The internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism

Polity

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 131-159

  Bimber, Bruce ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008495490     PISSN: 00323497     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3235370     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and its Critics (New Haven: Yale University, 1989), 339.
2. Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda (New York: Crown Publishers, 1993).
3. Quoted in John V. Pavlik, New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996), 317.
4. Lawrence K. Grossman, The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democracy in America (New York: Viking, 1995).
5. Graeme Browning, Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Influence Politics (Wilton, CT: Online Inc., 1996).
6. Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital (New York: Vintage, 1995), 165.
7. Jeffrey B. Abramson, F. Christopher Arterton, and Gary R. Orren, The Electronic Commonwealth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
8. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man (New York: Signet, 1964).
9. For overviews of philosophical and sociological accounts of technology in general, including work by the present author, see: Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx, eds., Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994); and Sheila Jasanoff, et al., eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). For a brief discussion of technological determinism in the context of media and politics, see: Abramson, Arterton, and Orren, The Electronic Commonwealth.
10. For overviews of philosophical and sociological accounts of technology in general, including work by the present author, see: Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx, eds., Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994); and Sheila Jasanoff, et al., eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). For a brief discussion of technological determinism in the context of media and politics, see: Abramson, Arterton, and Orren, The Electronic Commonwealth.
11. For overviews of philosophical and sociological accounts of technology in general, including work by the present author, see: Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx, eds., Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994); and Sheila Jasanoff, et al., eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). For a brief discussion of technological determinism in the context of media and politics, see: Abramson, Arterton, and Orren, The Electronic Commonwealth.
12. Browning, Electronic Democracy, xi.
13. Anthony Corrado and Charles M. Firestone, eds., Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Politics (Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 1996), 13.
14. Lawrence K. Grossman, The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democracy in the Information Age (New York: Viking, 1995), 16.
15. Howard Rheingold, "The Great Equalizer," Whole Earth Review (Summer, 1991): 6.
16. Abramson, Arterton, and Orren, The Electronic Commonwealth.
17. See: Kenneth C. Laudon, Communications Technology and Democratic Participation (New York: Praeger, 1977); and F. Christopher Arterton, Teledemocracy: Can Technology Protect Democracy? (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1987).
18. See: Kenneth C. Laudon, Communications Technology and Democratic Participation (New York: Praeger, 1977); and F. Christopher Arterton, Teledemocracy: Can Technology Protect Democracy? (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1987).
19. Some observers view "teledemocracy" as an adjunct to traditional means of representation and aggregation, rather than as outright replacements. See: James S. Fishkin, "Beyond Teledemocracy: 'America on the Line,'" The Responsive Community 2 (Summer, 1991): 13-19, and David L. Kirp, "Two Cheers for the Electronic Town Hall: Or Ross Perot, Meet Alexis de Tocqueville," The Responsive Community, 2 (Fall 1992): 48-53.
20. Some observers view "teledemocracy" as an adjunct to traditional means of representation and aggregation, rather than as outright replacements. See: James S. Fishkin, "Beyond Teledemocracy: 'America on the Line,'" The Responsive Community 2 (Summer, 1991): 13-19, and David L. Kirp, "Two Cheers for the Electronic Town Hall: Or Ross Perot, Meet Alexis de Tocqueville," The Responsive Community, 2 (Fall 1992): 48-53.
21. Robert Huckfeldt and John Sprague, Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995), 20.
22. V. O. Key, Southern Politics (New York: Knopf, 1949); Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1995).
23. V. O. Key, Southern Politics (New York: Knopf, 1949); Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1995).
24. Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone, Revisited," The Responsive Community (Spring, 1995): 18-35, Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy 6 (1995): 65-78.
25. Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone, Revisited," The Responsive Community (Spring, 1995): 18-35, Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy 6 (1995): 65-78.
26. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1994).
