Another predominant idea is the idea of didactic
shocks. By this term we mean the conviction that through small scale interventions
that take the form of controlled instructive shocks (social sanctions), or
formation of islands of collaboration (motives for social virtues) there might
be created examples helpful in reducing levels of violence in society. Often
this is accompanied by institutional interventions of greater scale, when the
ground is fertile, in an application of a doctrine of spill over. It might be
argued that such an idea stems from modern ‘neo-functionalism’ (small scale
collaboration which can set the basis for larger scale collaboration including
building a common institutional area). Yet it might be better to trace it back
in older history. As a matter of fact there can be found an old political
concept according to which the cultivation of particular social habits – e.g.
through selective rewards or punishments- constitutes a practical pedagogy that
can strongly influence social morals. If, for instance, a ‘best practice’ is
followed in the administration of an organisation, it can set an example for
other institutional (governmental or non governmental) actors to follow.
Similarly, the publicity given to a ‘wrong’ social behaviour may set another
example which then may shock public opinion to the effect that a relevant legal
action can then be taken. We can notice again the involvement of the publics in
the formation of political decisions. What would be more natural than that in
an era of worldwide democratisation? On the other hand, such kinds of practices
are distinguished from direct citizen involvement in that they seek to
indirectly shape public opinion. It is a kind of education better suiting children
than adults; yet it has been used by various historical political regimes. Thus,
various forms of symbolic politics (for in fact this is the area we getting in
when discussing such methods of governance) have been indeed practiced
throughout human political history.
Whether we can or need to break away with them is not
a question we can tackle here. What we must comment on instead is why such
practices must be necessarily connected with globalisation. A short answer
would be that globalisation is especially connected with publicity: events
occurring in a remote place can be easily magnified and shown to various
publics through high technology. A further comment worth making is that the
effectiveness of such practical pedagogy may not always be secured as symbolic
politics is not easy to comprehend. If, for instance, a particular government
or a social movement tries to advance pacifism or world social justice through
indirect attacks on national symbols or historical periods without explicit
arguments and explanations, there may follow a good deal of confusion as to
what exactly it is after. Surely public discussion is expected to follow after
a particular didactic shock; yet in such cases opinions are either
contradictory or half expressed. There is also possible that an ‘ad hocism’
might lead to false conclusions. For it is not always easy to draw valid
generalisations (which normally predate a legislative decision, a decision i.e.
which concerns a generalised interest and a vast number of people), unless one
possesses proper expertise. Yet, expertise of this sort may be questioned in
social systems which promote a kind of “panel democracy”. In other words the
puzzling question of who are the best interpretators of events- happening
sometimes out of the blue- (re)appears: politicians, journalists, activists,
academics, or the man/woman interviewed by a poll maker?
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου