ignored. Yet institutions were developed based on these inaccurate understandings. Dewey argued that a new machinery of knowledge - possibly through new technology - more sensitive to the realities of human interaction was needed. If such a machinery of knowledge could more accurately account for the complexity of the relationships between individuals and societal groupings and institutions, perhaps a more democratic civilisation could be realised. Harnad supposes the e-mail listserv/hypermail archive combination is, potentially, an application of technology with which to construct such a machinery of knowledge.

The question here arises whether the Deweyan account of human interaction has always been closer to reality but has been distorted by technologies of communication or whether the reality of human interaction is purely a function of technologies and institutions of communication. According to a Lippmannesque argument, on the one hand, those who control the machinery of communication construct the dominant interpretation of reality and the ongoing development of that reality. Thus, if a new technology is compatible with a Deweyan view, this is purely contingent and subject to change as forces in the world struggle to control and interpret the development of the technology. My view, on the other hand, is that the Deweyan account of human interaction has always been more accurate. However, over the course of centuries, relatively crude technologies have been created. Institutions have been raised that perpetuate the relatively inaccurate account of human interaction enabled by those technologies. The result has been that central aspects of human interaction were rendered invisible by dominant methods of communication. The new technology, on the other hand, possesses the sophistication to make neglected aspects clearly visible. This view is supported by Harnads claim that communication via new technology, possessing the strengths of both oral and print cultures, reflects the natural processes of human cognition more closely than methods of communication in either a print or oral culture alone (Harnad 1996). Of course, to understand the emerging culture solely in terms of either print or oral cultures might restrict our ability to understand what is remarkably new about emerging cultural characteristics. Nonetheless, the current changes potentially lend support to a Deweyan account of a world movement towards greater democratisation, especially if overcoming a false duality between individual and society is a prerequisite (Skoyles 1996). 4.3 Contested terrain 4.3.1 In theory: Carnegie Mellon vs. Lea and Spears Thus far there is little empirical literature on the political effects of the new technology. To gain a framework for understanding an application in the political community it will, therefore, be helpful to inspect influential research on the social effects of CMC. This early literature, it must be noted, does not always distinguish precisely between different applications of new interactive technology, such as e-mail listservs and usenet news, for example. Two of the most influential bodies of research fit remarkably well into the framework characterised by the split between a traditional Lippmannesque/Communications Research perspective and a Deweyan perspective. Insofar as these bodies of research into social effects fit into this contested terrain, they are politically relevant. The Carnegie Mellon group, steeped in generations of communications research scholarship, set out routinely to interpret an up and coming medium from the perspective of an "orthodox" framework. Lea, Spears and others have sought with great success to dismantle the work of the Carnegie Mellon group and replace it with what they consider a more accurate interpretation of the social-psychological processes involved in the use of the new medium (Eldred and Hawisher 1994). The ease with which Lea and Spears dismantle the earlier research is a relevant index. It is an index of the extent to which the technology and conditions are congenial to a Deweyan interpretation just as the technology and conditions were congenial to a Lippmannesque interpretation in the 1920s. After all, Lippmann and Dewey believed those in control of communications technology are most able to report events, write history and protect the assumptions necessary to the ongoing acceptance of that

history. The widespread understanding of a suitable interpretation of the effects of a new technology is, thus, necessary to the project of reporting, writing and protecting a history. What is more important, however, is the inability of the Carnegie Mellon group, working from an orthodox perspective, adequately to account for the social effects of CMC. This inability is a clear indication that aspects of human interaction irrelevant to orthodox communications technology and neglected by orthodox methodologies are made visible by the use of new technology. The failure of the Carnegie Mellon group to account for the new technology and the apparent success of Lea and Spears demonstrates that what has been neglected is now apparent and must be considered. 4.3.1.1 The Carnegie Mellon group The group at Carnegie Mellon - Sproull, Kiesler, Dubrovsky, Mcguire - formed a general theory to explain the social effects of CMC during the 1980s. This theory, called reduced social cues theory, is built on characteristics of the technology that continue to apply (Sproull and Kiesler 1986, 1991, 1994). Significant to the reduced social cues theory is that the author is acting from in front of his or her computer, most likely separated from other authors. Furthermore, because CMC is a text-based medium, communication is attempted without the assistance of sensory data, whether visual, auditory or olfactory. According to the reduced social cues theory isolation and a reduction in social cues lead to a number of inter-related effects on the author. The effects include deindividuation, depersonalisation and equalisation effects. Lea and Spears et al. describe classical de-individuation theory as the "loss of identity and weakening of norms and constraints associated with submergence in a group or crowd" (Spears et al. 1990). Sproull, Kiesler et al. argue that isolation and reduced social cues characteristic of CMC result in a feeling of anonymity, reduced self-awareness and reduced self-regulation. These are conditions conducive to deindividuation. The result is a loss of self akin to an individual submerged in a mob during a riot or other uprising. The important points here are the supposed absence of constraint on one's actions, a reduction in social norms and an increase in anti-normative behaviour. Furthermore, the user supposedly becomes depersonalised, shifting his or her attention away from the audience and becoming absorbed in the message and the machine. Again this leads to anti-normative behaviour among other effects. Finally, for a number of reasons including the absence of cues indicating status and power there is an increase in the equality of participation. Consequent on this equality are the undermining of leadership and difficulties in co-ordination of activities. Again these effects result in anti-normative behaviour as well as extreme decision-making (Dubrovsky et. al. 1991, Sproull and Kiesler 1986, 1991, 1994). It is important to note, the reduced social cues theory supposedly results in an array of effects with a variety of consequences, including an increase in anti-normative behaviour. While antinormative behaviour is but one of the consequences of CMC, it is consistently described as one of the consequences. For the purpose of the current discussion, anti-normative behaviour is the primary consequence. The popular term for anti-normative behaviour in CMC is "flaming". The Carnegie Mellon group has used a general definition of flaming which includes excessively personal communication, critical communication, emotionally charged communication and aggressive or insulting communication. The general conclusion reached by the Carnegie Mellon researchers on the basis of their reduced social cues theory is that the medium is most useful as a task-oriented instrument for information dissemination. It is less useful as a medium for personal

and social communication. One of the primary reasons for this conclusion is the negative effect of a hypothesised increase in anti-normative behaviour (Dubrovsky et. al. 1991, Sproull and Kiesler 1986, 1991, 1994). The research of the Carnegie Mellon group has been soundly picked apart on a wide variety of accounts. The theoretical assumptions, the empirical methods, the variety of supposed consequences and the supposed effects have all been questioned. Most important here are questions surrounding whether there is, in fact, an increase in anti-normative behaviour. Related to these are questions about what anti-normative behaviour means. For example, the suggestion by the Carnegie Mellon group that anti-normative behaviour exists as a general social effect is based on research in particular, highly selective contexts. Specifically, the Carnegie Mellon group focuses on organisational psychology, concentrating particularly on the business firm. Certainly, a discourse on CMC in the business organisation is of limited value in the increasingly diverse areas where applications of new technology are found, such as in political community. Yet, the CMU research is conducted presupposing the norms of an orthodox business community as standard and even admittable as general (Lea 1991, Eldred and Hawisher 1995). This research has, indeed, been highly influential in many disciplines (Eldred and Hawisher 1995). Yet, it is doubtful whether the norms regarded as standard in a traditional business organisation will always be considered standard (MacIntyre 1988). Furthermore, even if behaviour can legitimately be considered anti-normative in a business organisation, the same behaviour cannot necessarily be considered anti-normative in all contexts. Specifically, the Carnegie Mellon group include as part of their general definition of "flaming" excessively personal communication as well as critical communication. Excessively personal and critical communication may be problematic to the needs of a given organisation at a given time but it is questionable whether such communication deserves to be classified as antinormative in general. The decision whether behaviour is anti-normative or not is, rather, dependent on a context. What is anti-normative for one person or group may be standard for another. One would, therefore, first have to address the particular details of a given communication environment. That the Carnegie Mellon group has difficulty arriving at an acceptable notion of anti-normative behaviour is indicative. So too is the greatly reduced incidence of flaming Lea and Spears found on a reinspection of the data-set used by the Carnegie Mellon group (Lea et al. 1992). The problem is that the Carnegie Mellon group possesses too individualistic and rationalistic a model of social-psychological processes (Lea 1991, Spears and Lea 1992, 1994). Simply put, the model of behaviour posits a strict separation between the isolated individual and the "social". This is apparent in their use of a highly contested definition of deindividuation. The Carnegie Mellon researchers most clearly demonstrate their flawed view of social-psychological processes, however, in their treatment of physicality and the need to closely attach the individual to the organisation. For the Carnegie Mellon researchers physical proximity and an abundance of visual and auditory data are necessary to maintain control over the individual in the organisation. Reducing physical proximity and the visual and auditory cues that constantly remind the individual of his or her relation to the organisation or the social will leave the individual adrift from the organisation or the social. As a result the individual's true self will emerge, without regard for the norms of the organisation or the social. This will contribute to an increase in anti-

normative behaviour, risky decision-making and other negative social effects. Besides being isolated the individual is anonymous in CMC and this leads to reduced self-awareness which further increases anti-normative behaviour. The importance of control and surveillance is thus rendered clearly (Foucault 1979). In the interest of effectively tying the individual to the social it is most useful to use the medium for task-oriented information dissemination rather than social and personal communication (Zuboff 1988). The model of interaction at the foundation of this construct is flawed. The variety of potential meanings of anti-normative behaviour is neglected. The connection made between normative behaviour and the efficiency of the organisation can easily be contested (MacIntyre 1988, Lea 1991, Eldred and Hawisher 1995). The statistics about anti-normative behaviour, finally, have been shown to be based on a loose definition and just wrong. The flawed model is the outcome of an effort to use an orthodox understanding of social-psychological processes to investigate the effects of new technology. For the Carnegie Mellon group this effort results in a negative view of the social effects of the medium - the medium leads to anti-normative behaviour. This is the conclusion of an orthodoxy that has long neglected important aspects of human interaction. That the Carnegie Mellon group has such a difficult time smoothly interpreting the effects of the new technology, however, is to me a demonstration of the sophisticated methods of communication enabled by the technology. As such it indicates the problems the technology provides for orthodox methodologies and the institutions raised on frameworks underlying such methodologies. 4.3.1.2 Lea and Spears SIDE model Lea and Spears conclude that CMC may be a valuable medium for social and personal communication, actually reinforcing normative behaviour depending on the context of a given application (Spears and Lea 1992, 1994). This is partially based on an allegiance to an emerging hypothesis that the effects of CMC are deeply related to the context in which a given application of the medium is set. Given this theory the effects of CMC will vary greatly depending on a given application. In one instance CMC might lead to anti-normative behaviour. In another it might lead to an increase in adherence to normative behaviour. This theory can be viewed in part as an outgrowth of the failure of the Carnegie Mellon researchers and their individualistic conception of social-psychological processes to adequately account for the diversity of social effects of CMC. The analysis of the failure forces Lea and Spears to construct a more sophisticated approach to social-psychological processes to explain the medium. Lea and Spears use social identity and self-categorisation theory to explain the general socialpsychological processes at work. In addition they use some aspects of an updated interpretation of deindividuation theory to explain the effects of characteristics particular to CMC on social identity theory. The result is what they call the SIDE (Social Identity and DEindividuation) model (Spears and Lea 1992, 1994). According to Lea and Spears self-categorisation theory is a development within the social identity tradition. In the field of social-psychology, self-categorisation theory helps explain the complexity of the self, society, and intergroup relations. The theory seeks to overcome the duality of individual and society portrayed in traditional social-psychological literature as Dewey

sought in philosophy and Giddens in sociology, to cite two examples (Dewey 1927, Giddens 1994). According to self-categorisation theory the individual has a wide range of self-categories by which he or she understands his or her individual identity as well as the variety of interpersonal relations and social groupings in which he or she is involved. The self-categories range from the personal to the interpersonal to the societal, broadly defined. A personal selfcategory distinguishes an individual from others. A group self-category causes an individual to attach him or herself to a group as a result of shared norms. According to this theory the individual carries the social within, or has internalised personal and/or group norms. It is, therefore, impossible to separate an individual from an accepted self-category or a particular instance of the social simply by isolation. Here is an important point at which the mistaken assumptions of the reduced social cues theory need to be clarified. Instead of the isolated individual being free of the social, the individual will draw on the range of self-categories - from personal to social - in his or her possession as a situation demands. Thus, one or more selfcategories will become salient depending on context. This conception of social-psychological processes creates a foundation that possesses the flexibility to account for the fact that social effects in CMC tend to vary with context. In adapting this foundation it is necessary to account for the characteristics of the medium the Carnegie Mellon group argued result in deindividuation - isolation and anonymity. Lea and Spears accept these as characteristics contributing to deindividuation but argue that deindividuation is in fact a phenomenon quite different from what earlier researchers believed. According to the modern interpretation, the isolation and anonymity that cause deindividuation actually act to accentuate the various self-categories of the individual user (Matheson and Zanna 1989, Spears and Lea 1992, 1994). The self-categories that are accentuated - whether personal or social - depend on what is made salient by the context of the application. Furthermore, the norms of the selfcategory made salient by a given context will also be made salient. Thus, if highly personal selfcategories are made salient in a context, highly personal norms will be made salient. The incidence of conflict and behaviour anti-normative to groups or social self-categories will likely increase. Conversely, if self-categories related to a particular group or society more broadly defined are made salient, the applicable group or societal norms will also be made salient. This last point is central. Lea and Spears argue that the Carnegie Mellon group mistake the social for the interpersonal. The social consists in the variety of self-categories that make up an identity, and is, therefore, related to internalised constructs. The interpersonal is a sum of physical cues exchanged during the process of interaction. If a reduced interpersonal cues theory replaces a reduced social cues theory then the interpersonal variables such as gender, race, age, etc. which may interfere with the norms of group or societal self-categories will be lessened to a considerable degree. This can only lead to the accentuation of the norms that bind the group as a group as these are made salient by context. In this way, given the appropriate context, CMC can enhance normative behaviour (Spears and Lea 1992, 1994). 4.3.2 In practice in politics A key issue highlighted here involves alternative understandings of normative behaviour as these result from the interaction between the individual and social structures. In the case of the Carnegie Mellon group a rigid conception of normative behaviour is a consequence of a rigid conception of the relations between the individual and society. This conception has for some

time been influential but does not adequately account for the general social effects of new technology. In the case of Lea and Spears a highly flexible conception of normative behaviour is a consequence of a fluid understanding of the relations between the individual and social structures. This understanding is sympathetic to a Deweyan account of human interaction. I believe it also provides a framework that allows us to successfully conceptualise the social effects of CMC. If this is true it provides support for the notion that a Deweyan conception of human interaction has all along been more accurate. The new technology makes this fact highly visible and in need of consideration. While the theoretical positions set out concern the social effects of new technology, the political consequences are here rigidly apparent. The Carnegie Mellon group interprets the range of behaviour found in CMC as outside their conception of normative behaviour, and, therefore, as anti-normative. This conception of normative emerges from an orthodox understanding of human interaction. If, as Lea and Spears suggest, a powerful new technology demands a more sophisticated understanding of normative and anti-normative behaviour based on a more sophisticated understanding of human interaction, this is an immediate threat to the orthodox understanding and the structures based on this understanding, including organisations focusing on traditional forms of communication. The result of this conflict must be either an unprecedented display of control or an extended questioning of precisely what constitutes normative and anti-normative behaviour. This questioning is happening at the level of theory because it is happening in practice, within societal structures, as enabled by new technology. The political implications become most vivid when considering applications of the new technology in the political arena. The MN E-Democracy Project was among the first such applications. The in-depth literature on political applications of CMC, however, remains slight. Broad surveys have begun to appear (Bonchek 1996, Browning 1996). In addition there have been studies of political uses of e-mail in community networks such as the Santa Monica PEN network and in city government (Bonchek 1996). As of yet there have been no in-depth studies of specifically political applications on the Internet during the electoral process in the United States. Fortunately, MN-POLITICS provides plenty of data to assist us in understanding some of the issues in this quickly growing field. 4.3.2.1: Tensions The processes of understanding the experience of participating in MN-POLITICS can best be explained by examining the process of participating in the earliest exchanges. In this section I will analyse the first thread. I will not focus on the object under consideration as a thread. Instead, I will demonstrate that early data from a political application affirms Lea and Spears interpretation of the social effects over that of the Carnegie Mellon group. I will turn to an indepth look at threads in a later section. On 2 September J.D. Bloomington posted a message that would initiate the first predominant thread in MN-POLITICS. The thread, originally titled Death Penalty, would last from 2 September to 11 September and would consist of 51 messages by 23 authors. It began:

WAZ@aol.com Fri, 02 Sep 94 12:39:15 EDT Subject: Death Penalty I have always believed in the adage, "an eye for an eye." Now more than ever, with all of the crime in the cities continually getting worse with each passing day. I am really curious if there was a poll taken from the metro area whether or not people would like to see the death penalty enacted here. From the people I have talked with more than 90 percent want it... I believe most of us are tired of the bleeding heart. If we don't take control back from the criminals then it's our own fault that the streets are the way they are... J.D. Bloomington The message from Bloomington elicited a number of immediate responses from individuals with rather different perspectives. The first response was from Carol Taubert. Carol Taubert (taube001@maroon.tc.umn.edu) Fri, 2 Sep 94 13:06:43 -0500 Subject: Death Penalty In message WAZ@aol.com writes: >...crime in the cities continually getting worse with >each passing day. Which crimes? Which cities? I have lived in a "bad" inner city neighbourhood (Vice Lords territory, you know) for the last twenty years and I have yet to dodge a bullet or experience any unpleasantness.... > I believe most of us are tired of the bleeding heart. I'm very proud to be a "bleeding heart." If we've reached the day when compassion and justice are declasse, god help us! > If we don't take control back from the criminals > then it's our own fault that the streets are the way > they are. Until the profound racism and classism at the core of America are rooted out (may that day come), the death penalty is completely unacceptable. I think that much of the fear of

crime/perception of increasing crime in Minnesota is actually code for an articulation of fear of blackness/perception of increasing blackness. It is so little linked to reality that it functions almost as a mass neurosis... There were a number of responses over the weekend and into the next week. However, there was as usual significantly less activity in MN-POLITICS during the weekend. It wasnt until the following Wednesday that the thread developed further, eliciting an increasing number of messages from authors. Significantly, the subject-heading that was used as the thread elicited more submissions was changed to Bouzas gun control proposal. This was, thus, another subjectheading in a thread about the topic of crime. Further, this subject-heading about gun control made clear an ideological view opposed to that of the original message, Death Penalty. In this way a contested terrain emerged around the topic of crime. Finally, this perspective was derived from the proposal of one of the DFL candidates for Governor. The message in question is as follows, Chip Treen (ctreen@mail.cee.umn.edu) Wed, 7 Sep 1994 08:38:59 +0600 Subject: Bouza's gun control proposal Bouza's proposal to ban handgun ownership, unless appropriate skill and need are demonstrated, has created quite a stir. I think it is a great idea - if anything not sufficiently restrictive. It is hard to come up with any legitimate reason for owning handguns. It will be a challenge to implement this, but the debate ought to focus on how to implement it, not whether to implement it. I would far rather spend public money on buying up the handguns than on building more prisons. It would probably be a lot more effective as well. Chip Treen 302 Wesbrook Hall, Office of Information Systems, University of Minnesota This message elicited a number of other messages from other authors. For example, one author began, "This topic was a sure-fire attention grabber!...My own views come as a hunter, husband and brother, and liberal..." Another began, "I have great concern for those who are victims of violence on account of handguns, however, I also have great respect for the 2nd amendment..." And another, "Okay, how's this: my grandparents escaped the Nazi's..." On the one hand, there is often a harsh tone in this selection of messages. The exchanges are characterised by confrontational rhetoric such as "an eye for an eye", "the bleeding heart", "fear of blackness", "mass neurosis". They are also characterised by the seemingly insurmountable combative stands taken - "the death penalty is completely unacceptable", "the debate ought to focus on how to implement it [handgun control], not whether to implement it". Messages with similar tones appear throughout the first thread in early September. This is the kind of data and

the kind of reception that might be interpreted as supporting a thesis that CMC causes group polarisation, risky decision-making and/or anti-normative behaviour. On the other hand it is, even at this early point, possible to discern self-categories communicated by authors made salient by the context of MN-POLITICS. The context is, of course, shaped by the intentions of those who designed the forum. It might be helpful at this point to recall part of the statement of purpose for MN-POLITICS: "The Minnesota Politics and Public Policy E-Mail Forum [MN-POLITICS] will promote the sharing of information on and discussion of Minnesota politics and public policy during the election season and beyond." This statement communicates a great deal about the context under examination: MN-POLITICS is for the discussion of topics pertaining to politics and public policy; is for the discussion of such matters in Minnesota; and is focused on such discussion during the election season. These parameters facilitate and constrain information exchange. WAZ@aol.com writes about "the cities" - Minneapolis and St Paul - as well as the need for the death penalty in the cities and state. In so doing he or she demonstrates his or her affiliation to Minnesota and his or her opinion on a legislative issue related to politics and/or public policy. Likewise, Carol Taubert demonstrates her affiliation to Minnesota as a resident of "a 'bad' inner city neighborhood", her political affiliation, and her opinion of WAZ@aol.com's opinion on the legislative issue related to politics and/or public policy. Chip Treen links the subject even more closely to the statement of purpose. He endorses the policy on handguns of one of the candidates for Governor, thus affiliating himself not only with the policy but also a Minnesota politician and the political party of the politician. It is significant that the majority of the ensuing exchanges were carried out under the subject-heading chosen by Treen Bouza's gun control proposal. The message from Treen was, after all, the closest in spirit to the statement of purpose. In all three cases, in any event, the context of the application already facilitates and constrains the emergence of salient self-categories, such as geographic location and political affiliation. One reason the context applies to the messages so early in the life of the Project is that authors had to be attracted to the project to participate from the beginning. Most likely, authors began with some attachment to Minnesota. Otherwise they would never have been motivated to join. Furthermore, authors most likely began with some interest in politics and, perhaps, some affiliation with one or more political groups. Otherwise, they would have been less likely to join. In this brief series of exchanges it is not clear whether the context will result in the increase in the incidence of anti-normative behaviour, risky decision-making and group polarisation or enhance the adherence to normative behaviour associated with salient self-categories. Certainly the polarisation between those who portray themselves as pro-death penalty and those who portray themselves as pro-gun control is striking, as is the harsh tone of the rhetoric. It must also be remembered that these are very early exchanges. While there are obvious examples of the influence of the context in affecting exchanges even at this stage there is, as yet, no shared history among authors. Again, the variable of time is central. The context must necessarily develop in time as agents act in a manner facilitated and constrained by the technology, the design of the application and the previous context of participation. In this manner a shared history will be created and a new context continually emerge. The continuation of the thread makes it clear that a sophisticated interplay among types of behaviour exists. Over time the development of the thread reveals more about the context as it

