Online Deliberation and Personal Identity

Abstract

Both offline and online deliberation require certain structural features and dispositions from all participants involved in order to qualify as a rational discourse of importance—in regard to the legitimacy of the political decision-making process. Some of them are: 1) inclusiveness—all those affected both directly or indirectly ought to be included in deliberation; 2) reflexivity—participants must be willing to change their opinion after encountering a better argument; 3) ideal role taking—participants must be able to understand the perspective of others; 4) sincerity—there ought to be an awareness regarding the dangers of self-deception or manipulation. Unlike a typical offline setting, an online setting for deliberation is able to offer anonymity to participants, which is reflecting interestingly on the aforementioned features of deliberation. An opportunity to stay anonymous is both praised and criticized due to its ambivalent influence on people’s behavior—making them simultaneously more and less attuned to the ideal of deliberation. For example, anonymity makes people more willing to participate, but reportedly lowers the quality of deliberation itself by reducing the respectfulness of participants. It seems that the decision about disclosure of one’s personal identity has consequences, such as favoring some features of deliberation at the expense of others. I will assess the potential of digital anonymity as a tool for neutralizing power dynamics that are incompatible with rational discourse.