Technology develops its own momentum, and can be used as an instrument of the strong against the weak. The only thing that can stop `imperialism of instrument reason' is a vigorous revival of the political process and an insistence that changes, both major and minor, be analysed thoroughly and argued out in a spirit of passionate scepticism (Edward de Bono in Jones, 1995, 243).
Spin no sterile yarns, my fellow planners, for they do not provide use with the passion, reason, and power needed to construct our paths into the future (Daniel Burnham in Throgmorton, 1996, 257).
This chapter links recent theoretical developments in policy analysis to the overview of telecommunications policy for people with disabilities presented in preceding chapters. In particular, the coterminous interactive effects on policy by discourse and material conditions are analysed.
The early chapters analysed in some detail the material conditions that influenced macro-level decisions in both the telecommunications and the disability policy environments. The history of telecommunications policy was analysed to historically contextualise policy within Australian political, technological and social contexts. Similarly, disability policy was also positioned historically. The HREOC inquiry was arguably a watershed in the development of telecommunications policy for people with disabilities and it also signified the arena where political discourses contested for dominance to influence material outcomes. It is further argued that the inquiry resulted in changed material conditions for the Deaf community, profoundly deaf people and people with severe speech impairments; they were able to access TTYs through voucher systems. However, the symbolic status of people with disabilities also changed. People with disabilities became the subjects of telecommunications policies instead of the objects. Consequently, the inquiry reaffirmed a rights discourse of disability in preference to charity discourses. This section will analyse the permeable nature of worldview boundaries and the consequent impact that emergent hybrid worldviews have on policy arenas.
Worldviews by individuals and institutions are dynamic cognitive spaces that have permeable boundaries which are contingent on changes within the wider policy arena. Policy arena changes include:
As indicated, worldviews are altered from changes within the policy arena. However, an actor(s)' prolonged exposure to other actors with differing worldviews challenges their normal discourses (Throgmorton, 1996, 41-42).
Consequently, actors rarely occupy the pure position of advocate, politician or scientist, but a tendency or impulse to hold one worldview against another (43). Throgmorton infers from the work of Bernstein (1983) and Geertz (1983) that as planners become more experienced in moving between interpretive communities they become influenced by the audiences that they are trying to persuade:
The experiences of engaging in ``abnormal discourse'' and trying to ``fuse horizons'' are common ones for planners. As they become more experienced, move from one role setting to another, or delve more deeply into planning problems, planners must engage a wider range of planning audiences. In doing so, they tend to act hermeneutically and thereby become more like the audiences they try to persuade. Over time new forms of normal discourse develop between some members of each of these communities. The three initially ``pure'' impulses tend to shade into one another and thereby create three new, and more realistic, roles for planners (Throgmorton, 1996, 43).
As normal discourses are challenged, so previously abnormal discourses are entertained. Throgmorton's observation explains why the Telstra Disability Service managers softened in their hard-line approaches towards policies for people with disabilities. They appeared to change their attitudes towards people with disabilities the longer they held their position and began to act as advocate policy makers in their relations with senior management - to their own personal detriment. The AAD Policy Adviser also appeared to shift from a ``pure'' advocate impulse to advocate policy planner as demonstrated in his increasing reliance on empirical evidence to support his lobbying efforts. He cited the impact on senior Telstra managers and Government officials of scientific evidence for his claims for the Deaf community as his reason for using the data (pers.comm. AADPA, 1997). Consequently social advocates, influenced by Telstra's scientific worldview employed scientific rhetoric to strengthen their lobbying efforts.
According to Throgmorton, the emergent mind-sets create an : i)advocate policy maker; or ii)policy analyst; or iii)political entrepreneur (Throgmorton, 1996, 40-41). The advocate policy maker describes the advocate who rigorously uses scientific method in spite of disclaiming value-neutrality (1996, 44). Advocate policy makers uphold specific interests or community values as their raison d'etre but also realise that political and scientific audiences demand empirical proof for claims.
Arguably, AAD and CTN operate as advocate policy makers and the empirical validity of their work has been recognised by Telstra and parliamentarians (HOS, 1997, 17 March, 1568). Furthermore, Throgmorton observes that advocate planners employ scientific rhetoric to point out the weaknesses in alternative policy suggestions and publicise their findings to wider audiences through specialist or mass media (1996, 44). Again, CTN and AAD demonstrated skilled use of scientific rhetoric in the HREOC inquiry as reflected in the Commissioners' acceptance of their cost models in preference to Telstra's submissions.
