Symbols, stories, sharing – Parliament and public engagement

Posted on March 7th, 2016 by Alex Prior

…Spiro had noticed something.
‘Your eyes. What’s wrong with your eyes? They don’t match.’
Artemis treated him to his best vampire smile.
‘All the better to see you with, Spiro’.

Artemis Fowl and the Eternity Code – Eoin Colfer

I included two pop-culture references in my last academic blog post, concerning the importance of narratives within symbolic representation, affective connections and Parliamentary Outreach. I thought I would include another this time around; hence the quote from one of my favourite books as a teenager. Artemis infiltrates Spiro’s (top-secret – this is young adult fiction, after all) laboratory, recording what he sees with a tiny camera hidden in a contact lens in his left eye. Inconveniently, the lens is tinted, resulting in mismatched eye colours – noticed by Spiro at the last minute when he looks into Artemis’ eyes for the first time. This quote was not idly chosen by me; in his reply to Spiro, Artemis illustrates the clarity to be gained by seeing through several ‘lenses’.

Looking through several lenses at once, for the sake of clarity, is the closest thing to a modus operandi that I have possessed while pursuing a PhD on the topic of ‘Parliament and Public Engagement’ at the University of Leeds, under the supervision of Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira. Helpfully, it has also coincided with an increasingly cross-disciplinary ethic within political science. This is to be welcomed, since political science – a traditionally insular topic – is being continually enriched through interaction with other disciplines, from sociology to performance studies (with even a handful of Lacanian psychoanalysis thrown in, thanks mainly to Slavoj Žižek).

 

Additive_color_mixing_simulated
Image courtesy of Pko via Flickr

Political science is an academic landscape that remains characterised by a gulf between academics and practitioners – the former being perceived as largely “self-referential and self-reverential”. Peter Riddell’s quote can be (partially) rebuffed by highlighting the aforementioned improvements in cross-disciplinary approaches; as a former History student, I can personally attest to this. Bearing in mind the frequent criticisms of mainstream politics as irrelevant and disconnected from citizen voices, it is vital to encourage inclusive attitudes towards communication; public engagement; information access; indeed, all the way to academia!

This process will only serve to benefit political science, which has traditionally experienced only marginal interaction with other disciplines. This lack of interactivity is also an internal issue; the more practitioner-based, pragmatic side of politics (i.e. the one inhabited by politicians) is far too seldomly engaged with, to the extent that Matthew Flinders diagnoses a (somewhat ironic) sense of de-politicisation even amongst political scholars. Given the importance of two-way communication within engagement – indeed, engagement is two-way communication – the fact that even the literature on this topic is accused of isolationist self-interest would be an amusing point, were it not so alarming. In both academic and practitioner contexts, there is a demand (and certainly a need) for ‘horizontalised’ communication as an alternative to traditional top-down approaches.

Horizontal, non-deferential modes of communication are especially prevalent in discussing the role of technology in political engagement. The facilitatory power of technology, and social media in particular, means that it is often seen as a kind of catch-all panacea; an optimistic and wildly inaccurate perception. Prominent figures such as Andy Williamson have already noted the ways in which social media, contrary to its oft-assumed ‘democratising’ effect on conversation, actually serves as an echo chamber; a closed feedback loop for those with already congruent opinions. There is also some way to go before this ‘horizontality’ is reflected in the availability of internet access to the entire population; to quote William Gibson, “the future is already here – it’s just not very evenly distributed”.

Technological innovation must be borne out by similarly innovative implementation; in the absence of the latter, technology will simply streamline existing institutional processes and communication methods rather than help to develop them. This will simply entrench existing Parliamentary attitudes towards communication, which still relies heavily on a one-way flow of information akin to broadcasting, rather than meaningful engagement. A reliance on technology as a ‘cure’ ignores the pressing need to bring people face-to-face with politics; this will not be achieved solely from behind a screen.

Bringing people face-to-face with politics can be encouraged through a broader, more nuanced understanding of key terms such as democracy, politics and participation. As technology opens up new ways of experiencing, practising and discussing politics, the very nature of what politics encompasses – what it means – undergoes a profound change. The conceptions of politics that are disseminated through political engagement need to evolve accordingly. The growing literature on political study through performative, symbolic, narrative and psychoanalytic lenses is therefore a welcome development; I look forward to making a contribution to this multi-dimensional mindset.

 

Biography

Prior, Alex

Alex Prior is an Associate Fellow of the Crick Centre. He is a PhD student at the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds, researching Parliament and public engagement. Alex tweets as @VoterEngagement

 

Note: this article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Crick Centre, or the Understanding Politics blog series. To write for the Understanding Politics blog, email us at [email protected]

Creative Commons license

Do you have a question? Would you like to be involved?

Contact us