Promoting novel perspectives in a democracy?

I was invited, recently, in a group forum, to consider the question: how unique perspectives can be accepted in a democracy? I felt I could not do justice to the question in a group post.

Here, I assume democracy refers to our collective belief in a degree of freedom and equality among ourselves as, variously, a LinkedIn Group, as members of the (global) LinkedIn Community, as members of this or that family unit, local community, regional collective, national society, and global village.

I ask at which level of democracy do we seek acceptance of our unique perspectives? Do we want to change the world, or merely pat ourselves on the back, sharing warm words about our novel perspectives? (I take no position taken here, merely identify opposite poles.)

...the bigger the democracy, the greater is the power-distance among and between its members

The challenge is for other democracies to trust our output. Democracy, in my opinion, is not a singular concept.

There is a paradox. I believe, that the bigger the democracy, the greater is the power-distance among and between its members. And, without power, we cannot influence – even democratically. (Consider the typical power-distance in democracy of the internet. What influence does the individual have?)

Consider a guild. In general, a guild has relatively little power distance in comparison with its place in the broader community that it may wish to influence. Unless the guild contains the totality of the voice it represents, when those seeking that voice can only go to that guild, then it can exercise little collective power of influence and it may simply be self-serving.

...the idea that we might influence the world outside is sublime

My response is aesthetic. With a Romantic epistemology I see the perspectives we might form are views on sublime issues. (Otherwise why would they challenge us?) But, paradoxically, the idea that we might influence the world outside is also sublime.

Beauty provides a possible means of resolution. I have two modes of beauty – attractive and judgmental. The first mode is that which attracts us to engage with some 'thing': a superficially beautiful perspective or idea (interdimensionality, perhaps).

We find an idea appealing. Attracted to it, we engage in disinterested contemplation – or judgement – on the qualities of the idea, not the idea itself. This is judgmental beauty. We get into the detail (even look up the word interdimensionality). We exercise judgement.

In our group - a circle of trust - in which we may exercise influence, we discuss, we negotiate with those who put forward their perspective. We collectively, and democratically, rationalize. We accept some qualities, dispel others. We internalize the idea. Or we move on.

If we want those outside our democratic, low-power-distance, circle, to accept our democratically agreed perspective, we must (collectively) identify what is first superficially attractive (to others) in that perspective, and invite their engagement with it.

We need to know our democratic audience. We must build trust.

A guild of clowns serves only to entertain a democracy, not to influence it.

If we achieve engagement at the next level of democracy, we do so as a group. But we must respect the group's power distance within the context of this greater, outside world. We must accept that we are faced with a new round of judgement over the qualities of our perspective and we must accept that these may need to be negotiated.

There can be no primacy of ownership of a valuable perspective. 

A guild of clowns serves only to entertain a democracy, not to influence it. But a guild of clowns can remind us that its role is to show us that there are alternative perspectives on life we may have forgotten.