Rescuing participation: a critique on the dark participation concept

Authors

  • Nico Carpentier Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism, Charles University, Czech Republic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8996-4636
  • Ana Duarte Melo Communication and Society Research Centre, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Minho, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4598-7174
  • Fábio Ribeiro Department of Humanities, Arts and Communication, School of Human and Social Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro/ Communication and Society Research Centre, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Minho, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8071-6145

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.36(2019).2341

Keywords:

conditions of possibility, defining participation, democratic culture, limits of participation, participatory theory, relevance of participation

Abstract

This article returns to the in-depth theorisations about participation in order to reflect about the nature of participation, and to demonstrate some of the problems inherent to the publications that distinguish between light and dark (forms of) participation. The starting point of the article is a discussion on three limits embedded in the concept of participation. The first limit brings us back to the old discussion on the nature of participation, the focus on power, and what is included and excluded through its definition(s). The second limit of the participation concept thematises a series of distinctions, namely those between participation, its condition of possibility (access and interaction) and its outcomes. The third limit that (potentially) structures participation is the limit imposed by democratic culture. In response to these debates, the article introduces a more positive approach, that focuses on what has been ignored for too long, namely the reasons why participation matters. Here, the article provides a structural reflection on the contributions to the “Rescuing Participation” special issue, and constructs a theoretical model that consists out of three logics, namely a social, political and fantasmagoric logic, allowing us to better understand why participation matters.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Nova Iorque: Perseus Books.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bakardjieva, M. (2003). Virtual togetherness: an everyday-life perspective. Media, Culture & Society, 25(3), 291-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443703025003001

Bakardjieva, M. (2012). Subactivism: lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet. In (Re) Inventing the internet (pp. 85-108). Leiden: Brill Sense.

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bouchard, N. (2016). The dark side of public participation: participative processes that legitimize elected officials’ values. Canadian Public Administration Publique du Canada, 59(4), 516-537. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12199

Carpentier, N. (2011). Media and participation: a site of ideological-democratic struggle. Bristol: Intellect.

Carpentier, N. (2016). Beyond the ladder of participation: an analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes. Javnost – The Public, 23(1), 70-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2016.1149760

Carpentier, N. (2017). The discursive-material knot: Cyprus in conflict and community media participation. Nova Iorque: Peter Lang.

Carpentier, N., Dahlgren, P. & Pasquali, F. (2013). Waves of media democratization: a brief history of contemporary participatory practices in the media sphere. Convergence, 19(3), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856513486529

De Bruyne, P. & Gielen, P. (Eds.) (2011). Community art: the politics of trespassing. Amesterdão: Valiz.

Dekker, P. & Uslaner, E. M. (2003). Social capital and participation in everyday life. Londres: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1888). The ethics of democracy. University of Michigan, Philosophical Papers, Second Series, Number 1. Michigan: Andrews & Company Publishers.

Duarte Melo, A. & Duque, M. (Eds.) (2018). ParticipAD – participatory advertising: a global perspective with a Latin American focus. Braga: CECS.

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Londres: Penguin.

Fox, G. (1992). The right to political participation in international law. Yale Journal of International Law, 17, 539-607.

Frischlich, L., Boberg, S. & Quandt, T. (2019). Comment sections as targets of dark participation? Journalists’ evaluation and moderation of deviant user comments, Journalism Studies, 20(13). https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1556320

Glynos, J. & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Londres, Nova Iorque: Routledge.

Guadagnoli, E. & Ward, P. (1998). Patient participation in decision-making. Social Science & Medicine, 47(3), 329-339.

Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy. Cambridge and Stanford: Polity Press and Stanford University Press.

Howley, K. (2005). Community media: people, places, and communication technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huesca, R. (2008). Youth-produced radio and its impacts: from personal empowerment to political action. In N. Carpentier & B. de Cleen (Eds.), Participation and media production: critical reflections on content creation (pp. 97-111). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Hyman, L. & Tohill, J. (Eds.) (2017). Shopping for change: consumer activism and the possibilities of purchasing power. Nova Iorque: Cornell University Press.

Jenkins, H. & Carpentier, N. (2019a, 30 de maio). Participatory politics in an age of crisis: Henry Jenkins & Nico Carpentier (Part I). [Post em blogue]. Retirado de http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2019/5/30/participatory-politics-in-an-age-of-crisis-henry-jenkins-amp-nico-carpentier-part-i

Jenkins, H. & Carpentier, N. (2019b, 7 de junho). Participatory politics in an age of crisis: Henry Jenkins & Nico Carpentier (Part III). [Post em blogue]. Retirado de http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2019/6/1/participatory-politics-in-an-age-of-crisis-henry-jenkins-amp-nico-carpentier-part-iii-thh7l

Lutz, C. & Hoffmann, C. P. (2017). The dark side of online participation: exploring non-, passive and negative participation. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 876-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293129

Moreno, R. (2006). Citizens and media cultures: hidden behind democratic formality. Global Media and Communication, 2(3), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766506069580

Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Londres: Verso.

Mouffe, C. (2013a). Agonistics: thinking the world politically. Londres: Verso.

Mouffe, C. (2013b). Politics and passions: the stakes of democracy. In J. Martin (Ed.), Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony, radical democracy and the political (pp. 181-190). Londres: Routledge.

Nietzsche, F. (1968). The will to power. Nova Iorque: Vintage Books.

Oliveira, E., Duarte Melo, A. & Gonçalves, G. (Eds.) (2016). Strategic communication for non-profit organisations: challenges and alternative approaches. EUA: Vernon Press.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M. & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: a 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perry, C. (1973). Ethics and democracy. Ethics, 83(2), 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1086/291869

Peter, F. (2013). The human right to political participation. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 7(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v7i2.71

Plamenatz, J. (1963). Man and society, vol. 1. Londres: Longman.

Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33-40.

Quandt, T. (2018). Dark participation. Media and Communication, 6(4), 36-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1519

Shapiro, I. (1996). Democracy’s place. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Silva, M. (2013). Participação e deliberação: um estudo de caso dos comentários às notícias sobre as eleições presidenciais brasileiras. Comunicação e Sociedade, 23, 82-95. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.23(2013).1615

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271-313). Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Steiner, H. (1988). Political participation as a human right. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 1, 77-134.

Strauss, L. (1978). Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stroud, N. J., Duyn, E. V. & Peacock, C. (2016). News commenters and news comment readers. Retirado de https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ENP-News-Commenters-and-Comment-Readers1.pdf

Taylor, C. & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360902934392

Tufte, T. (2017). Communication and social change – a citizen perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Tzur, N. I., Zalmanson, L. & Oestreicher-Singer, G. (2016). The dark side of user participation: the effect of calls to action on trust and information revelation. SSRN paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2814903

Wasko, J. & Mosco, V. (Eds.) (1992). Democratic communications in the information age. Nova Jérsia: Garamond Press & Ablex.

Yüksek, D. & Carpentier, N. (2018). Participatory contact zones and conflict transformation: the participatory intensities of the Cyprus Friendship Program. Conjunctions, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.7146/tjcp.v5i1.105286

Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Londres: Verso.

Published

2019-12-20

How to Cite

Carpentier, N., Duarte Melo, A., & Ribeiro, F. (2019). Rescuing participation: a critique on the dark participation concept. Comunicação E Sociedade, 36, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.36(2019).2341

Issue

Section

Thematic Articles