27. Samuel L. Popkin, The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991).
28. Robert C. Luskin, "Explaining Political Sophistication," in Controversies in Voting Behavior, 3rd ed., ed. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1993), 114-36; W. Russell Neuman, "Political Communications Infrastructure," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 (July, 1996): 9-21; Eric R. A. N. Smith, The Unchanging American Voter (Berkeley: University of California, 1989). While there is a debate about the level of sophistication of the American public, most researchers agree that there has been no increase in that level over time.
29. Robert C. Luskin, "Explaining Political Sophistication," in Controversies in Voting Behavior, 3rd ed., ed. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1993), 114-36; W. Russell Neuman, "Political Communications Infrastructure," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 (July, 1996): 9-21; Eric R. A. N. Smith, The Unchanging American Voter (Berkeley: University of California, 1989). While there is a debate about the level of sophistication of the American public, most researchers agree that there has been no increase in that level over time.
30. Robert C. Luskin, "Explaining Political Sophistication," in Controversies in Voting Behavior, 3rd ed., ed. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1993), 114-36; W. Russell Neuman, "Political Communications Infrastructure," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 (July, 1996): 9-21; Eric R. A. N. Smith, The Unchanging American Voter (Berkeley: University of California, 1989). While there is a debate about the level of sophistication of the American public, most researchers agree that there has been no increase in that level over time.
31. Richard S. Flickinger and Donley T. Studlar, "The Disappearing Voters? Exploring Declining Turnout in Western European Elections," West European Politics 15 (April, 1992): 1-16.
32. Matthew J. Burbank, "Explaining Contextual Effects on Vote Choice," Political Behavior 19 (1997): 113-32.
33. Sidney Verba and Norman Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).
34. Philip E. Converse, "Change in the American Electorate" in The Human Meaning of Social Change, ed. Angus Campbell and Philip Converse (New York: Sage, 1972): 263-337.
35. Jon Krosnick, "Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America," Political Behavior 12 (March 1990): 59-92; W. Russell Neuman, The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1986).
36. Jon Krosnick, "Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America," Political Behavior 12 (March 1990): 59-92; W. Russell Neuman, The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1986).
37. Benjamin I. Page, Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996).
38. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, Civic Voluntarism, 3
39. Neuman, "Political Communications Infrastructure."
40. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Macmillan, 1934).
41. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 362.
42. Douglas Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1990); Mathew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz. "Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Policy Patrols versus Fire Alarms," American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165-79.
43. Douglas Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1990); Mathew McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz. "Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Policy Patrols versus Fire Alarms," American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 165-79.
44. James H. Snider, "New Media: Potential Information & Democratic Accountability: A Case Study of Governmental Access Community Media," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco (August 29, 1996).
45. Mark Poster, The Second Media Age (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).
46. Howard Rheingold, "A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community," in Global Networks, ed. L. M. Harasim (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993): 57-80.
47. David Porter, ed., Internet Culture (New York: Routledge, 1997); Aspen Institute, The Future of Community and Personal Identity in the Coming Electronic Culture (A Report of the Third Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, David Bollier, Rapporteur, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995); Steven G. Jones, ed., CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).
48. David Porter, ed., Internet Culture (New York: Routledge, 1997); Aspen Institute, The Future of Community and Personal Identity in the Coming Electronic Culture (A Report of the Third Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, David Bollier, Rapporteur, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995); Steven G. Jones, ed., CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).
49. David Porter, ed., Internet Culture (New York: Routledge, 1997); Aspen Institute, The Future of Community and Personal Identity in the Coming Electronic Culture (A Report of the Third Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, David Bollier, Rapporteur, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995); Steven G. Jones, ed., CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).
50. Rheingold, "A Slice of Life in My Virtual Community."
51. James Beniger, "Personalization of Mass Media and the Growth of Pseudo-Community," Communication Research 14 (1987): 352-71.
52. Steven Doheny-Farina, The Wired Neighborhood (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996); Derek Foster, "Community and Identify in the Electronic Village," in Porter, Internet Culture, 23-38.