emerges through the process of creation. A great many messages are submitted to MNPOLITICS by a number of authors. The tensions between types of behaviour and context continue as outlined above, for the most part. Towards the end of the thread, however, an extended series of exchanges offers new information about the context under construction. 4.3.2.2 Citizenship as a unifying self-category Quite simply, a self-category unifying the majority of authors is made salient as a result of the context under observation. It emerges that authors are, for the most part, citizens participating in the democratic process in Minnesota during an election season that will determine the representative officers for the state of Minnesota. The majority of authors are thus part of a single group (an in-group). According to the SIDE model the emergence of a salient selfcategory at the level of the group ought to result in the increased likelihood of adherence to the normative values associated with the in-group. In this situation perhaps it is not fully known what the normative values guiding the behaviour of citizens participating in the democratic process are or ought to be. Therefore, along with adhering to the normative values of the ingroup, perhaps it is also necessary for individual authors to explore the boundaries between normative and anti-normative behaviour. The interesting situation thus transpires that, with the emergence of a salient self-category, authors learn and/or conclude that they belong to an almost all-encompassing in-group, although many may be unfamiliar with the normative values of the in-group in question. The powerful implication of this unfamiliarity is that orthodox conceptions of human interaction underlying institutions that traditionally facilitate the opinion forming function of the democratic process neglect processes necessary for the individual to fulfil his or her duty of democratic citizenship. A Lippmannesque system of public opinion formation may result in public opinion by which a people can be governed. However, such a system neglects the human interaction that must underlie a conception of citizenship deep enough to aid a political community in constructing norms by which individuals in the community can govern themselves. The result of the neglect of interaction is the rotting away of citizenship as the individual loses comprehension of the role of normative behaviour in a political community. Significantly, the Deweyan system of public opinion formation as implemented in Minnesota using the new technology renders neglected processes of interaction visible. Set in the political community the system offers individuals the opportunity to interact so they are practising the long neglected skills of citizenship necessary to the maintenance of normative values in a democratic society. The result is an opportunity for civic renewal. At this point it will be helpful to take a closer look at the data. Very early in the thread, on 4 September, David Schultz attempted to steer the course of dialogue towards a suspected link between the death penalty and issues of race. He cited some publications he had authored for a law review and concluded, "I hope all these statistics and information add a new wrinkle to a debate that seems devoid of statistics and facts yet rich with ideology." Days later, on 8 September at 12:34 PM, after the subject had been ignored he wrote again, "Are mn-politics people unwilling to acknowledge the racial problems with the death penalty much in the same way Clinton, Gingrich, and the majority of Americans are? It appears so....Hm." Significantly Schultz chose to point out that the subject he raised, a controversial issue in which he possessed

expertise, did not motivate people to contribute to the exchange. This is not to say the subject was not salient within the self-categories by which authors construct their identities. Rather, Schultz suggested that the issue was and is purposefully avoided as a subject of public deliberation by both private citizens and national politicians. Perhaps this is due to a general awareness that the subject often leads to heightened polarisation amongst a variety of groups. It is too difficult to handle. It is, thus, not included in the agenda of topics for deliberation in the mainstream political community. This charge elicited a very quick series of significant exchanges, all of which took place on 8 September. Matt Hughes, connecting the subject to partisan politics, responded at 14:45 PM, "Everybody wants to play the race card for everything. I'm tired of it. If the content of one's character is to be a murderer, let them sit their lives out in jail or give them the juice." At 16:28 PM Steve Boland, writing from a United States House of Representative e-mail address, replied, "Matt Hughes seems to believe the death penalty is immune to racism, that our justice system is truly blind to race. I wish I could believe it. I challenge Matt to find any Judge in Minnesota who says juries are unbiased to black on white, vs. black on black or white on black crime." In a later message responding to another author, Boland identified himself as a case worker for Congressman Bruce Vento of the 4th Congressional District. It is significant that Boland was motivated to submit a message on this politically controversial subject after another individual with expertise in the area argued mainstream political candidates are unwilling to comment on something considered controversial and, perhaps, not conducive to winning votes. In any event, with Boland's message an important aspect of the context was and is made salient. MN-POLITICS is for political deliberation during the election season. Citizens serving as representative officers and running for political office, as well as the citizens in the employ of representative officers and prospective representative officers, may have an incentive to participate in the political deliberation. This participation creates a strong connection between the medium and the democratic process during the election season. The characteristics of the medium are thus linked with this aspect of the context of the particular application as the democratic process is being conducted through the medium. Immediately after Boland's message another author submitted an impassioned partisan attack. At 17:08 PM Matt Heikes wrote, "Mr. Vento should stop feeling sorry for the scum who commit crimes and start feeling sorry for their law-abiding victims. TERM LIMITS NOW!!!" The tension that resulted from the participation of Boland and then the highly emotional response to Boland is a continuation of the tension between the emerging context and the boundaries of normative versus anti-normative behaviour. This became a discourse on the American political process. Heikes disagreed with Bolands and Ventos linkage between race and the death penalty as well as with Boland's and Vento's opposition to the death penalty. Perhaps Heikes felt the way to ameliorate the problem was and is to impose a legal limit on the length of time spent in office by a representative officer. As another participant pointed out, this shows a misunderstanding of the political process within which the authors are all participants. At 17:29 PM Don Homuth, from Oregon, submitted the following response to the call for term-limits, "A complete and total non sequitur. One supposes that those who elect Mr. Vento know of his feelings about the death penalty, and go ahead and re-elect him anyway. That being the case, they could as easily elect another with similar feelings...Besides, there _are_ term limits -- NOW!!! They're called

'elections.' " At this point, a self-category in which the vast majority of authors were part of an in-group became salient. Clearly all authors were citizens engaged in the democratic process during the election season. Political power wielded by citizens in choosing representative officers was and is the driving force behind political structures. If authors accept these political structures, they are united in the fact that as citizens they wield real political power, particularly at this point in the political process. Of course, authors do not have to accept the political structures that exist. WAZ@aol.com, for example, argued that opinion polls show the majority of citizens favour of the death penalty even as legislators rule against the will of the majority. According to WAZ@aol.com, the people ought to rule. This was a discourse on the edges of the democratic system, arguing for the overthrow of the Madisonian conception of the extended republic and, therefore, the overthrow of the political system as it is meant to operate in the United States and any conception of citizenship germane to that political process. This was clearly outside the unifying self-category of citizenship that was emerging, although it is a position that potentially raises important issues. I will discuss the work of management at the boundaries of the context created by the interworking of the technology and the democratic process in the next section. As the nuances of the context emerged, however, authors for the most part focused on the exchanges and anti-normative behaviour. Different authors submitted alternative suggestions on how to proceed. At 18:00 PM one author, John Sullivan, submitted a message titled purpose of this mailing list. In the message he invoked the context and rebuked those engaging in antinormative behaviour. He wrote, "I subscribed to this mailing list because I thought it would discuss issues related to the elections this year in Minnesota. I'm really getting tired of flaming messages about gun control and the death penalty. Anyone who wishes to continue these discussions, please take them to private email...we don't need them here." Sullivan, thus, linked anti-normative behaviour and the subject under discussion. He suggested that the link carries the exchanges away from the purpose of MN-POLITICS - the discussion of politics in Minnesota during the elections. Invoking the purpose he concluded the subject ought not to be discussed in MN-POLITICS. In this way Sullivan was able to invoke the purpose or context to appeal to others to dismiss a subject that results in anti-normative behaviour. He was able to do this because the anti-normative behaviour moves the forum away from the purpose or context and, therefore, endangers the well-being of the forum. Another suggestion was submitted by Charlie Betz, who wrote, "Me thinks some responsibility lies with those tired of the rhetoric to elevate it somewhat, or to dig deeply into its roots." This suggestion was for authors to move beyond the anti-normative behaviour through eloquence and reason. If authors were to refrain from anti-normative behaviour a productive exchange on important topics ought to occur. This, of course, raises the question of what constitutes normative and anti-normative behaviour. From previous exchanges it was clear that there were a variety of opinions on this in relation to the death penalty, gun control and race. These disagreements were severe. In the short term they caused authors to take insurmountable stands separating the individuals and the groups to which they belong according to salient selfcategories. In the immediate context these insurmountable stands broke down the salient selfcategory that was newly emerging. Sullivans suggestion, on the other hand, supported by the purpose and context, would maintain the unifying in-group of citizenship over other more

fractious self-categories. This point was a defining moment that reveals a great deal about the characteristics of the medium and the particular context under consideration. After alternative positions were posted it was the choice of the community of participants to develop the on-going context in a manner that was deemed appropriate by the community. The interaction of the characteristics of CMC and the particular context as it develops at a given point determines the structure of the resulting cognitive space. In this instance the community of participants eventually chose to end the exchanges linked to anti-normative behaviour. At 18:56 PM, for example, Matt Hughes, who had been involved in the initial interaction with Steve Boland, changed the subject to a discussion of Senate candidate Ann Wynia, asking, "Maybe this is more of the flavor John Sullivan is asking for us to discuss." Furthermore, for the first time an organiser submited a message to remind participants of the purpose of the list. When Steve Clift mentioned that 170 individuals with diverse interests were subscribed he also suggested that it takes time and experience for list norms and expectations to develop. He offered a few suggestions, such as to avoid submitting a message when angry, to respect others, to provide election information in messages. Finally, Clift asked several questions about the quickly approaching Minnesota primaries. At this point the action of the community of participants is of the greatest interest in assessing the combination of medium and context under discussion. The discussion on crime slowly faded out, giving way to a period of discussion centred on the 13 September Primaries. Perhaps others agreed with Charlie Betz that there was a need to dig deeper. On the other hand, the majority clearly decided and/or agreed that the topic was too heavily linked to positions threatening to the larger in-group needed to maintain the well-being of MN-POLITICS. To preserve the unifying self-category of citizenship that emerged it was necessary to avoid a controversial issue. The necessity of this avoidance is an index of the destructive force of the Lippmannesque systems of public opinion formation prevalent in the culture. Precisely, it is an index of the erosion of a substantive conception of citizenship and the consequent detachment from the process of constructing through interaction the normative values necessary for self-government. At the same time, the avoidance indicates that the Deweyan system renders interaction visible and, therefore, provides the opportunity for deliberation necessary to preserve the unifying selfcategory of citizenship. In the process, the system provides tools necessary for the construction through interaction of the normative values necessary for self-government. As the submissions on the topic of crime dropped to a trickle the decision of the majority clearly acted as a lever to curb the continuing submissions of the earnest few. With other topics of discussion under way the controversial subject of the first extended thread was left behind. On 29 October, at the beginning of the Senate E-Debate, the subject of crime and gun control came up again in relation to an armed attack on the White House. The thread did not last long. Instead, interestingly, it developed into an extended thread on gender and MN-POLITICS as well as gender in Minnesota politics. I will turn to this later. For now I offer a message submitted on 31 October by one of the participants in the controversy in early September. This message demonstrates that a shared history is being developed even as the list expands and changes over time. One function of this shared history is to communicate normative behaviour negotiated in the past. Concerned Citizen wrote, "Since this listserv has been through one irritating flame war

on gun control already, what say we stop this foolishness?...Gun control, the way it's being argued here, has nothing to do with mn-politics." As I said, consequent to this post, the topics of discussion would move on to other issues, such as gender for example. 5.0 Management of the boundaries As well as participating in the design of the application and organisation of the context, organisers were active in the ongoing management of MN-POLITICS. Throughout the duration of the Project one finds messages from organisers, including Steve Clift, Scott Fritchie, Mick Souder and myself. It was not possible for designers and organisers to control the flow of MNPOLITICS once the forum was underway. This is because organisers were not only organisers but also participants in an open forum moving through time. As Project participants continually acted on behalf of the forum, the differentiation between organisers and participants was itself rather fuzzy. The movement of MN-POLITICS was, thus, susceptible to the actions of the entire community of participants. It was possible, however, to input information into the flow of exchanges, to suggest activities for participants in the forum, and, when necessary, to set and guard boundaries. The work of protecting the boundaries of the public discussion forum is central to the well-being of MN-POLITICS. The characteristics of CMC and the context of the particular application create a merger between the well-being of the application and the democratic process. This is not to say that the democratic process will flounder if the application flounders. Rather, to the degree that the democratic process is conducted through the forum, adherence to democratic norms is linked to the well-being of MN-POLITICS. If participants can not adhere to democratic norms, MN-POLITICS might be overrun by antinormative behaviour that will cause fragmentation, deterioration and, eventually, dissolution. At the same time, because of the characteristic properties of the medium it is possible to gain an insight into the context and successfully manage the deliberations to avoid anti-normative behaviour harmful to the unifying self-category of citizenship. Furthermore, because the distinction between manager and participant is blurred, it is possible for participants acting as managers to contest the behaviour of managers. This provides a unique democratic check on those who manage the forum. The application makes salient a number of self-categories including geographic boundary, political affiliation, citizenship in the state of Minnesota in the United States. These offer concrete tools that allow participants and management to ask for a renewed focus on the list purpose if needed. For one, this renewed focus causes participants to return to a consideration of concrete issues, activities and institutions in Minnesota. This emphasis on concrete structures that are local is a powerful mechanism that increases the likelihood of adherence to normative values associated with the status of participants as citizens living within the proximity of these concrete issues, activities and institutions. There is a very real incentive to adhere to normative values if one is involved in a discussion with individuals who are or could be a part of ones community life. There is also an increased awareness of the shared responsibility for the ongoing development and functioning of concrete issues, activities and institutions. This shared responsibility ties the cognitive technology to the more abstract considerations of citizenship in a democratic political process. The following is another section from the statement of purpose, "The list encourages discussion from diverse political perspectives that is respectful in nature.

This forum is more about the presentation of ideas and information than being right with ones ideology." The emphasis on respect and non-ideological deliberation supplies participants and management with further soft tools. These encourage participants to adhere to normative values associated with the self-category of authors as citizens engaging in a civic deliberation on issues concerning the electoral process. The context and the hard and soft tools can be used to call for renewed focus. This creates an outer frame for the cognitive technology that allows for a defence against anti-normative behaviour dangerous to the well-being of MN-POLITICS. It should be noted again that the context and tools are accessible equally to management and participants. Furthermore, both participants and organisers share in the effort to maintain the outer boundaries of MN-POLITICS. In fact, many if not most of the exchanges that take place in MN-POLITICS are about normative and anti-normative behaviour in both the forum and the general political community. The majority of exchanges, however, do not take place at the boundaries of MN-POLITICS. I define the boundaries to mean exchanges that threaten the wellbeing of the forum. While both participants and management can participate in exchanges about normative and anti-normative behaviour and while participants can assist in maintaining the boundaries, it is the responsibility of the management to ensure the well-being of the forum and address any threat. Threats can be gauged objectively through the observation of subscription/unsubscription rates, a decrease in the number of exchanges in the forum, and complaints from participants. They can be gauged less objectively through an analysis of the level of anti-normative behaviour in exchanges. According to the statement of purpose antinormative behaviour is characterised typically by a lack of respect for other participants and the continuous submission of highly ideological messages. Before I focus on data related to management, I will briefly return to the role of participants in the maintenance of boundaries. On 10 September, towards the end of the crime thread, WAZ@aol.com demonstrated a misunderstanding of the political process, writing, "Since the statistic of 72% here in this state are in favor of the death penalty then there are no more arguments. The majority have spoken, the majority rules." According to WAZ@aol.com, because of majority rule, the death penalty ought to be implemented. WAZ@aol.com believes that a majority opinion in a poll ought to result in law. Of course, this notion of direct democracy is at odds with the tradition of representative democracy in the United States. One individual, Sheldon Mains, explained the mistake, concluding, "So, no matter what the majority of the public wants, it may not happen." Following this the issue was dropped in MN-POLITICS. Furthermore, in mid-September WAZ@aol.com unsubscribed. I suspect that a critical mass of participants were aware of the distinction between representative and direct democracy and aware of WAZ@aol.coms mistake. In choosing silence they were supporting the application of the technology in context to the political process as it exists. Of course, if WAZ@aol.com had possessed a more sophisticated understanding of the representative versus direct democracy debate, he or she may have been more effective. In this instance, in any event, the threat was not serious enough to warrant interference by management. Significantly, from the end of the crime thread to the middle of October there was little need for management to become involved in exchanges to protect the well-being of the forum. This demonstrates that the application in this context during this stage supported a self-sustaining cognitive space. There was only one episode of management involvement in the beginning of

October when the list manager, Mick Souder, suggested that authors discussing the campaign process are "slouching towards a flame war". This resulted in an informative discussion of "netiquette" as well as more valuable information on the campaign process. I will return to this again in the next section when I investigate the mechanisms involved in thread creation within boundaries. The first case in which the tools provided by the context allowed management to maintain the boundaries took place beginning on 13 October. The problem occurred when a new author began to submit messages of a provocative nature. John Logajan, a self-described libertarian evangelist, began a thread called the Bell Curve, asking for the opinions of participants on the release of a new book by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray. The book hypothesised connections between genetics, IQ and economic well-being. Logajan wrote, "If the dominant factor in lifetime poverty is no longer the status you were born into, but your IQ, then it matters greatly what sorts of devices are used to lift people out of poverty. The conclusion of this book is that we are apparently facing a new paradigm -- one that is currently taboo." This set off a series of 27 ideologically charged exchanges reminiscent of Death Penalty. This time, however, the exchanges were more often characterised by discussion of methodology and confrontation with troubling issues. For example, Charlie Betz wrote, "Agreed that science is demonstrating facts which are socially problematic. The liberal/left has tried to suppress this truth. Why? Eugenics, in brief. If intelligence is genetic, then why not try to encourage its propagation through state policies? . . . the roar of the gas ovens gets louder and louder . . ." This thread was not clearly related to politics in Minnesota. Furthermore, Logajan was dominating the exchanges, leading to the nickname, "logjam". Finally, the ideologically charged subject could and did lead to anti-normative behaviour that risked polarising the group and harming the overall well-being of the forum. The difficulties provoked a request from the list manager, Mick Souder, to relate messages to politics in Minnesota. He suggested interested parties continue the subject through private e-mail. Logajan was fully aware that he was operating at the boundaries of MN-POLITICS, testing the context. In response to Souders request that authors write about politics in Minnesota rather than the ideological underpinnings, Logajan wrote, "I can only imagine that two or more people could solely discuss implementation details when they all agree on the ideology -- therefore the clear implication of a implementation only discussion group is the enforced assumption that only a *single* ideological view will be tolerated." In levelling this charge Logajan was clearly testing the adherence of management to democratic norms. Publicly, I agreed with Logajan on his position and then said it was, nonetheless, not inappropriate to request that authors in some way relate every message to politics and/or policy in Minnesota. Logajan argued that ideology is important. Others agreed with this but asked Logajan to relate the ideological position under discussion to politics and/or policy in Minnesota. Logajan would not or could not do this and the thread ended, amidst complaints from others about flame wars. In this situation the cognitive technology provided the tools to encourage a new author to adhere to normative behaviour associated with the group. Two other incidents occurred at the instigation of Logajan. At present I will discuss the second incident that called for the interference of management. This took place during the first EDebate. It is necessary to note, first, that Logajan accepted the norms of the group and became an

active contributor to a number of threads before the E-Debate. In particular, he was fond of pointing out the hypocrisy of the modern left. For example, he questioned why the DFL Senate candidate Ann Wynia was the first to engage in negative attacks against her opponent. This led to an extended exchange on advertising and liberalism among other topics. He was also eager to espouse his libertarian philosophy against what he considered the corrupt thought of both the right and left. It is necessary to note, second, that MN-POLITICS underwent a great deal of change at the beginning of the E-Debates. The number of subscribers increased, the number of authors increased, the number of messages increased, and the candidates became involved. In fact, it can be argued that the change contributed to the relative lack of success of the first EDebate. Suddenly, 30 or more messages per day were being submitted from a number of people who had only previously read about the forum in the newspaper or some other information outlet. The obvious result of the increase in participation was a watering down of the context. The new people had not been involved long enough to be aware of the norms of MN-POLITICS. In addition, the exchanges were taking place at such a rapid pace. There was not enough time to go through the motions of encouraging and/or forcing participants to adhere to the norms for the well-being of the forum. The result of the change was an overall increase in anti-normative behaviour, group polarisation, etc. In other words, the conclusions suggested by the Carnegie Mellon group were increasingly apparent This is not to say that anti-normative behaviour dominated. Neither is it to say negotiations about behaviour and/or productive and informative exchanges were not occurring. As we shall see, during the second E-Debate it is quite the opposite. It is simply that an influx of new people created a hectic atmosphere. Some might say it was comparable to a Mardi Gras, others to chaos. For a variety of reasons the first E-Debate was not as successful as the second. Primarily, this was because Logajan and others decided to deluge MN-POLITICS with their thoughts. There are, however, a number of other reasons. For example, veterans continued to interact in a manner they had become used to even though the context had changed. Furthermore, the Governors race was no contest. The politicians did not generate excitement so topics of discussion wandered. In any event, the first step in the deterioration of dialogue began when Steven Michael Carney forwarded his ideologically charged responses to several posts Logajan had written a week before denouncing the hypocrisy of liberals. Carney brought in a number of old subjects such as Liberalism? and Clinton 92 that disrupted any new exchanges beginning to emerge. Logajan had not been highly active in the E-Debate to that point so there was no immediate context for Carneys attacks. At first Logajan was relatively unresponsive to the attacks, writing, "Cut back on that dosage, son! " However, for whatever reason, he became increasingly active, writing 17 messages on Thursday and Friday, the last two days of the E-Debate. In fact, in the last two days Logajan and Grassroots Party candidate Will Shetterly were offering their opinions on almost every topic. As participants began to complain and to threaten to unsubscribe, organisers submitted warnings to the list suggesting that participants needed to respect others and keep messages down to two-per-day. In addition, Logajan forwarded a threat made by the listmanager, Mick Souder, that he would be removed from the forum unless he cut back to two messages per day. Again Logajan was testing the boundaries of the forum. Fortunately, after a brief protest by some sympathetic to Logajans libertarian ideas, all participants, including Logajan, followed the two-message-per-day rule for the duration of the E-Debates. This made a tremendous difference. Because of the changing context, new tools were clearly required for the well-being of the forum.

