Expressions and Embeddings of Deliberative Democracy in Mutual Benefit Digital Goods Philip Serracino Inglott Master of Science Thesis Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society Faculty of Behavioural Sciences University of Twente The Netherlands Track: Philosophy of Technology Student number: s0207845 First Supervisor: David R. Koepsell, J.D./Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology Second Supervisor: Johnny Hartz Søraker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Technology, Department of Philosophy, University of Twente Presented: 28 October 2010 © 2010 Philip Serracino Inglott This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA. Front cover artwork by the author. Made with the GIMP and aa-lib free software using image material from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temple_hephaistion_Agora-Athens.jpg by Ifernyen and ulrichstill under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Abstract Since democracy is so desirable and digital technologies are so flexible and widespread it is worth asking what sort of digital technologies can, through use, enhance democratic practice. This question is addressed in three stages. First, the notion of Mutual Benefit Digital Goods (MBDGs) is developed as a tool for discerning the digital goods that hold a potential for nurturing democratic virtues. MBDGs are those digital goods that allow a user to make such goods one’s own and to put something of oneself into them. This can be achieved either directly, by working at creating a derivative of a digital good, or by engaging a community of production for digital goods. The second stage is the identification of a theory of democracy that is adequate for discussing democracy in relation to cyberspace. Deliberative democracy, particularly as presented by Dryzek, is put forward as the most appropriate conception of democracy to be used. This conception makes it possible to overcome the difficulties posed by the notions of citizens and borders as presented in other conceptions of democracy. In relation to cyberspace, such notions are particularly problematic. In the last stage, MBDGs and deliberative democracy are brought together by means of the theory of technological mediation and Feenberg’s theory of technological subversion. The theory of mediation holds that the use of technologies modulates our moral landscape. Because of mediation, subversion of digital technologies is always self-expressive to some extent. Therefore it exhibits the same grounding characteristics as deliberative democracy: mutual respect, reciprocity, provisionality and equality. Since MBDGs are most open to subversion, they are also the digital technologies with the most potential for fostering democracy. This claim is corroborated by looking at iconic MBDGs (Free/Libre/Open Source Software and Wikipedia) and revealing how the virtues necessary for deliberation are manifest in some of the activities surrounding these digital goods. The ideas presented, if accepted, have practical implications for institutions desirous of enhancing democratic practice. Such institutions ought to evaluate their choices on digital technologies also on grounds of democratic potential, reduce obstacles to alternative appropriation of digital goods through regulation, and foster MBDGs. Expressions and Embeddings of Deliberative Democracy in Mutual Benefit Digital Goods 3 To my uncle, Dun Lawrenz, who showed me the correct handling of knives, books and wine such that my tools, wit and taste may be kept sharp Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my first supervisor, David Koepsell, from TU Delft, who kindly took me under his supervision. He put up gracefully with my occasional quirkiness and gave me great latitude in my work, all the while masterfully nudging me in the right direction. His keen analytic eye has been an indispensable asset. I am also particularly indebted to my second supervisor, Johnny Søraker, who has not only been an illuminating guide throughout but also a source of personal inspiration and a supportive friend. Additionally, I would like to thank Steven Dorrestijn and Dirk Haen who helped me by providing precious feedback and insight about my work. I wish to thank all the staff at the department of philosophy, an incredible team, led by Philip Brey. It has been a pleasure working with you. The director of the Philosophy of Science, Technology, and Society programme, Peter-Paul Verbeek, deserves particular mention for his energetic drive and personal attention to students. Thank you for making it possible for me to study philosophy of technology. I am especially grateful to my parents, and my aunt Helen, without whom I would not be anything at all, as well as my brother and his family. I also owe heartfelt thanks to my two priest uncles, Lawrence Cachia, who seeded the hacker spirit in me, and Peter Serracino Inglott, who put me on the path of philosophy. During my stay at Twente I have had the honour of being chairperson of Ideefiks, the student association. My fellow board members have made it a most memorable experience. I learnt so much due to Ideefiks, thank you all. Gijs was particularly helpful, going as far as dragging me to the library. As were The High Daggers, Vincent, Jasper, Dominic, Wessel, Jochem and Pim. Hanging out with the ‘band of philosophers’ provided me with ample space where, to put it mildly, I could think out of the box about my topic. The crowd at Witbreuksweg, 399, including those who did not actually live there, are too many to mention individually. The chaos which this second family surrounded me with was sometimes distracting, but mostly it provided me with the warm glow of friendship and happiness, especially when my mood was dim. Without all these people I could have never written this thesis. The past few month’s work on this thesis has been the culmination of an extraordinary two years spent mostly on the University of Twente campus. During this time I have crossed paths with a large number of wonderful people all of whom have somehow shaped me, and in so doing shaped this work. Even if they are too many to name one by one, this work has within it a little something of all those I have been influenced by on so many different levels. Lastly, the debt of gratitude I owe to my wife, Victoria, for my being where I am today, is of such magnitude and extent that any attempt at putting it down in words here would not do it justice. I simply strive on in the blind hope that I shall be able to reciprocate several times over. Philip Serracino Inglott Luxembourg, October 2010 Expressions and Embeddings of Deliberative Democracy in Mutual Benefit Digital Goods 5 Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................5 Introduction.................................................................................................................................7 Mutual Benefit Digital Goods: A Normative Definition...........................................................13 Digital Objects → (Things) → Goods ................................................................................15 Mutual Benefit......................................................................................................................17 Conviviality of Tooled Things..............................................................................................19 Appropriation of Mutual Benefit Digital Goods..................................................................22 Posterity and Common Heritage..........................................................................................25 Limits to Mutual Benefit .....................................................................................................27 Some Examples of Mutual Benefit Digital Goods ..............................................................29 Conclusion............................................................................................................................32 Democracy for/in Cyberspace...................................................................................................34 The Deliberative Poll............................................................................................................36 Deliberative Rationality.......................................................................................................38 The Relevance of Deliberative Democracy to Cyberspace..................................................42 Difficulties of Transposition.................................................................................................45 On the Discursive Nature of Cyberspace.............................................................................49 Conclusion............................................................................................................................50 Technology Democratising its Users........................................................................................51 Interaction of Technology and Morals ................................................................................54