Reviewing the Singapore Blogosphere: Managing Expectations
I've been following with great interest an exchange between a cryptic anonymous blogger WhiteOut and an equally cryptic anonymous commenter Yoreth somewhere in the ether concerning the recent disturbances in the force, I mean, Singapore Blogophere. One hardly need to agree with everything said to perceive the key issues and a timely reminder that it is time to stand back and take stock.
A long time ago (in blogospheric time, that is), at the height of the furor over ST's plan to implement paid subscription, Trowa Evans of The Police State (Mar 2) made a suggestion that can only be described as prescient on hindsight--that part of the Blogosphere which is serious about the affairs of the country and wishes to speak up must get organized and make it a habit to share articles and ideas with each other; otherwise, it is forever consigned to the margins. I think this is prescient (despite not agreeing completely with all of his assessments) because it suggests an underlying insight into an impulse that seems intrinsic to a segment of the Singapore Blogosphere. And all that is needed for the activation of this impulse is a series of singularities of sufficient interest and importance to a wide variety of bloggers.
That condition was met in April 2005 when the troubles, as Singapore Ink so aptly described them, came in quick succession, prompting what can only be described as an unprecedented mobilisation on the part of Singaporean bloggers. Energies that had been accumulating since the Jamie Han affair (and even earlier) were unleashed in a relatively short span of time. (Aside: These perturbations has been given extensive coverage on this blog and I will not revisit their ins and outs here.)
Not all, however, are sanguine about these developments. In fact, I find myself deeply sympathetic to Agagooga's point of view: with the increased sense of community, the Singapore blogosphere looses some of its innocence. Indeed: some of the most charming and interesting aspects of the blogosphere are precisely its sheer individualism, diversity and the jealously guarded autonomy of many of its denizens. When the community aspects are now foregrounded, these other elements cannot but appear to recede.
But Agagooga's fears are probably over-exaggerated: those other aspects of the blogosphere will always be around. Life goes on--went on at the very height of the troubles--for the multitude of special and personal interest blogs that do not habitually comment on the issues of the day. For those that do, on the other hand, the increased awareness of community can be a powerful force for good. True: unnecessary linking--or perhaps worse still, unnecessary echoing of another opinion--does not really add to rational discourse. But a keener sense of community can also act as a reminder that beyond mere self-expression (read: narcissistic self-expression) there is the give-and-take of genuine discussion, of being exposed to arguments from contrary points of view, of presenting structured arguments that can be disputed, replied to, with the attached possibility of convincing another and of being persuaded in turn through rational means (I've highlighted this issue before). Furthermore, with the expectation that additional eyeballs are now trained upon one's blog, there is also an increased incentive to exercise judgment and discretion, to blog responsibly (even if not necessarily vaguely).
If it is even polite to speak of a silver lining to the recent troubles (at the risk of being insensitive to the flesh and blood persons adversely affected), from the perspective of healthy and rational civic discourse, this development must take pride of place. Seen this way, the gain in infrastructure--of “institutional links" (blogrolls, RSS feeds & bookmark lists, as Singapore Ink puts it)--and camaraderie might just be portents of something that is much more than "feel good" factor.
But what then? Does it mean that the day of the blogs have arrived? Hardly. In what remains, I want to highlight a number of cautions concerning expectations.
1. It is one thing for the blogosphere to function as an engine for online civic discourse, another thing for it to generate real world consequences, e.g., exerting an actual influence upon public opinion, and beyond that, presenting a real voice to policy makers. This point is made explicit in the exchange between Whiteout and Yoreth. The latter points out that until a much larger percentage of the populace actually follow the critical discussions online, there is no reason at all to believe that blogging will lead to an increased voice for the people or the possibility of influencing public opinion. To put it another way, the most sophisticated arguments may be raised and challenged and responded to without the whole exercise making the dint of a difference in real life. This leads naturally to something else I would add: given present conditions, I do not think that bloggers should blog with the expectation that they are going to "make a difference" in some big and tangible way, nor should anyone else expect bloggers to be able to do so. That is just a recipe for disappointment. If anyone wants to "make a difference" in some big and tangible way, their aim would be better served by means other than blogging--as a very senior statesman once reminded us.
