[WSIS CS-Plenary] YJ's objection and the CS-PS statement

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>>marzouki at ras.eu.org 2/25/2005 5:28:28 AM >>>
>>


>>A CS-PS joint statement is different from a statement on a specific 
>>issue signed by some CS organizations together with some private

> 
>>And yes, the private sector is heterogeneous, but perhaps not as 
>>much as CS,
> 
> 
> The "other" is always more homogeneous than "we" are, isn't it? ;-)  
> Anyway, as you indicated, the line between PS and CS
> depends on one's theory of CS. 
#
Hi, the discussion between MM & MM on the private sector and the "other" 
reminds me of something I read recently and thought about sharing with you.

It is an article about the "polorazing discourse of Civil Society" 
written by Jeffrey C. Alexander. I won't bore you with details but focus 
on what I see as the gist of his essay.

Alexander defines civil society as a shere of solidarity between 
political, economic, and religious life. Civil society depends on these 
other spheres but maintains some (relative) autonomy from them.

Among many other things, civil society is a network of understandings. 
Part of this understanding is who and what (issues, organizations, 
ideas, rules, etc) is in and what is outside of civil society. According 
to Alexander, we use symbolic codes to distinguish between what we 
regard as inside and as outside. "It is in terms of symbolic purity and 
impurity" that a central or marginal status of people or positions is 
defined. "Just as there is no developed religion that does not divide 
the world into the saved and the damned, there is no civil discourse 
that does not conceptualize the world into those who deserve inclusion 
and those who do not."

Alexander offers long lists of binary categories that allow to 
distinguish between inside and outside. Most of them we know and use 
too: law versus power, inclusive versus exclusive, social groups versus 
factions, open/secret, etc. According to Alexander, this symbolic 
structure goes back to the ancient greeks.

What is usually contested in civil societies is not the symbolic code 
itself but how it should be applied, in other words, who is supposed to 
be the enemy.We don't argue about the distinction between democracy and 
repression but about what deserves to be called democratic.

The recent debates on the plenary and the governance list reminded me of
Alexander's essay. He regards such dynamics as unavoidable patterns of 
all civil societies.
I am not sure if I believe this. What I am quite sure about is that it 
is within our power to keep arguments on a non-distructiv level, i.e. by 
defining what forms of statements we regard as acceptable.

jeanette

> 
> 
>>Furthermore, I've a question for you, Milton : you said "When most 
>>activists in CS and PS can agree [...] they win. When most activists
> 
> in 
> 
>>CS are aligned against government(s) and PS, they lose. Think about 
>>it." What do you mean exactly? 
> 
> 
> It seems fairly obvious: when you have allies you are strong. But I
> will explain further with a concrete example. Take the IPR enforcement
> and privacy tension. When PS telephone companies support CS privacy
> activists in resisting demands of IPR holders to turn over records of
> telecom usage, CS privacy advocates are stronger. But when virtually all
> PS and governments decided the domain name system had to be
> re-engineered to support trademark protection, that agenda went through
> like steamroller.  When virtually all of business resists USG demands to
> embed a backdoor for surveillance in all telecom equipment, and they are
> joined by CS civil liberties advocates, the government's agenda was
> rolled back (to some degree). But when PS opposition dissolves e.g. in
> the wake of 9/11, then privacy loses very quickly. So, to repeat, if
> there are PS allies use them.
> 
> 
>>Should we fight only for issues on which 
>>we may agree with private sector and, even better, 
>>with governements too? 
> 
> 
> Another way to phrase this question: are you stupid and gutless ,
> Milton? Um, no. I've spent enough time fighting the PS on particular
> issues. No, I am assuming that we set our own agenda, but when there are
> PS allies out there who agree with it, we work with them. Moreover, I
> will actively challenge CS elements with ideological convictions that PS
> is inherently evil and should be shunned. because that's wrong,
> self-isolating and self-defeating.
> 
> 
>>My question is most probably for after PrepCom2, when we'll have time
> 
> 
>>to discuss in deeper details this kind of issues, like 
>>"multistakeholderism", "consensus", "civil society"... :-)
> 
> 
> I agree that "multi-stakeholderism" is a deeply unsatisfactory
> formulation, which is why IGP has been trying to stimulate discussion of
> new, post-WSIS institutional arrangement, e.g. framework conventions,
> global alliances, democratic voting, etc. I have dissected in merciless
> detail the nonsensical and manipulative use of the term "consensus" in
> ICANN context, if you read my book. 
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary