Tiago Peixoto: Pessimism of the Intellect and Open Government
0 likes547 views
The document discusses the lack of clear labels or names for groups working in participatory democracy and open government. It notes that these groups have clear aims but there is no obvious term to describe the overall sector or movement they are part of. The author worries that without consistent names, these causes will struggle to persist and attract long term support from followers. The document also examines where the field of participatory democracy and e-participation currently stands, noting some progress but also issues like being techno-deterministic, fragmented, and lacking strong theoretical foundations. It argues the field needs to connect with other disciplines and adopt new perspectives like historical and institutional approaches to move forward.
More Related Content
Similar to Tiago Peixoto: Pessimism of the Intellect and Open Government (20)
More from Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance (20)
![[X]CHANGING PERSPECTIVES](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/presentatiecedem172017-05-17digi-170517160218-thumbnail.jpg?width=560&fit=bounds)
Tiago Peixoto: Pessimism of the Intellect and Open Government
- 1. Tiago Peixoto @participatory democracyspot.net Pessimism of the Intellect Open Government &
- 2. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 Semantic Extravaganza Where e-Participation Stands Where to go to The Napoleonic Semaphore overview
- 3. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 semantic extravaganza
- 4. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 (…) what primary movement or sector is mySociety part of? Or Avaaz? Or Kiva? Or Wikileaks? When I ask myself these questions, no obvious words or names race quickly or clearly to mind. There is a gap – or at best quite a bit of fuzziness – where the labels should go. This lack of good labels should surprise us because these groups definitely have aims and goals, normally explicit. Also, it is unusual because social and political movements tend to be quite good at developing names and sticking to them. Tom Steinberg, April 2013
- 5. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 Argumentum ad Novitatem (logical fallacy)
- 6. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 And this worries me because consistent names help causes to persist over time. If the field of AIDS research had been renamed every 6 months, could it have lasted as it did? Flighty, narrowly used language confuses supporters, prevents focus and is generally the enemy of long term success. Tom Steinberg, April 2013
- 7. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13
- 8. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 where the field stands
- 9. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 some progress, but…
- 10. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 techno-deterministic fragmented biased methodologically immature under-theorized
- 11. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 THE WAY FORWARD
- 12. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 participation field connect with the
- 13. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 beyond Habermasian
- 14. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 institutional design
- 15. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 crowdsourcing
- 16. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 Condorcet Jury Theorem
- 17. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 different disciplinary perspectives
- 18. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13
- 19. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 perspective historical
- 20. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13
- 21. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 Someone made a remark about the telegraph which seems to me infinitely correct, and which brings out its full importance, namely that, at bottom, this invention might suffice to make possible the establishment of democracy among a large population. Many respectable men, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, thought that the establishment of democracy was impossible among large populations. How could such a people deliberate? Among the Ancients, all the citizens were assembled in a single place; they communicated their will... Alexander Vandermonde, 1795. In: Mattelart 2003: 22
- 22. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 The invention of the telegraph is a new factor that Rousseau did not include in his calculations. It can be used to speak at great distances as fluently and as distinctly as in a room. There is no reason why it would not be possible for all the citizens of France to communicate their will, within a rather short time, in such a way that this communication might be considered instantaneous. Alexander Vandermonde, 1795. In: Mattelart 2003: 22
- 23. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 optimism of the will Pessimism of the Intellect
- 24. Tiago Peixoto @participatory | democracyspot.net CeDEM13 THANK YOU Tiago Peixoto (@participatory) World Bank (ICT4Gov / ODTA) democracyspot.net