4010 Spring08 Questions and Discussion 27

From Studyplace

TABINA LYTEand Leila May-Landy

Useful biographical information on Jurgen Habermas: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas

Important terms:

The Public Sphere

“ A realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed”

“ Mediates between society and the state”

Public opinion? “The tasks of criticism and control which a public body of citizens informally and in periodic elections, formally as well practices vis a vis the ruling structure organized in the form of a state. “

Public Body “Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion—that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions—about matters of general interest.”

Political Public Sphere “ When public discussion deals with objects connected to the activity of the state”

State Authority “ The executor of the political public sphere” “ Usually considered ‘Public’ authority”

Representative Public Sphere “A public sphere directly linked to the concrete existence of a ruler”

Habermas defines the concept: public sphere: • “Access is guaranteed to all citizens” • “ A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body” • Today’s media of the public sphere include newspapers, magazines, radio and television Q: Habermas does not mention the internet as a medium of the public sphere, what role does it play?

History

• Habermas traces the history of the public sphere to the eighteenth century bourgeois society. A time when the distinction was being made between opinion, which fall in the realms of “cultural assumptions, normative attitudes, collective prejudices and values,” and public opinion, which he asserts, can come into existence “when a reasoning public is presupposed.” He further explains that it moved from the polarization of feudal authorities where authorities such as the church and what it represented became a private matter, to the transformation of the feudal states where “ the nobility became the organs of public authority” and those occupied in trades and professions “developed into a sphere of bourgeois society which would stand apart

• Habermas asserts “ The bourgeois public sphere could be understood as the sphere of private individuals assembled into a public body, which almost immediately laid claim to officially regulated “ intellectual newspapers” for use against the public authority itself.

The Liberal model of the public sphere • “ In the first modern constitutions the catalogues of fundamental rights were a perfect image of the liberal models of the public sphere: they guaranteed the society as a sphere of private autonomy and the restriction of public authority to a few functions” • The role of literary journalism becomes important here: it “created competition for earlier newspapers which were mere compilations of notices” The development was characterized by Karl Buscher as a transformation from an “institution for the publications of the news into bearers and leaders of public opinion.” This also marked the beginning of editing the news.

The public Sphere in the social welfare state mass democracy • The change in the public sphere started with the chartist movement in England and the February revolution in France. The public body is said to have “expanded beyond the bounds of the bourgeoisie” contributing to a loss of its social exclusivity, coherence and education due to the flow of press and propaganda. Issues, which were to that point restricted to the private sphere, began to intrude the public sphere causing a certain interweaving of both realms. Harbermas tells us that this all led to a certain feudalization of the public sphere.

The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere by Zizi Papcharissi

Building upon Habermas’s concept of the public sphere, Papacharissi poses some of the key questions of our course. The view that she presents from 2002 captures the competing – utopian and dystopian – visions of the impact of the internet (and surrounding technologies) as a truly ‘revolutionary’ force. The article begins with an important point of departure – a discussion of the public sphere and its manifestations in the American context. Relying in part on Dewey’s concept of an actively engaged community of informed citizens who shape public discourse in a democratic forum, Papacharissi reinforces the distinction between a public space and a public sphere. As a virtual space, the internet provides another forum for discussion (‘political deliberation’), but it remains to be seen whether or not it actually contributes to the democratic project.

The concept of the public sphere is expanded with the inclusion of some of Habermas’s critics who present a more complex (problematic) view which includes ‘anarchy, individuality, and disagreement’ and which ultimately in the American setting is comprised of counterpublics with varying degrees of ‘power, articulateness and privilege’ which recognizes our multiple shifting identities. The debate over the idealized image of a ‘rational public sphere’ becomes moot when taken within the frame of contemporary capitalist society with its creation of ‘a mass commercial culture’ (Carey) and with the ‘disappearance of civic’ life in America (Putnam).

