The Actualizing Citizen as Action Path User
Appealing to the community volunteering and community action propensities of the AC, Action Path creates a space that allows for distributed, ad-hoc participation in civic and community issues; what Bennet describes as “loose networks of community action”[1]. Self-Actualizing Citizenship values a sense of agency that is felt primarily when participation is not run through a hierarchical governmental authority structure. In Action Path, there exists the potential for a “lower” (hierarchically speaking) and hopefully deeper state of engagement with issues that affect the user directly. That said however, the perception of trust and community in this tool lies heavily on the origin of the prompt. If it is simply “the service” creating geo-fences and surveys, or businesses, or elite members of society, or even used simply as a channel to pre-established governmental organizations, it is possible that Action Path may not resonate with strictly individualized AC to the same degree. If, however, the prompts are crafted by community groups mobilized around issues they feel are being led by a group where ordinary citizens are underrepresented when discourse occurs, or if the tool is enabled in such a way that any given civically motivated actor can say “pinch and zoom” their own geo-fence and quickly add a prompt, dynamically creating a sphere in which the public can participate, it is possible that the AC would see the tool as a trustworthy space for civic reflection, rather than a part of the urban intelligence industrial complex [2].
The Dutiful Citizen as Action Path User
Appealing to the propensities of the DC to become informed about issues of government and voting as a core democratic act [1] Action Path provides a way to vote, not in the conventional sense, but in a technologically enabled way that allows them to participate in public debate when they might otherwise find themselves detached from issues local to them. The difference in affordances from the AC use of Action Path is that they may be more likely to engage or trust in the space the tool creates when the government or official sources are the origin of the prompts. Not quite a one-way communication, but with DC’s today being more technologically informed than in previous generations, Action Path provides a way that official communications coming through this channel could actually engage citizens in a way that the DC is comfortable and familiar with, simply via a new channel. While the AC may leverage social networks like Facebook and Twitter and feel they are actively participating in civic reflection and debate, it is less likely that the DC would be comfortable with this decentralized or distributed form of discourse. Depending on the affordances granted to users, and the perception that this gives to the them of the app as a channel for sanctioned vs. open citizen transmission, it is possible that the DC may see this as meaningful in a way that social networks are not. The tone of the communications also plays a factor. While DC’s are accustomed to communications that are “generally information rich, but also filled with the views of officials and government authorities” and that “generally lacks much in the way of citizen voices or action ideas”, if they see a platform run rampant by unofficial voices, it is possible the will discount the conversation, and the platform as well, as too messy and unconventional.
Designing for Different Models of Citizenship
Finding a balance in designing tools that target both of these communities is a difficult challenge, as one risks alienating one or the other. It may require providing different sub-spheres of conversation users can opt into to feel that they are engaging in the type of citizenship that best matches the sources they trust for civic organization and discourse. A further challenge is not to downplay any one against another. Making, for instance, “official” or “verified” accounts for government officials may betray the AC’s confidence in who the platform favors as a valid viewpoint. Putting them at the same level hierarchically as every other citizen may be a turn-off to the DC, who expects some degree of official indication and a default trusted viewpoint that they see as impartial. It is perhaps possible, if one has as their goal the “migration” of one form of citizenship to another (and inherently taking a political stand that “up” in this migration means e.g. toward a more AC form of participation and reflection), it may be possible to channel a user through the platform’s structure in such a way that it allows them to become accustomed to new modes of interaction. Care must be taken, however, as a more cynical perspective might call this indoctrination. In this case, transparency has a delicate role to play.
1. “Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age”. https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262524827_sch_0001.pdf
2. “Action Path Presentation at 2014 Knight-MIT Civic Media Conference”. https://vimeo.com/99736172#t=2437s