Frame and Organize Now
Coordinating from the grassroots is difficult and rewarding, and sometimes we let it slip to the back-burner.
We have a major challenge in bringing Telecom & Network issues to the general public. The language of business and the market are pervasive, constituting the lens through which many people (mis)read the world.
George Lakoff has been receiving a lot of coverage on the question of “reframing” key issues. Lakoff was a guest speaker at the recent National Media Reform Conference. I’ve followed his work for some time. (I have a background in Semiotics, among other useful things.)
I’ve been thinking about the issues of major communications infrastucture owners/providers such as ILECs/CLECs/RBOCs/CableCo’s, etc., the future freedom/structure/nature of the Internet (layers/”dumb” network design), spectrum policy, media-ownership/community-ownership and local content production. (Have I left out anyone’s pet issue?)
What are the issues that require reframing? I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Industry efforts have had success because of two frames that conflate Governemnt/Governance and Market/Business layers/issues respectively.
- Govt. is Govt. is Govt. (and Telecommunications is Business. Govt doesn’t belong in Business.)
- Business is Business is Business (and what’s good for our business is good for the economy and all business interests)
Ancillary: 3) We shouldn’t be regulated (much), it’s bad for business. Regulation gets in the way. And Regulation builds up bureaucracy. And bureaucracy is corrupt or at best inefficient, and govt. bureaucracy especially so. Besides, the market will correct things in the long run. 4) Our investments are risky and we need to be protected… So we seek barriers to entry into this market.
We need to break the frames that conflate the levels and functions of Govt, as well as the interest of all “Market” actors: business and consumer alike.
It’s not clear to me which has more distrust in the public eye, big-business or big-govt. I think to some extent it depends upon personal history. Individuals vary in terms of where they’ll focus their general distrust or disatisfaction, and many express a healthy suspicion towards both.
However, even with a distrust of big-business, the expectation that market forces will operate to correct a given situation defines the pro-market view. It justifies a rationale of letting the market decide, and tends to ignore the details that would structure or define an open or competitive market.
It’s important that we work to promote an understanding of the legitimate roles of Govt., of Public disclosure, debate and discourse, the public good. In the field of the market view there are consumers and producers. We’ve got other interests besides consuming, and other interests than profit from the consumption of others. We have an interest in the structure of the market, and that there are protections and regulations. We have an interest in certain aims being reached even if no market actor has the incentive to pursue that aim at the present. The public has a voice, but has to (re)gain experience in using that voice. There are functions of govt. and community effort that need to assert their role, clearly. There are different layers and levels, and branches of govt. In many ways Govt. has more diversity as a political-economic ecosystem than do some major business sectors: in particular the quasi-monopolies.
But all business is not the same. The Business = Business = Businesss frame likewise needs to be split. What’s good for one major company or business sector cannot be the standard for what is good for the general (or local) economy. Business interests are diverse and frequently enough divergent. Politicians often feel threatened that changes affecting an industry may mean job loss in their locality.
I wont continue with the effort to reframe here…. Just wanted to offer notes down the path. Findng language to frame the issues from our deeper interests rather than reacting to the frame introduced by a special interest group, is but one step, albeit an important one.
Getting the message out, and finding strategic allies, and getting the message out, and getting the message out, and getting the message out with plenty of repetition is critical.
Finding strategic allies, and going beyond the obvious ones who are already mobilizing takes some work. We have to think creatively and undertsand the deeper interests of the other, and have some sense of the broad trends and possibilities before us.
I’m committed to this effort, and I know many others feel likewise.
One recommendation I have as something practical each of us can do is to form or strengthen ties to diverse groups in your regions.
A number of us are involved in regional organizing initiatives. I would love to hear the status of those. What are the challenges? What regions not represented on the list are also organizing on these or similar issues? How do we link with them? Is Civic Engagement another framing of Community Networking? Is it a subset? Is it a necessary element?
We need a collaborative strategy where we are each contributing to developing or strengthening our base. We need to facilitate local communication between diverse parties to strengthen the local as the building blocks of everything else. We need to tie local interests to interests at the state level, and again to the national, and I’d also suggest to a global view of things. We need to facilitate communication between different localities that are organizing and different regions that are organizing so that we can project a national and global vision.
A last note on Frame and Organize Now, we must frame from something bigger. Something more important. Something not merely in defense, but proactive. One major question before our society is the relation of telecom infrastructure across multiple platforms to the general interest of society in digitial literact, access and equity. We have a history that includes the public interest in this very special field: freedoms of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to communicate. We have a history of the commons, and open standards, and open, non-discriminatory pricing. We have invested in public goods: infrastructure, roadways, right of ways, public lighting, electrification, waterworks, schools, libraries, research. These are public assets and worthy of public conservation and further investment. These can be viewed as amenities, and forma basis for ageneral quality of life we should strive for and which require public vigilance.