2. The presence of critical discussions should not be confused with nor should it be expected to lead inexorably to criticism of existing conditions (see this). This is merely a more specific instance of a more general point: it is simply unwarranted to expect that critical discussions will in every instance lead to widespread agreement on any particular issue at all, let alone an agreement that some particular thing should be criticized. No matter how convinced one is of the truth of one's position, it is arrogance to imagine that after extended discussions, others must come to share one's point of view, that those who fail to do must have obviously been prejudiced, unreasonable, unintelligent, or otherwise brained washed by the establishment (or its critics, as it may be the case). And I say this not because I am a relativist about truth or justification--I am not--but on account of the burdens of judgment (see paragraph beginning "First, a short detour").
In this regard, it is important to remember that the "community" of civic-minded bloggers who make it a habit to exchange views and arguments about the issues of the day is not a "community" in the sense that they actually share a substantive agenda. Now it is plausible to assume that most in the blogosphere are committed or would be committed to some sort of principle of freedom of speech (see the comments), though even that is an assumption. But even granting the assumption, this commitment should not be mistaken for a further commitment to specific agenda or positions on any issue of the day.
Putting the above two together, we get this:
3. It is unreasonable to expect of particular bloggers or the blogging community in general that they would or should advance anyone's favored social and political agenda and to see their not doing so as signs of stupidity, cowardice, or worse (see this, this, this, this, this and this). Individual bloggers may be partisan, but it is folly and arrogance to assume in advanced that just because someone is a blogger--even a blogger who is interested in social-political matters--he or she would have to be partisans of one's favored causes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bloggers are people too: like most people, we can be persuaded and reasoned with; but the blog politic ought not be some banana republic that can be bought or sold for the purposes of the latest social-political cause, no matter how noble appearing it might be.
But the above observations and cautions, if I am right about them, will also entail severe limitations to the sorts of organization or union that might be expected of the Singapore Blogosphere. While it may be tempting to imagine that if only the bloggerati were to organize themselves better, they will somehow be able to influence public opinion in a more tangible way, and even present more of a voice to the establishment, I believe this is a fantastic notion for the indefinite future. (And I am not even talking about the legal constraints-- real enough as they are.) But this does not mean that there are not forms of organization that would be extremely helpful for the immediate future, that is, helpful in promoting rational, civil--gentlemanly--discussion; or put another way, in promoting blogs as intellectual platforms, thus contributing to the vibrancy of life and culture in Singapore. But since the tenor of this entry is intended to be negative rather than positive, I shall leave those points to another day.
UPDATE: The Void Deck has a follow-up column (May 5): Blogs as the coming 5th estate" that contains one message each for the opposition and MIW.
[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]
A long time ago (in blogospheric time, that is), at the height of the furor over ST's plan to implement paid subscription, Trowa Evans of The Police State (Mar 2) made a suggestion that can only be described as prescient on hindsight--that part of the Blogosphere which is serious about the affairs of the country and wishes to speak up must get organized and make it a habit to share articles and ideas with each other; otherwise, it is forever consigned to the margins. I think this is prescient (despite not agreeing completely with all of his assessments) because it suggests an underlying insight into an impulse that seems intrinsic to a segment of the Singapore Blogosphere. And all that is needed for the activation of this impulse is a series of singularities of sufficient interest and importance to a wide variety of bloggers.
That condition was met in April 2005 when the troubles, as Singapore Ink so aptly described them, came in quick succession, prompting what can only be described as an unprecedented mobilisation on the part of Singaporean bloggers. Energies that had been accumulating since the Jamie Han affair (and even earlier) were unleashed in a relatively short span of time. (Aside: These perturbations has been given extensive coverage on this blog and I will not revisit their ins and outs here.)
Not all, however, are sanguine about these developments. In fact, I find myself deeply sympathetic to Agagooga's point of view: with the increased sense of community, the Singapore blogosphere looses some of its innocence. Indeed: some of the most charming and interesting aspects of the blogosphere are precisely its sheer individualism, diversity and the jealously guarded autonomy of many of its denizens. When the community aspects are now foregrounded, these other elements cannot but appear to recede.
But Agagooga's fears are probably over-exaggerated: those other aspects of the blogosphere will always be around. Life goes on--went on at the very height of the troubles--for the multitude of special and personal interest blogs that do not habitually comment on the issues of the day. For those that do, on the other hand, the increased awareness of community can be a powerful force for good. True: unnecessary linking--or perhaps worse still, unnecessary echoing of another opinion--does not really add to rational discourse. But a keener sense of community can also act as a reminder that beyond mere self-expression (read: narcissistic self-expression) there is the give-and-take of genuine discussion, of being exposed to arguments from contrary points of view, of presenting structured arguments that can be disputed, replied to, with the attached possibility of convincing another and of being persuaded in turn through rational means (I've highlighted this issue before). Furthermore, with the expectation that additional eyeballs are now trained upon one's blog, there is also an increased incentive to exercise judgment and discretion, to blog responsibly (even if not necessarily vaguely).
