Sunstein, C. (2001). Chapter 4 in Republic.com [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press], "Social Glue and Spreading Information."

Discussion Leader: FrankLester

Key points and claims

In SunsteinChapter3, the author presents a number of examples of recent advances in technology that mean that consumers have become able to filter out any product, including informational content, that they do not wish to encounter. In SunsteinChapter4, the author explores the ideas of shared experience, solidarity goods, and information as a public good.

Sunstein notes that when choice increases, the "social glue" that holds people together as a community decreases. (This is a point that Galston1999 also makes.) He uses an example from Elihu Katz (the example of Israel having only one broadcasting channel for a period of time) to illustrate the point that shared viewing — and, more generally, shared experience — are valuable assets in a democratic society, because they increase the number of people who will gather at a single location, even if it is a virtual location, to discuss issues of importance to the community and to hear divergent points of view. Fragmentation and group polarization arise as consequences of self-selection and consumer sovereignty. When a large percentage of citizens self-select into filtered information bubbles, the likelihood increases that cybercascades of false information will spread and that true information will be suppressed. The more opportunities that exist for the sharing of experience, the more likely it is that beneficial information will spread and the more likely it is that the spread of good information will be able to benefit society as a whole.

Sunstein says that shared experiences are "solidarity goods" — their value goes up the more they are consumed and the larger the numbers of people who are consuming them. If general interest intermediaries (such as broadcasters) are disseminating true information, shared experience will be better, because more people will get a better idea of the tasks and issues facing society. Shared experience in its "good" form is also valuable because (a) it is enjoyable, and the larger the number of people who are enjoying it, the more enjoyable it is; (b) it helps people from diverse backgrounds remember that no matter how different others are, they still share the fact of living in the same society, with shared goals and hopes; and (c) it follows from that realization that people are less likely to see people from different backgrounds- as "other" and are more likely to see them as fellow citizens, deserving of respect and compassion.

Individual choice, according to Sunstein, is not beneficial to the goals of society as a whole in the sense that it limits the likelihood that "good" or "true" information will spread from the holder of that information to the rest of the citizenry as a positive externality. If general interest intermediaries are working well, the likelihood increases that I will be exposed to alternate points of view and information that I may not have sought out myself. If those intermediaries are not working well, that likelihood decreases, and so does does the likelihood that I will spread any "good" information that I receive.

According to Sunstein, the presence of "good" information, widely distributed and digested, is a corrective to governments acting in ways that are contrary to the public benefit. Shared experience, either through public forums or through general interest intermediaries, is the best way to ensure the spread of "good" information. A heterogeneous society in which a "fully customized communications market" is the dominant channel of information distribution will tend to depress the number and the quality of shared experiences.

Critique

Sunstein notes that he is not complaining about the Internet. He states that the Internet has made it possible for cybercascades of "good" information to circulate (i.e., information about disasters) as well as "bad." His larger point, that filtered information markets lead to a decrease in shared experience, seems strong. However, I am not as optimistic as he is that public forums and general interest intermediaries would be able to restore the shared experience that he seems to think we have lost. I think that the problem of loost shared experience is larger than a symptom of filtering out information that we don't want to absorb. I agree that fragmentation and group polarization are prominent conditions in American society. I don't agree that having public forums or "well-working" general interest intermediaries will necessarily ameliorate those conditions.

Connections

Putnam2001's discussion of social capital coincides with many of the themes that Sunstein addresses (particularly his discussion of how antisocial groups use social capital to achieve aims that are broadly contrary to the common good, and his emphasis on the importance of collective effort in the growth of American society).

Rich Ling's The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone's Impact on Society [2004, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers] has a lengthy and interesting discussion in Chapter 8 on the interplay between social capital and individualism, the "increased institutionalization of individualization," and how mobile technology and other ICTs are feeding this transformation. One keystone of Ling's analysis is the work of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences [2002, London: Sage]), who (for instance) in a discussion of individualization in a larger context, describe how the institution of marriage has evolved from a "form of common solidarity" (to quote Ling's breakdown of the research) to what is arguably "an emotional bond between two relatively independent economic actors."

[KathyLee] A business week article∞ on a project at PARC. "Social TV will allow geographically dispersed friends to chat and watch TV together."

Discussion

LaurieBuis: I disagree with Sunstein's argument that "an increasingly fragmented communications universe will reduce the level of shared experiences, simply as a matter of numbers". Despite the increasing fragmentation we are seeing on the micro-level, on the macro-level, in terms of media conglomeration, I think that we are becoming less and less fragmented. The vast majority of the media is controlled by five media conglomerates and they all have similar agendas. Even through there is more fragmentation, the media messages (due to ownership) are becoming more and more alike. So, in terms of shared experiences, I think that these are still quite possible despite the fact that things are fragmented on a micro level.

FrankLester: It's true that conglomeration of the media and the unification of their messages probably means more shared experiences rather than fewer. But I wonder whether the shared experiences that they are generating are necessarily "good" ones in terms of social value? We may have more shared experiences, but are they shared experiences that give the individuals who are sharing them a sense that no matter what our differences are, we are still a single community working together toward shared goals?