53. Steven Doheny-Farina, The Wired Neighborhood (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996); Derek Foster, "Community and Identify in the Electronic Village," in Porter, Internet Culture, 23-38.
54. Shawn Wilbur, "An Archeology of Cyberspaces: Virtuality, Community, Identity," in Porter, Internet Culture, 5-22.
55. Amitai Etzioni, "Communities: Virtual vs. Real," Science 277 (July 18 1997): 295; Fishkin, "Beyond Teledemocracy."
56. Amitai Etzioni, "Communities: Virtual vs. Real," Science 277 (July 18 1997): 295; Fishkin, "Beyond Teledemocracy."
57. Michael Sandel, Democracy and its Discontents (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 1996), 340.
58. Jane Addams, Democracy and Social Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1907).
59. Charles Taylor, "Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate," in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy L. Roseblum (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 159-82.
60. Gerald Doppelt, "Beyond Liberalism and Communitarianism: Towards a Critical Theory of Social Justice," in Universalism vs. Communitarianism: Contemporary Debates in Ethics, ed. David Rasmussen (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 39-60; Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
61. Gerald Doppelt, "Beyond Liberalism and Communitarianism: Towards a Critical Theory of Social Justice," in Universalism vs. Communitarianism: Contemporary Debates in Ethics, ed. David Rasmussen (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 39-60; Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
62. Amitai Etzioni, "A Moderate Communitarian Proposal," Political Theory 24 (May 1996): 155-71.
63. Etzioni, "Communities: Virtual vs. Real."
64. Etzioni, "Communities: Virtual vs. Real."
65. Nancy K. Baym, "The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication," in Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, ed. Steven G. Jones (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995), 139.
66. Kevin A. Hill and John E. Hughes, "Computer Mediated Political Communication: The USENET and Political Communities," Political Communication 14 (1997): 3-27.
67. Robert H. Anderson, Tora K. Bikson, Sally Ann Law, and Bridge M. Mitchell, Universal Access to E-Mail: Feasibility and Societal Implication, MR-650-MF (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1995).
68. Katie Hafner, "The Epic Saga of The Well," Wired (May 1997): 100-36; Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1993).
69. Katie Hafner, "The Epic Saga of The Well," Wired (May 1997): 100-36; Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1993).
70. André Lemos, "The Labyrinth of Minitel" in Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies, ed. Rob Shields (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications: 1996), 11-31.
71. Laura Gurak, Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace (New Haven: Yale, 1997).
72. Sherry Turkle, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995).
73. Martin F. Kaplan, "The Influencing Process in Group Decision Making," in Group Processes, ed. Clyde Hendrick (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987); David G. Myers and Lehmut Lamm, "The Group Polarization Phenomenon," Psychological Bulletin 83 (1976): 602-27.
74. Martin F. Kaplan, "The Influencing Process in Group Decision Making," in Group Processes, ed. Clyde Hendrick (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987); David G. Myers and Lehmut Lamm, "The Group Polarization Phenomenon," Psychological Bulletin 83 (1976): 602-27.
75. Jane J. Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 1980).
76. Abramson, Arterton, and Orten, The Electronic Commonwealth.
77. Robert D. Putnam, "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America - The 1995 Ithiel De Sola Pool Lecture," PS: Political Science and Politics (December 1996): 664-83; M. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1991); Anthony N. Dobb and Glenn F. MacDonald, "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979): 170-79.
78. Robert D. Putnam, "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America - The 1995 Ithiel De Sola Pool Lecture," PS: Political Science and Politics (December 1996): 664-83; M. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1991); Anthony N. Dobb and Glenn F. MacDonald, "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979): 170-79.
79. Robert D. Putnam, "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America - The 1995 Ithiel De Sola Pool Lecture," PS: Political Science and Politics (December 1996): 664-83; M. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1991); Anthony N. Dobb and Glenn F. MacDonald, "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979): 170-79.
