Mind-Wandering

Preamble

A few weeks ago I had an interesting interaction on Facebook about connecting Richard Dawkins and a somewhat disreputable feminist organization via the public discourse/narrative around Islam:

Me: Because it is so weak and indirect as to necessitate the inclusion of thousands of other individuals and organizations with equal level of connection - there is no specificity in the relationship, for instance both are equally connected to FOX News. Defining such a weak relationship as a connection would imply almost every person/organization is connected to every other in some way making the concept meaningless.

Other: That is a strong case for doing away with Discourse Analysis and putting a host of Narratologists out of work.

After the glee of single handedly discrediting a field of study in less than 100 words had settled (and I had failed to figure out what “Discourse Analysis” and “Narratologists” are from their Wikipedia articles); my brain made one of its intuitive leaps dragging two unlikely concepts together. Fortunately there was no-one to observe my glazed-over look unlike when this happens when I listen to talks about something vaguely interesting but outside my expertise.

In this case, the two unlikely candidates were ecology and public discourse (really the vague most likely incorrect meaning of discourse analysis I inferred by combining “narrative” and “discourse” and “public figure” in my mind). As usual this resulted in chains of wild speculation eventually leading to ridiculous propositions and unfounded conclusions.

Ecology and Public Discourse

I immediately analogized the wider discourse about Islam to an ecosystem. As in ecology the boundaries are fuzzy with players from one ecosystem (topic) frequently crossing into other neighbouring ecosystems and vice versa. Two such neighbouring topics are feminism and skepticism.

Players in public discourse can be individuals or organizations with sufficient public profile to influence broader society. Do they interact in ways analogous to species in an ecosystem?

The most fundamental interactions in ecology are: parasitism (one organism benefits the other is harmed - includes predator-prey relations too), commensalism (one benefits the other is unaffected), mutualism (both benefit), and competition (both are harmed). Can these concepts be applied to public discourse?

Clearly players on the same side of a debate are frequently mutualistic but when they start infighting they become competitors. Players advocating for opposite sides of a debate are closest to parasitic: a point gained for one is a loss for the other and if either side ceases to exist the other with disappear to likewise the louder one side gets the louder the other does. Many companies try to be commensal by supporting the winning side to benefit themselves without contributing anything to the debate themselves.

Ecosystem ecology also recognizes the raw resources and space present in the ecosystem and how it is used by various species. What would be the appropriate analogy for public discourse/narrative? I would say the various forms of media (internet, live debate, book, news stories, etc..) would be the 'resources' of public discourse. Each player focuses/excels on different resources (Dawkins specializes in books but is ineffective at using Twitter) and players can use the same resources differently by using different styles/tones analogously to organisms partitioning resources (A condescending/angry blogger does not compete with a inspiring/hopeful blogger even if they both discuss the same topic from the same point of view).  

Similar to ecology it is common to use the diversity of voices in the public sphere as an indicator of the health of the civil society, repressive cultures are thought to be unstable and pathological just as multiple extinctions have been observed to destabilize ecosystems.

But more to the point, ecology recognizes the nested nature of the system it studies. The planet contains many interacting ecosystems, ecosystems contain many interacting species, and species contain many interacting individuals (continuing further moves into physiology, cell biology and genetics). Direct interactions between elements at each level can be studied separately but to consider the big picture and indirect interactions almost all the elements at that level must be considered simultaneously. You can’t discuss the relationship between a rabbit and a warbler without also considering owls, shrubs, trees, insects etc…

Analogizing to public discourse, a culture contains many interacting discussions, discussions contain many interacting players. (I feel like there should be another step down, perhaps players possess many interacting opinions? - but that doesn’t seem quite right). And at each level direct interactions could be studied separately but I don’t see how it makes sense to consider indirect interactions or the big picture without examining all the elements at once. Bringing us full circle to the validity of discussing Dawkins and a feminist organization within the context of the public narrative about Islam without also discussing the multitude other players such as FOX news.

Disclaimer

I know not of what I speak (or in this case type)! This post is just a collection of intuitions and fun thought experiments. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for an attempt at rigorous argument or even as a serious suggestion to those who actually study public discourse or related fields.