It is significant that Logajan is a self-described libertarian evangelist. It is also significant that the majority of those who supported Logajan after the new rule was put into effect were also libertarians. In keeping with the libertarian emphasis on freedom, Logajan was intent to challenge all authority, including list management and partisan political parties. In place of authority, Logajan asserts the need to maximise individual liberty. One of the few injunctions against this liberty cited by Logajan is a rule against causing physical harm to others. Otherwise, men and women ought to be left in peace, to their freedom. Here, then, is a strong assertion of the orthodox, dualist opposition between the individual and social structures. Here is a display of the inaccurate understanding of human interaction in application in CMC. Logajan, who does not understand the depth of interconnection between himself and societal structures, believes he is free to act as he pleases and therefore threatens the well-being of MN-POLITICS. From a society that has led him to the strong assertion that isolated man is man at liberty, Logajan becomes a direct threat to political discourse using listserv technology in an open forum. If unchecked this threat can only further erode the skills necessary for the practice of citizenship. Logajan, open to rational argument, is shown that he is not adhering to the norms acceptable to the majority of participants. He is shown through active approbation. He is also shown as other participants keep their silence even after Logajan is rebuked through private e-mail and submits the rebuke to the forum. When shown, he accepts the norms. Interestingly, Logajan asserts a libertarian injunction against physical violence, but not an injunction against verbal assault. Yet, through verbal assault he threatens the well-being of a cognitive space. Problematically, a conception of verbal assault would take his libertarianism too far into the connections between language and society. These connections would take him too close to a necessary acceptance of conceptions of the individual, society and citizenship more sophisticated than his political philosophy can allow. These manifestations of public spaces and examples of interconnectedness clash with the maximisation of liberty as he understands it. Yet, in begrudgingly adhering to the norms of MN-POLITICS, Logajan ultimately accepts the responsibility of citizenship as defined in the forum for the well-being of the forum. The creation of a voluntary two-message-per-day rule was the last time active interference of management was required. During the second E-Debate the number of authors and messages both increased and stabilised. Furthermore, several important threads were created by participants in the exchanges. The negotiation over normative and anti-normative behaviour would, however, continue. The impact of the biting tone of some of the exchanges took a toll. In fact, there were a series of exchanges about the issues under investigation at the very end of the second E-Debate. I will focus on these in a later section. In conclusion, one important characteristic of the medium in this context is the creation of a democratic check on the activities of those who manage the public forum. When considering management one is considering the nature of authority and power to enforce decisions on others. In this context, however, we have seen that individuals involved with management are also list participants. As such, they are as responsible as others for the well-being of a cognitive technology shaped by a particular context. As long as the forum remains open, management must act according to the same democratic norms to which it has over time become expected all will adhere. Thus, when the boundaries of the forum are challenged, management must act in keeping

with the boundaries or norms of the forum to ameliorate the situation. Otherwise, individuals acting in the capacity of management will lose authority in the minds of participants. This, as much as anti-normative behaviour among participants, will most probably result in the deterioration of the well-being of the forum. Fortunately, the characteristics of the medium and the particular context under consideration appear to provide both hard and soft tools that enable management to maintain the norms needed for the well-being of the forum. 6.0 The mechanics of participation within the boundaries So far I have investigated some of the constituent parts of the archive, characteristics of the medium, social effects of the medium, and the management of the boundaries of the application. Perhaps this provides a framework for better understanding the process of exchange. Now I will focus on the process of making a thread. What are some of the characteristics of threads as structures? 6.1 Submission In the first instance an individual submits a piece of writing. Two characteristics of this writing are important. First, this writing is within the purpose of MN-POLITICS, so it is about politics in Minnesota. The connection between the piece of writing and the purpose is a requirement. If there is a disconnection between the writing and the purpose the author has gone outside the boundaries of the forum. This is an issue for management. In this section we will assume that all messages are properly connected to politics in Minnesota. Of course, this immediately places into question what politics in Minnesota is. This might well become a matter of debate. However, as long as a message is connected to a concrete person, activity and/or institution with some relation to politics in Minnesota this major requirement has been met. The emphasis is on the concrete - on some thing related to politics in Minnesota that exists. This connection between everything that is submitted to MN-POLITICS and concrete things related to politics in Minnesota provides a grounding for messages, threads and the entire archive. Second, because it is a person submitting writing, the writing is also about the person. In the process of cognition by which the person expresses his or her thoughts through the manipulation of symbols, selfcategories by which he or she defines him or her self will become salient. In putting these thoughts in writing the person will select what about the salient self-categories to present to others. To an extent, therefore, the writing is an act of self-presentation. Of course, the level of self-reflective knowledge in possession of the individual about the act of self-presentation is completely open to question. The connection between these two characteristics - the topic and the act of self-presentation - most often takes the form of an opinion. This opinion, then, can be viewed as the point where the concrete thing and self-categories made salient by the concrete thing meet. The piece of writing is submitted to everyone and everything subscribed to the listserv, including the application that will save the message in the archive. The variety of ways other participants can act upon the receipt of a message is large. The variety of ways upwards of 100 people might respond is massive. The variety of possible responses and the precise structure of responses are far more complex than in face to face interaction (Black et al. 1983). This is because of the absence of physical constraint on the ordering of interaction in space and time, as well as the

quote and comment capability, among other characteristics of the medium (Harnad 1996). It is not my objective to understand the precise structure of exchanges. For one, the complexity of the application does not provide enough control over experimental design to allow for the creation of this necessary knowledge. 6.2 Response If an individual chooses to respond it will most likely be because the original writing, the opinion, the point of connection between a topic on politics in Minnesota and an act of selfpresentation, provokes the individual. Someones opinion on something related to politics in Minnesota motivates the individual to communicate. It is impossible to determine the degree to which the self-presentation involved in the first opinion or the topic under discussion motivates the individual to communicate. A response can be totally a response to the topic or primarily a response to the act of self-presentation. The important point is that the response has to be a response to the topic to some degree. In any event, this triggers a recurrence of events similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. Self-categories become salient and the individual engages in an act of self-presentation. This is connected to the topic. The writing will most likely be in the form of an opinion. 6.3 Exchange There is, then, an exchange of two opinions. These are both about the same topic. There is, therefore, a definite connection between the two opinions. The topic may change slightly from the first to the second opinion, but will be relatively fixed. It will be fixed to the degree that there is a definite connection between the topics that are the subjects of the opinions. The degree to which the common topic makes salient self-categories that are also connected, and the degree to which the acts of self-presentation are connected, will vary. Thus, the exchange of opinions is the exchange of two acts of self-presentation based on self-categories made salient at least in part by a common topic. Self-presentations and the salient self-categories on which they are based will be laid out in relation to the common topic. The two acts of self-presentation and the self-categories may have relatively more or less in common. The concrete thing connected to politics in Minnesota will be a fixed point by which to gauge the similarity and/or difference of the acts of self-presentation. The greater the degree of difference surrounding self-presentations connected to the concrete thing, the greater the difference in salient self-categories connected to the concrete thing. In this there is an identification of the difference in how individuals understand themselves. Furthermore, in the context under discussion the individuals have a relationship with the concrete thing in which they possess a degree of authority. Most participants are citizens with a vote. Thus, the differences in self-categories are likely to affect the ongoing existence of the concrete thing that is related to politics in Minnesota. The participant will most likely cast a vote on election day that will affect the concrete thing in some way. The manner in which the concrete thing continues to exist is, therefore, most likely put into question by the differences that have been rendered apparent. If the differences are great a clearly delineated area of contest has been identified. A contested terrain issues forth from the difference. This terrain necessarily involves issues for deliberation.

6.4 Thread Exchanges become a thread because people respond to messages. One response to one message is hardly a thread. A response to a response is the beginning of a thread. In any event, an individual responds because he or she is motivated to respond. Most likely he or she will be motivated because a topic makes salient self-categories by which he or she identifies his or her self. He or she will write about this topic and offer a self-presentation in the process. If this motivates someone else to respond by writing about the topic and offering a self-presentation the thread will continue. It takes a mass of authors motivated to respond to a topic and the selfpresentations it elicits to carry a thread for as long as the mass is motivated to continue responding. The time a thread lasts depends, therefore, on the degree of motivation the topic and self-presentations provoke in a given number of authors. That the thread is self-perpetuating is important. A thread lasts because the topic under consideration and the self-presentations make self-categories salient and motivate participants to communicate. It is the size and nature of the contested terrain mapped out by the flow of self-presentations around a concrete topic that will motivate a participant to communicate, as well as the degree of relevance of the topic and selfpresentations to the self-categories of the participant. A successful thread consists in a series of opinions. These opinions are linked by a common topic that may or may not have developed in one or many ways over the course of the thread. Around the common topic, which is the subject of deliberation through time, will be a cluster of self-presentations that demonstrate the ways in which the topic makes salient the self-categories of a variety of people motivated to communicate during the thread. All of this information is data about the manner in which the topic intersects with the lives of the participants involved in deliberation. This data is extremely relevant, particularly in a political community in which each of the participants possesses authority in the form of the vote. The data provides insight into the variety of ways topics deemed salient by a critical mass of participants intersect with the selfcategories by which the individuals define their identities. The macroscopic consideration of the ways in which threads develop is also relevant. Individuals motivated to respond are not left to offer their thoughts on a topic and their self-presentation, isolated from others. Rather the opinions of individuals interact with one another. The manner in which topics intersect with salient self-categories for one individual intersects with the manner in which topics intersect with salient self-categories for other individuals. There is constant interpenetration of salient self-categories around given topics. This interpenetration is displayed in the archive as the process of the thread moving in time. There is constantly developing a multi-logue and a negotiation over how to proceed. This negotiation can be read by the observer as a deliberation over contested terrain mapped out by the participants in the forum. It is valuable data; socialised intelligence; public opinion properly conceived. 7.0 Threads The change in the art of politics in this arena is based on changes in interaction among participants in the political community in Minnesota. The change is caused by the need to adapt to a more sophisticated understanding of social-psychological processes enabled by the new communications technology. This change in understanding of social-psychological processes is

from a rather limited understanding of the interconnections between the individual and societal institutions to a necessary reckoning with the profound complexity of interconnectedness. This movement towards a Deweyan understanding of social-psychological processes happens in the forum archive over time and results in interesting political effects. These effects include an ongoing deliberation about normative and anti-normative behaviour, and the creation of the possibility for democratisation. Finally, with the participation of the candidates, individuals seeking to become representative officers are drawn into a necessary consideration of normative behaviour and democratisation. To ignore such considerations is to risk failure in the new forum. The threads that endure inform us about the process by which authors adapt to the medium as well as the issues of concern to the community of participants. It is therefore informative to trace the process of adaptation by focusing more closely on the threads that endure as the context changes. Before exploring the threads it is necessary to note that the archive is messy and chaotic. Extremely short threads and single utterances were a constant presence. Often times these were messages submitted by management or participants with some kind of information content. Such messages were not intended to elicit a response. Most often these were messages about topics that simply did not generate much response at the time they were sent. One reason why a message might not generate a response is that the topic is simply not interesting to participants. Another reason is if a message is quickly deemed outside of the purpose of MN-POLITICS. A third reason is that, while a topic might be of interest to participants, it is so narrowly focused others do not have enough knowledge to respond. For example, one participant named Dennis Hill consistently posted items about the inner-workings of Democratic Farmer Labor Party politics. Often these submissions from a political activist about people involved in Minnesota politics sparked brief exchanges. DFL Endorses Don Moe for State Auditor and Gaertner vs. Fabel are two examples of this. Most often, however, his messages went unanswered. Hills consistent contributions about local politics were one among many examples of brief interventions lending a strong local flavour to the forum. These types of messages do not register as threads even though they add depth and value to the information contained in the archive. At this point it is helpful to have an overview of the threads created in MN-POLITICS during the time under consideration. This overview includes dates, topic, number of messages, number of authors, and the sex of authors. TABLE 7.0 Dates
Sept.2-Sept.12 Sept.8-Sept.9 Sept.10-Sept.12 Sept.12-Sept.13 Sept.13-Sept.14

Topic
Crime Problem With Wynia and Health Care constitutional amendment predictions voter strategy survey

Messages
53 5 8 7 8

Authors(M,F, ?)
26 (25, 1) 4 (4, 0) 7 (7, 0) 5 (4, 1) 6 (5, 0, 1)

Even though the Sept.14-Oct.7 The Governors race 75 29 (26, 3) archive is Sept.18-Sept.23 Third Parties 11 7 (7, 0) chaotic, threads do Sept.19 DFL Endorses Don Moe for State 8 6 (6, 0) emerge Auditor and these Sept.22 Required Voting: High School debate 6 6 (3, 3) develop according Sept.23-Sept.24 Gaertner vs Fabel 4 4 (4, 0) to patterns Sept.28-Sept.30 The Uninformed Reporter 8 8 (7, 1) that change Sept.30-Oct.4 The Campaigning Art 19 13 (11, 2) over time. These Oct.5-Oct.13 Norm! 11 8 (7, 1) patterns Oct.5-Oct.6 Omman v. Petersen 4 4 (4, 0) offer informatio Oct.13-Oct.18 The Bell Curve 29 12 (10, 2) n about threads in Oct.18-Oct.20 liberalism? 13 6 (4, 2) general as Oct.19-Oct.23 On Negative Campaigning 33 12 (11, 1) well as how the Oct.22-Oct.27 On Voting 37 18 (15, 3) forum Oct.24-Oct.28 E-DEBATE 1 27 6 (6, 0) develops over time. Oct.26-Oct.31 anti-science 12 7 (6, 1) A basic understand Oct.26-Oct.27 Arne's surplus 9 7 (6, 1) ing of the Oct.27-Oct.29 Paternalism 24 10 (10, 0) relationshi p of the Oct.28-Oct.30 A WARNING FROM LIST OWNER 5 5 (5, 0) process of thread Oct.28-Oct.31 Crime revisited 18 13 (11, 2) creation Oct.31-Nov.4 E-DEBATE 2 29 5 (3, 2) and the context Oct.31-Nov.4 Media Endorsements 9 9 (8, 1) during a Nov.1-Nov.4 women and MN-POLITICS 34 27 (12, 10) given period will Nov.1-Nov.4 Republican Contract With America 14 10 (9, 1) aid in understand Nov.2-Nov.4 campaign ethics 20 19 (15, 4) ing threads Nov.3-Nov.4 The Debates Thus Far 7 7 (4, 3) in general. The differences between the periods will also set up points of comparison that will help us understand what is unique to each period. The threads break down into three distinct periods during which patterns of participation change. During the first period from 2 September to 6 October there
Sept.13-Sept.14 the primaries 19 10 (9, 0, 1)

were 16 threads in 43 days; during the second period from 13 October to 30 October there were 9 threads in 18 days; and during the third period from 28 October to 4 November there were 7 threads in 7 days. It is noteworthy that each of the three periods during which consistent patterns emerge begins with deliberation over a particularly contentious issue; in the first instance with a thread about "crime", in the second "the bell curve", and in the third "crime revisited". It is as if the changing context of participation leads to the emergence of a particularly contentious episode. The process of adapting to the contention results in the emergence of a new pattern of participation. In each case this new pattern is characterised by consistency in the patterns of participation until a contentious episode emerges again. This consistency suggests that the forum tends to adapt itself to a changing context to restore equilibrium. Before focusing in greater depth on the patterns it will be helpful to recall three of the external variables primarily responsible for the changes. The first is the consistent increase in the number of subscribers. The second is the continuous activity of management. The development and experience of the E-Debates were particularly influential in this regard. Of course, activities such as the E-Debates contributed to an increase in the number of subscribers as well, by causing publicity. The third is the approach of the elections. This was clearly the pivotal event around which the Project and archive are organised. As the time approached, changes in the nature of participation would have certainly resulted even without the E-Debates. As the E-Debates had a dramatic, qualitative impact, it is impossible to isolate the extent to which the approach of the elections alone altered participation. 7.1 The first period Deliberation during the first period, from 2 September to 6 October, was undertaken by a core group of mostly males participating relatively equally on a variety of topics. In addition there were contributions from a very small but active number of females. The period was also characterised by threads of a variety of sizes and lasting for various lengths of time. Most common were the twelve short threads of less than ten exchanges. Many of these were about local politics and submitted by activists such as Dennis Hill. As I have said, although informative, the topics involved a level of knowledge most likely outside the perceptions of many participants. It is, therefore, no surprise that such topics provoked a limited response from other knowledgeable and/or interested authors, and no response from a critical mass of participants needed to maintain the thread. There were also 2 medium sized threads of 19 exchanges each. The first of these, about the primaries, was one among a cluster of threads and single messages that represented a burst of activity around the early elections. Although active, this thread lasted a brief time before developing into other topics such as a discussion of the Governors race. The other medium length thread, about the campaigning art, will be discussed later in this section. Finally, there were 2 long threads of 53 and 75 exchanges. These dominated the forum for the first month. Significantly, the topics for discussion were much more focused on local issues after the first long thread - the crime thread - which has already been discussed in considerable detail. The crime thread was characterised by relatively more anti-normative behaviour and relatively less expert opinion than the second long thread - about the details of the race for Governor - which

was more focused on concrete issues such as taxation and school funding. From the crime thread to the Governors race thread, the salient self-categories deemed appropriate shifted and, as a result, a group of experts and informed non-experts emerged to probe certain issues in a highly targeted subject in considerable depth. This leads one to conclude that different sub-groups are able to form a critical mass to carry a thread forward in qualitatively different ways depending on the developing context. This movement offers just a little more support for the proposal that, over time, the medium can enhance adherence to normative values in the right context. 7.1.1 The Governors race thread While the analysis of the crime thread provides knowledge about the boundaries of MNPOLITICS and the unifying self-category of citizenship, there was still a lack of knowledge about the medium as individuals participated in a thread within the boundaries of the forum. Both the power of the medium demonstrated to participants in the first thread and their relative lack of knowledge about the medium may have contributed to the emergence of what is arguably an uncontroversial topic - the Governors race. This is not a topic, in any event, that alone causes questions about normative and anti-normative behaviour. This is especially the case as neither candidate was considered especially controversial, although there was an ongoing question about whether the DFL candidate, given his interpretation of liberalism, was qualified to govern. Regardless, the movement of the thread at the macroscopic level demonstrates how the energy generated by the topic in the minds of a community of participants both perpetuates and determines the direction a thread will take. That the interaction of minds in action perpetuates both the thread and, therefore, the product created by the thread is a reflection of a changed social-psychological foundation for communication. Yet, as we have seen, a revolution in knowledge did not at this early stage register in the construction of the threads themselves - at the macroscopic level. Nonetheless, because the cognitive technology was set in the context of a political community for deliberation on political topics, the changed social-psychological foundation had political ramifications that are clearly apparent at the microscopic level. It is, therefore, possible to achieve a better understanding of the changed foundation and developing political ramifications by piercing further into the thread and focusing in detail on a particular exchange. In the following I will, first, focus on the macroscopic movement of the Governors race thread and, second, on a significant microscopic instance within. 7.1.1.1: Macroscopic analysis The Governors race thread began the day after the primaries on 14 September and lasted until 2 October. The most active period of the thread, with 59 messages from 24 authors, lasted until 2 October. The movement of the thread can be observed clearly by breaking it down into the subject-headings that were used during the course of the thread. In this instance there were twelve. They are: 1. Voters Take Suction hose to MCCL - 5 messages 2. Arnie vs. Marty - 6 messages 3. Marty vs. Carlson - 4 messages

4. Marty/Carlson Debate - 14 messages 5. Property Tax - 9 messages 6. regressive taxes - 4 messages 7. school finances & property tax - 1 message 8. proportional/regressive/progressive taxes - 3 messages 9. John Marty not going to high dollar fund-raiser - 5 messages 10. John Marty and the Fund-raiser Flap - 5 messages 11. Why is Marty Failing - 4 messages 12. Why Marty Will Lose - 11 messages First, it is evident that the deliberation in MN-POLITICS is linked to politics in Minnesota. In particular, the beginning of the thread and the end of the thread are tied to the development of events outside of the forum - the development of the Governors race. After the 13 September Primary one author submitted a message titled Voters Take Suction hose to MCCL. Because neither of the chosen candidates for Governor of Minnesota were pro-life, this author opined, the Minnesota Coalition Concerned with Life would not be a factor in the election in November. Furthermore, the pro-life citizens who tend to be Republican would stay home rather than vote for pro-choice incumbent IR Governor Arne Carlson. Thus, DFL candidate John Marty ought to win the election. A number of responses followed. Some argued that Marty would not likely defeat the popular incumbent. Others supported Martys chances. Most significantly at this point, however, some suggested that abortion would not be an important issue. Others suggested possible issues on which the election would hinge. The early exchanges under the first subject-heading led to a stop and start discussion of the topic. The connection to abortion was quickly rejected by a critical mass of participants as demonstrated by the fact that the subject-heading quickly changed, and abortion was not discussed again. Instead, the contested terrain itself would emerge in the choices of the next subject-headings, such as Arnie vs. Marty and Marty vs. Carlson. Exchanges became more frequent after a radio debate between the candidates gave participants specific material to discuss. The movement would be directed by an effort to determine the relevant issues in the election. A critical mass of participants determined that taxation and school finance would be key issues, and so these became subjects of deliberation. This is reflected in the subject-headings about taxation. As the deliberation moved more deeply into the issues involved in deliberation, the contested terrain separating the Marty supporters and the Carlson supporters would again be mapped out. This is also reflected in the subject-headings about regressive and progressive taxation. Just as the topic was put into play as participants began to deliberate about a concrete aspect of politics in Minnesota, the topic ended as the motivation to discuss the topic diminished. On 24 September Bill Clinton arrived in Minneapolis to campaign for Ann Wynia, the DFL candidate for the US Senate. John Marty, having led the effort to reform campaign finance laws in the Minnesota State Senate, refused to attend a $1,000/person luncheon with the President. He attended a $100/person rally, but, for whatever reason, did not stand on the main platform with Wynia and the President. This became an issue for deliberation in MN-POLITICS. There was a sense that Marty would be hurt if he did not have the support of the DFL establishment in

