Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Deliberative democracy requires both equality and difference, with structures that organize a cohesive public while still accommodating the unique perspectives of each participant. While institutions like laws and norms can help to provide this balance, the built environment also plays a role supporting democratic politics—both on- and off-line. In this article, I use the work of Hannah Arendt to articulate two characteristics the built environment needs to support democratic politics: it must (1) serves as a common world, drawing users together and emphasizing their common interests and must also (2) preserve spaces of appearance, accommodating diverse perspectives and inviting disagreement. I, then, turn to the example of Facebook to show how these characteristics can be used as criteria for evaluating how well a particular digital platform supports democratic politics and providing alternative mechanisms these sites might use to fulfill their role as a public realm.

Keywords

software design Hannah Arendt Facebook social media democratic theory deliberative democracy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ananny

(2015) Toward an Ethics of Algorithms: Convening, Observation, Probability, and Timeliness. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (1): 93–117.

Arendt

(1998) The Human Condition, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Arendt

(2005) Introduction Into Politics. In: Kohn

(ed.) The Promise of Politics. New York: Schocken Books, pp.93–200.

Arendt

(2006a) On Revolution. New York: Penguin Books.

Arendt

(2006b) What Is Freedom? In: Arendt

(ed.) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin Books, pp.142–169.

Barrett

(2018) Facebook Owes You More Than This. Wired, 19 March. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-privacy-transparency-cambridge-analytica/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

Benhabib

(1992) Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jurgen Habermas. In: Calhoun

(ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.73–98.

Benhabib

(ed.) (1996) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bickford

(2000) Constructing Inequality: City Spaces and the Architecture of Citizenship. Political Theory 28 (3): 355–376.

10.

Burke

Develin

(2016) Once More With Feeling: Supportive Responses to Social Sharing on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’16), San Francisco, CA, 27 February 2016, pp.1462–1474. New York: ACM.

11.

Chambers

(2003) Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1): 307–326.

12.

Crawford

(2016) Can an Algorithm Be Agonistic? Ten Scenes From Life in Calculated Publics. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41 (1): 77–92.

13.

Curato

Dryzek

Ercan

, et al. (2017) Twelve Key Findings in Deliberative Democracy Research. Daedalus 3: 28–38.

14.

Dunne

(2005) Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15.

Forestal

(2017) The Architecture of Political Spaces: Trolls, Digital Media, and Deweyan Democracy. American Political Science Review 111 (1): 149–161.

16.

Forestal

(in press) Beyond Gatekeeping: Propaganda, Democracy, and the Organization of Digital Publics. The Journal of Politics.

17.

Fox

(2018) A Facebook Owned by Users Could Solve a Lot. Bloomberg Opinion, 29 March. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-28/what-if-facebook-were-owned-by-its-users (accessed 8 November 2019).

18.

Frenkel

Confessore

Kang

, et al. (2018) Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis. The New York Times, 14 November. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html (accessed 8 November 2019).

19.

Friedman

(2000) Designing Casinos to Dominate the Competition. Reno, NV: Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming, University of Nevada, Reno.

20.

Gramlich

(2019) 10 Facts About Americans and Facebook. Pew Research Center, 16 May. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

21.

Grosser

(2014) What Do Metrics Want? How Quantification Prescribes Social Interaction on Facebook. Computational Culture: A Journal of Software Studies 4. Available at: http://computationalculture.net/what-do-metrics-want/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

22.

Gündogdu

(2015) Rightlessness in an Age of Rights: Hannah Arendt and the Contemporary Struggles of Migrants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Habermas

(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

24.

Han

Brazeal

LAM

Pennington

(2018) Is Civility Contagious? Examining the Impact of Modeling in Online Political Discussions. Social Media + Society 4 (3): 1–12.

25.

Hicks

(2010) New Groups: Stay Closer to Groups of People in Your Life. Facebook, 6 October. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/new-groups-stay-closer-to-groups-of-people-in-your-life/434700832130/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

26.

Honig

(1991) Declarations of Independence: Arendt and Derrida on the Problem of Founding a Republic. American Political Science Review 85 (1): 97–113.

27.

Honig

(1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

28.

Honig

(2017) Public Things: Democracy in Disrepair. New York: Fordham University Press.

29.

Keenan

(2003) Promises, Promises: The Abyss of Freedom and the Loss of the Political in the Work of Hannah Arendt. In: Keenan

(ed.) Democracy in Question: Democratic Openness in a Time of Political Closure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.76–101.

30.

Klein

(2014) “Fit to Enter the World”: Hannah Arendt on Politics, Economics, and the Welfare State. American Political Science Review 108 (4): 856–869.

31.

Knouf

(2009) HCI for the Real World. In: Proceedings of CHI EA ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April 2009, pp.2555–2564. New York: ACM.

32.

Kohn

(2016) Parks and Refs: Community, Solidarity, and Public Space. Contemporary Political Theory 15 (4): 446–452.

33.

Kramer

ADI

Guillory

Hancock

(2014) Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (29): 8788–8790.

34.

Lederman

(2014) Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt. Constellations 21 (3): 327–337.

35.

Leyden

(2003) Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 93 (9): 1546–1551.

36.

Locke

(2013) Little Rock’s Social Question: Reading Arendt on School Desegregation and Social Climbing. Political Theory 41 (4): 533–561.

37.

Lupia

Norton

(2017) Inequality Is Always in the Room: Language & Power in Deliberative Democracy. Daedalus 146 (3): 64–76.

