Objetivos específicos e hipótesis del análisis contextual

Reader responsibility is first and foremost connected to the reading process. However, it may also entail repercussions for processes outside of ‘direct’ reading and thereby assume political relevance. Historically, Sharpe shows how commonplacing may be connected to political action, and in light of the contemporary digital environment, there are new potentials as well as new challenges to be observed concerning the political impact of reading. Particularly in the discourse surrounding the reading process, the political is central. Reading and its repercussions are fundamentally political actions and need to be investigated as such. This may be viewed as the political outcomes of the infrastructure of the book, thus this chapter will zoom in on the inward arrows from the

aforementioned Communications Circuit. In this chapter, I want to analyse the theoretical

implications of how reader responsibility is being put to use. Can readers exert responsibility more easily or are they under more difficult circumstances nowadays? How do recent developments connect to historical conceptions of what reading is and how reader responsibility may be defined? Are there circumstances under which ‘reader responsibility’ can be exerted in order to be conducive to making a step towards politically and culturally active behaviour?

Defining the Political

The political, i.e. the ontological level of politics or “the way in which society is instituted”, is a contested field of discourse.169 While Chantal Mouffe views it as a “space of power, conflict, and antagonism”,170

Jürgen Habermas visualises the “public sphere” as endangered space of consensus- based democracy. In seeking out the critical potential for resistance that reading and knowledge creation offers, I intend to highlight reader responsibility’s political relevance and potential. In this, a particular focus will be placed on the digital.

As Astra Taylor argues, the digital – while structurally promoting equality and diversity – is effectively employed to perform the counter-movement: readers are becoming more unaware of their responsibilities and how they may make political use of them. Not only will the tension between embracing and rejecting the digital be explored in this chapter, a meta-analysis of discourse is

168 _{Taylor, The People’s Platform, p. 20.}

169 _{C. Mouffe, On the Political (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 9.} 170 _{Ibid., p. 9.}

necessary to understand the current debates on textual communication. Why do certain theorists choose the framework of ‘digital socialism’ but simultaneously deny socialism its most basic tenets, i.e. why does online sharing often not include the sharing of wealth?171 How are popular (counter- )narratives, i.e. ‘don’t be evil’, employed as mere pseudo-revolutionary practice (cf. Google’s dominant control of information resources)? Reader responsibility is to be found at the core of these discussions.

Reading in the Public Sphere

As a sphere between civil society and the state, in which critical public

discussion of matters of general interest was institutionally guaranteed, the liberal public sphere took shape in the specific historical circumstances of a developing market economy.172

As McCarthy clarifies here, the public sphere is closely connected to economic, political, and ideological considerations. Jürgen Habermas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

(1962) calls public what is “open to all, in contrast to closed or exclusive affairs”,173 and goes on to explain that within the public sphere, citizens can make “use of their reason” and practice “criticism of public authority” by discussing problems, voicing opinions, and searching for solutions to encourage political action.174 However, Habermas identifies threats to the public sphere as an open and fruitful realm of discussion: “Because private enterprises evoke in their customers the idea that in their consumption decisions they act in their capacity as citizens, the state has to ‘address’ its citizens like consumers”.175

He fears a collapse of the “communicative network of a public made up of rationally debating private citizens” by a ‘pseudo-public’ of consumption.176

The “public sphere in the world of letters” spills over and turns into consumption and therefore threatens the existence of the public sphere itself and its critical and political potential.177

So, while reader responsibility might be seen as enabling the public sphere as envisioned by Habermas, reading that lacks responsibility and has become mere consumption might just as well bring about the exact opposite. Despite the idea that through reading and writing, and the

aforementioned emancipation,178 political action may be pursued, no direct equation exists. This again highlights the contested context of the Internet’s supposed democratisation potential. But how can

171 _{A. Taylor, The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age (New York: Metropolitan}

Books, 2014), p. 20.

172 _{T. McCarthy in J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992}

[1962]), p. xi.

