William Davies, arguing that the online political discussion is set up around the idea of Carl Schmitt’s plebiscite:
A polity that privileges decision first and understanding second will have some terrible mess to sort out along the way.
The article explores how false debates, organized around insane alternatives (“is history something to be proud of or ashamed of?”) reinforce othering. I liked the idea of this structuration being the product of devices:
In a society of excessive choice, we become reliant on what the French sociologist Lucien Karpik has described as ‘judgment devices’, prosthetic aids which support us in the exhausting labour of choosing and preferring. Karpik studied such comfortingly analogue examples as the Michelin restaurant guide.
Visit link →