Search

Participation in a deliberative forum has received relatively little scrutiny as opposed to more traditional forms of participation. This study examines direct and indirect effects of discussion network characteristics on willingness to participate in a deliberative forum. Using data collected in a telephone survey of 416 respondents in Madison, Wisconsin, in the fall of 1997, the authors employ structural equation modeling techniques to explore the roles that local media use, interpersonal discussion of local politics, and reflection of information play in mediating the relationship between discussion networks and participation in public forums. Findings show that network heterogeneity directly influences forum participation, suggesting that membership in heterogeneous networks ensures greater nontraditional participation. Also, having more discussion partners makes frequent discussion of issues and higher levels of local public affairs media use more likely. Communication processes lead to reflection about local issues, which enhances forum participation. Finally, normative implications are addressed.

Point of View Ellen Schneider POV is a series on public television. We invite independent producers and self-described independent producers from all over the country to submit their work. We [...]

The Internet Governance Forum was created to provide all the Internet stakeholders a forum to address the policy issues that the Internet has stimulated in society. These issues are discussed with a special focus on Internet access especially for developing countries.

This response to Peter Marcuse situates his reading of the World Social Forum in the larger 'space versus movement' debate that has been raging among the WSF's organizers. The author argues that this debate signals: (1) a power struggle over its future; (2) profound disagreement over the character of its power, which is itself based in conflicting understandings and visions of power and change in the contemporary period more generally; (3) at the heart of this last conflict is a yet more basic one about the status of multiplicity and diversity u in understanding power(s), in building resistance(s), in creating alternatives, in crafting solidarities, in imagining other possible worlds as les raisons d'etre of the Social Forum. Drawing on the historical experience of feminism, the author proposes an alternative reading of the meaning of the Social Forum grounded in more multivalent understandings of power, movements and change, and argues that, in the evolving practice of the World Social Forum, a new democratic imaginary u post-liberal and post-Marxist u is taking shape and, with it, other possible futures are coming into view.

The rise of the Social Forum phenomenon has been heartily welcomed, partly so as to unite diverse discourses of anti-neoliberal and anti-imperialist resistance under a common banner. There are debates worth flagging, however, that draw our attention to political philosophies (typically binary statist versus anti-statist disputes), visions of agency (typically networked movements versus parties), and potentials for revolutionary processes to emerge within 'civil society'. In the spirit of Polanyi, many South Africans and other Africans are working on 'decommodification' strategies that range from particular sites of project-level struggles to national, regional and international advocacy. But we must be conscious, as well, of warnings by Gramsci about the long march through a civil society often co-opted to support state and neoliberal projects. The merits of African intellectual engagements with radical social movements have been shown in sites such as South African cities, but the African Social Forum awaits further opportunities to welcome allied researchers and academics. As the World Social Forum comes to Africa in 2007, Marcuse's hope that the constituent movements begin to coalesce around a program is timely. However, this is likely to emanate more from intra-sectoral networks rather than from multidisciplinary moments such as the WSF itself.

Recently, from 21u25 October 2004, I participated in the Norway Social Forum (NSF). It was the most successful regional social forum that I have attended. The forum expressed what I call an . Such a politics combines short-term electoral tactics with long-term social movement autonomy. Autonomist electoral politics outlines the direction that forthcoming local, regional and national forums should take. I use the example of the NSF to respond to Peter Marcuse's article on social forums and social movements.

Debates about whether to consider Social Forums as a movement in itself or as a workspace for movements to network have been an integral part of the Forums' formation processes ever since their emergence in 2000. Referring to Social Forums as 'successor and culmination' of previous social struggles raises problems of representation and suggests that all kinds of social struggles converge in this particular organizational form. Rather, struggles for social change today are being fought by social movements on a variety of scales and dimensions. Social Forums can offer a space where these various forms and scales of experiences are linked and politicized u but they can hardly act as actors themselves. Taking a next step, political experiences gathered at Social Forums can be transferred to these various kinds of struggles and inspire them. From this perspective organizational structures which enable exchange, debate, learning and the handling of differences are an important feature of Social Forums.

Social Forums, modeled on the World Social Forums, are not social movements in the classic sense. They are not, and do not purport to be, the organizational form through which basic social change will be achieved, or can best be pursued. But they do bring together elements of many social movements, afford an opportunity for coalition-building among them, frequently around urban issues, and thus make a significant contribution to achieving such change. Conceivably they may be the foundation for an international social movement for change, but if so it is likely to coalesce about a specifically political program. Some concrete suggestions are made which might enhance their effectiveness.

National conversations such as those planned by Sheldon Hackney, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, which will include discussions on many important topics are essential to solve problems besetting pluralistic societies. These conversations will help people investigate facts of life and demolish totalitarian views. People can voice their opinions through these conversations, which might help sort differences.

APHA members who wish to work together on specific public health issues that extend beyond Section or Special Primary Interest Group boundaries are now able to create and join interdisciplinary [...]

Publicness as Argument and Conversation In the classical liberal tradition, to produce public discourse is to provide reasons for one's assertions. To provide reasons is to render one's claims shareable, […]

Twenty-one prominent scholars participated in a meeting organized by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to plan its national conversation, aimed at bringing citizens together to speak on various topics. Sheldon Hackney, who planned this conversation, invited people from various fields to participate. The group recommended that theoretical conceptions should not be included in the conversations and that the NEH should encourage only those conversations which are lengthy in nature.