Minnesota. Another individual - a Professor in California who had gone to college with Marty suggested that Marty did not have a chance if he continued to emphasise his resolve not to take major contributions to the exclusion of other substantive issues. After this event as well as further troubles in the Marty campaign as reported in the local press and in the forum by activists such as Dennis Hill, the deliberation about the Governors race would be revisited from time to time under subject-headings such as Why Marty is Failing and Why Marty Will Lose. The diminishing number of submissions on the topic indicates that the motivation for discussing the topic had disappeared. Most likely there was some form of a consensus among the group about the likely outcome of the Governors race. 7.1.1.2 Microscopic analysis Within the rather mundane movement of the Governors race thread is a series of exchanges that reveal for all participants and observers the dynamics involved in the new medium and the potential ramifications. Subsequently, this knowledge would make its way to the macroscopic level of thread generation. The series of exchanges in question began on 21 September, during the discussion of taxation. An author criticised Governor Carlson for shifting the burden of payment for government services to property taxes, "one of the most regressive taxes there are". Debra Andersen, having earlier stated that she was relatively new to Minnesota and not stating her position as Commissioner of Administration for the State of Minnesota under Governor Carlson, responded that local governments rather than the Governors office are responsible for property tax. She concluded, I dont believe for one minute that a conscious decision was ever made to give money from the state to the local governments and the school districts because one tax is regressive and one supposedly isnt. Do you really think legislators sit around and say, Oooooh, we have this really regressive property tax and this really progressive income tax, so lets help these people out. Gimme a break. A number of heated responses followed. A graduate student at the University of Minnesota offered the history of the "Minnesota Miracle" of good government in the early 1970s when Governor Wendell Andersen initiated a supposedly progressive rearrangement of the tax structure. "Concerned Citizen" offered an account of how legislators in 1993 contemplated the manner in which the tax structure - "and its regressivity" - affected Minnesotans. Most pointedly, Dorothy Dean the Democratic candidate for the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Wisconsin concluded, There are numerous studies done by academics that show legislators do indeed sit around and discuss potential impact of policy changes. Just check the reports that are prepared by staff looking at implications of proposals. You obviously have no direct experience about the legislative process....Maybe you should consider getting involved as a citizen member of a government committee at the local level to see what really goes on. I think you said you have only been in Minnesota for a year. If you came from New Jersey, Chicago or Louisiana I can

understand your cynicism. But Minnesota has a well-deserved reputation for clean government. As a citizen you owe it to yourself to get the facts. In this example the deliberation about the Governors race developed into a deliberation about tax policy in Minnesota. Individual authors contributed successive opinions. These opinions involved a connection to the topic at hand and included an act of self-presentation. This brought together a chain of a variety of acts of self-presentation based on varying self-categories made salient by the topic and other self-presentations. All of this data accumulated around the topic. Primarily, this body of information from a variety of sources provided and provides insight on the topic to both participants in deliberation and observers and readers of the archive. Not only does this body of opinion provide insight into the topic, however. The interconnections between the self-presentations and the topic can provide a web of information that can be used to assess a given self-presentation and better understand the self-categories made salient by a given topic in the mind of a given agent. The distribution of such assessments can be evaluated in a like manner. All the information and evaluations can act to illuminate the particular issues under consideration, and the general topic. The information can also provide insight into the varying self-categories by which individuals understand their identities. In this instance Debra Andersen presents herself as a supporter of Governor Carlson. From her email address, DEBRA.ANDERSEN@STATE.MN.US, it is clear she is involved with state government. She does not, however, present herself as being involved. Her degree of knowledge about what information about herself she is and is not presenting to others is unclear. It is possible she is not aware of the information provided by her e-mail address. She certainly does not make it known she is the Commissioner of Administration for Carlson. Andersen is, nonetheless, motivated to respond to the charge that policy-makers in the administration manipulate tax policy. Her response is that people in government do not have that level of reflexivity. Its a matter of concern for local government in which state legislators are not involved. Andersen thus presents herself as a participant amazed at other participants for thinking people in government are more involved than they truly are. The response to this opinion is quick and supported by the assertion of facts from past and recent history. Others present themselves as having the belief that policy-makers and legislators are deeply involved with the details of things such as tax burden, etc. Dorothy Dean, who presents herself as a candidate for Lt Governor in a neighbouring state, refers quite simply to the numerous studies by academics and policy people detailing the attention paid to potential policy changes. She infers from the self-presentation of Andersen that Andersen must have no experience in policy. Most likely Dean is aware that Andersen is associated with government through her e-mail address. She may or may not know that Andersen is the Commissioner of Administration. In any event, by suggesting Andersen get involved at the local level, she uses the insight generated from the juxtaposition of Andersens submissions and the responses to Andersen to either humiliate or condescend to Andersen depending on her understanding of who Andersen, in fact, is. In the final part of her reply, Dean makes it reasonably clear that she understands that she is using the medium as a political tool against the supporter of a politician in a political party other than her own. This is not stated overtly, but implied by her suggestion that Andersen is cynical. She does not suggest that Andersen is naive, as if Andersen really might be the unaware citizen caricatured by Dean. Rather, according to Dean, Andersen is acting cynically

towards the democratic process in a state "with a well-deserved reputation for clean government". Dean bases this on a previous self-presentation from Andersen, when Andersen wrote that she was new to Minnesota. Perhaps, Dean suggests, Andersen comes from a place where the democratic process is corrupt. This incredibly complex interplay between topic, self-presentations, and the possible selfcategories on which self-presentations are made demonstrates a number of important points. I have only touched the surface of this complexity. Even having touched the surface it is clear that this is unlike any previous medium in which fairly straightforward communication from source to audience can be counted on. Perhaps the continued reliance on a one-way flow of information can cause an expert such as Debra Andersen to believe in and rely on the lack of sophistication of her audience when defending her employer. Perhaps this reliance will be effective if control of the source of information is ensured. Such a highly controlled structure can allow those in control of the source of information to maintain a belief in the simplicity of the communicative process. If there is control there is no need for an understanding of the complexity of socialpsychological processes to be communicated by those with control to an audience. Given this interpretation, it is possible the degree to which the mistakes made by Andersen were inadvertent, indicates the degree to which aspects of human interaction neglected by orthodox communication processes are made visible by the new medium. In this medium actors who submit messages connected to a topic are providing data not only about the topic but about the self-categories by which they understand themselves. The submission of this data can be handled more or less skilfully, to be sure. Dean demonstrates the skilful use of the medium as a communication tool. Andersen is considerably less skilful. What this episode demonstrates, in any event, is that the altered foundation for communication provides an incredibly rich degree of data about the varying self-categories by which actors define their identities. In this instance, Dean and Andersen can be viewed as actors participating in the democratic process as citizens, as actors affiliated with particular political parties, as actors professionally responsible for perpetuating political systems, as actors interested in the race for the Governor of Minnesota, as actors interested in taxation, as actors worried about how to pay for state services, as two women participating in a forum dominated by men. The manifest complexity of the interconnections between the variety of self-categories revealed in two acts of self-presentation connected to a concrete topic in politics in Minnesota is clear. The involvement of the actors in the perpetuation of societal institutions is also clear. The duality of the individual and society, the belief that the isolated individual at the computer terminal is an individual at liberty, certainly cannot withstand the clear knowledge conveyed in this brief interaction. Rather, we all carry the self-categories by which we define ourselves and our conceptions of society in our heads. Furthermore, individuals thus constructed are responsible for attending to the ongoing development of these conceptions of society along with a vast network of other individuals constructed in the ways in which they are constructed. The political ramifications of this interaction in particular, as well as the general knowledge generated by the interaction, are clear. In particular, an author presenting herself as a female candidate for Lt Governor of the State of Wisconsin demonstrates that an author presenting herself as a female in an unknown position and in the act of supporting the incumbent Governor is either naive or cynical about state politics. She is cynical if her state e-mail address reflects her

place of employment. If she is cynical this might be because she is an outsider unfamiliar with political traditions in Minnesota. All of this data illuminates the woman, her employer, politics outside of Minnesota, the history of the political tradition in Minnesota, and the current political system in Minnesota in which the woman works. Given that the woman is the Commissioner of Administration under the Governor whose electoral prospects are the current topic of deliberation, this is substantial information. Generally, the inability of a high level government official to operate effectively in the arena created by the new media is indicative. The high level official operates according to rules of behaviour inconsistent with rules enabled by the new media. That the new media is becoming pervasive in all societal institutions means the alteration in rules of behaviour will likely affect the rules of behaviour of individuals in positions of authority. The change in the understanding of participants in the democratic process of social-psychological processes will necessarily change the democratic process. It will change the democratic process to the degree that the previous understanding of social-psychological processes is different from the understanding of socialpsychological processes enabled by the new media and at the foundation of democratic deliberation. This is quite profound. If political institutions are built on the basis of a certain understanding of social-psychological processes that have prevailed through centuries and led to the design and construction of communications technology and systems of public opinion formation that allow the understandings to prevail, and this basis is altered by new communications technology and the design of new systems of public opinion formation, the alteration will necessarily rebound on the structures raised on the basis of the old understandings. Entirely new structures will necessarily result. 7.1.2 Surfacing knowledge The knowledge gained by participants about the complex interconnections between topics, selfpresentations and self-categories quickly affected the continuing development of the context. In the next thread that motivated a relatively large group to participate, an awareness of the altered social-psychological foundation for communication emerged at the level of subject-headings. Clearly, with time this knowledge was working its way up from particular instances within exchanges to the overt acknowledgement of the existence and significance of the phenomenon in the process of exchange itself. The exchange began with my presentation of a series of articles written by a fellow MNPOLITICS participant for another forum. Don Homuth, who had been the campaign manager for Minnesota Congressman Colin Petersens first two unsuccessful campaign efforts and had subsequently moved to Oregon, had written down his thoughts about the campaign business. Thinking this would stir up the forum I submitted these as an AGORA entry. This led to 19 exchanges. The movement of the subject-headings are as follows: 1. AGORA, 1 message 2. Don Homuth, 6 messages 3. The Campaigning Art, 1 message 4. Slouching Towards a Flame War, 1 message 5. The "Don Homuth" Debate, 1 message

6. On Netiquette, 1 message 7. The Societal "We", 5 messages 8. "Controversy Going Off-line, 1 message 9. Campaign reality, idealism, and Homuth/Larsen, 2 messages Chris Larsen, a graduate student at Harvard and a Minnesota native, found the activities portrayed by Homuth offensive. He initiated an attack on Homuth as a cynical political hack. Homuth, who was attempting to offer a realistic account of the activities undertaken by people in his profession for another forum, took offence and accused Larsen of being a snobby, young idealist from Harvard with no understanding of reality. After the list manager, Mick Souder, briefly intervened with a message titled Slouching Towards a Flame War, various acknowledgements of the complexity of the situation began to appear in subject-headings. Here was a debate between two individuals with different perceptions of themselves and different experiences of structures in the world forced into an interaction by an essay submitted by me. In the process of confrontation both men eventually admitted they had acted emotionally. In resolving the conflict, however, they went further into their perceptions of the democratic process as well as into a discussion of how to act in internet forums. While the controversy was soon taken to private e-mail it had been informative for all participants as it entailed a discussion of significant issues from two very different perspectives. The value of the interaction for participants was summed up nicely in the last subject-heading, "Campaign reality, idealism, and Homuth/Larsen". The knowledge that two men, one a "realist" and one an "idealist", were exchanging opinions on the democratic process thus appeared at the macroscopic level of thread generation, in the subject-heading itself. 7.2 The second period The second period was characterised, first, by the consistent length of the threads. Instead of long, medium and short threads there were mainly medium threads of, for example, 29, 33, 12 and 24 exchanges. Second, there was a consolidation in the length of time of each thread, to between two to six days. Thus, where the threads during the first period ranged in number of exchanges and duration, the threads during the second period were consistently in the mid-range of both number and duration. Along with the significant increase in the average length of a thread there was only a slight increase in the number of authors contributing to the thread. Thus, there was quite a bit more activity being initiated by only a slightly larger group of authors. In addition there was a change in the kind of topic in the threads from a rather specific deliberation to a deliberation on more general topics such as liberalism, negative campaigning and paternalism. Finally, there was a continuing imbalance in participation between men and women, with only two women contributing to the last five threads during the period. This period can most accurately be interpreted as an important time of transition in MNPOLITICS as a cognitive space. After the beginnings of the bell curve thread the pattern in operation can be described as consistently contentious. This is most clearly demonstrated by the large output of messages from a relatively small core group. Thus, the topics under consideration were highly salient to the self-categories of a relatively small mass of authors. This resulted in a small mass of motivated authors dominating the threads. The reasons for this transformation are several. As the E-Debates were organised and transpired the forum attracted an increasing

number of subscribers. This and the excitement of the activities generated qualitatively different kinds of behaviour. The lengthy probing discussions of the first period after the crime thread were becoming unfeasible as the population expanded and changed. As more people subscribed an increasingly general population sought topics that would render self-categories salient. More activities at the boundary of normative versus anti-normative behaviour occurred. Yet there were no rules in place to help the forum adapt to the increasing intensity caused by the changing context. Because of the absence of rules particularly contentious individuals such as John Logajan and others espousing a similar libertarian philosophy were left free to act exactly as they found desirable. The ramifications of these actions are rendered clearly in the statistics. The socalled Logjam effect described in a previous section required the intervention of management and the creation of new rules. This can be seen in the brief thread that ended this transitional period, A WARNING FROM LIST OWNER. The increase in participation and the increase in behaviour dangerous to the well-being of the forum is an example of the process by which the erosion of citizenship is made visible. The orthodox understanding of the individual and society prevalent among list participants active during this period can be seen to undermine the skills of human interaction needed to fulfil the function of citizenship which helps maintain normative values in a political community. If dominant societal institutions render the complexity of human interaction invisible, as the behaviour of Debra Andersen would suggest, the result is the emergence of individuals in the community who lack necessary skills of citizenship and, therefore, pose a danger to the maintenance of normative values in the community. In this way the phenomenon of flaming in CMC can be interpreted as a gauge of values common in the community in which the application is utilised, rather than a general social effect of the medium, as it is portrayed by some. 7.3 The third period Between the second and third periods, after the successful implementation of the two-messageper-day rule, there was a dramatic change in patterns of participation. The length of threads remained consistent, but there was a decrease in the number of messages per thread and an increase in the number of authors per thread. This can be viewed as a macroscopic adjustment to the changing context and a renewed equilibrium in participation. During this time the ongoing construction of threads-as-object can increasingly be seen as the object of political struggle. Here I say threads-as-object rather than thread as object. During the first period threads were constructed at a leisurely pace and topics isolated from one another. During the second period an aggressive sub-group dominated the threads. During the period under discussion threads became increasingly interwoven. The boundaries between threads, then, came to represent the points of shift in the ebb and flow of political turmoil. Thus, during this period the threads created a single object, a single continuum of deliberation. This continuum, visible in the threads themselves, is about the changing patterns of participation. During the second period topics such as the bell curve, anti-science and paternalism can be interpreted as reflections of the aggressive style of participation of a small sub-group, and to a degree, reflective perhaps of the norms of that sub-group. Once the new rule was implemented there was arguably a continuing movement into the same norms of behaviour. However, this time there was also the initiation of what can be seen in part as a protest against the style of

participation. The protest - which was formulated in terms of gender politics - was explicitly embedded in the name of the central thread of the second E-Debate, women and MN-POLITICS. This was, in any event, a battle over normative versus anti-normative behaviour engaged at the level of the thread itself. Of course, what is normative and what is anti-normative was at issue. Perhaps, it was at issue according to participants not only in MN-POLITICS but also in the democratic process in society at large. The product of the threads was, therefore, a deliberation over democratic norms and, as we shall see, the creation of a possibility for democratisation. This is in contrast to the first period in which topics were more specific, isolated from one another and explored with considerable expertise. This is not to say that there was a lack of expertise on display in the third period, but the expertise was more closely related to the art of politics in a new arena than the art of, for example, administration. This expertise was, perhaps, in the art of deliberation over the normative values of a political community in front of citizens with jobs at risk and the continuing existence of a variety of things related to politics in Minnesota at issue. Between the first and second E-Debate, the deliberation in MN-POLITICS fractured around the issue of gender. One can see clearly the point of fracture as the subject-headings moved from Paternalism to Crime revisited to women and MN-POLITICS (See Table 7.0). This point of fracture is not only clear from the subject-headings but is also clear statistically: TABLE 7.3
Dates Oct.24-Oct.28 Oct.28-Oct.31 Oct.31-Nov.4 Threads Messages 4 2 5 78 21 89 % of messages by male & female 88% / 12% 86% / 14% 66% / 34% Authors 30 12 48 % of authors by male & female 83% / 17% 83% / 17% 69% / 31%

During the first and second periods there is both a low incidence in the number of messages from women - 13% - as against men - 87% - and the number of female authors - 17% - as against male authors - 83%. These numbers - 13% and 17% - are much lower than the proportion of women in the total population - 26%. During the third period there is a significant shift in participation by gender. The number of messages submitted by women increases from 13% to 34% of the total and the number of messages from men drops from 87% to 66%. The percentage of female authors increases from 17% to 31% of the total and the percentage of males decreases from 83% to 69%. These numbers - 34% and 31% - are now higher than the proportion of women in the total user population - 26%. 7.3.1 Deliberation, gender and democratisation This data is significant in thinking both about democracy and gender generally and democracy, gender and CMC particularly. Generally, the issue of gender presents a relevant litmus test against which to gauge a democratic process of decision-making. Beginning with Athenian democracy when women were simply excluded from citizenship, one can trace the manner in

which institutional structures have interfered with the ability of women to express their perspective as both female and citizen. The lack of a genuinely female voice, whatever form that might take, has resulted in the ongoing development of institutional structures that deny power to women acting as women, whatever that might mean (Dunn 1992). Thus, in the ongoing design of democratic institutional structures, one test for the degree to which the institutional structures are democratic is the degree to which women, currently a majority of the population in the United States, are equal participants in the process. This notion that the issue of gender is a litmus test for democracy has been applied to a common notion that CMC is a democratic medium, whatever it means to be a democratic medium (Matheson 1992, Herring 1993, 1994, Spears and Lea 1994, Turkle 1995). According to some of this research gender as a litmus test has not led to a concrete result. Herring argues that CMC is not necessarily democratic because both external intimidation and factors related to socialisation, or the internalisation of self-categories resulting from "patriarchal" social structures, can be seen often to decrease the rate of participation of women in mixed sex forums (Herring 1993, 1994). The external intimidation under consideration, Herring postulates, results from different discursive practices between men and women when participating in CMC. Men engage in discourse practices characterised by, for example, "strong assertions, self-promotion, presuppositions, rhetorical questions, authoritative orientation, challenges to others, humor/sarcasm". Men also submit more messages to mixed sex forums than women. Women engage in discourse practices characterised by "attenuated assertions, apologies, explicit justifications, questions, personal orientation, support for others". When a forum is dominated by a typically male discursive style, as Herring defines it, the result can be the overt intimidation of females using a typically female discursive style, as Herring defines it (Herring 1993, 1994). Of course, the extent to which these male and female discursive styles are a result of socialisation is also pertinent. Perhaps, the degree to which socialisation has led to these discursive styles is itself a sort of gauge to estimate the extent of an internalised constraint keeping women from participating in deliberative forums. These factors can be seen to have been in play for a large portion of the archive under consideration. Until the changes in participation along the lines of gender, the data collected from the archive seems to support the notion that CMC is flawed as a democratic medium. This background suggests the importance of the statistics about participation and gender in MNPOLITICS. The change in the statistics provides evidence that in at least one context, a movement towards the equalisation of participation between genders in a democratic deliberation transpired. Of course, one must remain aware of the fact that the medium was in the instance and continues to be dominated by men in terms of usage statistics. Nonetheless, this data offers an encouraging account of the democratic potential of CMC. Not only were processes by which men dominate discourse rendered visible, but an opportunity for redress was created. Of course, communication is not independent of the self-categories of participants and therefore the structures that have shaped participants and in which participants are involved. It is, therefore, impossible to say there is or is not some general, universal, trend towards democratisation enabled by every application of the medium. It is pointless to look at each context in which the medium is being used and count "democratic" or "anti-democratic" episodes. The imbalance built into structures of discursive practices will not soon or easily drop away. It is not, however, pointless to note that an application that was designed to aid political deliberation makes

problematic behaviour visible and provides an opportunity for redress through an extended deliberation among a community of participants about proper behaviour. Such an observation will, rather, be informative on the subject of the democratic potential of the medium. On these grounds, the shift in patterns of participation according to gender is indeed an encouraging episode. Given gender as a significant historic litmus test for democratisation, this application of the medium can be said to have resulted in an instance of greater democratisation. 7.3.2 Context The shift in patterns of participation must, in this case, be seen as dependent on the developing context. First, all changes followed the implementation of the new rule. It was clear to the management from the patterns of participation and complaints from participants received privately that the forum had been thrown out of an equilibrium suitable to the purpose of the list. Measures were taken at the level of design to achieve a new equilibrium. After this, not only did patterns of participation by gender change, but there was an overall increase in the functioning of each of the factors by which the well-being of the forum can be gauged. These include an increase in the number of threads, in the number of messages, in the total number of authors, and in the percentage of authors participating in threads. Clearly, the rule change was at least partly responsible for the equalisation of participation by gender as well as the other positive results. What is less clear is the extent to which the equalisation of gender contributed to the other positive results and vice versa. Perhaps the rule change simply curbed excessively aggressive behaviour. Perhaps discursive practices of women tend to be less aggressive and more supportive than the discursive practices of men. Perhaps a less aggressive and more supportive discursive practice tends to mitigate the ill effects of aggressive behaviour. Perhaps this combination of factors had a mutually reinforcing effect on the overall well-being of the forum. In any event, it is significant that the participation of women, whether a cause or an effect or both a cause and effect, coincided with an increase in the overall well-being of the forum. Second, changes were the necessary result of the ongoing development of the context. This is particularly true of the changes in patterns of participation by gender. These resulted from the interplay between the topics related to politics in Minnesota and the self-presentations of individual agents based on self-categories made salient by previous self-presentations and topics. By the time of the second E-Debate the dominant topic was clearly the race for the position in the United States Senate. Not only was this race of great national significance, but the candidates had agreed to participate in the first debate between candidates for a national office on the Internet. This generated a great deal of media attention, an increase in subscriptions and a general level of excitement. The key connection between the dominant topic and the change in participation by gender was that two of the four candidates were women. Thus, in the second EDebate thread, 12 of the 29 messages were from women. In addition, the two female candidates were both affiliated to political parties on the left of the political spectrum, the DFL and the Socialist Workers Party. The introduction of a topic so constructed into a discussion so dominated by aggressive males was bound to affect the developing context. 7.3.3 Context and agency

We thus arrive at the point where a context meets the agency of individual authors. Here it will be most informative to look at some key instances in the exchanges in terms of the theoretical issues that have been developed. During the weekend between the two E-Debates David Tilsen attempted to begin a serious discussion about crime with a post titled Crime revisited. This was quickly superseded by Julia Cici who, in a post titled Gun Control, introduced the breaking news that a man opened fire on the White House. She suggested that Republicans would probably say this was a ploy of the Democrats to gain votes. Cici asserted that the Republicans would be wrong, adding, "Furthermore, Im getting pretty sick of reading stuff from men on this group. Perhaps women need more representation - because we won't go back to the DARK AGES...Unfortunately, most women are denied access to alot of things - the Net included..." Cici finished her polemic by saying women will not go back to a time when they lacked control of their bodies, citing spousal abuse as an example. Brian Huff provided the determinative response to Julia Cici. He wrote, "Frankly, Im getting a little bit sick of women blaming men and the male dominated society for their own problems." Huff also touched on the issue of female representation on MN-POLITICS, stating that it was impossible to know how many women were participating because of the anonymity of the Internet. The renewal of the crime thread and the news about the attack on the White House threatened to move the deliberation into a direction reminiscent of the early crime thread and the bell curve discussion. The redirection began when Julia Cici, in an aggressive message characteristic of supposedly male discursive practices, inserted an entirely new perspective connecting the topic to both partisan politics and gender. Given the aggressive tone of the message and the vaguely communicated connections made between seemingly distant topics such as gender, gun control, partisan politics and discursive practices in MN-POLITICS, the message motivated another participant, Brian Huff, to respond angrily to the new direction. Huff refused to accept the relevance of the multiple connections made, particularly the connection to gender. With this exchange a contested terrain emerged. Self-categories connected to gender as well as dominant discursive practices in MN-POLITICS were raised with Cicis self-presentation. Huff demonstrated his lack of comprehension of these connections in his self-presentation. A new discursive field could emerge, depending on the critical mass motivated by the contested terrain to continue in the construction of a thread. Individual authors able to have a determinative influence on the shape of threads, and all the social-psychological complexity at the foundation of the construction and movement of threads, can be said to have a certain amount of mastery in the art of politics in the new arena. Carmen Largaespada presents a case in point. On Monday, after the start of the second E-Debate, Largaespada added to the newly emerging discursive field a message titled women and MNPOLITICS. Of the Cici-Huff exchange, she began, "In response to this, IMHO, rather odd exchange..." She went on to offer a statistical analysis of the male domination in rates of participation in the forum. She offered her own analysis of the gender dynamics set out in Table 7.3 above, and concluded that only 7% of the authors to MN-POLITICS were women. She then said there must be more women observing the forum. She discussed some of the possible reasons for the lack of participation such as socialisation and made a call to female subscribers to speak up because "if you dont speak for yourself, someone is going to speak for you, whether or not you like what he has to say".