173 _{J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992 [1962]), p. 1.} 174 _{Ibid., p. 51.}

175 _{Ibid., p. 195.} 176 _{Ibid., p. 247.} 177 _{Ibid., p. 160.}

reader responsibility be assumed and enable political action, then? The examples of Pinterest and Wikipedia traced the developments that reader responsibility has undergone from print to digital. The methods of curation, critical reflection, and social/public communication have found new ways of being conducted in the digital age. This is one way one can answer the question of how digital media can be conducive to reader responsibility and also democracy. In turning to Chantal Mouffe in more detail now and her reply to Habermas, I will attempt to address the potential of reader responsibility online further.

Reader Responsibility among Power, Conflict, and Antagonism

With On the Political (2005), Chantal Mouffe wishes to counter the common perception of universal consensus-based liberal democracy as striving for a political system ‘beyond antagonism’. Mouffe calls instead for “a vibrant (…) public sphere of contestation where different hegemonic political projects can be confronted”.179

Mouffe believes that “the dangers [i.e. Western hegemony and its destructive capitalism in social and environmental terms] entailed by the current unipolar order can be avoided only by the implementation of a multipolar world”.180

And it is my belief that this may be – in part – achieved through the embrace, promotion, and exertion of reader responsibility. For Mouffe, the recognition of the “we/they distinction in a way which is compatible with the recognition of (…) pluralism” is necessary for democracy to function.181

Instead of doing away with or overcoming different opinions or positions, democracy should be the system within which these positions may be debated, and if necessary ‘fought’ over – within established boundaries as to avoid destruction and casualties.182 Thus, Mouffe neither rejects liberal democracy in principle, nor does she call for a violent revolution. Instead, she calls for an opening of the political debate again, instead of – as Habermas does183 – celebrating Western liberal ideals as the pinnacle of civilisation that cannot, or rather must not, be opposed by anyone,184 unless they want to demonstrate their lack of wit.185 She also opens the public arena for more varied discussions and less strict censorship of opinion. In my eyes – in order to be politically responsible, one should be allowed – and this might even be viewed as necessary – to learn about and understand viewpoints different from one’s own. Only through the critical encounter with and active understanding of these ideas can one come to consciously reject some positions and come to hold others. Forbidding the voicing of ‘divergent’ ideas seems harmful in fostering critical reader responsibility. Rather, an open and critical treatment of such notions should

179 _{Mouffe, On the Political, p. 3.} 180 _{Ibid., p. 6.}

181 _{Ibid., p. 15.} 182 _{Ibid., p. 120.}

183 _{Mouffe does not only critique Habermas for this shortcoming of his ideal of consensus-based democracy, but}

also e.g. Richard Rorty and his view of pragmatist politics – Her ‘dispute’ with Habermas is the most fruitful for the debate raised in this thesis however and thus it is focussed upon here.

184 _{Also S. Jovchelovitch in her book Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community, and Culture (London &}

New York: Routledge, 2007), p. 84 criticises this exclusiveness of Habermas’ conception of the public sphere to the Western liberal democratic context.

be encouraged. This can lead to the informed rejection of the aforementioned examples that Pinterest bans from their boards for example.

To ask a controversial question in this context: Should it be allowed to post images of dead infants? The problem on Pinterest might be the lack of contextualisation to understand the image. Generally, one needs to distinguish between committing the depicted act and showing/posting images that document the respective act – these are not the same. Showing what has happened can also be a way of commenting upon the act, as e.g. done in the historical magazine DAMALS. In an article by Stefan Klemp, the treatment of Jews in the Ghetto of Warsaw is discussed and illustrated with photographs.186 Here, especially the corpses of children and infants are shocking. Together with the context of the accompanying article – the German police officers who later, wrongly, claimed innocence of their crimes committed in Warsaw – however, this allows the reader to come into contact with the historical circumstances of the Holocaust and the active involvement of the German ‘Ordnungspolizei’. And as such, the article fulfils an important function, it provides information and historical contextualisation that encourages the reader to engage with history.

