The Structure and Operation of Public Sphere Relative to Advance in Communication Technologies - Literature review Example

Title: The structure and operation of public sphere relative to advance in communication technologies Name Institution Introduction The widespread usage of internet in the late 1990s became a new form of platform where it created a virtual reality of political discourse in the public sphere. The idea that internet is a platform where individuals can use as a democratic communicative space, is well known to promote a healthy public sphere especially with the introduction of social networking platforms (Habermas Cronin and Pensky, 2006). The popularity of social networking sites is due to advance in technology that resulted from highly developed ICT which is mediated by computers and phones (McCaffrey, 2012). The discussion in this essay will examine how Facebook has played role in political events as well as bring the global society together in the cyberspace. With predicted implication of Haberma’s theory on public sphere in producing healthy interactive space, it also has weaknesses. This creates a modern view of internet and how it provides an effective space for public sphere. Focus on Habermas and Public Sphere According to Garnham and Calhoun (2007), back in 18th century, there was creation of the sphere that existed between states and the private sphere. The Structural Transformational of the Public Sphere showed that the sphere created had a space where individuals could interact freely and share issues of their importance. Therefore, Habermas defined public sphere as where people would interact and share their social life interest such as politics, economy as well as what they are going through in their daily lives. Also, according to Hebermas’ (1989) model, there was a sense of universality when it comes to social life issues of interest. This simply means that individuals were equally given right to participate in opinion giving when it comes to democratic issues of importance. Therefore, the platform of interaction (public sphere) had to be integrated to society through mass media to promote the universality of knowledge and interaction. As a result, the media in 18th century acted as an independent platform in spreading the common interest of individuals (Thompson, 2011). Fraser (2007) reflected this as an important mediator in creation of civic society where the state was detached to individuals through mass and print media. However, there was no direct interaction between the two parties and this led to limited democracy in some states of the world (Garnham and Calhoun, 2007). The political power of Facebook Habermas, Cronin and Pensky (2006) developed a new realm of public sphere especially with Facebook emerging as an real interactive platform for people. Social movements in the 21st century comprises of women issues, students, environmentalists among other social groups (Van Krieken, 2012). Habermas, Cronin and Pensky, (2006) suggested that Facebook has led to transformation from old politics to new politics of political movements. Old politics in this case include those issues concerned with workers partitioning their issues against the state. New politics comprise of identity politics where there is creation of social groups across lifestyle and age (Hodkinson, 2011). The two have the similarity of confronting the state and economy. The concept of social movement is a chronological phenomenon that had a real transition with the emergence of Facebook and other social network sites (Fraser, 2007). Activist use Facebook to interact and sometimes organize social or political movements that intuitively affect individuals in the social sphere. Facebook is perceived to be a platform used to push forward public sphere through online public discussion. According to Wahl-Jorgensen (2007), the use of Facebook has provided an indiscriminative scenarios and this has increased individuals’ public interaction confidence when it comes to public issues and interests. However, the commercialization of internet usage in most of societies has led to damage and manipulation of mass media. Internet interaction has so much potentiality and effectiveness in communication particularly on the real time events (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2007). For example, political activists in Egypt used Facebook to update on the real time events of demonstrations during Arab Spring. Most of Egyptians and within and outside the country would participate in the revolution through Facebook integration. As a fact, activists would sometimes use Facebook to organize protests. Place and time of protests was posted on Facebook and everyone would see. The critical analysis by Habermas, Cronin and Pensky, (2006) found that the public sphere created in 18th century was only for the interest of specific segment of population such as male, educated and the exclusive group in the society. On the other hand, women were the major elements excluded in civic society thus bringing in the issues of gender discrimination in the 18th century. The exclusion still exists even with the emergence of Facebook. According to McCaffrey (2012), Facebook usage was controlled by state in most of Arab countries during Arab Spring revolution that started in November 20122. Although there is an increasing trend in Facebook usage, digital divide still exists also. Perhaps may people may have access to internet but will little interest on social movement. The shared awareness in political realm is all promoted by Facebook. The