Matt Cotton
COM 521
In Simone Chambers’ article “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere”, the author explains that, according to Platonic rhetorical theory, participants in the modern democratic process cannot fully participate in democratic deliberation. This is the result of the mass public’s inability, for various socioeconomic reasons, to fully engage in traditional dialogue with those in office or currently seeking office. Deliberative democratic theory concludes that the mass public has been separated into smaller independent groups labeled mini-publics (324). These mini-publics can enter into Socratic debate concerning specific issues, but often lose their ability to be heard in the wider political realm. This has, possibly, led some to question the effectiveness of traditional dialogue in the divisive atmosphere that has defined the political process recently.
This shift in the political landscape could be blamed for the emergence of a harsher, more competitive level of discourse. Mini-publics become marginalized and often resort to strategies that abandon ethos in favor of currying favor and winning elections. The resulting rhetoric is labeled plebiscitary and its practitioners emphasize winning before all other concerns. Complicating the issue in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission. By doing so they allowed corporations and unions to contribute political campaigns with almost no accountability or disclosure. Disregarding the larger state of a democracy, this ruling opposes the theory of deliberative democracy and allows for unchecked democratic deliberation. Consider the approach taken by Citizens United in the following clip. With its sensationalistic flourishes, it typifies the tone of the messages emerging from these special interest groups. http://youtu.be/2jXmweoX-VI . Would one be inclined to label this as plebiscitary rhetoric or simply a more aggressive form of democratic deliberation?
On the other hand, ads designed in a deliberative democratic style tend to appeal to one’s calmer sensibility and are not as prone to use an inflammatory rhetorical style. This approach may stress the importance of a healthy sociopolitical climate where, ideally, all are welcome to voice their opinions and be heard. Consider this 1992 Clinton/Gore ad as an example of this type of approach. http://youtu.be/9pc7uApCDNA . Chambers writes that, although flawed in some ways, deliberative democratic rhetoric could positively influence a democracy through more instances of “citizen-citizen encounters”. These “semi-Socratic” forums have partly become virtual forums with the growing influence of digital rhetoric, social media, and other on-line alternatives to face-to-face debate (340). Digital rhetoric presently exists, in a sense, as a tool used in both democratic deliberation and deliberative democracy but could it become more than that? More exposure to “semi-Socratic” debate, via digital rhetoric, might educate an audience and thus raise their awareness of plebiscitary rhetorical methods employed by today’s politicians. www.debatepolitics.com Websites such as these gain credibility by remaining non-biased and non-partisan but they also deny the researcher any means by which to measure their influence. In the digital sphere one can only gauge effectiveness by election results, movements such as Occupy Wall Street, or the multiple Arab Spring demonstrations where real and tangible change was demanded by a measurable group of people. Although difficult to accurately estimate, digital rhetoric could be seen to be growing in its influence. Just as Chambers points out that democratic deliberation can hardly be imagined as rhetoric free, digital argumentation will inherently contain substantial amounts of all forms of rhetoric. These wildly diverse styles in digital rhetoric may again separate the mass audience into mini-publics (324). Acceptance of the formation of these mini-publics in the digital realm directly contradicts conventional wisdom that views the internet as a uniting force. It may seem that as issues in a democracy elicit an increasingly polarized response, the more society’s focus narrows and the entire debate spirals into an incomprehensible mess. For instance, try to gather any actual substance concerning specific issues in this Fox News assessment of a current Republican presidential debate. http://youtu.be/UhjkLOvD40E . It is hard to believe that the segment goes on for 4 minutes and 56 seconds. Their reliance on audience members to submit their opinions via Twitter is hardly a new concept, but in this case, shows how attempting to include digital rhetoric in a television news segment can be very ineffective and uninformative.
Concerning plebiscitary rhetoric, Chambers claims that Plato viewed its use as a threat to the deliberative process and to democracy itself (338). Devices such as pandering to the audience, crafting a message to appeal to a specific audience, framing issues to further one’s agenda are all ways in which a rhetorician can influence an audience in a plebiscitary manner. Accordingly, these methods can easily be translated and applied to gain influence in the digital rhetorical universe. Whether or not this is a positive turn of events remains to be determined. The size and scope of the issue is intimidating at the very least. Consider that political forum/debate websites claim to have millions of contributors and political candidates assert that they have an equal amount of “followers” on Facebook and Twitter alone. But just as the Habermasian metaphor of the double-edged sword helped prove Chambers’ point concerning public opinion poll results, it can apply to the influence of digital rhetoric on deliberative democracy and democratic deliberation (343). Its influence can easily be seen as positive and negative concurrently. Ponder the possibility that the same political advisors that write speeches and manage public relations are simultaneously taking the pulse of the mass audience, the mini-public, and the individual via the internet.
Finally, if one can assume that plebiscitary rhetoric is a permanent fixture in the political realm, could the audience use digital rhetoric to sharpen their sense of rhetorical manipulation and consequently neutralize much of plebiscitary rhetoric’s power? While participating in the political process through digital rhetoric people could, unconsciously, become knowledgeable concerning the rhetorical tactics that politicians and others use to gain influence over their audience. Digital rhetoric has the potential to inform, educate, entertain, and involve one in the political process and the myriad issues surrounding it. Hopefully, these website are more than adequate examples of this ideal.
