Ari Adut

The Reign of Appearances compares the public sphere to private communication, and finds it wanting. The public sphere is largely phony, according to Ari Adut. Everyone using it is aware of criticism, trolls, libel laws, personal risk and safety. So far from enabling genuine debate, the public sphere is about posing and politics. What people say there is measured, self-edited and restricted. Real meaning is hidden if not vanquished. Real debate is not possible. Scoring political points is entertainment, not progress.

Possibly the most interesting aspect is the double-edged sword of fame. From movie stars to politicians, if they’re around long enough, they learn that adulation can flip to contempt in a heartbeat. Living in the public sphere points out that there are no constants, no baselines, and no limits.

Freedom of speech mutates almost daily. A hundred years ago, Americans had no right to say the things they do today. In China it can be a capital crime to portray government without The Party, and judges are required to consider the welfare of The Party before considering the law. In Thailand, it is illegal to say anything the king might consider offensive. In North Carolina, it is illegal to publicly claim the sea level is rising. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal for doctors to publicly claim disease is connected to fracking. The differences between private and public spheres remain dramatic.

Over the centuries and within nations and also cultures, the standards constantly change. Some things that were sacred or profane we no longer give a second thought to. Other things have become points of extreme sensitivity, and banned. And nothing in the book gives any clue how to measure, analyze or make predictions about the process. So Reign of Appearances is not science; it is a top line survey of the obvious.

Adut hurtles onward, piling up results without trying to prove them. This is the very old correlation vs causation problem. Just one example: voter turnout has steadily decreased in western democracies ever since the secret ballot took hold. But he could just as validly claim that pizza production increased in that same time. There are many more such examples in the book, arguable at very least.

The book ends without coming to any useful conclusions. Perhaps this should not be surprising, as very early on (page 15), Adut quotes Charles Tilly: “The concept of public sphere is morally admirable but analytically useless.”

David Wineberg… (altro)