If it is even polite to speak of a silver lining to the recent troubles (at the risk of being insensitive to the flesh and blood persons adversely affected), from the perspective of healthy and rational civic discourse, this development must take pride of place. Seen this way, the gain in infrastructure--of “institutional links" (blogrolls, RSS feeds & bookmark lists, as Singapore Ink puts it)--and camaraderie might just be portents of something that is much more than "feel good" factor.
But what then? Does it mean that the day of the blogs have arrived? Hardly. In what remains, I want to highlight a number of cautions concerning expectations.
1. It is one thing for the blogosphere to function as an engine for online civic discourse, another thing for it to generate real world consequences, e.g., exerting an actual influence upon public opinion, and beyond that, presenting a real voice to policy makers. This point is made explicit in the exchange between Whiteout and Yoreth. The latter points out that until a much larger percentage of the populace actually follow the critical discussions online, there is no reason at all to believe that blogging will lead to an increased voice for the people or the possibility of influencing public opinion. To put it another way, the most sophisticated arguments may be raised and challenged and responded to without the whole exercise making the dint of a difference in real life. This leads naturally to something else I would add: given present conditions, I do not think that bloggers should blog with the expectation that they are going to "make a difference" in some big and tangible way, nor should anyone else expect bloggers to be able to do so. That is just a recipe for disappointment. If anyone wants to "make a difference" in some big and tangible way, their aim would be better served by means other than blogging--as a very senior statesman once reminded us.
2. The presence of critical discussions should not be confused with nor should it be expected to lead inexorably to criticism of existing conditions (see this). This is merely a more specific instance of a more general point: it is simply unwarranted to expect that critical discussions will in every instance lead to widespread agreement on any particular issue at all, let alone an agreement that some particular thing should be criticized. No matter how convinced one is of the truth of one's position, it is arrogance to imagine that after extended discussions, others must come to share one's point of view, that those who fail to do must have obviously been prejudiced, unreasonable, unintelligent, or otherwise brained washed by the establishment (or its critics, as it may be the case). And I say this not because I am a relativist about truth or justification--I am not--but on account of the burdens of judgment (see paragraph beginning "First, a short detour").
In this regard, it is important to remember that the "community" of civic-minded bloggers who make it a habit to exchange views and arguments about the issues of the day is not a "community" in the sense that they actually share a substantive agenda. Now it is plausible to assume that most in the blogosphere are committed or would be committed to some sort of principle of freedom of speech (see the comments), though even that is an assumption. But even granting the assumption, this commitment should not be mistaken for a further commitment to specific agenda or positions on any issue of the day.
Putting the above two together, we get this:
3. It is unreasonable to expect of particular bloggers or the blogging community in general that they would or should advance anyone's favored social and political agenda and to see their not doing so as signs of stupidity, cowardice, or worse (see this, this, this, this, this and this). Individual bloggers may be partisan, but it is folly and arrogance to assume in advanced that just because someone is a blogger--even a blogger who is interested in social-political matters--he or she would have to be partisans of one's favored causes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bloggers are people too: like most people, we can be persuaded and reasoned with; but the blog politic ought not be some banana republic that can be bought or sold for the purposes of the latest social-political cause, no matter how noble appearing it might be.
But the above observations and cautions, if I am right about them, will also entail severe limitations to the sorts of organization or union that might be expected of the Singapore Blogosphere. While it may be tempting to imagine that if only the bloggerati were to organize themselves better, they will somehow be able to influence public opinion in a more tangible way, and even present more of a voice to the establishment, I believe this is a fantastic notion for the indefinite future. (And I am not even talking about the legal constraints-- real enough as they are.) But this does not mean that there are not forms of organization that would be extremely helpful for the immediate future, that is, helpful in promoting rational, civil--gentlemanly--discussion; or put another way, in promoting blogs as intellectual platforms, thus contributing to the vibrancy of life and culture in Singapore. But since the tenor of this entry is intended to be negative rather than positive, I shall leave those points to another day.
UPDATE: The Void Deck has a follow-up column (May 5): Blogs as the coming 5th estate" that contains one message each for the opposition and MIW.
[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home