A couple of women immediately offered an analysis of the Senate and Gubernatorial races. More frequently, both men and women began to discuss anonymity on the Internet, the perception that the Internet is male-dominated, the need for more input from women in political discourse, the offensive remarks made by Brian Huff, and the offensive remarks made by Julia Cici. Significantly, one author, Amy Solmonson, an aide to DFL Congressman Bruce Vento, responded by indicting Brian Huff for suggesting that women are the cause of rape and spousal abuse. She concluded, "I am absolutely incensed at this kind of thinking, and unless I completely misinterpreted his statement, I think Brian Huff owes the women of this server an apology." What is more important, perhaps, is that gender issues and political discourses were tied to a deliberation over the normative values of the forum. One participant made the point that there is a concrete need for a distinctly female discursive style in democratic deliberation in a political community. Rebecca Hoover wrote, ...since the response of women to issues and candidates differs from the response of men, I would be sorry indeed to see women on MN-Politics adopt gender-neutral names. I think the discussion on MN-Politics would lose much of what it has to offer. Also, I believe that the majority of voters are now women, and MN-Politics can benefit from the ideas and feelings of women. In this instance Hoover asserted the need for a distinctively female contribution to the democratic deliberation. If a female style is seen as connected to supportive discursive practices and a male style as connected to aggressive discursive practices, then a so-called female style would and did provide an important value to the maintenance of the well-being of the forum. If one, therefore, views this solely as a deliberation over supportive versus aggressive discursive styles, participants in the conversation can be seen as taking part in a discussion over the normative values underlying the democratic deliberation in MN-POLITICS. Perhaps a more co-operative discursive style is necessary to promote the interaction possible in the forum. Perhaps such a discursive style is necessary to the function of citizenship in the maintenance of community norms, as well. 7.3.3.1 The art of politics in a new arena The manner in which the threads developed after Largaespadas intervention can be seen as carefully calculated political action. The denouement of the action can be seen to have been precipitated by several messages from both men and women questioning the relevance of the discussion of gender to the purpose of MN-POLITICS. Both Largaespada and Steve Boland, the case-worker for Congressman Vento, submitted messages rebutting the complaint that gender was unrelated to MN-POLITICS. In the process, both made a strong statement in support of the DFL candidate, Ann Wynia. These authors, thus, acted to raise the issue of gender and discursive practices and connect self-categories relevant to them to a candidate they support, a candidate with the ability to translate a perspective they advocate into political power. Boland suggested, "part of the Grams strategy seems to be to attack Wynia based on stereotypical images that both men and women hold. She is soft on crime and so forth." And Largaespada offered, ...how does Brian's not-so-subtle command that women shut up already affect the current elections? One woman I spoke to said her friends thought that in the (TV) debates, Wynia was coming off as a know-it-all and a bitch. As opposed to what? Some womanly ideal of know-

nothing panderer? Yes, I believe that sexism and its scions have everything to do with mnpolitics. The deep politics being practised by Largaespada, in particular, as well as DFL staffers such as Solmonson and Boland did not go unanswered. Perhaps in retaliation, Adam Sternberg, aide to IR Congressman Jim Ramstad, tried to redirect the forum with a post titled The Real Debates. In the process he supplied relevant information about the actions being undertaken by Largaespada and Boland. He wrote, The married couple of Steve Boland and Carmen Largaespada seem to have quite a bit to say about women in politics...As far as that goes, it is an important issue, but not what the candidates are debating...I would personally rather see discussions of the stands taken, or not taken, by the senate candidates in this forum. Furthermore, John Logajan again took action to alter the course of the threads. On Wednesday at 1:16 PM he rather incoherently accused Largaespada of arbitrarily applying a universal ethic to argue for the equality of women. According to Logajan this ethic is arbitrary because, elsewhere, Largaespada "mocked philosophy and ethics as hopeless abstractions with the rule of law as the final arbiter of societal expression." In other words, because of the pragmatic connection made by Largaespada between the issue of gender and the political power gained by Ann Wynia if she were to achieve victory, Largaespada somehow mocked universal ethical principles. Logajans perception of this mocking obviously irritated his own adherence to universal ethical principles as codified in his libertarian creed. Or perhaps Largaespadas skill in interaction irritated the clumsy Logajan. At 1:29 PM, perhaps in retaliation, Logajan submitted a message titled Campaign Ethics Violations? He accused Steve Boland (recently revealed as Largaespadas husband) and Amy Solmonson of actively campaigning for DFL candidates from tax-payer funded, government e-mail accounts - amy@vento.house.gov and boland@vento.house.gov. According to Logajan this was unethical. Boland, after submitting an explanation about the ethics of his activities and rebuking Logajan the libertarian for acting as a censor, withdrew from participating in MN-POLITICS. Amy Solmonson also withdrew, writing that she had participated on her personal time, but concluding, I hope that, in the future, rather than being chastised for our use of a limited access to Internet, (actually just e-mail access), my colleagues and I can begin to use this medium as a communication tool between ourselves and the constituency we are here to serve. The event itself was followed by a string of 18 messages commenting on the event. There were no partisan differences in the responses. Many lambasted Logajan. For example, the DFL activist Dennis Hill wrote, "Thank you for bringing Big Brother to MN-Politics. Some Libertarian you turned out to be." Some of the messages explained why Boland and Solmonson broke no rules. Others thought there might be a problem but concluded that the medium was so new the aides ought to be encouraged to participate regardless. The prevailing opinion was that the opportunity to communicate with the staff of elected officials was a positive experience. The loss of two voices would be a loss to MN-POLITICS. 7.3.3.2 Backlash

It takes fortune, organisation, aggression and talent to shift the political agenda and the locus of power within threads as well as in structures in the world. Perhaps this is because participants carry versions of structures that exist in the world in their heads. Again, one finds that the substance being created and rendered transparent is, in fact, context. Apart from a context the conception of the medium as inherently democratic makes little sense. Placed in the democratic process, however, the medium provides data that contributes to the notion that an application can lead to greater democratisation, depending on design. Of course, much effort had to be expended in making Ann Wynia among the first female candidates to run for the US Senate in Minnesota. In any event, this democratisation becomes possible once a topic such as gender is made salient by a concrete thing related to politics in Minnesota. Then it is possible for a sub-unit of a group united by shared citizenship in Minnesota to create a critical mass of participants motivated to construct a thread according to their concerns. Like Ann Wynia becoming a political candidate, this is not an easy process. For, just as structures make it difficult for Ann Wynia to succeed in the world of national politics, structures exist in the heads of participants in the forum. Yet, in the forum, these structures can be rendered apparent and acted upon, thus affecting the agenda and ultimately, perhaps, the structures as they exist in the world. There is a complex political calculus involved in the effort to bring an issue to the surface of deliberation. The complex calculus is related to the altered understanding of social-psychological processes enabled by the medium and forum. If one can understand the calculus and the processes enabled by the forum, one can affect the threads. Like Carmen Largaespada, one can precipitate a deliberation capable of generating data that can take participants and observers deeply into a web of perspectives surrounding a topic as generated by a wide variety of motivated authors. Of course, if one does tap a rich vein of data, it is not possible to control or predict where it will lead. At certain points new information might reflect an unflattering light on the underlying motivations and assumptions of any number of agents. For example, Largaespada, Boland and Solmonson can be seen to have acted in a very political mode. The consequences of their sophisticated political manoeuvring, such as Adam Sternberg's and John Logajans politically motivated responses, were not without justification. These actions redirected the movement of deliberation, and so it goes. In addition to Logajan, Brian Huff lashed out on Friday. He began, "So much hatred on this list...", and proceeded to defend himself against the flames directed at him during the week. He said he was reacting to Julia Cicis "tired, pseudo-feminist drivel..." Cici was trying to twist an argument about gun control into a comment on feminism and all the people that attacked him, particularly Amy Solmonson, took his statement out of context. He wrote, "She [Solmonson] used her political manipulation ability to take a simple statement completely out of context, and get others such as Phillip Ethier, David Menefee, and Kristine Willret to come to her aid in flaming." According to Huff, Amy Solmonson and others incorrectly went on about rape and spousal abuse when he was writing about gun control. They had called him a Neanderthal and an idiot. He concluded, "Amy, dont expect ME apologizing to YOU anytime soon for a stupid mistake that YOU made. I, for one, refuse to alter my nature to cater to the simple-minded and easily insulted." Huff followed this with a message titled, First Internet War/Global Vote Intervention. It is entirely possible the message was meant as a further expression of Huffs emotional state. Clearly Huff had a deep emotional reaction to the contested terrain built from his initial exchange with Cici. Insofar as he considered Solmonsons outburst against him a tool of political manipulation on behalf of Ann Wynia, perhaps there was some justification for his anger. However, other participants submitted messages reprimanding the

ongoing aggression of Julia Cici, and Cici did not engage in what amounts to a public temper tantrum as a result. This, one might conclude, is more data about discursive practices and gender dynamics in the group. 7.3.4 Threads, deliberation and democratic norms On Friday, the last day of the E-Debates, several individuals posted messages addressing the tension that had obviously built up in the forum. Rebecca Hoover stated that she was disturbed by some of the interactions. She emphasised that participants are "private" rather than "public" individuals and do not need to be subject to rhetoric denigrating their "ideological stances, intellectual capability, or ethical fitness". She reminded the forum that lawsuits were beginning to be brought against people interacting in cyberspace and advised that individuals respect the rights of private citizens. Hoover thus took a step in placing the Project in relation to existing institutional structures. Between the congressional ethics controversy and the threat of lawsuit, MN-POLITICS had begun to lose its innocence as part of the utopian "cyber future". Instead, the substance of the forum was becoming serious enough that the proceedings within the forum were bumping into important spheres of jurisdiction outside cyberspace. Rebecca Hoover also suggested that rules were needed to maintain the quality of discourse in the forum. Not everyone agreed that rules were needed. Leila Schneberger did not. She recognised the problems presented by the newness of the medium, writing, "There are many people who are new to electronic communications, some of whom are finding themselves on the soapbox for the first time. When a person feels attacked, the results can be unpredictable. Many people have a hard time discussing issues based on core beliefs without getting all emotional about it." She suggested, "If the goal of mn-politics is to facilitate communication among the candidates and the voters, were doing that. It is easy to spot the insults, faulty logic, and political doublespeak." Finally, she concluded that if any rule was needed it was that individuals should contact others privately if they feel that the other has acted outside of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. This exchange raises important issues about the new political forum. What are the rights and responsibilities of an open public forum such as MN-POLITICS? Where is the best balance between the rules and regulations needed for the well-being of the civic space and the rights of free speech, free assembly and free press needed for the well-being of democracy? These are fundamental questions. That they were raised by Project participants was a considerable event. They reflect the ongoing deliberation over normative values underlying the exchanges in MNPOLITICS. As we have seen, there was an ongoing need to work and sometimes implement rules to maintain the well-being of the forum. Yet, the strength of the forum was also the extent to which management was the responsibility of the participants during the process of exchange. The result of extended deliberation was the opportunity to participate in the process of democratic self-government. 7.4 The candidates and democratic norms The two major threads during the last two weeks were, of course, E-Debate 1 and E-Debate 2. As I have mentioned MN-DEBATE was created as a separate platform for the candidates. People were invited to subscribe to MN-DEBATE where they could watch the candidate exchanges without themselves participating. All the messages submitted to MN-DEBATE were forwarded

to MN-POLITICS, so the messages in the archive include the E-Debates. On the first day of each E-Debate, the messages included an introduction to the candidates provided by the League of Women Voters, the first question for the candidates, the responses of the candidates to the question and the rebuttals of the candidates to each other. On the third day the messages included the second question, the responses of the candidates and the rebuttals of the candidates. On the fifth day the messages included the third question, the responses of the candidates, and the rebuttals of the candidates. As I have mentioned elsewhere candidates were not required to type in their own responses. As the Project was an experiment and the elections rapidly approaching, campaign staffs were allowed to play a pivotal role in drafting submissions. Of course, the candidates were encouraged nonetheless to participate actively. It is best to view the E-Debates as individual, self-contained threads within the archive. In doing this one remains aware that the threads are unique and independent of other threads and that the threads are still threads. The E-Debates are, thus, very much a part of the medium and context of MN-POLITICS. In focusing on these threads one important fact becomes apparent. In MNPOLITICS a great deal of energy is expended on a deliberation over normative and antinormative behaviour as citizens interact with one another in a democratic deliberation. The candidates that attempt to interact with one another within the threads and engage in a deliberation over normative values will, as a result, perform better than candidates that do not. Especially in the Senate E-Debate the minor party candidates did attempt such interaction. These attempts were overtly recognised and approved of by a number of participants. The busy major party candidates did not attempt to engage in such interaction. Instead, they offered media releases similar to what they would offer to traditional media outlets. These were condemned by the minor party candidates as flat, hollow, and, at a couple of points, dangerous to democratic norms. The style of communication in which the candidates direct information one way - to the citizen/consumer - simply revealed the degree to which the candidates and the candidates staffs misunderstood the social-psychological processes at work and enabled by the new political arena. This was somewhat similar to the mistaken assumptions revealed by Debra Andersen in September. As I am not a student of traditional media campaign rhetoric I will not go into a detailed analysis of the submissions of the major party candidates. Instead I will offer a summary of these, selections from the responses of the minor party candidates, and some comments offered by participants in a thread titled The Debates Thus Far. Although the opportunities for substantial exchanges between the candidates were evident, the Governors E-Debate was hampered by a the candidates lack of knowledge about the technology, an audience of approximately 600, and no certainty that the exchanges would reach a larger audience. Furthermore, by the time of the E-Debate the race between the major party candidates was virtually over. Polls indicated that the incumbent Governor Arne Carlson was well ahead of John Marty. As a result the Marty campaign was scrambling. They did not invest the time to learn about the medium. The worker for the Carlson campaign, on the other hand, who had plenty of time to observe the forum and did attempt to use the medium with some creativity, intercut his text with Martys in the rebuttals. Will Shetterly, the Grassroots Party candidate for Governor, a libertarian, and a participant in MN-POLITICS since the beginning, was among the minor party candidates. He submitted a total of 21 messages, including the 6 official responses and rebuttals. Shetterly used the quote and comment capability to engage the major party candidates in a dialogue that made the most of the medium. The other minor party candidates,

Jon Hillson of the Socialist Workers Party and Eric Olsen of the Libertarian Party, were less adept. Unlike the first E-Debate circumstances favoured serious political engagement as the second began. The new political machinery had been tested and was in place. The race between Rod Grams and Ann Wynia for the Senate seat vacated by IR Senator David Durenberger was highly contested. The race had a national audience because it was one of the only Senate seats held by a Republican that the Democratic Party believed it could win in 1994. This was during a year in which many were predicting the Democrats could lose their majority in the Senate. Furthermore, the Governors E-Debate had been a qualified success, the new two-message-per-day policy was in place and the majority of participants knew a bit more about the new civic space. The IR candidate Rod Grams, the DFL candidate Ann Wynia, the Independent Party candidate Dean Barkley, and the Socialist Workers Party candidate Marea Himelgrin were asked three questions over a period of five days. The first question concerned national politics, asking whether the country should "sign a new Contract With America" or "stay the course". The second question suggested Congress was broken and asked how to fix it. The final question, put together from suggestions offered by participants in MN-POLITICS, began, The statistics, some have argued, show that the crime rate has been relatively stable over the past 20 years. Yet violent crime has been the number one public concern this election season. What, in actuality, do you perceive to be the root cause of this upsurge in fear? Is it really a factually verifiable increase in the incidence of violent crime, or is it something else? The Grams and Wynia campaigns were heavily involved in the elections elsewhere. Like the major party candidates running for Governor, they offered what some described as "campaign boiler-plate". The Grams people, for example, began both of the first two responses, "As a parent, homeowner and businessman, I have seen government at its best and at its worst." The Wynia people generally began with an attack against Grams and finished with an endorsement of Wynia. Given the extent to which the candidates stuck to campaign boiler-plate, even during the rebuttals, it was clear they were not tracking the activities of the minor party candidates or the public. Indeed, neither major party candidate chose to answer the final question about the link between fear and the crime issue, both choosing instead to offer their alternative get-tough-oncrime rhetoric. The other party candidates, on the other hand, were highly engaged in the E-Debates and used the opportunity to condemn the major party candidates. The result was a stunning demonstration of the potential of the new political arena as a space for deliberation over normative values. It was a powerful critique of the political process observed and commented on by citizenparticipants, including representatives from media organisations. While the Socialist Workers Party candidate, Marea Himelgrin, took the opportunity to attack American capitalism, Independent Party candidate Dean Barkley allied himself and his party with the independent voter and pilloried the major political parties. It was not necessarily the policy proposals of the minor party candidates that commanded attention but rather their comments on the political process. In his first response, arguing that voters should choose a third course, Barkley wrote,

Except for this E-DEBATE (and bless you for making this possible) the handlers have yet to place their candidates within reach of the public. Grams and Wynia only address friendly audiences and only debate pre-arranged questions at pre-staged events. They have consistently refused to appear in any debate where I am present and have only appeared where I am excluded. Grams, Wynia, the two major parties, big-money special interests...are now involved in defeating the democratic freedoms our nation's founders fought to protect. During her rebuttal Marea Himelgrin concurred, writing, "I find it interesting that as voter disgust with the two parties grows, the Democrats and Republicans seek to tighten their grip on the political process". As the E-Debate progressed, Barkley continued to attack the major party candidates, using his facility with the E-Debate format and their lack of substantive participation. He wrote, Regarding Mr. Grams' and Ms. Wynia's response to question #1, their answers echo the superficial, make-the-other-look-worse-than-you behaviour exhibited by these two in their TV debates. I was hoping this E-DEBATE format would help us all get more substantive answers and accountability from the major party candidates. I would love detailed, factual information from them stating what is right about their views instead of what is wrong about the other...Rod Grams and Ann Wynia, pay attention. Below, I am going to lay out one of my public policy positions in detail, and in writing no less! You ought to try it yourselves. It works. Believe me, the people really do want to know and they are not as dumb as your TV ads indicate you believe them to be. In the final question, the only candidate who did not offer some variant of the get-tough-oncrime rhetoric was Marea Himelgrin. Instead Himelgrin cited statistics that showed the crime rate had remained steady over the past 20 years and statistics that showed a dramatic increase in violence on TV. She then wrote, "I think generating hysteria about the so-called crime-wave serves several purposes for the rich and the politicians who do their bidding." In her rebuttal Himelgrin pilloried the other three candidates, writing, The three capitalist candidates participating in this debate fall over each other in their enthusiasm to propose eroding hard-won democratic rights and dreaming up barbaric punishments for working people accused of committing crimes. The major party campaigns remained oblivious to the participation of the other candidates throughout the E-Debate. Barkley, on the other hand, congratulated Himelgrin for an excellent response, cited where he disagreed, and once again attacked the major party candidates, writing, As you read the Democrat and Republican responses, do you see that one contributing factor to our nation's crime problem is their failure to meaningfully engage the public? Do you also notice that neither Mr. Grams nor Ms. Wynia offer anything different than the same throw-asound-byte approach now exhibited by Congress? Beginning on Thursday, participants began a thread titled The Debates Thus Far that provided commentary on the performance of the candidates. This critique extended the bight of anger

expressed by the minor party candidates in MN-DEBATE. The anger was, thus, perpetuated by citizens commenting on events. As one might expect, negative comments about the submissions of the major party candidates and positive comments about the submissions of the minor party candidates prevailed The messages tended to be critical of the sound-bite approach of the major party candidates. For example, Sharon Toll wrote, I hoped this would be a forum for candidates to identify specific proposals and positions. Most of what I've read from Wynia and Grams has been a rehashing of the TV debates & a defense of their respective records/qualifications, etc. This forum can and should be far more than sound bites. One person was especially frustrated that the candidate he supported, Ann Wynia, was often the most guilty of using "shallow and uninformative rhetoric". Wynia and her staff remained oblivious to the ground-breaking political potential presented by the deliberation on gender and normative behaviour that had been engaged by participants in MN-POLITICS on the back of her and her staffs work. Others expressed an awareness of the difficulties faced by the major party candidates in participating in a new forum before a relatively small group. Certainly, one suggested, they do not have time to write their own material and their staff can not put words in their mouths. Yet, it was equally clear to authors that the minor party candidates who were writing their own material were having an impact. Once again Sharon Toll wrote, "the candidates who are genuinely reading and typing, the Shetterlys and Himmlegrens (sp?) and Olsons, are truly educating me. I just hope that all candidates will be willing to pay personal attention to us in the future." On the last day of the E-Debates Josh Baker submitted a message titled Voters imitate candidates imitate voters..... In this message he accurately pin-pointed the dynamic going on among both participants and candidates. On the one hand I've read the sentiments: 1) Why would I do something that's not going to get me the end that I know I want? (e.g. power of my vote, wasted votes on third party) and 2) Why shouldn't I say XYZ if it's what I believe? (e.g. e-flame-wars) Yet we criticize the candidates when they ask the same questions: 1) Why would I do something that's not going to get me what I want? (e.g. risk losing by talking about risky issues, spend time doing something that's not winning votes) and 2) Why shouldn't I say XYZ if it's going to get me what I want? (e.g. negative campaigning) The theme of both candidate and citizen: I believe in my own voice more than I believe in a collective voice. And I am struggling to make my voice heard over the voice of the people however I can. Our politicians truly DO represent us. Baker identified the manner in which self-interest tends to pull the citizen/consumer as well as the candidate away from a serious engagement with questions involving normative values. Again one witnesses the fallacy that the isolated individual is at liberty in a political community. That