AAD used both empirical evidence and emotive appeal when they approached the media to support their claims that the Deaf community needed TTYs (Sydney Morning Herald, Feb 25, 1995; The Age, Dec.2, 1993). The strategic positioning of CTN and AAD as advocate policy makers enhanced the groups' credibility to wider audiences and enabled Geoff Scott and DPI (A) to argue their case from a platform of scientific credibility and legitimacy.
The policy analyst is the second new category created from merging science and politics (Throgmorton, 1996, 43; Wildavsky, 1987). Throgmorton, mentions the work of different policy analysts, Stokey and Zeckhauser (1978) and Wildavsky (1987) to distinguish between policy analysts that have a stronger: a)political worldview; or b) scientific worldview:
Scientifically oriented analysts (eg., Stokey and Zeckhauser, (1978) emphasise the importance of methodological rigour, but they also stress the importance of brevity, clarity and timeliness. Politically oriented analysts (eg., Wildavsky, 1987) stress the importance of addressing problems that the client can understand, or – as Wildavsky (1987, 16) puts it – constructing ``problems that decision-makers are able to handle with the variables under their control and in the time available.'' From this point of view, analysts must be willing to delete material from reports and do whatever else – within vague limits – it is necessary to help gain acceptance of their advice and their clients' policies (Throgmorton, 1996, 44).
Throgmorton's observations are significant and indicate the difference between the imperatives and values systems attached to differing worldviews, and the tools commonly used by holders of certain worldviews. Arguably, the scientifically oriented analyst will not compromise the painstaking detail attached to their discipline, whether it be marketing economics, engineering or law. In contrast, the politically oriented analyst has constituents to satisfy with limited resources to divide between tasks. Therefore they employ scientific tropes (eg. statistics) to influence wider audiences in much the same way as the advocate policy maker with an advocate predisposition employs them. Arguably, Telstra acted as politically-oriented analysts in the HREOC inquiry. The corporation attempted to persuade the Commissioner to accept their policy by using scientific rhetoric but omitting reference to relevant details to the case but not to their argument. TTY work undertaken by Telstra in 1991 (Telecom Australia, 1991) was peripheral to their claim that the corporation hadn't worked TTYs because it was not their responsibility to supply TTYs to the Deaf community. In addition, the revenue from TTYs was omitted from Telstra's costing of the program. Further, Telstra's costing omitted the 13, 000 means-tested TTYs which significantly reduced Telstra's liability. It is therefore argued that Telstra adopted a politically oriented policy analyst position in the HREOC inquiry.
The political entrepreneur is the third new category created from merging advocacy and politics (Throgmorton, 1996, 43). Political entrepreneurs are ``non-technical planners'' who rely heavily on ``ordinary language'' (1996, 4). In addition political entrepreneurs have the ability to gain the support of diverse groups and in the process arrange new coalitions. Throgmorton cites Mollenkopf's (1983, 6) observation that, ``the political entrepreneur does not simply play by the rules of the game, but attempts to win the game by changing them (Mollenkopf in Throgmorton, 1996, 44).
It is argued that since 1981, the International Year of Disabled Persons, the rights based consumer and community groups representing people with disabilities have primarily operated as political entrepreneurs. Using other consumer and rights based discourses as rhetoric, people with disabilities have challenged traditional charity discourses under which the ‘rules of the game' operated. A major win for people with disabilities resulted from the legislative recognition of the rights discourse initiated by the United Nations. Consequently within a HREOC inquiry, the game officially operated under different rules which resulted in a different outcome to policies defined by charity discourses.
