Representation and Identity in Participatory Spaces: From the Politics of Presence to Digital
Corporealities
Hans Asenbaum, Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, London
Difference democracy – a strand of thought within deliberative democracy – stresses the value of
pluralism. It starts from a constructive critique of the way in which deliberative democracy upholds
the Western Enlightenment ideal of rational, disembodied discussions, in so doing obscuring and
ignoring identity categories like gender, race, and class. One aim of difference democrats is inclusion
of marginalised identities (women, ethnic and sexual minorities etc.) in participatory spaces. To
achieve this, they pursue three strategies: (1) the inclusion of diverse identities through
representation, (2) the inclusion of various emotions through a pluralization of modes of expression,
and (3) the inclusion of multiple interests through contestation.
The discussions of difference democracy contribute a great deal to the development of democratic
theory by drawing attention to internal exclusion along the lines of identities and the value of
affirming identity through presence of the physical body. Nevertheless, they contain an unresolved
dilemma. While being aware of the problem of essentialism and partly rooting their theories in
constructivist thought, difference democrat’s identity politics limits the freedom of the subject to selfidentify in alternative ways, transform, change and engage in identity play – a dilemma acknowledged
by many difference democrats. Difference democrats have yet to acknowledge the emergence of the
internet and the reconfigurations of identity and subjectivity through the digital. The theoretical
debates on digital democracy bare some promising potentials regarding the dilemma of the
essentializing tendencies in difference democracy.
Current discussions about digital democracy open up new perspectives on identity and thus
reconfigures democratic subjectivity. Online communication enables presence and visibility of
embodied identity as promoted by difference democrats, but at the same time renders the democratic
subject contingent, ephemeral, and open to change. Today the digital is not a special sphere separate
from the public and everyday life but rather these areas of activity are integrated. The digital infuses
everyday communication and thus is an essential part of new emerging subjectivities.
Reflecting on the three strategies of difference democrats, it becomes apparent that difference
democratic thought is highly influential in today’s debates about novel digital subjectivity. (1) The
inclusion of marginalized identities through visual representation is advocated by cyberfeminists.
Body and presence need to be taken into account, which results in attention to the physical body of
participants, the material infrastructure of computer hard ware, and the materiality of the virtually
created body consisting of avatars, online pseudonyms, profile pictures etc. (2) Passion, affectivity,
and emotion are of central concern in current discussions of digital democracy as Papacharissi’s
Affective Publics illustrates. Social movements like Occupy, the Indignados, and the Arab Spring are
analysed to show the function of digital publics in expressing anger, enthusiasm and political passion.
(3) Dahlberg discusses how online communication does not constitute one coherent public sphere but
rather affords the constitution of many counter publics. Marginalized groups self-organize online to
contest the hegemonic discourse and promote diverse ideas and identity constructions.
The current discussions on digital democracy and subject formation in and through the digital
responds to and expand the scope of difference democracy. They raise awareness to both new
potentials and new dangers of identity formation through the digital. By doing so they open up new
perspectives regarding the dilemma of difference democracy. Claiming identity by presence of the
physical body renders the democratic subject fixed and trapped in its own body. Digital
communication affords self-transformation not by leaving the body behind, but by temporarily
changing aspects of material embodiment through the digital. This enables (1) presence of the body
through visible identities; (2) it allows for communicating emotions and passion; and (3) it allows for
contestation, while at the same time constituting the subject as an incoherent, decentred, ephemeral,
fluid process. It affords more freedom in identity performance while making claiming and affirming
identity possible as well.