LindaYu: The conglomeration of the media can be thought by respective populations as a conspiracy of sorts, and thus choose to reject the information that is presented by those sources. They may choose to find information in other ways, probably on the internet and those agreeable to their own beliefs. What is equally unsettling is where some have only one source of information and do not have access to others for various reasons.

RebeccaTremaglio: And let's not forget that the information shared by media conglomerates might not be of the sort that contributes to the social glue Sunstein says we need. The top headline story on a major internet portal yesterday involved confirmation of the rumor that Britney Spears is pregnant. We may all be getting that as a common experience, but is that the kind of thing that's going to build community?

KathyLee: Shared experiences act as social glue, OK. Fragmentation leads to fewer shared experiences, OK. But, a customized communications universe leads to less sticky social glue, I'm not so sure. (I think Sunstein assumes that consumers of personalized information do not share at all, which is not true.

[NoorAliHasan: del.icio.us, Slashdot, MetaFilter, and blogs in general are all built around sharing information and good examples in support of KathyLee's argument.]

"A system in which individuals make choices among innumerable options based only on their private interest, they will fail to learn about topics and views from which they may not much benefit, but from which others would gain a great deal" (p. 102).

But, what's the opportunity cost? For example, we could all listen to 10 hours of NPR (imagine NPR covers a large and meaningful enough community), serendipitously discover something of interest to someone we know, and tell them about it or each listen to 10 hours of podcasts, but also learn something that would of interest to someone we know, and tell them about it. For example, I find lots of things that I think would be of interest to the SI community while reading my personalized RSS feeds. (Or am I just reinforcing group polarization?) There is definitely less of what Sunstein calls shared experience in RSS or podcasting, but more diversity of material.

DerekHansen: Nice discussion. I personally thought that treating "information" as a public good was a bit of an oversimplification. In particular, there are many times when information is rival. For example, my knowledge of a quaint, restaurant of excellent quality that is never crowded. If everyone learns about how good it is they'll start showing up and the value I get from it will be diminished since I'll have to wait in line. This may be a silly example, but there are clearly many cases when information is rival in nature and the stakes are much higher.

NoorAliHasan: There's a passage at the beginning of this chapter that intrigued me:

"Consider the astonishing finding, by the economist Amartya Sen, that in the history of the world, there has never been a famine in a system with a democratic press and free elections. Sen's starting point, which he demonstrates empirically, is that famines are a social product, not an inevitable product of scarcity of food. Whether there will be a famine, as opposed to a mere shortage, depends on people's 'entitlements,' that is, what they are able to get. Even when food is limited, entitlements can be allocated in such a way as to ensure that no one will starve." (Pages 89 - 90)

I'm involved with a CIC project that involves telecenters in developing countries. This passage made me wonder about our project and ICT4D projects in general. If the passage is actually true, then is all ICT4D work just patching the symptoms of a greater problem? Or is ICT4D work opening up information flows that will help relieve the greater problem of corrupt undemocratic governments?

[JudeYew: I found Sunstein's arguments in Chpt. 3 persuasive but not so those in Chpt 4. In particular, I find his simplistic (mis?)use of Amartya Sen's linking of democracy with famines to be somewhat problematic. I think that further investigation of Sen's point reveals that it would be a misapprehension to believe that democracy solves the problem of hunger. There is defintely more at play in democracies and to suggest that free speech and access to information would solve the problem of famine in democracies like Ethiopia is infintely problematic to me. More on Sen's argument of the linkage between democracy and hunger is chronicled in this reproduction of a 2003 New York Times article∞. Hence, to address NoorAliHasan's point, I am not sure ICT4D to provide free speech and open access to information would resolve the problems caused by corrupt, undemocratic governments, let alone famine.]

[FrankLester: I had some of the same misgivings that JudeYew did about Sunstein's discussion of Amartya Sen's famine/democracy research. I haven't read Sen's research, but even so I had some concern from the way Sunstein framed his mention of Sen that Sunstein might be oversimplifying. Jude's paragraph above confirms my suspicion.]

Again, this sounds good at first glance: the internet makes it easier to find those who agree with us, making it easier to ignore those who don't. I must admit that I don't seek out NRA or KKK conversations—I go to the baseball discussion forums for my lurking. My opinions are thus severely distorted: Mark McQuire should (or should not) be elected to Hall of Fame; Bonds is done/ will be back in a month; &c. I filter out everything but baseball, so I don't know about Michael Jackson's trial, the American Idol voting mix-up, or who died on Wisteria Lane this week. But I do know that Condoleezza Rice wears killer boots--every internet portal in the country carried the photo. Shared experience is not dead.

YongKim: So, can I conclude that the duality of the Internet (it increases fragmentized communications vs. it facillitates interest intermediaries disseminating good information) makes our share experieces either richer or less rich, depending on where we get the information?