The blurring of boundaries between worldviews and rhetoric is also problematic for policy makers and their respective audiences. Throgmorton observes that each new category creates ‘conceptual ambiguities' and ‘moral tensions' (1996, 44-45). The risks and rewards associated with the three hybrid worldviews and rhetoric practices are detailed here:
| Risks and rewards associated with extended worldviews and rhetoric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Worldview / Rhetoric | Reward | Risk |
| Policy Analyst (politician/scientist) | Increase ability to influence decision making
Achieve scientific credibility in wider audiences eg media |
Loss of legitimacy among rights communities. Science elevated above social values
Loss of legitimacy among scientific community ("too applied or contaminated by politics") Loss of legitimacy among political community - alienating party affiliation and constituents' vote. |
| Advocate Policy Maker (advocate/scientist) | Increase legitimacy with particular communities
Increased legitimacy among scientists who agree with empirical evidence of arguments Increased legitimacy among politicians who can use evidence for political purposes |
Losing credibility with elected officials eg. party loyalty issues
Loss of credibility with scientists. Scientists accuse APMs of issues bias and lack of objectivity |
| Political Entrepreneurs (politician/advocate) | Achieve legitimacy among political and advocate communities | Open to charges by scientists of making technologically incompetent and irrational decisions based on political or emotive motives |
Moving between categories can be strategically beneficial to increase social actors' influence but it can also be perilous with other groups or even one's own peers. Motives, technical expertise and objectivity are all contingent to the acceptance or rejection of policy recommendations by advocate policy makers, policy analysts and political entrepreneurs.
The TCC process is a policy arena where differing worldviews, rhetoric and discourses contested for dominance. The positive outcomes from the consultative process in some consumer areas (eg. credit control) were overshadowed at times by rigid resistance to accommodate other discourses in other areas (pers. comms. AADPA; CTNPA; PDPIA; PNFBCA). As time passed, positions between consumers and Telstra became entrenched. Tensions increased as some social actors began to accommodate other worldviews and subsequently replaced by senior management. In response consumer groups viewed the corporation with increasing suspicion (pers. comm. PNFBCA). It is tempting to regard the TCCs as a project which failed to bring consumers and Telstra staff together in consultation and participation. However, such a position fails to acknowledge the inevitable tensions that result from blurred worldviews. It could be argued that the tensions created within Telstra and its disability managers as well as the consumer groups signified the success of the project. Power interests, motives and ‘normal' discourses were in the words of Foucault revealed as ``political violence and... unmasked'':
``... the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the working of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them'' (Foucault in Rabinow, 1991, 6).
Foucault's use of violence, unmasked and fight are battle metaphors applied to the struggle for justice (1991, 6). However, Foucault argues that justice is a universal myth. For Foucault, the point of the battle is to alter power relations (1991, 6). Regardless of perspectives of universal narratives, power relations were altered in the courtroom battlefield of the HREOC inquiry. The ex-president of AFCO and ex-joint convenor of TACC, also used battle metaphors when he described people with disability as one of the more militant groups involved in the consultative process (pers. comm. EDAFCO, 1997).
The battle metaphor is significant because it indicates the gravity ascribed by groups to their positions. Battles are passionate affairs where `few prisoners are taken'. Equating compromise with capitulation is a distinguishing mark of advocate groups (See table 3.1) – because issues are fought over ‘justice', there can be no compromise. According to the Assistant Secretary of the Regulatory Policy Branch in DOCA, CTN sometimes regarded their concerns as preeminent and failed to acknowledge policy priorities:
CTN has been reasonably articulate about the concerns of that group (people with disabilities) although I think at times that they go a little over the top... Indulging in hyperbole, the Act (TCA, 1997) provides a framework for certain standards. The absence of standards does not create a vacuum as such... But then you get CTN saying that it is absolutely the end of the world and that it is now three months since the legislation passed and these standards still have not been made... I'm not quite sure that that is the largest problem in the world for anybody including the Government or consumers (pers. comm. ASRPB, 1997).
This description of CTN depicts the advocate's worldview and use of rhetoric. His frustration with CTN reflects the complexities involved in the conflagration of worldviews and rhetoric by different communities. In the situation described above, issues of justice constitute advocates' worldviews and consequently compromise implies that justice is watered down. However, it can be difficult to separate worldviews from tropes, or sincere perspectives from strategic devices. This is another source of tension in the policy process (Throgmorton, 1996, 46; pers. comm. PDPIA). At issue are the quandaries faced by communication meta-theorist, Jurgen Habermas and his notions of communicative action as constitutive to ideal speech situations. (Outhwaite, 1989).