Baker could reveal this dynamic and others could review the material in the archive as data to support the revelation is encouraging. That participants were continually taking small steps towards a serious deliberation on normative values in a political community is also encouraging. 8.0 The media - new knowledge and the mass audience MN-POLITICS was creating an opportunity for dialogue and participation and, therefore, a window into a variety of perspectives on the facilitation of the democratic process. Furthermore, individuals participating in MN-POLITICS were finding a place to become informed about the political machinery and express their criticisms. Indeed, most of the threads from the beginning of October to the E-Debates would concern the analysis of issues in the practice of American democracy. It would remain for the E-Debates to create the needed link between this new machinery and the traditional systems of public opinion formation - the political media. The media acted as a distribution mechanism for the MN E-Democracy Project, allowing MNPOLITICS to have an impact that carried far more weight than one would suspect a 600 person public forum to carry. Within itself MN-POLITICS developed into an alternative system of public opinion formation. The pronouncements of the candidates combined with the analysis offered by fellow citizens served an educational function for Project participants. Because the combination of the candidates E-Debate and public discussion was newsworthy the intelligence generated in the forum was, in turn, observed and reported on by members of the media, locally, nationally and internationally. In this way the alternative system of public opinion formation affected traditional systems of public opinion formation. The potential impact of this civic sphere and political machinery on media coverage was illustrated particularly well by the reporting of Bob von Sternberg from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In his 31 October report of the Governors E-Debate he intercut excerpts from the candidate exchanges with an account of what was going on behind the scenes and within MNPOLITICS. In that report he expressed the difficulty of covering the event and hinted at how it might potentially affect his profession as a journalist, "Theres more - far more than a newspaper has room to print. For all of its technical whiz-bang nature, the electronic debate is a throwback of sorts. In substance, its akin to 19th century debates that lasted for hours and were covered at excruciating length by the press" (Sternberg 31 October, 1994). It was, however, von Sternberg's 4 November report splashed across the cover of Section B five days before the elections that had the most effect politically. In that article he simply reported what was going on in the E-Debates and in MN-POLITICS, much as I reported in sections above. He quoted the individual who asked if "anyone else is disappointed with the substance we are getting from the major party candidates". He reported the fact that citizens were sick of sound-bites and the complaint that the major party candidates were recycling stump speeches. He also reported that the minor party candidates, Marea Himelgrin and Dean Barkley, were making the most of their opportunities. As the race between Grams and Wynia was extremely close, and as Barkley was already on the verge of taking the 5% of the vote needed for the Independence Party to achieve major party status in Minnesota, every percentage point was important. As a result, this was news. Von Sternberg quoted Barkley in full,

It really steams me that Mr. Grams and Ms. Wynia engineered my exclusion from the major media debates when I am arguably the one candidate in this race who best represents the majority of Minnesota voters...Their answers echo the superficial make-the-other-look-worsethan-you behavior exhibited by these two in their TV debates. Who knows how influential the article was on the almost 400,000 people who read the Minneapolis Star Tribune each week-day. Certainly the article shocked the candidates that morning as they pored over their press. Furthermore, von Sternberg reported the personal issues that were going on in MN-POLITICS, such as the concern that women be represented. He quoted Julia Cici exclaiming "this is the place, and this is the time" and wrote about another participants observation that the gender issue is related to Minnesota politics because the women participating in the forum "are probably Minnesotas political leaders of tomorrow". Finally, he ended with a follow-up interview with a participant who had grown up in Minneapolis but was a graduate student in Berkeley, California. She too complained about the candidates stale rhetoric, concluding, "Big surprise: Last week of the campaign and they arent taking any risks" (Sternberg 4 November , 1994). Not all the local coverage was as in-depth as the Star Tribune. In fact, some coverage betrayed a suspicion and, perhaps, fear of the new technology. For example, in the 6 November St. Paul Pioneer Press Glenda Holste suggested that citizens could find out all sorts of information about candidates in the new forum. She quoted Steven Clift and myself. But she was not as enthusiastic as von Sternberg about MN-POLITICS. The only feature of the dialogue she reported was a brief conversation on "Big Science" during the Governors E-Debate a week before her article was run. She suggested, "The discussion might have been a creature of an intellectually rarefied virtual community" (Holste 6 November, 1994). Certainly, it has been common among journalists to portray the Internet as the home of unsavoury computer geeks, for whatever reason. Perhaps some journalists have perceived the Internet as a threat to their role in the democratic process? Nonetheless, the reverberations of the flow of dialogue from MN-POLITICS to the press, from the press to the participants in MN-POLITICS as they read the press, and from the participants back into MN-POLITICS demonstrated in 1994 how thoroughly the new civic space had become embedded in the mesh of institutional structures facilitating the democratic process. The reporting of the Star Tribune was repeated by other media organisations, although none as successfully as the Star Tribune. In fact, the international bi-weekly Socialist Workers Party newsletter The Militant quoted the Star Tribunes quotations of Marea Himelgrin. To them the publicity their candidate received in the major media was, itself, news. The Deutsche-Presse Agentur news agency suggested that a new civic sphere was being developed. The writer, David McIntyre, was particularly interested in pointing out the instances during which the "cyberspace town hall" and "civic utopia" predicted by some bumped into political reality in Minnesota. For example, he included an interview with Himelgrin in which she suggested that her inclusion in the E-Debate was a political rather than a technical decision. She was correct that the new medium will not automatically cause third party candidates to be included. Especially as public forums become increasingly prominent. She did admit, though, that she could still have submitted commentary in the open forum. McIntyre also reported on the campaign ethics controversy that ended in the withdrawal of the congressional employees from the forum. He

concluded, "So electronic democracy is not immune from more mundane political controversies" (McIntyre 4 November, 1994). Besides these examples there was coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The National Journal, The San-Diego Union-Tribune, among others. This coverage centred on MNPOLITICS as the first on-line political debate for high office. Generally, they included quotations from the other organisers and myself and a brief description of the events. Because this coverage was singular and because it was not rooted in the geographic domain of the voting population for the elections in question, it was less relevant to the democratisation of systems of public opinion formation.

PART III
1.0 Summing up Historically, thinkers such as Benjamin Constant and John Dewey have argued that something extra was needed from people to ensure the health of a community. Constant advised that something akin to ancient liberty, defined by participation in the polis, was needed to preserve liberty, ancient or modern. In other words, modern liberty as the absence of constraint on ones personal freedom was not enough to preserve itself. Rather, liberty as active participation had to be institutionalised as well. During the revolutionary era the means for the facilitation and preservation of active participation were not written into the basic documents of the emerging nation-states, even as the facilitation and preservation of liberty as absence of constraint was codified in numerous places. At the time perhaps actors could not understand that measures to facilitate and preserve active participation might be necessary to the health of a political community. In addition, perhaps actors could not envision how formally to construct such measures. It is not, therefore, all that surprising that the early avenues of active participation such as the salons and coffee houses and town halls were easily replaced by the embryonic forces of globalisation that brought forth telegraphy, the newspaper, broadcasting, radio and TV. By the time broadcasting, radio and TV were becoming prevalent any remembrance of institutions allowing for active participation was slight. A fully formed philosophy could, therefore, be crafted to allow for the functioning of political systems in a complex world despite the failure of democratic ideals. Walter Lippmann, a pioneer in a story about how the yearning for public space was co-opted by vast private concerns in the personage of mass media, eloquently stated such a new philosophy. Dewey, the philosopher of democratic ideals, refused to accept a Lippmannesque analysis. The absence of the opportunity to participate in the commonwealth was part of an inhuman condition and unacceptable. Without a communal life a person could not fully be human. For Dewey, "To learn to be human is to develop through give and take of communication an effective sense of being an individually distinctive member of a community; one who understands and appreciates its beliefs, desires and methods and who contributes to a further conversion of organic power into human resources and values" (Dewey 1927: 154). The active participation that is a

requirement for the preservation of liberty for Constant is for Dewey a prerequisite for our very humanity. Constant and Dewey both identify the fabric of interconnectedness, or interaction, as necessary to the well-being of a political community. Both fear that prevailing philosophies fail to identify the significance of human interaction and, therefore, allow the fragile stuff to be eclipsed by the institutional structures through which people are governed. If formal procedures for interaction are not protected, the result, according to Constant, will be the loss of liberty. According to Dewey it will mean the loss of that which makes us human. Such perspectives are supported by contemporary scholarship that argues it is precisely the social bias in human intelligence that has resulted in the supposedly unique development of Homo Sapiens. It is our capacity to gauge our activities against those of others, a capacity shared by chimpanzees and gorillas and called anticipatory interaction planning, that has resulted in the development of the language skills and media of communication which make us what we are (Byrne 1995, Goody 1995). If it is through this interaction that we construct norms to regulate human communities, then the understanding and nurturing of interaction is essential to the well-being of communities. Many of our forebears have overlooked the importance of human interaction within communities. Governing institutions have been raised without regard for the significance of the interaction that constitutes the daily community life of people. It is no wonder the norms that are a consequence of this community life have eroded over generations. In the twentieth century this deterioration in civil society has been perpetuated by the modern mass media as based on a Lippmannesque system of public opinion formation. Consequent with orthodox structures, we have witnessed not only the eclipse of a Deweyan public but the eclipse of a substantive conception of citizenship. Citizenship has become a hollow vessel by which we define certain legal rights and responsibilities. It is this rotting away of a substantive conception of citizenship in favour of a hollow conception that is a primary cause of the erosion in normative behaviour and civility. The consequence is a dangerous increase in antinormative behaviour or incivility. This is dangerous because a rich conception of citizenship is necessary to the construction of community norms through which a people can engage in the project of self-government. Without this the project is imperilled. In the application of technology and analysis pursued in this dissertation both the neglect of important communicative processes and the ensuing erosion in an understanding of citizenship and all that implies has been rendered apparent, and open to quantitative analysis. This instance has opened the way for a systematic understanding of phenomena that concerned Constant and Dewey among others. The technology as formatted also provides the public space necessary for individuals to engage in public deliberation over normative values, and therefore the opportunity to comprehend an enriched conception of citizenship through which to construct the possibility for participation in democratic self-government. This enriched conception of citizenship emerges out of an attempt at a Deweyan system of public opinion formation just as a weakened conception of citizenship emerges out of a Lippmannesque system and the stuctures of modern mass media. Because the interaction is a consequence of the e-democracy concepts and is stored in electronic archives, the public forums can be studied and we can learn how further to nurture political community. Thus not only are neglected processes rendered apparent, the tools needed to train participants in the proper use of neglected processes are at hand. Furthermore, in this

instance, one can comprehend the manner in which a system of public opinion formation enabled by the new technology might interact with traditional institutions of mass media. Through participation in and reporting on public discussions, reporters can objectively communicate the knowledge generated and the issues addressed to a mass audience that may not themselves be inclined to participate. 2.0 Beyond 1994 We have seen that the phenomenon under observation in Minnesota in 1994 developed in a rather positive way for a given duration. What does this tell us about how the phenomenon will stand up over time, and in a variety of circumstances? If the knowledge gained through this study is to have some value beyond the limited sphere of the study, it is necessary to take a broad perspective. Is the data analysed herein of value beyond 1994? Beyond Minnesota? While MN E-Democracy has not yet been duplicated in every city in the nation and every country of the world, it has infiltrated the Twin Cities and its influence in affairs has expanded. It has matured and continued to be a stable sphere where an open public can freely interact. The stability of MN-POLITICS as an institution is clear from a look at the archive from its beginning to the 1996 election. Messages from past months: November 1996, 439 messages October 1996, 552 messages September 1996, 346 messages August 1996, 353 messages July 1996, 488 messages June 1996, 507 messages May 1996, 315 messages April 1996, 329 messages March 1996, 293 messages February 1996, 332 messages January 1996, 451 messages December 1995, 170 messages November 1995, 192 messages October 1995, 133 messages September 1995, 198 messages August 1995, 141 messages July 1995, 54 messages June 1995, 63 messages May 1995, 129 messages April 1995, 184 messages March 1995, 28 messages February 1995, 60 messages January 1995, 95 messages December 1994, 240 messages November 1994, 536 messages

October 1994, 548 messages September 1994, 298 messages There is a decline in submissions to MN-POLITICS after the 1994 electoral cycle, with a low of 28 in March 1995. However, activity increases again as the electoral cycle begins anew. After the lows in 1995, when the future of MN E-Democracy was uncertain, there is a consistent trend of between 300 and 500 messages each month. Furthermore, around the time of important activities outside MN E-Democracy output increases. In January 1996, for example, during the Presidential primaries, there are 451 messages; in June 1996, around the time of the DFL State convention, there are 507 messages; and during the run-up to the 1996 elections in month of October, a historical high water mark of 552 messages is reached. During this time leaders from the political arena, political activists, individuals in the media and citizens, participated in MNPOLITICS with a wide range of effects, large and small, in the community (Bonchek, 1996, Schwartz 1996). Most importantly, organisers including Mick Souder, and Steve Clift and I were a continuing presence in the forum, guarding the boundaries of MN-POLITICS. The most significant result of these activities was the codification of guidelines and rules of participation during the spring of 1996 (see APPENDIX 2). The statistics and events in MN-POLITICS inform us of the stability and maturation of the forum over a two year period, but do not address the effort that went into creating this stability and maturation. Soon after the elections in 1994 a group of interested individuals gathered to extend the success of the Project. Regular meetings were held and an e-mail list was created to discuss the maintenance of MN E-Democracy. While most of the group was located in the Twin Cities, I was able to participate from Cambridge, England through the e-mail list. In addition I made regular trips to the Twin Cities to remain current with the situation. One of our goals was to reproduce and expand in 1996 on the success of 1994. To achieve this, MN E-Democracy asked in December 1995 if the US Senate candidates would be willing to participate in an E-Debate in 1996. Once all the major party candidates agreed, we asked major media with an online presence - including the Star Tribune Online, The Pioneer Planet, MN Online - to be partners in the Project. The participation of the candidates and the local media was announced at a press conference at the State Capitol in January 1996. Furthermore, between the winter and summer of 1996, MN E-Democracy was made into a 501.c.3 non-profit, a Board of Directors was created, a $15,000 start-up grant was obtained from Cowles Media Foundation/Star Tribune, an Executive Director was named, and I agreed to return in the fall to run the campaign activities. Because of the success of the Project, because we were aggressive, and because the new field was in a state of flux, these developments proceeded smoothly. After over a year and a half the participants in MN-POLITICS were people who had invested time in ongoing deliberation and, therefore, people who were particularly attracted to the activities. With an extended history and the construction of guidelines and rules to ensure the well-being of the forum, the list had been honed down to approximately 300 members. The group included media personalities such as Dave Brauer and John Yewell, activists such as Dennis Hill, political candidates such as Renee Jensen and Marc Asch, and youthful political operatives such as Blois Olsen. On the whole the group was made of youthful individuals active and influential in the community and interested in the new technology. Participants came to

expect the characteristic of serendipity. When a new issue or event was raised in the forum this would often result in reverberations among participants and, often, in the community. Perhaps as importantly, the deliberations had become substantive enough in the lives of the group, and the group had become comfortable enough with one another, for a July picnic to be organised easily after someone suggested having a party. Among organisers the face to face meeting was considered a gauge for the success of the project. It meant that the list was making a contribution in the Twin Cities that had some meaning in the lives of the influential group of participants. As list member Cindy Carlsonn put it, "The level of civility in our society is really becoming appalling. (That's why picnics and such are so important -- the more people you know, the more people your likely to at least be decent to!!)" Indeed, after the picnic one thread was generated discussing the picnic and another discussing the need for civility in society. As self-described libertarian Mitch Berg wrote, "Since the picnic, Ive learned that flameage is not really appropriate on this list. This is good - cuz in my earlier incarnation on this list, Id have really uncorked at this one." Although there was some churn, this core group carried the deliberation through the fall. As the elections developed and the 1996 E-Debate came and went, the number of participants increased to approximately 500, the number of submissions increased, and the number of authors increased. Yet, although there was an increase in the level of activity to levels similar to the fall of 1994, the public forum was unchanged qualitatively from how it had developed through the summer and into the fall. The behaviour in the forum remained well under control, with no need for the intervention of management, and the discourse was of a remarkably high standard. While the activities in MN-POLITICS confirmed my analysis of the 1994 archive, MN E-Democracy had prepared for a greater challenge by creating another public forum and several Web-based conferences hosted by local media, including the Star Tribune Online, Channel 4000 (owned by WCCO TV and Radio) and Cafe Utne (owned by the Utne Reader magazine). The fact that the other e-mail forum was unneeded and the three Web forums largely went unused during the EDebate was an unexpected consequence of the fall activities. The explanation for these events is complex. Put simply MN E-Democracy was a new institution with certain strengths - such as MN-POLITICS, the participation of the candidates, and the participation of media organisations - trying to create a product in a highly unstable and ferociously competitive emerging marketplace. While MN-POLITICS and the participation of the candidates carried MN E-Democracy through to a successful fall, the connections to media organisations did not result in a built-in publicity machine to communicate the existence of the project to a mass audience. The politics of the media was and will for some time be fractious, to say the least. For example, in August Star Tribune news reporters publicly questioned the value of a Star Tribune civic journalism project. Also, the 1996 Senate candidates engaged in a record 11 debates. Intra-media rivalry and highly engaged candidates resulted in a lack of publicity about the E-Debates in the mass print media. While the Project was well received by the radio press, the print coverage that did appear was sparse and bland. The coverage was similar to the seemingly threatened pronouncements of Glenda Holste in the Pioneer Press in 1994. As the 1994 statistics indicate, coverage by the mass print media results in an upsurge in participation. The lack of coverage meant we did not get the upsurge in participation that would have involved the mass public, making the forums more fractious perhaps, but more valuable for the community as a result.