While this type of context is (sometimes) missing in online image (and partly also text) sharing platforms, I believe another mechanism is of importance here. I would like to argue that in a way, the uncommented presentation of violent/shocking imagery (although there do not seem to be entirely generalisable standards to assess when this is the case) calls for reader responsibility even more fervently then the contextualised information does. Of course, this presupposes the ability to exert such responsibility. Therefore, one might argue that it would not be beneficial if all such

contextualising media were replaced with non-contextualising ones. Returning to these latter cases however, it is important to realise that the community of readers online needs to assume this

responsibility and actively contextualise presented information in order to make sense of it in the first place. Furthermore, structures and providers that hinder such discussions could be urged to enable discussion boards and an infrastructure that allows for more reflective exchange between its users. Online sharing does not have to be decontextualized.

In the context of Pinterest, this is rather difficult, however. Mainly so for commercial reasons, because the boards and pins are meant to be easily and quickly accessible. This is part of the business philosophy of the company and their advertising scheme. Additionally, the general atmosphere the platform is geared towards a pleasant environment, and not necessarily difficult discussions. Nevertheless, the impetus provided by the research by Geraths and Kennerly might present a possibility in which Pinterest can be employed to support reflective discussions taking place in the classroom. Like commonplace books then, Pinterest could be a means of preparing for ‘real-life’ conversations.

However, instead of (simply) deleting problematic posts, a discussion surrounding the reasons, origins, and contexts of the post might be fruitful. In contrast to Pinterest, Wikipedia provides such a framework for the users to discuss, understand, qualify, and critically address images, texts, and positions held – namely the discussion page(s). Wikipedia thus presents an interesting platform where reader responsibility may be exercised and also where antagonistic democratic exchange may take place. As aforementioned, the provision of critical, and sometimes also contradictory context – as presented in the reference books above –, allows for reader responsibility to occur. There is, of course, one current version of each text on display on Wikipedia. This may be adapted if the reasons for changing something are deemed sufficient by the editing community. Accessing and perhaps also partaking in this discussion and navigating the potentially opposing views requires some extra activity on the side of the reader.

Many of the debates address the correct sources and references for certain arguments. As René König highlights, precisely this reliance on “external expert authorities” may be seen as hindering new views from being incorporated into the established hierarchies of knowledge creation.187 It is important however, that the discussion and accessing thereof by the ‘common’ user, is at least

possible, whereas in the other media discussed in this thesis – among them traditional reference works – this is not the case. Although one could write to the editors of a reference work, it is unclear if they would share their discussion and on Wikipedia the information may be archived for longer than the person actually lives or is available for discussion, which enables enhanced communication across space and time. And the necessity of a reference work – at least at certain points in history – to contain particular and seemingly finite information also lies in the nature of the medium. Otherwise they cannot be consulted meaningfully. The discussion boards, then, can serve as important additions to these ‘unified’ views. Through them, the ‘finiteness’ of information is debated and the possibilities of other narratives can be indicated. König agrees, “the fact that alternative interpretations are

mentioned at all (although they are marked as wrong or questionable) can be regarded as a kind of democratization”.188

Now, with the political – “the ineradicable dimension of antagonism which exists in human societies”189

– in mind, I wish to return to the abovementioned question of how reader responsibility may be assumed and turned into political action. For Mouffe, legitimate and illegitimate in political terms is always a matter of choice – when challenged, one’s viewpoint needs to be defended. This is what democracy for her is all about: continuous challenge, justification, questioning, and critical investigation. Therefore, the idea of reader responsibility as a process of incessant interpretation, negotiation, and revision connects strongly with her conceptions. Decisions and interpretations should

187 _{R. König, “Wikipedia: Between lay participation and the elite knowledge representation”, Information,}

Communication, & Society 16.2 (2013), p. 161.