80. Page, Who Deliberates?, 4.
81. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 362. Sec also discussions of the Internet and the public sphere, which are often found in association with matters of community. The claim that is sometimes made here stems from the fact that the democratic and deliberative public sphere depends upon "spontaneous and voluntary association" [John Louis Lucaites, "Studies in the Public Sphere," Quarterly Journal of Speech 8 (1997): 352] where the better argument may prevail on the basis of appeals to reason among free and equal deliberaters. Two of the great impediments to achievement of a contemporary public sphere, according to Habermas, are the interests of the state in shaping public dialog to protect its own power, and the corruptive influence of the mass media, which fragments society into private-oriented individuals who do not, or can not, engage in reasoned debate about public issues [Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989)]. Many have noted that the Internet appears promising in light of all these considerations: it offers new forms of "spontaneous and voluntary" association, especially through bulletin boards, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and the like, and it is comparatively free of centralized control and institutional self-interest on the part of the state and media organizations. For the purposes of the argument in this article, note that Habermas's conception of the public sphere falls close to the requirements of thick community, where mutual agreement and a democratic validity that comes from something approaching unanimity emerge from deliberation; the public forum is necessary for producing a unity of interest. On the other hand, McCarthy's effort to rescue Habermas's stringent formulation replaces mutual agreement and unanimity with the objective of peaceful consent and accommodation among participants; McCarthy's interpretation of the public sphere can reside in thin community, in a group of deliberaters who bring private interests along with reason and a willingness to accommodate where unanimity is impossible. His conception admits the individualistic interests of members of thin community, and it demonstrates that a public sphere need not draw on the common good of thick community to get off the ground [Thomas McCarthy, "Practical Discourse: On the Relation of Morality to Politics," in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig C. Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 51-72].
82. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 362. Sec also discussions of the Internet and the public sphere, which are often found in association with matters of community. The claim that is sometimes made here stems from the fact that the democratic and deliberative public sphere depends upon "spontaneous and voluntary association" [John Louis Lucaites, "Studies in the Public Sphere," Quarterly Journal of Speech 8 (1997): 352] where the better argument may prevail on the basis of appeals to reason among free and equal deliberaters. Two of the great impediments to achievement of a contemporary public sphere, according to Habermas, are the interests of the state in shaping public dialog to protect its own power, and the corruptive influence of the mass media, which fragments society into private-oriented individuals who do not, or can not, engage in reasoned debate about public issues [Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989)]. Many have noted that the Internet appears promising in light of all these considerations: it offers new forms of "spontaneous and voluntary" association, especially through bulletin boards, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and the like, and it is comparatively free of centralized control and institutional self-interest on the part of the state and media organizations. For the purposes of the argument in this article, note that Habermas's conception of the public sphere falls close to the requirements of thick community, where mutual agreement and a democratic validity that comes from something approaching unanimity emerge from deliberation; the public forum is necessary for producing a unity of interest. On the other hand, McCarthy's effort to rescue Habermas's stringent formulation replaces mutual agreement and unanimity with the objective of peaceful consent and accommodation among participants; McCarthy's interpretation of the public sphere can reside in thin community, in a group of deliberaters who bring private interests along with reason and a willingness to accommodate where unanimity is impossible. His conception admits the individualistic interests of members of thin community, and it demonstrates that a public sphere need not draw on the common good of thick community to get off the ground [Thomas McCarthy, "Practical Discourse: On the Relation of Morality to Politics," in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig C. Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 51-72].
83. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 362. Sec also discussions of the Internet and the public sphere, which are often found in association with matters of community. The claim that is sometimes made here stems from the fact that the democratic and deliberative public sphere depends upon "spontaneous and voluntary association" [John Louis Lucaites, "Studies in the Public Sphere," Quarterly Journal of Speech 8 (1997): 352] where the better argument may prevail on the basis of appeals to reason among free and equal deliberaters. Two of the great impediments to achievement of a contemporary public sphere, according to Habermas, are the interests of the state in shaping public dialog to protect its own power, and the corruptive influence of the mass media, which fragments society into private-oriented individuals who do not, or can not, engage in reasoned debate about public issues [Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989)]. Many have noted that the Internet appears promising in light of all these considerations: it offers new forms of "spontaneous and voluntary" association, especially through bulletin boards, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and the like, and it is comparatively free of centralized control and institutional self-interest on the part of the state and media organizations. For the purposes of the argument in this article, note that Habermas's conception of the public sphere falls close to the requirements of thick community, where mutual agreement and a democratic validity that comes from something approaching unanimity emerge from deliberation; the public forum is necessary for producing a unity of interest. On the other hand, McCarthy's effort to rescue Habermas's stringent formulation replaces mutual agreement and unanimity with the objective of peaceful consent and accommodation among participants; McCarthy's interpretation of the public sphere can reside in thin community, in a group of deliberaters who bring private interests along with reason and a willingness to accommodate where unanimity is impossible. His conception admits the individualistic interests of members of thin community, and it demonstrates that a public sphere need not draw on the common good of thick community to get off the ground [Thomas McCarthy, "Practical Discourse: On the Relation of Morality to Politics," in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig C. Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 51-72].
84. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 362. Sec also discussions of the Internet and the public sphere, which are often found in association with matters of community. The claim that is sometimes made here stems from the fact that the democratic and deliberative public sphere depends upon "spontaneous and voluntary association" [John Louis Lucaites, "Studies in the Public Sphere," Quarterly Journal of Speech 8 (1997): 352] where the better argument may prevail on the basis of appeals to reason among free and equal deliberaters. Two of the great impediments to achievement of a contemporary public sphere, according to Habermas, are the interests of the state in shaping public dialog to protect its own power, and the corruptive influence of the mass media, which fragments society into private-oriented individuals who do not, or can not, engage in reasoned debate about public issues [Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989)]. Many have noted that the Internet appears promising in light of all these considerations: it offers new forms of "spontaneous and voluntary" association, especially through bulletin boards, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and the like, and it is comparatively free of centralized control and institutional self-interest on the part of the state and media organizations. For the purposes of the argument in this article, note that Habermas's conception of the public sphere falls close to the requirements of thick community, where mutual agreement and a democratic validity that comes from something approaching unanimity emerge from deliberation; the public forum is necessary for producing a unity of interest. On the other hand, McCarthy's effort to rescue Habermas's stringent formulation replaces mutual agreement and unanimity with the objective of peaceful consent and accommodation among participants; McCarthy's interpretation of the public sphere can reside in thin community, in a group of deliberaters who bring private interests along with reason and a willingness to accommodate where unanimity is impossible. His conception admits the individualistic interests of members of thin community, and it demonstrates that a public sphere need not draw on the common good of thick community to get off the ground [Thomas McCarthy, "Practical Discourse: On the Relation of Morality to Politics," in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig C. Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 51-72].
85. James A. Morone, The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government (New York: Basic Books, 1990).
86. Gurak, Privacy and Persuasion in Cyberspace.
87. Jack L. Walker, Jr., Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1991), 19.
88. David B. Truman, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1951).
89. Mark Bonchek, "Grassroots in Cyberspace: Using Computer Networks to Facilitate Political Participation," MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Working Paper 95-2.2, Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 6, 1995. url: www.ai.mit.edu/ projects/ ppp/ home.htm.
90. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups.
91. Philip E. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter (New York: Free Press, 1964); Jon Krosnick and Shibley Telhami. "Public Attitudes Toward Israel: A Study of the Attentive and Issue Publics," International Studies Quarterly 39 (1995): 535-54; Krosnick, "Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America," Political Behavior 12 (March 1990): 59-92.