With these (and many other!) considerations, Papacharissi poses the key questions around which she focuses the rest of her discussion. (middle of page 12) In the subsequent pages, she focuses on information access, globalization and tribalization, commercialization, and a virtual sphere.

Information access Although the incredible online resources can contribute to a truly informed public, Papacharissi cites studies that have shown that the socio-economic hierarchy of the ‘real’ world are transferred to the virtual space; in other words, ‘keypad democracy’ does not necessarily level the playing field. Given the reality of the digital divide, ‘electronic plebiscites’ are also limited in their ability ‘to guarantee a fair, representative, and egalitarian public sphere’ and they tend to mirror political dynamics of the ‘real’ world rather than reform the political structure. Ultimately, we are left with an ‘illusion of democratic’ participation as we wade through information some of which has been overtly manipulated. The question remains as to whether this simply increases our sense of complacency or drives us to greater activism.

Globalization or tribalization? Papacharissi shifts her discussion to the creation of ‘disaporic utopias’ and presents a competing view of the ability of keypad democracy to create a collective. While anonymity can provide the opportunity for individuals to overcome temporal and spatial limitations, it similarly provides the opportunity for ‘flaming’ and irrational discourse and is a meager substitute for face-to-face communication. It has the potential to foster international understanding as well as to entrench existing precepts and biases. One must also ask if the empowerment that one feels is genuine or if it is a fleeting sense of satisfaction or simply a diversion. Papacharissi poses the question quite well – ‘Does [the content feeling that they are part of a well-oiled democracy] represent a reality or substitute for genuine civic engagement?’ Does participation in the keyboard democracy transform into a commitment to collective/common action or are we fragmented into smaller special interest groups with deeper and narrower commitments?

Nevertheless, even if the internet does create a new public sphere that functions in a way different from prior conceptions, can this new model be effective if the public itself has already lost its voice? She notes as well that the internet can also give rise to more radical activism such as ‘bombing’ and hacking sites.

Commercialization As her discussion unfolds, Papacharissi focuses on the question of whether or not the internet will follow in the path of the broadcast media, which were once heralded as democratizing forces. Although it has required a change in the nature and type of advertising, the internet has, in many respects, followed the model of other mass media with one crucial difference. Small groups that lack resources have been able to leverage commercial forces to make their voices heard. It is, however, more likely that the political culture that has been enhanced by the internet will not in fact turn into political capital, into true political and social change. But, as Papacharissi ask, “how can we create something online when it never really existed offline?”

A virtual sphere The answer to the preceding question is simply – we can’t. The internet offers more channels for communication to 20% of the world’s population with internet access (Papacharissi cites 6%) and thus expands the public space exponentially, but this new technology “will adapt to the current political culture, instead of creating a new one…” and the utopian/dystopian tension inherent in the internet might never be completely resolved. The potential exists for the ‘repurposing’ of new technologies to allow us to surmount (to liberate us from) ‘real life’ social structures to achieve a virtual sphere that “adheres to the democratic ideals of the public sphere.”This premise rests on the fact that cyberspace allows us to “transcend physical space and bodily boundaries.” But this virtual sphere has a similar shape to that of public sphere with Habermas’s “bourgeois property holders” and Fraser’s counterpublics. Ultimately, “The lack of solid commitment negates the true potential of the internet as a public sphere.” (22)

The virtual sphere has made it possible for us to have an impact on public discourse rather than on political action. The ‘revolutionary’ aspect of the virtual sphere is not that it leads to more informed and effective collective action, but that it obviates or circumvents the political system entirely by changing what Alberto Melucci identifies as the “culturally codes” which impact on public discourse rather than public action by “shifting the cultural ground.” The activism of the internet is social and cultural rather than political. “The virtual sphere reflects the dynamics of new social movements that struggle on a cultural rather than a traditionally political terrain.” (23)

Papacharissi concludes by calling upon us to engage in focused studies to determine whether or not “this new medium will manage to transcend from public space to a public, virtual sphere.”