Public Philosophy, Public Democracy

What comes to mind when we think about democracy?

Philosophy?

Many people think of democracy in terms of voting, political parties and parliament - essentially a mechanism for choosing rulers, and something that affords us ‘the right to vote’.

However, this raises an interesting question: what happens between elections? Do we spend the intervening years as spectators, waiting for the next opportunity to exercise our democratic rights while decisions are made by those we have placed in positions of authority?

But, if democracy extends further than voting, then what does it look like between elections, and what part do ordinary citizens play in shaping thought and conversations about issues that affect their lives?

This is where thinkers such as John Dewey (1859-1952) become interesting - particularly in how he believed that philosophy belonged not only in universities, but wherever people gathered to discuss the problems they shared. I came across an example of this when I met Fia and Alex from ‘The Philosopher’s Yard’ in Birmingham.

They were in the street asking members of the public a profound, and challenging question: “Is AI good for society?”

Alex told me: “It gets people thinking, and today is just a bit of outreach to get people’s opinions on the spot.”

The question itself is fascinating, as Fia explained:

“At the moment, a lot of people are using AI for whims and fancies, or for their work and not thinking about the challenges. Our attention spans are becoming shorter - we are not thinking enough and are not being creative enough. It is going to take a bit of time for people to realise that it is bad for us.”

Opinions on what Fia said will vary, but what was important here was not the specific answers that were given, or the opinions that were expressed, but how people were being invited to join a conversation about a topic that is often discussed by experts, politicians, journalists and technology enthusiasts, even though AI is increasingly affecting people who have never been invited to engage on the topic.

For Dewey, democracy was about more than voting. It was a way of living in which citizens were invited to engage in conversations about concerns and problems they shared. Seen in that light, this corner of Victoria Square, in Birmingham’s busy city centre, felt democratic.

What intrigued me was, here were two young philosophers inviting strangers to reflect on what may prove to be one of the most significant technological developments of our age.

Alex was clear about why he thinks the question of AI being good or bad for society needs asking:

“It's inherently a democratic technology. It draws from the world’s sources of information, and it’s important that we all have access and input to that.”

Fia and Alex are both young, and Fia highlighted the generational significance of how AI is used and regarded:

“Our generation would use it - even if we know the possible implications of it, and also feel it’s not good for us.”

I asked Fia and Alex if they would agree that it’s not so much the answer that is important, but knowing the right questions to ask.

“I think that by asking the question,” Fia said, “we are putting people in that position. We are making people think about AI, and what we should be asking about it.”

Alex expanded on the purpose of The Philosopher’s Yard:

“The whole purpose of the charity is to bring philosophy to everyday people and make it as accessible as possible. We welcome everyone from all different backgrounds to come to events and just have an open discussion - non-judgemental and no academic credentials required - just come and chat; that’s what it’s about really.”

Alex’s response brought to mind Dewey’s idea that the public is not a fixed group, but rather is something that comes into existence when people begin to engage with a common concern. What Alex essentially told me was that the Philosopher’s Yard was creating a ‘public’ in which discussions, and possibly ideas about what should be done, are shared.

More than two thousand years before John Dewey wrote about democracy, another philosopher was asking questions in the streets.

Socrates wandered the streets of Athens questioning fellow citizens about important issues of the day: justice, virtue and the good life. Unlike Dewey, Socrates was more interested in how people arrived at their beliefs.

This is not to suggest that Dewey and Socrates were opposites. Dewey also valued questioning, and Socrates was not indifferent to the society in which he lived. However, the differences between the two are revealing. Socrates probes the foundations of belief. He was particularly concerned that those who claimed to know a lot actually knew a lot less than they would have people believe.

Had Socrates been magically transported to the streets of my home city, and went about asking people the same question as Fia and Alex, he might have challenged the responses he heard.

Socrates: “Do you believe AI is good for society?”

Citizen: “No, I think it’s a bad thing.”

Socrates: “Why do you think that?”

Citizen: “It will take jobs away from people, and cause more unemployment.”

Socrates: “Has every new technology led to greater unemployment?”

Socrates would want to know whether the person’s reasoning was consistent and whether they had examined their assumptions.

Whereas Dewey would be more interested in the consequences:

Dewey: “Do you believe AI is good for society?”

Citizen: “No, I think it’s a bad thing.”

Dewey: In what ways?

Citizen: “It will take jobs away from people, and cause more unemployment.”

Dewey: “If that is your concern, how should society respond?”

Dewey’s questions explore the consequences of belief.

Socrates asks, “Why do you think that?” Dewey asks, “Given that you’re concerned about that, what should we do?”

Standing in Victoria Square, beneath the imposing façade of Birmingham Council House, Fia and Alex seemed to have found common ground between Dewey and Socrates. Their questions encouraged people to examine their assumptions about AI while, at the same time, inviting them into dialogue about the virtues - or vices - of the technology.

Separated by more than two millennia, Socrates and John Dewey asked different types of questions, yet I suspect both of them would have recognised something familiar in what Fia and Alex were doing in bringing philosophy out of the lecture theatre and into a public space.

If Dewey believed that democracy depended on citizens talking together about the problems they shared, then what was happening on that day in Victoria Square was more than a discussion about a rapidly emerging technology. It was, in Dewey’s sense of the word, a public coming into being, and democracy in action.