92. Philip E. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter (New York: Free Press, 1964); Jon Krosnick and Shibley Telhami. "Public Attitudes Toward Israel: A Study of the Attentive and Issue Publics," International Studies Quarterly 39 (1995): 535-54; Krosnick, "Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America," Political Behavior 12 (March 1990): 59-92.
93. Philip E. Converse, "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter (New York: Free Press, 1964); Jon Krosnick and Shibley Telhami. "Public Attitudes Toward Israel: A Study of the Attentive and Issue Publics," International Studies Quarterly 39 (1995): 535-54; Krosnick, "Government Policy and Citizen Passion: A Study of Issue Publics in Contemporary America," Political Behavior 12 (March 1990): 59-92.
94. Jeffrey M. Berry, "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528 (July 1993): 30-41; Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1986) ;
95. Jeffrey M. Berry, "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528 (July 1993): 30-41; Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds., Interest Group Politics, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1986) ;
96. Walker, Mobilizing Interest Groups in America.
97. David C. King and Jack L. Walker, Jr., "An Ecology of Interest Groups in America," in Jack L. Walker, Jr., Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 47-73; Berry, "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America."
98. David C. King and Jack L. Walker, Jr., "An Ecology of Interest Groups in America," in Jack L. Walker, Jr., Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 47-73; Berry, "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America."
99. Berry, "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America," 30-41; Robert M. Stein and Kenneth N. Bickers, Perpetuating the Pork Barrel: Policy Subsystems and American Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995), 5.
100. Berry, "Citizen Groups and the Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics in America," 30-41; Robert M. Stein and Kenneth N. Bickers, Perpetuating the Pork Barrel: Policy Subsystems and American Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995), 5.
101. Charles M. Firestone, "The New Intermediaries," in Aspen Institute, The Future of Community and Personal Identity in the Coming Electronic Culture (A Report of the Third Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology, David Bollier, Rapporteur, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995), 39-43.
102. Grossman, The Electronic Republic, 145-46.
103. Michele Andrisin Wittig and Joseph Schmitz, "Electronic Grassroots Organizing," Journal of Social Issues 52 (1996): 53-69.
104. The literature dealing with the failure of the media to satisfy the "Fourth Estate" concept is voluminous. For a variety of perspectives, see: Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 4th ed. (Boston, Beacon Press, 1992); Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch, The Crisis of Public Communication (New York: Routledge, 1995); and Page, Who Deliberates?
105. The literature dealing with the failure of the media to satisfy the "Fourth Estate" concept is voluminous. For a variety of perspectives, see: Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 4th ed. (Boston, Beacon Press, 1992); Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch, The Crisis of Public Communication (New York: Routledge, 1995); and Page, Who Deliberates?
106. The literature dealing with the failure of the media to satisfy the "Fourth Estate" concept is voluminous. For a variety of perspectives, see: Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 4th ed. (Boston, Beacon Press, 1992); Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch, The Crisis of Public Communication (New York: Routledge, 1995); and Page, Who Deliberates?
107. The literature dealing with the failure of the media to satisfy the "Fourth Estate" concept is voluminous. For a variety of perspectives, see: Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 4th ed. (Boston, Beacon Press, 1992); Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch, The Crisis of Public Communication (New York: Routledge, 1995); and Page, Who Deliberates?
108. Office of the Secretary of State, "Jones Lauds Governor's Approval of Electronic Filing," Press Release, Sacramento, California, Oct. 11, 1997; Kim Alexander, "Internet Disclosure of Campaign Finance Data Now: The Law in California," California Voter Foundation Press Release, Sacramento, California, Oct. 11, 1997.
109. Office of the Secretary of State, "Jones Lauds Governor's Approval of Electronic Filing," Press Release, Sacramento, California, Oct. 11, 1997; Kim Alexander, "Internet Disclosure of Campaign Finance Data Now: The Law in California," California Voter Foundation Press Release, Sacramento, California, Oct. 11, 1997.
110. McLuhan, Media: The Extensions of Man, 23ff.