Mick Fealty has posted a reminder (for me anyway) that we're talking tomorrow as part of QUB's Institute of Irish Studies seminar series.¹ Although I'm going to be more of a respondent to Mick than a substantive speaker, I have been enjoying a quick read of some good scholarly pieces out there on deliberation. There's this interesting piece by Cass Sunstein from the Boston Review in 2001. I'm also struck by this special issue of Analyse & Kritik (that a colleague pointed me to) on trust and the internet. The issue includes a couple of pieces by Philip Pettit, who is always worth reading (which isn't by any means to detract from the other papers in the issue).

I've banged on (perhaps, looking back on it, in a rather ameteurish way) about politics and trust before, arguing that it's not sufficient that a consensus exist on ideas of justice across a society. If institutions are to work, it's just as important that people believe that their opponents will honour the commitments that they make. In other words, you need trust for institutions to work.

That said, although Pettit's scepticism about trust on the internet probably holds true regarding, say, commercial transactions, the thin nature of interaction online can have distinct advantages. It may well be, for instance, that the distance that characterises interaction on the internet is actually quite a good thing in a divided society. Put simply, you can hold conversations with people you would not meet in, um, three-dimensional society, especially on sites where repeat games can encourage good behaviour. The trust can actually come from the lack of face-to-face interaction.

Anyway, I've not totally decided what I'm going to say tomorrow since I want to see how I can best add to what Mick has to say, but it's likely in part to be along these lines.

Update: As it turned out, I didn't mention this stuff at all, but focused on challenging Mick's optimism on the discursive potential of blogs. I suggested first that we need to think carefully about what 'effective' might mean and second that a battle is coming where regulation of the internet will occur through the libel courts. I didn't really explain my position very well, especially on libel. Specifically, I'm interested in the disciplinary effects of libel on the population as a whole.

Still, Mick really brought the discussion to some interesting places. More to come on all this hopefully...

Update 2: Alan from Belfast, who comments below, also makes a good point here.

1. At 16:00 in Seminar Room 1, the Institute of Governance, 53-67 University Road (back).