38.

Mittelstadt

Allo

Taddeo

, et al. (2016) The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate. Big Data & Society 3 (2): 1–21.

39.

Molina

Jennings

(2018) The Role of Civility and Metacommunication in Facebook Discussions. Communication Studies 69: 42–66.

40.

Mouffe

(2013) Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.

41.

Noble

(2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press.

42.

Oremus

(2016) Who Controls Your Facebook Feed. Slate, 3 January. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/cover_story/2016/01/how_facebook_s_news_feed_algorithm_works.html (accessed 19 November 2019).

43.

Ortutay

(2017) Why Facebook’s Latest Woes Are Redefining “Accountability” for Tech Companies. Inc, 19 September. Available at: https://www.inc.com/associated-press/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-russia-ads-accountability-tech-companies.html (accessed 8 November 2019).

44.

Zheng

Chen

(2017) Twitter Versus Facebook: Comparing Incivility, Impoliteness, and Deliberative Attributes. New Media & Society 20 (9): 3400–3419.

45.

Papacharissi

(2004) Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups. New Media & Society 6 (2): 259–283.

46.

Pariser

(2011) The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You. New York: Penguin Press.

47.

Parkinson

(2012) Democracy and Public Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48.

Parkinson

Mansbridge

(eds) (2012) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. New York: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Pasquale

(2015) The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

50.

Pitkin

(1998) The Attack of the Blob: Hannah Arendt’s Concept of the Social. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

51.

Raddi

(2018) Nationalize Facebook. POLITICO, 8 October. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/nationalize-facebook-data-privacy-hackers-advertisement-social-media/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

52.

Reich

(2018) Break Up Facebook (and While We’re at It, Google, Apple and Amazon). The Guardian, 20 November. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/20/facebook-google-antitrust-laws-gilded-age (accessed 8 November 2019).

53.

Robertson

(2018) Sen. Mark Warner Floats Major Tech Company Regulations That Don’t Include Breakups. The Verge, 30 July. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/30/17629854/mark-warner-tech-company-legislation-white-paper-privacy-misinformation-competition (accessed 8 November 2019).

54.

Sanders

(1997) Against Deliberation. Political Theory 25 (3): 347–376.

55.

Schwarz

(2014) @hannah_arendt: An Arendtian Critique of Online Social Networks. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 (1): 165–186.

56.

Smith

(2018) Many Facebook Users Don’t Understand How the Site’s News Feed Works. Pew Research Center, 5 September. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/05/many-facebook-users-dont-understand-how-the-sites-news-feed-works/ (accessed 19 November 2019).

57.

Smoliarova

Gromova

Pavlushkina

(2018) Emotional Stimuli in Social Media User Behavior: Emoji Reactions on a News Media Facebook Page. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Internet Science (INSCI 2018) (ed. Bodrunova

), Saint Petersburg, 24–26 October 2018, pp.242–256. Cham: Springer.

58.

Staff

(2018) Facebook.gov. VICE: Motherboard, 2 April. Available at: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gym59j/facebook-nationalized-public-utility (accessed 8 November 2019).

59.

Statista (2019) Device Usage of Facebook Users Worldwide as of January 2019. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/377808/distribution-of-facebook-users-by-device/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

60.

Stinson

(2016) Facebook Reactions, the Totally Redesigned Like Button, Is Here. Wired, 24 February. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2016/02/facebook-reactions-totally-redesigned-like-button/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

61.

Stroud

Scacco

Muddiman

, et al. (2015) Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations’ Facebook Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (2): 188–203.

62.

Teehan

(2016) Reactions: Not Everything in Life Is Likable. Facebook Design on Medium, 24 February. Available at: https://medium.com/facebook-design/reactions-not-everything-in-life-is-likable-5c403de72a3f (accessed 8 November 2019).

63.

Tien

(2018) How the Facebook Algorithm Works and How to Make It Work for You. Hootsuite, 25 April. Available at: https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-algorithm/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

64.

Tufekci

(2015) Algorithmic Harms Beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent Challenges of Computational Agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal 13 (2): 203–218.

65.

Tufekci

(2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

66.

Tufekci

(2018) We Already Know How to Protect Ourselves From Facebook. The New York Times, 9 April. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/zuckerberg-testify-congress.html (accessed 8 November 2019).

67.

Vaidhyanathan

(2018) Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

68.

Vrechopoulos

O’Keefe

Doukidis

, et al. (2004) Virtual Store Layout: An Experimental Comparison in the Context of Grocery Retail. Journal of Retailing 80 (1): 13–22.

69.

Waldron

(2000) Arendt’s Constitutional Politics. In: Villa

(ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.201–219.

70.

Warren

(1996) Deliberative Democracy and Authority. American Political Science Review 90 (1): 46–60.

71.

Wood

Shannon

Bulsara

, et al. (2008) The Anatomy of the Safe and Social Suburb: An Exploratory Study of the Built Environment, Social Capital and Residents’ Perceptions of Safety. Health & Place 14: 15–31.

72.

Wright

Street

(2007) Democracy, Deliberation and Design: The Case of Online Discussion Forums. New Media & Society 9 (5): 849–869.

73.

Young

(1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

74.

Young

(2001) Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory 29 (5): 670–690.

75.

Zuckerberg

(2017) Building Global Community. Facebook, 16 February. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-community/10154544292806634/ (accessed 8 November 2019).

Constructing Digital Democracies: Facebook,Arendt,and the Politics of Design

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References