Habermasian ideal speech situations represent a utopian approach to communication processes where people with any worldview can gather collectively and rationally discuss an issue. Through mutual understanding contributors to the ideal speech situation decide on the best solution to any given problem without any intrusion of self-interest polluting the process (Outhwaite, 1989; Throgmorton, 1996; Hindess, 1996). Unfortunately, policy making is a ‘deeply politicised' process and ideal speech situations are as politically problematic as ‘objective' scientific solutions (Throgmorton in Richter, 1996, 17). Both are arguably casualties in the policy process.
The attempt to remove the inherent tensions of the policy process to expedite outcomes is at best utopian in motive, futile in practice and damaging to democratic processes if encouraged. Attempts to remove tensions require that one or more worldviews and participants in the consultative process may need to be removed or effectively silenced to smoothen the process.
Sound policy is arguably based on the constructive contest between all three worldviews and their hybrids that develop through exposure to differing perspectives. Any sector of the community denied an opportunity to contribute does not die but waits for the opportunity to seek retribution. Opportunities come from the dynamic environments that constitute the policy arena. Some examples of environmental changes include elections, technological developments and changing power structures.
The rights advocates who had their argument for TTYs continually ignored and ``placed on the back-burner'' (pers. comm. AADPA, 1997) within the TCC process seized the opportunity offered by the DDA to force action. A change in the legislative environment facilitated change in Telstra's policies toward people with disabilities. Consequently, a rights discourse of disability successfully challenged the charity model.
An alternative to removing tensions within the policy arena is to interrogate the validity of worldviews and rhetoric employed to persuade policy decision makers (Throgmorton, 1996; Richter, 1997). When policy is interrogated and rhetoric is analysed for its social, scientific and political value, tropes may be sifted from truth claims. Throgmorton infers from Quinn (1982) a useful definition of trope:
Any literary or rhetorical device, such as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony, that involves using words in other than their literal sense (1996, 50).
Tropes are used consciously or unconsciously everyday. When the media reports that Canberra made a decision to cut reduce welfare benefits, metonymy is employed to relate the geographical area in which Governmental decisions are made to the politicians that make them.
However, connotations can also be associated with the statement:
Consequently the symbolic power of Canberra embellishes the statement. The practice of deconstructing connotations from tropes enables the persuasive elements in an argument to be isolated and interrogated for validity by various interpretive communities. Surveyed samples of particular communities are examples of synecdoche as they are representative part of a whole community. Similarly, when Telstra quoted its expenditure on concessions for some people with disabilities, arguably, the corporation employed synecdoche as TTY users and others were excluded. Telstra also used irony when it presented to the HREOC inquiry cost-estimates for supplying TTYs to the Deaf community or people with severe speech impairments. By intentionally omitting the revenue from TTY usage and Government means-tested TTYs in their calculations, the corporation conveyed a meaning that was opposite to that which was literally intended from their work.
When tropes are intermingled in a policy suggestion, they form a powerful and persuasive discourse (Throgmorton, 1996, 50). By removing the embellished meanings from tropes, the validity claims of arguments are easier to distinguish. The Commissioner's summary in the HREOC inquiry represents a deconstruction of rhetoric. However, the inquiry also represents the power of dominant discourses to determine validity claims.
Had the inquiry been dominated by an economic rationalist discourse, the Commissioner may possibly have yielded a different finding. Tropes informed by charity models, regarded as irrelevant by a rights discourse, would likely have become central to a favourable decision for Telstra. Consequently, it may be argued that there are no universally right policies. There are, however, policies that have been subjected to interrogation by differing worldviews and argued for by employing rhetoric that seems to be valid by informed audiences. The above discussion indicates that worldviews, rhetoric and tropes constitute discourses which have a persuasive influence on policy.
This chapter has further analysed theories of discourses, worldviews, rhetoric and tropes to place the complexities of telecommunications policies toward people with disabilities in material and symbolic contexts. The persuasive elements of discourse were dissected to separate useful arguments from deceptive or invalid devices. Furthermore, the futility and danger of removing inherent tensions within the policy consultative process were emphasised to indicate the value of robust pluralistic rhetorical contributions to discussion. Finally, knowing that universally ‘right' policies are a myth, useful policies may be identified by allowing all suggestions to be rigorously interrogated by informed audiences to separate embellished meanings from valid arguments.