188 _{Ibid., p. 173.}

“always remain open to contestation” and thereby stay alive.190

While this implies a high investment of time and energy into the reading process, it also involves the potential for a more democratic society and improved living conditions worldwide. This will not function automatically or frictionless. But, precisely by allowing conflicts to take productive shapes through antagonistic discussions and negotiations, this will provide a possible way for democracy to function. In this, reader responsibility figures prominently. By allowing for plurality to coexist and come into creative contact, Mouffe’s political agenda may be seen as holding important messages for reading culture. And as Sharpe notes:

The sometimes ambiguous texts of authority, law, custom and memory (…) opened spaces for ‘a broad spectrum of interpretive positions’.191

Most importantly, then, reading and writing offer a platform for political discussion to take place, across space and time if need be, and thereby connecting people and their thoughts who can then inspire and partake in each other’s actions. It is necessary now to turn to digital reading in the online world to investigate the repercussions of the aforementioned claims for political reading today.192 Hyperlink Reading and Reader Responsibility Online

[I]t is only possible to talk of the web as a ‘democratic’ medium, characterized by the fundamental equality of reader and author in comparison with the hierarchical nature of the author-reader relationship in print.193

New technologies have undoubtedly removed barriers to entry, yet (…) cultural democracy remains elusive. While it’s true that anyone can speak online, that doesn’t mean our megaphones blast out messages at the same volume.194

These two quotations imply seemingly contradictory notions that can be seen, however, as two sides of the same coin. While there certainly is great potential for democracy online – and as explained above, great need for it, too – there are also many unfavourable circumstances complicating this situation currently. By assessing the environment of hypertext reading in the following, I will try to connect this and combine my reflections on this type of reading with reader responsibility. Despite the (not?) surprising failure of hypertext fiction to become the major mode for literary writing, hypertext

190 _{Ibid., p. 121.}

191 _{Sharpe, Reading Revolutions, p. 328.}

192 _{The goal of transforming the public sphere worldwide to such an extent that conflicts can be carried out}

antagonistically in the way that Mouffe conceptualises it, thus without casualties and destruction, might seem untenable. However, I do believe that this does not make its pursuit less desirable.

193 _{Van der Weel, “Book Studies and the Sociology of Text Technologies”, p. 270ff.} 194 _{Taylor, People’s Platform, p. 5.}

itself is more than present in the contemporary reading culture.195 And despite the widespread use of the structurally democratising affordances of the Internet as enabling multidirectional communication and less hierarchical relationships between authors and readers, there are – as we have seen in the preceding chapters – many instances where domination is still being exerted in information management today.

Critics of the Internet, or rather of its social and intellectual influence, as Nicholas Carr, name the resulting problems from this ‘shallow’ as opposed to traditional ‘deep’ reading; this is also reflected in the title of his influential work The Shallows: How the Internet is changing the way we think, read, and remember (2010). Through the constant multitasking, the human brain is claimed to lose its previously acquired ability for the deep and creative consideration of information and the resulting knowledge creation. In Carr’s eyes, the overload of possibilities hence results in merely shallow engagement with respective materials and ideas on the side of the readers.196 Interesting in this regard is Katherine Hayle’s concept of hyper-reading, which she presents in How we think (2012). For Hayles hyper reading “includes skimming, scanning, fragmenting and juxtaposing texts”. 197 This leads the experience of reading online as being intricately connected to, and – contrary to Carr –, as enabling reader responsibility. One may thus conclude that while scholars in this field of enquiry agree for the necessity of reader responsibility, it still remains unclear if and how this may be achieved.

David Berry’s notion of ‘iteracy’ as the reading and active understanding of digital texts,

programs, and technology, introduces a potential direction for this process of trying to understand the role of reader responsibility: “Iteracy takes its name from the computational structure known as iteration”.198

In Berry’s terminology, “iteracy is specifically the practice of being able to read and