Despite the lack of a mass audience and although the candidates participated in 11 debates, the E-Debate distinguished itself. This is most easily illustrated through a recollection of events surrounding and following the second E-Debate question. First, however, it is important to note that the E-Debate format was largely unchanged. Three questions were asked over a one week period. After each question responses and rebuttals were expected from all of the participating candidates. This time, however, the questions were scheduled to coincide with activities being staged by other media organisations working with the Project. Thus, the first question about the economy coincided with a nation-wide online talk radio chat about the Senate race hosted by Minnesota Public Radio; the second question about democracy coincided with a public journalism style TV debate hosted by the Star Tribune and KTCA Public Television; and the third question about the future of medicare coincided with a major TV debate hosted by the League of Women Voters of MN and WCCO TV. By using the lengthy time frame of the EDebate to drape the deliberations over a series of election events we sought to foster the continuity of events and construct a week long period of deep democracy in Minnesota. As events transpired, this strategy demonstrated how the new technology might deepen the process and change politics permanently. The second question to the candidates was as follows, As important a scholar as Robert Dahl has expressed concern that democracy itself may be at risk as our economies go through rapid, global transformation. This is supported nationally by allegations that candidates are disregarding campaign finance laws, and accepting vast sums from national and transnational organisations. It is also supported by a citizenry clearly suspicious that politicians and the media organisations responsible for facilitating the democratic process are, as scholars Christopher Arterton and Jeffrey Abramson put it, "secret sharers". Question: Do you think the democratic process is at risk? If so, why and what needs to be done so the democratic process thrives in an information society? The manner in which the three major party candidates handled this question was relevant to the campaign, and confirmed trends discerned in my analysis of 1994. First, the three major party candidates included former Senator Rudy Boschwitz for the Republicans, Incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone for the DFL and, once again, Dean Barkley for the Reform Party. The race was notable as a rematch between Boschwitz, a two term Republican Senator from 1978 to 1990, and Wellstone, who upset Boschwitz in 1990. During that year the underfunded Wellstone, a former political science professor at Carlton College specialising in grassroots community organising, and the campaign manager of Minnesotans for Jesse Jackson in 1988, put together a strong advertising campaign and powerful grassroots organisation to pull off what was considered a major upset. In 1996 Boschwitz ran a traditional media campaign, painting Wellstone as "embarrassingly liberal" and himself as mainstream. Wellstone called for 11 debates, ran an extended grassroots organisation, and argued that corporations had enough representation and he was in DC to represent "children, the elderly and working families". In addition to these two, candidate Dean Barkley continued to preside over the growth of the

Reform Party in Minnesota. With increased media exposure Barkley was able successfully to make a case that both parties in power were beholden to special interests and unable to solve the problems facing the nation. A powerful dynamic was made apparent after the three candidates answered the second EDebate question. Both Barkley and Wellstone said the political process is at risk. Barkley sounded themes reminiscent of 1994 and Wellstone the political scientist and US Senator concurred, writing, "I agree that our democratic process is seriously undermined by our current system of campaign financing, and by the undue influence of special interests it allows. I said it six years ago, when I was elected to the Senate, and it remains true: the central ethical issue of politics in our time is the dominance of governmental decision-making by moneyed special interests." The two candidates spoke clearly and in some detail on critical issues. In the rebuttals, Wellstone restated his views on campaign finance reform. Barkley initiated an expansive assault on the role of media in the democratic process. Among other things, Barkley pointed out that even as the League of Women Voters of MN decided to include him in their debates, others such as Bill Hanley at KTCA Public Television continued an anti-democratic policy by excluding major party candidates from debate. [As you will recall, Barkley won major party status for his party in 1994.] This was particularly effective as the KTCA-Star Tribune debate was held the night before Barkley submitted his rebuttal. Trends favouring an increasing variety of voices and the opening of the media were clear, as fuelled by projects such as MN E-Democracy, individuals such as Dean Barkley, and movements such as the Reform Party. As Barkley concluded, " Lets keep the pressure on the other debate sponsors and media organisations to be mindful of their public responsibility to the citizens they purport to serve...On election day, I ask you to keep the health of our democracy in mind. I ask you to express your opposition to the seizure of our airwaves and the betrayal of our democracy that is being perpetrated by the Democrats and Republicans. A contested terrain was created among the candidates as Rudy Boschwitz responded, "Although our democratic process remains intact, America has strayed from its heritage of individual freedom and personal responsibility....Our experiment with the liberal philosophy of big government has been a disaster for our treasury, our culture, and our national spirit." In other words, two candidates including a US Senator stated their belief that the democratic process is at risk, while a third candidate, a former US Senator, stated his belief that the process is intact. These interactions had a significant if largely unquantifiable effect on the election. The following Monday, two days after the above events, Senator Wellstone and Dean Barkley accepted an invitation to chat for an hour on Minnesota Public Radio. Boschwitz markedly declined to participate. During the programme the two men discussed their views on the risks confronting the political process, concluding that on this most important issue they shared significant common ground. That Tuesday evening, the three candidates appeared together on the League of Women Voters of MN/WCCO TV debate, the most watched debate of the campaign. When asked by a member of the studio audience about campaign contributions and the political process, both Wellstone and Barkley launched into eloquent statements of their views, and both expressed that they shared common ground on these issues. Boschwitz, continuing to ignore the

notion that the political process is damaged, appeared entirely out of step. This was reflected the following week when Wellstone captured 51% of the vote, Boschwitz 41% and Barkley 7%. If Wellstone had not been such a powerful voice for reform and a remarkably good campaigner, Barkley, who spoke eloquently about many problems and came into his own in terms of media coverage, most probably would have received more support. As it stood, a number of times Wellstone invited Barkley to fly with him to various parts of the state, commenting that Barkley possessed an important voice in Minnesota politics. (But, Wellstone would add, not important enough to merit voting for him in 1996.) As the only online project to have the full co-operation of the candidates, MN E-Democracys achievements in 1996 were considerable in a large and increasingly competitive market. At the same time, as the existence of the project was not properly communicated to the mass public, the potential for the State-wide democratisation of systems of public opinion formation was not realised. Instead, the media organisations seeking to secure their futures in an information age ran their own Web-based forums. The anti-normative behaviour observed in 1994 in MNPOLITICS was again observed in these forums, particularly at the Star Tribune Online. One reason MN-POLITICS did not receive greater attention in certain quarters might be the realisation by the relevant media partners that e-mail based forums in 1996 had a competitive advantage over Web-based forums. If organisations were to promote a successful e-mail system over their own struggling Web-based system, they would be hurting themselves. It is not, in fact, clear whether Web-based conferencing will ever have the same properties that make e-mail based conferencing successful, as analysed in the above. Furthermore, it is debatable whether the major media organisations had the expertise to manage their forums properly even if they did have adequate technology. In any event, the result of this was the existence of one highly elite and highly effective public discussion forum and a fragmented series of poorly attended Web forums run by different organisations. According to these results I believe the machinery exists in Minnesota to render apparent neglected processes of interaction and the tools exist to train a substantial percentage of the public in the art of politics in a new arena so that an enriched understanding of citizenship becomes prevalent in the community. This machinery and these tools can be a means to reverse the deterioration in civil society and contribute to a genuine deliberation over normative values. At the same time, in a competitive marketplace, where entrenched media organisations are trying to survive, the ongoing construction of new institutional structures to affect the above described Deweyan revival will continue with great difficulty. The will to finance a public utility for the regeneration of democratic norms, to ensure it as a non-partisan body, to ensure it remains open and free for citizen participation, and to organise it to ensure expert management, does not currently exist amongst the entrenched media and the emerging transnational telecommunications regimes. With such benefactors the segregation into elite and mass forums and the further confusion and alienation of the mass public are likely outcomes. The will to secure a democratised system of public opinion formation must, rather, come from the newly emerging Deweyan public, the community of symbolic analysts, opinion leaders and information elites. It falls on these groups to preserve democratic norms in the twenty-first century. 3.0 Beyond Minnesota

Certainly, the proof that orthodox methods of political communication erode the tools of citizenship necessary to maintain normative values is of lasting value beyond Minnesota, at least in the United States. For the political culture of Minnesota is part of the political culture of the United States, except that Minnesota is reputed to have a particularly robust political culture. If the civic culture in Minnesota is above average, then the trends indicating the erosion of civic culture in Minnesota are most likely to be more pronounced in other parts of the United States. Additionally, the new technology can be seen as part of an emerging civic revival in Minnesota. Thus the beginnings of a Deweyan system - characterised by freedom from the profit motive, a geographic base, a non-partisan system open to the public and an emphasis on electoral politics have thus far been successfully developed. Minnesota clearly provides fertile soil for the growth of a Deweyan system. This is not surprising as Minnesota is home to a rich civic tradition characterised not only by MN E-Democracy but also a variety of public journalism projects, a continuing tradition of strong public broadcasting, the strength of the Reform Party, the success of the Wellstone grassroots campaign, and a voter turnout in 1996 that was 25% higher than the national average (64% versus 49%). Even in Minnesota, however, it will be a struggle to institutionalise this system. If it will be a struggle in Minnesota, with its strong civic tradition, it will certainly be more of a struggle in other parts of the United States. According to Robert Putnam rich civic traditions in a geographic area make civic renewal more likely, and the lack of civic traditions makes civic renewal less likely (Putnam 1991, 1994). It will be possible and important work to co-ordinate e-democracy initiatives and study what they uncover about the status of civil society and the understanding of citizenship in various political communities. The e-democracy concepts can be used as tools to gauge the state of civic culture. It might also be possible and beneficial to study how the concepts are absorbed into existing and not yet existing institutional structures located locally, regionally and globally. Through such a study it would be possible to gauge whether, when and where the new technology can, in fact, act as a catalyst to civic revival across regions and even continents. Thus far, across the United States, a haphazard and thoroughly impenetrable mish-mash of usenet newsgroups, listservs catering to specific interests and Web-based bulletin boards has emerged. The success of usenet and the creation of new listservs have been driven by the market power of the early adapters. These creations are the unorganised flowering of Internet culture and as such are quite possibly the major contribution of the Internet to a global culture. Most of these lists are, however, removed from geographic concerns and most are targeted to a specific area of interest, such as "clinton.96" or "online-newspapers". As one might imagine, large local, regional and global institutions of mass media have not eagerly embraced the anarchic Internet, the non-profit Internet, or e-democracy concepts. Even so, the world of online media has exploded since 1994. Locally, as in the case of the Twin Cities, most newspapers and many other media ventures have created an online presence. For example, the Star Tribune Online, the Pioneer Planet, Channel 4000, MPR Online and others all have created online divisions with significant resources. In addition, the major mass media organisations also have directed substantial resources at the new market. For example, Politics Now (a collaboration of the Washington Post, National Journal and ABC News), All Politics (a collaboration of Time-Warner and CNN), MSNBC (a collaboration of Microsoft and NBC), are

each substantial services with a variety of products struggling to survive. This burgeoning field continues in a state of flux as is evident from the constant creation of new partnerships as traditional institutions try to adapt themselves to a new era. It is even more difficult to say where developments are headed on consideration of such products as WebTV, the potential investment of some $7 billion by Microsoft in the creation of local content, and the unknown and/or developing plans of organisations like Disney/ABC, BT/MCI, AT&T, etc. To an extent, to be sure, large corporations are of necessity heeding the experiences of early pioneers such as MN E-Democracy, the usenet news and the thousands of listservs. There is a general acceptance that local content and virtual community will be important. It is, however, unclear whether large players wish to understand why local content and virtual community as exhibited by anything like MN E-Democracy succeed as a popular response to the regimes set in place over generations by many of the large players. For many reasons the online products of large organisations are poor candidates for Deweyan systems. First, the interaction created by the mass media organisations is almost entirely Web-based and lacking the important characteristics of e-mail listservs observed earlier. Second, the national focus of many services ignores the needs of any viable, local political community. Third, most services are operated by organisations constrained by the profit motive. As a result the services are often heavily moderated or otherwise constrained. Fourth, most services are placed in regions such as New York, Los Angeles, or Washington DC in which the local culture has for generations been strongly influenced by free market capitalism, and a philosophy of rugged individualism. Finally, the major media centres are also characterised by a profoundly heterogeneous population. The last two points are especially significant. First, if one follows Putnams thesis about the existence of civic traditions and the possibility for civic renewal, the widespread existence of excessively individualistic cultural traditions might be an inhibiting factor. This point further explains why Minnesota, with its strong social democratic traditions preserved by generations of Scandinavian immigrants, provides fertile ground for e-democracy concepts. Second, the existence of extreme variance in a sample population as a result of extreme ethnic diversity will clearly have consequences in the analysis of the political effects of new technology. Again, the homogeneity of the population in Minnesota made it easier to focus on social and political effects by eliminating extreme variance. Variance will, however, have to be increasingly taken into account in other areas where experimentation is pursued. In fact, it is possible that variance in the sample population in a given context will result in an inability to create the unifying self-category of citizenship. This may result in a pessimistic conclusion about the prospects for a Deweyan revival in a particular area. This, of course, remains a significant concern for research. It is, in any event, fully possible that large organisations in the US and elsewhere will successfully co-opt the concepts such as community networking and e-democracy that have sparked enthusiasm among early adapters. On the basis of these they may peddle wares that reinforce the hollow version of citizenship that results in the continuing deterioration of our norms and political communities. At the same time it remains unclear what effect the popular response - the Deweyan public currently organising itself through usenet, the haphazard creation of listservs, and organised projects such as MN E-Democracy - will ultimately have when it comes to the maintenance of democratic norms. There are currents of dissent forming possibly into a wave through use of the new technology. It is possible that e-democracy initiatives will be constructed and meet with some success in places similar to Minnesota, such as Oregon,

Wisconsin, Washington State and Vermont. It is also possible that the activities of individual activists such as Jamie Love and Ed Schwartz, the work of journalists such as Graeme Browning and Ronnie Dugger, and the influence of embryonic populist movements such as the Reform Party and the new Alliance for Democracy, will initiate a nation-wide process of change. In all cases, the continuation of a rapid decline in civil society across the United States, as illustrated by a 49% voter turnout in the 1996 elections, will - for good and/or ill - continue to be a determinative trend. 4.0 Beyond the United States For the short term, prospects for a Deweyan system look remarkably better in Europe than the US. Nation-states in Europe are rather autonomous mid-size units in which a variety of regionally based discussions could be developed. Also, there has been a much more multifaceted dialogue between social democratic and free market capitalist intellectual currents than the rather one-sided discourse in the US. In addition to a consideration of Dewey, many of the concepts put into practice in Minnesota originated upon consideration of English and continental philosophical currents. As a cause and effect of differing intellectual traditions, major media institutions have in Europe developed differently for their various functions in the democratic process. The BBC, for example, can be likened historically to a massive top-down community network. The existence of these currents might make communities across Europe amenable to edemocracy concepts. Furthermore, if homogeneity of the sample population was a factor in the success of the concepts in Minnesota, the homogeneity common within European nation-states may result in the concepts being more easily institutionalised than among the heterogeneous populations common to the US. Finally, the Deweyan system is intended as a democratic counterweight to the anti-democratic tendencies of the new transnational regimes of information technology and mass media. The implementation of this counterweight may, therefore, gain political and economic support and acceptance more easily elsewhere than in the country in which many of the transnational regimes operate. In other words, a Deweyan system might find currency as a potential antidote in part to both Americanisation and globalisation. In Europe, as elsewhere, the emergence of a Deweyan public is a consequence of the increasing use of computer-mediated communication. At this point, regardless of how elites act, individuals will participate in usenet newsgroups, e-mail listservs and electronic bulletin boards. For example, in the UK the "uk.politics" usenet newsgroup has become so popular that a vote was taken among users to subdivide into a number of new usenet newsgroups including uk.politics.electoral, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.philosophy and uk.politics.announce. Partly as a result of such activities various individuals and groups in Europe have expressed interest in e-democracy concepts in general and in MN E-Democracy in particular. Interest and activities have been rather intense compared to the US. For example, a "Decision Guide/Teledemocracy" project is under way at the Institute for Public and Policy in the Netherlands. Individuals in the Swedish government invited Steve Clift for consultation on edemocracy and government online issues. The Academy of the Third Millennium in Munich, Germany is organising a major international conference at the European Patent Office to address issues involving the Internet and politics. Two projects in which I am involved in the United Kingdom, Nexus and UK Citizens Online Democracy, are inspired by and/or modelled on MN

E-Democracy. Projecte de Democracia in Barcelona, Spain is modelled on MN E-Democracy and UK Citizens Online Democracy. In the US large corporations have begun to dominate the discourse on online politics, while a variety of actors from a variety of spheres are involved in Europe. This bodes well for Deweyan systems - and, in fact, Habermasian systems - being given consideration by societal elites. Perhaps there is in Europe fertile soil to use the new tools to gauge the state of civil society among the politically active population online. By simultaneously investigating how the citizenry reacts to these tools and how they are absorbed into existing and newly forming institutional structures it might also be possible to design structures that act as catalysts for civic renewal. These are clearly among the aims of Nexus and UK Citizens Online Democracy. Because I am involved in these projects it will be possible to collect a variety of data, including the experiential data reflected in the successes and failures of new institutions, as well as the content that is generated by a community of users within interactive forums. It will be possible to compare this data with data from the uk.politics* usenet hierarchy, data collected in Minnesota, and data collected elsewhere. This will provide a foundation of hard empirical evidence to create a transnational hub for a research enterprise emanating, originally, from Minnesota in the US and Cambridge, England in Europe. By further analysing the Minnesota data as it has changed in time, and by comparing the experiences of embryonic structures and the quality of interaction within those structures in North America and Europe, it will be possible to create a matrix for cross-cultural analysis of the e-democracy concepts. Once such a matrix is formed it will be easier to analyse systematically further developments elsewhere in North America, Europe and the rest of the world, to co-ordinate research efforts in an increasing range of geographic locations, and study research reports globally. On one level, the research enterprise will potentially provide a vast data set gauging the well-being of civil society in various regions as well as creating the possibility for renewal when and where appropriate. On another level, the research enterprise may result in findings that help make it possible to construct formal e-democracy networks on a local, national and/or global scale. Such a research enterprise engages serious issues concerning our understanding of citizenship. Perhaps the current understanding in which citizenship is defined by legal rights that result from ones place of residence will come into conflict with a conception of citizenship as a unifying self-category. Earlier I referred to the former as a hollow understanding of citizenship coinciding with the erosion of civil society and the latter as an enriched understanding of citizenship. The potential development in our understanding of citizenship presents serious issues for consideration, particularly in Europe where the long dominant nation-state is losing authority. It would appear that citizenship in a nation-state such as the United Kingdom is giving way to citizenship in a larger unit such as the European Union. However, given an enriched understanding of citizenship as a unifying self-category within a political community, such transformation does not appear straightforward. On the one hand, perhaps the new technology will enable the construction of a common culture among the European nation-states, paving the way for the universal acceptance of an allegiance to a meta-organisation such as the EU. For example, the talk.politics.european-union usenet newsgroup is quite popular. Such uses of the

technology will certainly have an effect. Perhaps the organisation of such groups will result in a feeling of pan-European solidarity amidst relatively disparate populations. On the other hand, perhaps the enriched conception of citizenship will reveal powerful fault lines among local, regional and global populations. It may, for example, transpire that these fault lines do not realign so easily in the short term. For example, as a medium coming from America, dominated by the English language, and, therefore, dominated by Anglo-Saxon world outlooks, citizens of the UK may find themselves situated globally in a way that separates them from other EU member states. Indeed, after a cursory inspection of uk.politics.misc and talk.politics.european-union one finds a thread variously divided into the subject-headings, Britain is a democracy. THE EU IS NOT and Britain is NOT a democracy. Such a thread reveals issues and divisions that are both deep and of vital significance. The British tradition of Parliamentary democracy shared with members of the Anglo-Saxon world is perhaps invoked against the differing political traditions in continental Europe. With the Anglo-Saxon world and Asian world spheres doing a great deal of business in the English language, and with information technology and communications products becoming pivotal sectors of increasingly globalised economies that increasingly disregard geographic boundaries, the deep cultural differences and affiliations across continents may increasingly have pragmatic significance. This is but an example of how the new technologies are revealing complexities that ought not be overlooked by world leaders and policy makers. There is no telling what the interactions of a newly enabled global public, steeped in a numbing variety of linguistic and cultural traditions, will in time reveal. At this early stage it is, however, clear that the understanding of citizenship in a world of nation-states is undergoing transformation. As the understanding of citizenship undergoes transformation, the world of nation-states, for good or ill, will change dramatically as well. At their best the e-democracy concepts will allow for a systematic appraisal of the fault lines of civil society. There is also a potential for the tools to act as a catalyst for civic renewal, as happened in Minnesota. In any event, a systematic and increasingly widespread research enterprise involving the organisation of a Deweyan public and the implementation of the edemocracy concepts might, in time, give us the knowledge we need as the influence of the nation-state recedes and our generation seeks to guide the readjusting the boundaries of our political communities. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramson, Jeffrey (1990). "Four Criticisms of Press Ethics". Lichtenberg, ed.. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Abramson, Jeffrey, F. Christopher Arterton and Gary R. Oren (1988). The Electronic Commonwealth. Basic Books, Inc. New York. Adair, Douglas (1956-7). "That Politics May be Reduced to a Science". Huntington Library Quarterly. Vol. 20. p. 350.

Adorno, Theodor W. (1981). Prisms. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer (1979). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Verso. London. Agre, Phil (1996). The Network Observer. Vol. 3(3). http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno.html Aikens, G. Scott (1996a). "The Democratization of Systems of Public Opinion Formation".1996 International Symposium on Technology and Society. Technical Expertise and Public Decisions. Aikens, G. Scott (1996b). "A History of Minnesota Electronic Democracy 1994". INET '96. The Internet: Transforming Our Society Now. Proceedings. Annual Conference. Internet Society. Arendt, Hannah (1973). On Revolution. Harmondsworth. Arterton, F. Christopher (1987). Teledemocracy: Can Technology Save Democracy? Sage Publications. London. Arterton, F. Christopher (1989). "Tele-democracy Reconsidered". Forester, ed. Computers in the Human Context. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Babbie, Earl (1996). "We Am a Virtual Community". The American Sociologist. Vol. 27(1). Bagehot, Walter (1993). The English Constitution. Fontana Press. London. Barber, Benjamin (1984). Strong Democracy - Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Barlow, John Perry (March 1994). "The Economy of Ideas: A Framework for Rethinking Patents and Copyrights in the Digital Age". Wired. Barnes, Barry (1990). "Thomas Kuhn". Skinner, ed.. The Return of Grand Theory to the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Bauman, Zygmunt (1988). Freedom. Open University Press. Milton Keynes. Beamish, Ann (1994). "Communities On-Line: Community-Based Computer Networks". http://alberti.mit.edu/arch/4.207/anneb/thesis/toc.html Bellah, Robert (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Beniger, James (1986). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Harvard University Press. London.

Beniger, James (1987). "Personalization of Mass Media and the Growth of Psuedo-Community". Communication Research. Vol. 14:3. Berlin, Isaiah (1992). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Berman, Marshall (1982). All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. Simon and Schuster. New York. Black, Steven D., James A. Levin, and Hugh Mehan (1983). "Real and Non-Real Time Interaction: Unraveling Multiple Threads of Discourse". Discourse Processes. Vol. 6. pp. 59-75. Blum, Steven (1984). Walter Lippmann: Cosmopolitanism in the Century of Total War. Cornell University Press. London. Bollinger, Lee (1991). Images of a Free Press. The University of Chicago Press. London. Bollinger, Lee (1990). "The Rationale of Public Regulation of the Media". Lichtenberg, ed. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Bollinger, Lee (1986). The Tolerant Society. Clarendon Press. Oxford. Bonchek, Mark (1996). "From Broadcast to Netcast: The Internet and the Flow of Political Information". Harvard University Ph.D. Boorstin, Daniel (1961). The Image, or What Happened to the American Dream? London. Bottomore, TB (1964). Elites and Society. Penguin Books. Harmondsworth. Brand, Stewart (1988). The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT. Penguin Books. New York. Briggs, Asa (1985). The BBC: The First Fifty Years. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Brown, Penelope (1995). "Politeness Strategies and the Attribution of Intentions: the Case of Tzeltal Irony". Goody, Esther, ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Browning, Graeme (1996). Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Influence American Politics. Pemberton Press. Wilton, CT. Browning, Graeme (22 October, 1994). "Zapping the Capitol". National Journal. Buchstein, Hubertus (1995). "Biting Bytes: Cybercitizens and Democratic Theory". Paper presented at the Walt Whitman Center for the Culture and Politics of Democracy. Rutgers University.

