Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 27
company can he enter without seeing those who . . . are ready to communicate to
him whatever they know, have seen, or heard, or think. The annals of the year
... the pictures of all public functionaries ... find a place on his table in company
with his daily bread” (Pateman 1970, 11). Wolin (1960, 346), however, questions
the sincerity of Bentham’s commitment to the “public” aspects of public opinion,
suggesting that is was merely a technique for advancing one’s private interests:
In his Deontology Bentham assumed the role of the Dale Carnegie of Utilitarianism,
detailing the techniques whereby the individual could ingratiate
himself with others, warning against the kind of behavior which others found
offensive, with all of these counsels dedicated to the end of inducing others
to assist in one’s campaign for wealth and social prestige.
Further, both Bentham and Mill postulate what modern theorists call a “two step
flow” model (Katz & Lazersfeld 1955) in which citizens less qualified to judge
potential delegates seek the counsel of the “wise and virtuous” citizens and cast a
responsible ballot. In addition, representatives are expected to influence their constituents
through direct and indirect communication, as a means of furthering the
universal interest. It is essential, though, to note that despite their interests in an
informed citizenry, both Bentham and Mill suggest that the purpose of participation
was merely to protect citizens from actions by the government that were not
in the universal interest. The primary sanction available to citizens was to refuse
to return a deputy to parliament. The bulk of their work focuses on the institutional
arrangements of democracy (i.e. universal suffrage, frequent and competitive
elections). What distinguishes the work of Bentham and Mill from others,
such as Locke, who view participation as fulfilling a protective function, is their
focus on universal participation.
The view of participation with a protective function has been extended in the more
recent works of Schumpeter, Dahl, Eckstein and others under the guise of “polyarchy”
and “pluralism.” Though there are important differences concerning the
roles of citizens, information and representatives between the early theorists and
the later ones, the constant is the protective function of participation. The differences
lie in the amount of participation required of citizens to fulfill the protective
function. Mill and Bentham required their citizens to maintain an interest in politics
so that they might make intelligent choices in elections. They relied on the
citizens to protect themselves from the government, and insisted upon institutional
arrangements (i.e. frequent elections, universal suffrage) to ensure that citizens
would be able to fulfill their responsibilities. More modern theorists, starting