1.17. Political systems as technologies

A thesis represented by Leeds is that political systems are technologies and that technologies are political systems. What is meant by that? Most scholars agree that governance has always been dependent upon technology, in the broadest sense of knowledge, skills, techniques and epistemological strategies, as well as devices, hardware, software and power circuits. As the reach of governance has spread – into new areas of the globe as well as new aspects of hitherto personal relationships -, it has come to rely upon more complex assemblages of technically stored and disseminated knowledge. But here it is been contended that technologies are constitutive tools: they do not simply support predetermined courses of action, but open up new spaces of action. For example, the emergence of the printing press in Europe generated a space in which publics could come together as cohabitants of imagined communities; centralised states could disseminate their propaganda to mass populations; and vernacular idioms and dialects could be systematised into official languages. As Anderson argues, ‘the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation.’ Because technologies are not simply used by governments, but are a constitutive element of governance, it makes sense to think of the rules, routines, structures, language, skills and networks of governance as a political technology.”

Similarly, it makes sense to think of e-technologies as political systems, insofar as that they are designed to produce specific particular ends. That is to say, democratic citizenship is not a neutral or simply descriptive concept, but a normative political aspiration. Historically, citizenship has been regarded as a birthright, the entitlements of which have been the subject of contestation and negotiation over the past three centuries. The free citizen is characterised by autonomous moral agency which is most potently exercised within the public sphere. In this sense, it is the liberal freedom from interference, especially by the state, which makes civic action so precious to effective democracy. More recently, however, a number of cultural and political trends have precipitated a shift towards what Garland has called ‘the responsibilization of citizenship.’ These trends include the weakening of strong welfare structures, which leave more people, in more areas of life, having to fend for themselves; the decline of political deference and rise of volatile political consumerism, which leaves citizens feeling rather like shoppers who can buy whatever they want, as long as they can afford it and predict the uncertain consequences; and the adoption of a strong ideological commitment by both conservatives and social democratics towards a belief that social rights must be balanced by communitarian duties. The need to produce citizens who are prepared for these new conditions has given rise to an expanded field of pedagogy which includes citizenship education in schools; risk communication; the training of expert patients; offender rehabilitation schemes; lifestyle courses and various projects to promote ‘sensible’ interactions with the media. Citizenship becomes something more like an apprenticeship. One is no longer simply governed; one is educated through a variety of practices, discourses and technologies to become a responsible collaborator in governance.

E-governance technologies can be understood as political projects designed to shape and promote such norms of skill and knowledge. Learning to be an e-citizen entails becoming familiar with techniques of online information-searching, protocols for digitally interacting and the legal regulation of software use. The cultivation of these skills – often referred to as digital literacy - not only point citizens towards a particular view of governance, but govern the process of being governed. What has been called ‘digital literacy’ is a regulatory project intended to cultivate a citizenry capable of responsible digital interaction. In the context of e-governance, this includes knowing which level of governance one should address in relation to particular problems; being able to navigate through the bureaucratic divisions of departmental and agency remits; behaving in a civilized way; and having appropriate (i.e. well managed) expectations about outcomes. From the perspective of governmentality, none of these skills are politically neutral. A good example of this is the way in which most e-government websites seek to draw an artificial distinction between governance and politics. (For example, few local authority websites in the UK explain the partisan composition of council committees; and councilors are not allowed to use official web spaces to promote their ‘political’ views.) This online illusion reinforces an implicit view that governments are there to get things done efficiently and politics is there to cause arguments and get in the way.” Leed’s argument is that these are not outcomes of technology, but of the political cultures that govern the production and use of technologies.

Next: Sociological theory on post-modern / post-industrial and globalized society Previous: Philosophy of argumentation