Buhle, Paul (1988). CLR James: The Artist as Revolutionary. Verso. London. Burke, Edmund (1949). Burkes Politics. New York. Bush, Vannevar (1945). As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly. Byrne, Richard W. (1995). "The Ape Legacy: the Evolution of Machiavellian Intelligence and Anticipatory Interactive Planning". Goody, ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Carey, John (1989). Communication As Culture. Routledge. London. Carey, John (1992). The Intellectual and the Masses. faber and faber. London. Carr, Edward Hallett (1987). What is history?: the George Macaulay Trevelyan Lectures Delivered in the University of Cambridge January-March 1961. Penguin. Harmondsworth. Carrithers, Michael (1995). "Stories in the Social and Mental Life of People". Goody, Esther, ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Carveth, Rod and J Metz (1996). "Frederick Jackson Turner and the Democratization of the Electronic Frontier". The American Sociologist. Vol. 27(1). Cerulo, Karen A., Janet M. Ruane, and Mary Chayko (1992). "Technological Ties That Bind: Media-Generated Primary Groups". Communication Research. Vol. 19(1). pp. 109-129. Collingwood, R. G. (1939). An Autobiography. London. Constant, Benjamin (1988). Political Writings. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Contractor, N.S. and E.M. Eisenberg (1990). Communication Networks and New Media in Organizations. Fulk and Steinfield, eds. Organizations and Communication Theory. Sage. Newbury Park, CA. pp. 143-172. Corbato, Fernando and Robert Fano (1966). "Time Sharing on Computers". Information, a Scientific American Book. San Francisco, CA. p. 76. Costello, Joe (1995). "Power, Democracy, and the Electronic Future: A Report From Aspen". The Utne Lens - An On-Line Publication of the Utne Reader. Cringely, Robert (1993). Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition and Still Can't Get a Date. Penguin. London. Czitrom, Daniel J. (1982). Media and the American mind: from Morse to McLuhan. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.

Cutler, Richard H. (1994). "Distributed Presence and Community in Cyberspace". Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. pp. 12-32. Dahl, Robert (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press. London. Dahl, Robert (1956). Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago. Damico, Alfonso (1978). Individual and Community: The Social and Political Thought of John Dewey. University Presses of Florida. Gainesville. December, John and Neil Randall, eds. (1994). The World Wide Web Unleashed. SAMS Publishing. Indianapolis, IN. Dennis, Everette, and John Merrill (1996). Media Debates: Issues in Mass Communication. Longman Publishers. White Plains, NY. Dewey, John (1993). The Political Writings. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis, IN. Dewey, John (1927). The Public and Its Problems. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. London. Drew, Paul (1995). "Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning". Goody, ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Dubrovsky, Vitaly J., Sara Kiesler and Beheruz N. Sethna (1991). "The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups". Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Vol. 6. pp. 119-146. Dunlop, C. and R. Kling, eds. (1991). Computerization and Controversy. Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. Dunn, John, ed. (1992). Democracy: The Unfinished Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Dunn, John (1990a). Interpreting Political Responsibility: Essays 1981-1989. Polity Press. Cambridge. Dunn, John (1980). Political Obligation in its Historical Context: Essays in Political Theory. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Dunn, John (1990b). "Trust and Political Agency". Gambetta, ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Dunn, John (1993). Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Durkheim, Emile (1984). The Division of Labour in Society. Macmillan. Basingstoke. Durkheim, Emile (1968). Suicide, a Study in Sociology. London. Durkheim, Emile (1995). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Free Press. London. Dyson, Gilder, Keyworth, Toffler (1994). A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age. The Progress and Freedom Foundation. http://www.pff.org/pff/position.html. Eklundh, Kerstin Severinson (1986). Dialogue Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Study of Letters in the COM System. VTT-Grafiska Vimmersby. Sweden. Eldred, Janet Carey and Gail E. Hawisher (1995). "Researching Electronic Networks". Written Communication. Vol 12(3). pp. 330-359. Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (6 June, 1992). "Dial D for Democracy". Time. pp. 44-45. Fallows, James (1996). Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. Pantheon Books. New York. Ferrara, K., H. Brunner and G. Whittemore (1991). "Interactive Written Discourse as an Emergent Register". Written Communication. Vol. 8(1). pp. 8-34. Festenstein, Matthew (1994). "Pragmatism and Political Theory". University of Cambridge Ph.D. Fisher, Bonnie, Michael Margolis and David Resnick (1996). "Surveying Civic Life on the Internet". The American Sociologist. Vol. 27(1). Fishkin, James (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press. New Haven, CN. Foertch, Julie (1994). "The Impact of Electronic Networks on Scholarly Communication: Avenues for Research". Discourse Processes. Vol. 19. pp. 301-328. Forester, Tom, ed. (1989). Computers in the Human Context. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Foucault, Michel (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin. Harmondsworth. Foucault, Michel (1980). Power/Knowledge. Harvester Press. Brighton. Foucault, Michel (1986). The Foucault Reader. Penguin. Harmondsworth. Foucault, Michel (1981). The History of Sexuality., Vol. 1. Penguin. Harmondsworth.

Frederick, H. (1994). "Computer Networks and the Emergence of Global Civil Society: the Case of the Association for Progressive Communication (APC). Harasim and Walls, eds. Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Fulk, Janet (1993). "Social Construction of Communication Technology". Academy of Management Journal. pp. 921-949. Fulk, Janet and Charles Steinfield, eds. (1990). Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage Publications. London. Fulk, Janet, Joseph Schmitz and Deanna Schwarz (1992). "The Dynamics of Context - Behavior Interactions in Computer-Mediated Communication". Lea, ed. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. Harvester-Wheatsheaf. London. Gambetta, Diego, ed. (1990). Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Gibson, William (1984). Neuromancer. Ace Books. New York. Giddens, Anthony (1990). "Jurgen Habermas". Skinner, ed. The Return of Grand Theory to the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Giddens, Anthony (1991b). Modernity and Self-Identity: self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press. Cambridge. Giddens, Anthony (1991a). The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press. Cambridge. Giddens, Anthony (1994). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press. Cambridge. Good, David (1990). "Individuals, Interpersonal Relations, and Trust". Gambetta, ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Good, David (1995). "Where Does Foresight End and Hindsight Begin?". Goody ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Goody, Esther, ed. (1995). Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Gorayskay and Mey, ed. (1996). Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Gore, Al (March 1993). Letter to Lewis Branscombe published on the Internet. Gore, Al (December 1993). National Press Club Luncheon Speech.

Greider, William (1992). Who Will Tell the People - The Betrayal of American Democracy. Simon & Schuster. New York. Grossman, Lawrence (1995). The Electronic Republic. Viking. New York. Guernsey, Lisa (3 May, 1996). "The Electronic Soapbox: Researchers Start to Evaluate the Growth of On-Line Politicking". The Chronicle of Higher Education. p.A29. Gurevitch, Michael and Jay Blumler (1990). "Political Communication Systems and Democratic Values". Lichtenberg, ed. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Habermas, Jurgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Polity Press. Cambridge. Habermas, Jurgen (1971). Toward a Rational Society. London. Hafner, Katie and Matthew Lyon (1996). Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the INTERNET. Simon & Schuster. New York. Harasim, L. and J. Walls, eds. (1994). Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Harnad, Stevan (1996). "Interactive Cognition". Gorayskay and Mey, ed. Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Harnad, Stevan. "Interactive Publication: Extending the American Physical Societys DisciplineSpecific Model for Electronic Publishing". Serials Review. Special Issue on Economics for Electronic Publishing. pp. 58-61. Harnad, Stevan (1992). "Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge". Public-Access Computer Systems Review. Vol. 2(1). pp. 39-52. Harrison, Ross (1993). Democracy. Routledge. London. Hartman, Karen, Christine Neuwirth, Sara Kiesler, Lee Sproull, Cynthia Cochran, Michael Palmquist and David Zubrow (1991). "Patterns of Social Interaction and Learning to Write". Written Communication. Vol. 8(1). pp. 79-113. Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet". http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook. Heritage, John (1995). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press. Cambridge. Herring, Susan (1993). "Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated

Communication". EJC/REC. Vol. 3(2). Herring, Susan (1994). "Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier". Keynote talk, American Library Association annual convention. Miami. Hobbes, Thomas (1960). Leviathan. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Hoggart, Richard (1957). The Uses of Literacy. London. Holmes, Stephen (1990). "Liberal Constraints on Private Power?: Reflections on the Origins and Rationale of Access Regulation". Lichtenberg, ed. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Holste, Glenda (6 November 1994). "Byte-ing the Ballot". The St. Paul Pioneer Press. p. 1K. Hont, Istvan and Michael Ignatieff (1985). Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Hughes, Robert (1994). Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America. Oxford University Press. London. Hume, David (1955). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Collier Macmillan Publishers. London. Hume, David (1957). An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing. Indianapolis, IN. Hume, David (1985). Essays Moral and Political and Literary. Liberty Classics. Indianapolis, IN. Ignatieff, Michael (1984). The Needs of Strangers. Chatto & Windus. The Hogarth Press. London. The Internet Unleashed (1994). SAMS. Indianapolis, IN. James, CLR (1993). American Civilization. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Jay, Martin (1973). The Dialectical Imagination. London. Jefferson, Thomas (1984). Writings. The Library of America. New York City. Johnston, David (1986). The Rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Cultural Transformation. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Jones, Steven G., ed. (1995). CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Sage Publications. London. Kapor, Mitch and Daniel Weitzner (1994). "Social and Industrial Policy for Public Networks: Visions for the Future". Harasim and Walls, eds. Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Keane, John (1991). The Media and Democracy. Polity Press. Cambridge. Kleim, Hans (1995). "Grassroots Democracy and the Internet: The Telecommunications Policy Roundtable Northeast USA". Proceedings, INET 95. Annual Conference, Internet Society. Honolulu. Kroll, Ed (1994). The Whole Internet Users Guide and Catalogue. OReilly and Associates. Sebastopol, CA. Lasch, Christopher (1995). The Revolt of the Elites. WW Norton & Company. New York. Lazarsfeld, Paul (1940). Radio and the Printed Page. Duell, Sloan and Pearce. New York. Lazarsfeld, Paul and Elihu Katz (1955). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL. Lea, Martin, ed. (1992). Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. HarvesterWheatsheaf. London. Lea, Martin (1991). "Rationalist Assumptions in Cross-Media Comparisons of ComputerMediated Communication". Behaviour and Information Technology. Vol. 10(2). pp. 153-172. Lea, Martin, Tim O'Shea, Pat Fung, and Russell Spears (1992). "'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication". Lea, ed. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. HarvesterWheatsheaf. London. Levinson, Paul (1990). "Electronic Text and the Evolution of Media". Journal of Social and Biological Structures. Vol. 13(2). pp. 141-149. Levinson, Stephen (1995). "Interactional Biases in Human Thinking". Goody, ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Levy, Steven (1994). Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer that Changed Everything. Viking. New York. Lichtenberg, Judith, ed. (1990). Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Limbaugh, Rush (1992). The Way Things Ought To Be. Simon & Schuster. New York.

Lippmann, Walter (1960). Public Opinion. The Macmillan Company. New York. Lipson, Leslie (1993). The Ethical Crises of Civilization: Moral Meltdown or Advance. Sage Publications. London. Lloyd, GER (1992). "Democracy, Philosophy and Science in Ancient Greece". Dunn, ed. Democracy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. pp. 41-57. London, Scott (1994). "Electronic Democracy: A Paper Prepared for the Kettering Foundation". London, Scott (1995). "Teledemocracy vs. Deliberative Democracy: A Comparative Look at Two Models of Public Talk". Journal of Interpersonal Computing and Technology. Vol. 3(2). pp. 33-55. Loughlin, Thomas (1993). "Virtual Relationships: The Solitary World of CMC". Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. Luckmann, Thomas (1995). "Interaction Planning and Intersubjective Adjustment of Perspectives by Communicative Genres". Social Intelligence and Interaction. Goody, ed. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Lukes, Steven (1974). Power: A Radical View. The Macmillan Press Ltd. London. Lynch, Daniel and Marshall Rose (1993). Internet Systems Handbook. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.. New York. Lytel, David (1996). Keynote address at International Communications Association Conference. Chicago, IL. Machiavelli, Niccolo (1988). The Prince. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. MacIntyre, Alisdair (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Duckworth. London. MacIntyre, Alisdair (1988). Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Duckworth. London. Macpherson, CB (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (1988). The Federalist Papers. Penguin Books. New York. Mansfield, Harvey C. (1991). Americas Constitutional Soul. Johns Hopkins University Press. London.

Marcus, Lynne (1987). "Towards a Critical Mass Theory of Interactive Media: Universal Access, Interdependence, and Diffusion". Communications Research. Vol. 14(5). Marsh, Catherine (1982). The Survey Method: The Contribution of Surveys to Sociological Explanation. George Allen & Unwin. London. Matheson, Kimberly (1992). "Women and Computer Technology". Lea, ed. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. Harvester-Wheatsheaf. London. Matheson, K. and Zanna, M. (1989). "Impact of CMC on Self-Awareness". Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 4. pp. 221-233. McCann, Graham (1991). Rebel Males. Hamish Hamilton. London. McIntyre, David (4 November 1994). "Elections Push Democracy into Cyberspace". Deutsche Presse Agentur. McKnight, Lee W. (1995). "Telecommunications Reform in the 104th Congress: Progress through Chaos? or The Telecommunications Lawyers and Consultants Full Employment Act of 1995? or The Law of Unintended Consequences?" Background Paper prepared for the International Institute of Communications Telecommunications Forum. McMullen, John, ed. (1995). The Complete Idiots Guide to UNIX. Alpha Books. Indianapolis, IN. "Media, Democracy and the Information Highway" (1993). The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center. Columbia University, New York. Melville, Herman (1963). Moby Dick. Chicago, IL. Meyrowitz, Joshua (1985). No Sense of Place. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Miller, David, ed. (1991). Liberty. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Miller, Steven E. (1996). Civilizing Cyberspace: Policy, Power, and the Information Superhighway. ACM Press. New York. Mills, C. Wright (1956). The Power Elite. New York. Mumford, Lewis (1934). Technics and Civilization. London. Mumford, Lewis (1961). The City in History. London. Murray, Denise (1991). "The Composing Process for Computer Conversation". Written Communication. Vol. 8(1). pp. 35-55.

Nagel, Thomas (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Negroponte, Nicholas (1995). Being Digital. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. Neuman, W. Russell (1991). The Future of the Mass Audience. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Neuman, W. Russell (1986). The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate. Harvard University Press. London. Newby, G. (1993). "The Maturation of Norms for Computer-Mediated Communication". Internet Research. Vol. 3(4). pp. 30-38. Newman, DR, Brian Webb and Clive Cochrane (1995). "A Content Analysis Method to Measure Critical Thinking in Face to Face and Computer Supported Group Learning". Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. pp. 56-77. Noam, Eli (1994a). "Beyond Liberalization I: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage". Unpublished Paper. Noam, Eli (1994b). "Principles for the Communications Act of 2034: The Superstructure of Infrastructure". Unpublished Paper. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1984). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. ONeill, Onora (1990). "Practices of Toleration". Lichtenberg, ed. Democracy and the Mass Media: A Collection of Essays. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (1992). "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations". Organization Science. Vol. 3(3). pp. 398-427. Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Jack J. Baroudi (1991). "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions". Information Systems Research. Vol. 2(1). Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Daniel Robey (1991). "Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations". Information Systems Research. vol. 2(2). pp. 143-169. Poole, MS and G. DeSanctis (1990). "Understanding the Use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Stucturation". Fulk and Steinfield, eds. Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage. Newbury, PA. "Population Notes" (1992). MN Planning. St. Paul, MN.

Postman, Neil (1986). Amusing Ourselves to Death. Penguin Books. New York. Postman, Neil (1970). "Illiteracy in America: Position Papers". Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 40(2). Proceedings of the Nieman Foundation Conference (1994). Towards a New Journalists Agenda. Putnam, Robert D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. Quarterman, John (1994). "The Global Matrix of Minds". Harasim and Walls, eds. Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Rafaeli, Sheizaf and Robert J. LaRose (1993). "Electronic Bulletin Boards and Public Goods Explanations of Collaborative Mass Media". Communications Research. Vol. 20(2). pp. 277297. Reich, Robert B. (1993). The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st-century Capitalism. Simon & Schuster. London. Rheingold, Howard (1994). The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Secker & Warburg. London. Rice, Ronald (1992). "Contexts of Research in Organizational Computer-Mediated Communication". Lea, ed. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. HarvesterWheatsheaf. London. Robinson, Joan (1962). Economic Philosophy. CA Watts & Co. Ltd. London. Rorty, Richard (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Rorty, Richard, JB Schneewind and Quentin Skinner, eds. (1984). Philosophy in History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Rosen, Jay (1992). The New News v. the Old News: the Press and Politics in the 1990s. Twentieth Century Fund Press. New York. Ryan, Alan (1995). John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism. WW Norton & Company. New York. Ryan, Alan (1990). "John Rawls". Skinner, ed. The Return of Grand Theory to the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Sandel, Michael J. (1996). Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.

Scammon, Richard and Alice McGillivray (1995). America Votes 21: A Handbook of Contemporary American Election Statistics. Elections Research Center. Congressional Quarterly. Washington DC. Schauer, Frederick (1994). "Communications Policy and the Distractions of the First Amendement". Schiller, Herbert (1992). Mass Communications and American Empire. Westview Press. Oxford. Schmitz, Joseph and Janet Fulk (1991). "Organizational Colleagues, Media Richness, and Electronic Mail: A Test of the Social Influence Model of Technology Use". Communication Research. Vol. 18(4). pp. 487-523. Schumpeter, Joseph (1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Row. New York. Schwartz, Ed (1996). NetActivism: How Citizens Use the Internet. Songline Studios, Inc. Sebastopol, CA. Schwartz, Evan (13 April 1992). "Electronic Town Meetings: Reach Out and Vote for Something". Business Week. p. 38. Schwartz, Evan (1994). "Are You Ready For the Democracy Channel". Wired. Vol. 2.01. Sclove, Richard E. (1995). Democracy and Technology. The Guilford Press. New York. Selfe, Cynthia and Paul Meyer (1991). "Testing Claims for On-Line Conferences". Written Communication. Vol. 8(2). pp. 163-192. Skinner, Quentin (1981). Machiavelli. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Skinner, Quentin (1984). "The Idea of Negative Liberty: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives". Rorty, Schneewind, Skinner, eds. Philosophy in History. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Skinner, Quentin, ed. (1990). The Return of Grand Theory to the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Skoyles, John R. (1996). "The Origin of Classical Greek Culture: The Transparent Chain Theory of Literacy/Society Interaction". Journal of Social and Biological Structures. Vol. 13(4) pp. 321353. Smith, Anthony (1980a). Goodbye Gutenberg: The Newspaper Revolution of the 80s. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Smith, Anthony (1980b). Newspapers and Democracy: International Essays on a Changing Future. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. 1980.

Sola Pool, Ithiel de (1983). Technologies of Freedom. Belknap Press. London. Spears, Russell, and Martin Lea (1994). "Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated Communication". Communication Research. Vol. 21(4). pp. 427-459. Spears, Russell, and Martin Lea (1992). "Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication". Lea, ed. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. Harvester-Wheatfheaf. London. Spears, Russell, Martin Lea and Stephen Lee (1990). "De-Individuation and Group Polariztion in Computer-Mediated Communication". British Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 29. pp. 121134. Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler (1986). "Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication". Management Science. Vol. 32. pp. 1492-1512. Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler (1994). "Computers, Networks and Work". Harasim and Walls, eds. Global Networks: Computers and International Communication. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Sproull, Lee, and Sara Kiesler (1991). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. The MIT Press. London. "State and Local Strategies for Connecting Communities: A Snapshot of the Fifty States - Prerelease Draft" (1995). Benton Foundation and Center for Policy Alternatives. Steel, Ronald (1980). Walter Lippmann and the American Century. The Bodley Head. London. Steinfield, Charles and Janet Fulk (1990). "The Theory Imperative". Fulk and Steinfield, eds. Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage Publications. London. Sternberg, Bob von (4 November 1994). "Gore Joins Campaign via Minnesota E-Democracy". Minneapolis Star Tribune. p. 1B. Sternberg, Bob von (31 October 1994). "Sparring in Cyberspace: Campaigns Jump on Internet". Minneapolis Star Tribune. p. 1B. Strate, Lance (1995). "Experiencing Cyber-time: Computing as Activity and Event". Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. pp. 78-91 Streeck, Jurgen (1995). "On Projection". Goody, ed. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Sunstein, Cass (1993). Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. The Free Press. New York.

Taha, Lilas H., and Barret S. Caldwell (1993). "Social Isolation and Integration in Electronic Environments". Behavior & Information Technology. Vol. 12(5). pp. 276-283. Talbot, Stephen (1994). "Counterculture Computing". Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. pp. 74-87. "Technology in the American Household - Excerpts from a study by the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press" (1995). National Journal. Thompson, EP (1978). The Poverty of Theory. Merlin Press. London. Thompson, John B. (1993). "The Theory of the Public Sphere". Theory, Culture & Society. Sage. London. Vol. 10. pp. 173-189. Tocqueville, Alexis de (1990). Democracy in America - Volume 1. Vintage. New York. Tomita, Tetsuro (1980). "The New Electronic Media and Their Place in the Information Market of the Future". Smith, ed. Newspapers and Democracy: International Essays on a Changing medium. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. pp. 49-62. Trachtenberg, Alan (1965). Brooklyn Bridge: Fact and Symbol. Oxford University Press. New York. Trachtenberg, Alan (1982). The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. Hill and Wang. New York. Turkle, Sherry (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Simon & Schuster. New York. Veblen, Thorstein (1979). The Theory of the Leisure Class. Penguin Books. New York. Walther, Joseph (1992). "Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Communication - A Relational Perspective". Communication Research. Vol. 19(1). pp. 52-87. Walther, Joseph, Jeffrey Anderson and David Park (1994). "Interpersonal Effects in ComputerMediated Interaction: A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication". Communication Research. Vol. 21(4). pp. 460-487. Weber, Max (1985). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Unwin. London. Westbrook, Robert B. (1991). John Dewey and American Democracy. Cornell University Press. London. Wilkins, Harriet (1991). "Computer Talk: Long-Distance Conversations by Computer". Written Communication. Vol. 8(1). pp. 56-78.

Williams, Bernard (1990). "Formal Structures and Social Reality". Gambetta, ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Williams, Raymond (1958). Culture and Society, 1780-1950. Chatto & Windus. London. Winner, Langdon (1989). "Mythinformation in the High-Tech Era". Forester, ed. Computers in the Human Context: Information Technology, Productivity and People. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. Yates, J. and WJ Orlikowski (1992). "Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media". Academy of Management Review. Vol. 17(2). pp. 299-326. Zmud, Robert (1990). "Opportunities for Strategic Information Manipulation". Fulk and Steinfield, eds. Organizations and Communication Technology. Sage Publications. London. Zuboff, Shoshana (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Heinemann Professional Publishing. London.