condition of sharing opinions is increasingly in the contemporary society where group identities are formed from diverse backgrounds as religion, business oriented persons and governments. Kraidy and Sender (2014) called this ‘conservative dilemma’ since the interaction cuts across all groups when presented on Facebook. For example, a marketer may advertise the product online and consumers on the receiving end gives the product impression by commenting and liking. Also, Facebook increases public access to speech and other narratives in the political arena. For example, state may produce propaganda information. Social media will spread this propaganda to the public within a short time thus showing sense of radicalization in the society. Apparently, if the information is not true, there is likelihood of harming both the citizens and the economy. A conservative dilemma enhanced by Facebook is also evident in political speeches which are quoted and presented on Facebook. In 2008, South Korean teenage girls were radicalized through Facebook to protests against U.S beef imports. The discussion was all over Facebook and most of the people irrespective of geographical location participated in the discussion. The creators were not political group but was just an online community with about 800,000 members who had a common agenda. This shows that Facebook can assemble the common interest in the public sphere and petition it to be a common agenda in the same social system. Individuals therefore form common political opinions beyond their national boundaries through Facebook conversation which may influence state. Facebook promotes sense of inclusiveness in the global society regardless of where an individual is located globally (Goggin, 2011). Popular culture has emerged to be much represented by the social media on political issues. Ethan Zuckerman described the political environment in the contemporary society as ‘the cute cat theory of digital activism.’ There is little control of information movement in Facebook and it is upon the senders to speak whatever is ethical to the public (McCaffrey, 2012). From these reasons, there is more sense therefore for politicians to invest their effort in using Facebook and other social networks sites to sell their agendas regarding governance. Political information on Facebook is inherited and shared among users and those interested in politics. For example, in United States, whoever presidential contestant making speech should be ready to work in a democratic society where every citizen can speak directly to head of state through social media (Fuchs, 2008). In other words, Facebook provides contentious virtue of freedom where there is no conservation of public opinions when citizens engage in public interaction. Youth are the segment of the population in the modern society who normally seeks political news from online social platforms (Eickelman and Anderson, 2003). The process of interaction has resulted to increase in political activities online. For instance, during 2010 United States elections Facebook interaction boosted voter registration by youth since they gained extensive political knowledge from their fellow colleagues defined by the same online social identity. This indicates that internet can act a medium that help young voters get enlightened to political activities of a state. According to Bentivegna (2006), participation in online politics has shown that looking and sharing of information through social networking sites reduces cost. Also, Facebook promotes political participation among the politically active individuals. For instance, the blogs that were made by political activists during Arab revolution of 2011 became relevant source of information for political discussion even for the relatively naïve internet users in the Arab world. This shows that Facebook creates strong sense of individual development when it comes to politics thus demonstrating how effective online social media platforms in circulating political insights to individuals regardless of geographical location. During the campaign period of 2010, Obama’s Facebook page had more than 10 million supporters and at the same time it contained 1,672 political updates of his campaign. The supporters of Obama as well as all the other citizens with political interest had a discussion on Obama’s manifestos on Facebook platform. Couldry (2010) observed that the public sphere often strives for autonomous action particularly when social space is exploited by speakers in responding to the views of other’s opinions and concerns. This shows that Facebook has the potential of developing civic engagement that could later reveal the revival of public sphere online. Social edification online Hodkinson (2011) points out several Facebook weaknesses that have been identified since its emergence. Hodkinson describes Facebook as it brings isolation as well as there is potentiality of time wastage by users. A study by Katz and Liebes (2007) showed that individuals use Facebook for self-promotion. Currently, most people spend most time on Facebook more than time spends in their communities. This shows how Facebook consumption can reduce the time of people participating in their respective communities. This results to the degradation of social capital since most of the people are attached to Facebook entertainment more than community issues of concern. The study by Thompson (2011) found that the adults above 40 years are engaged rarely in Facebook and there is a clear indication that these adults are not welcomed. As far as public sphere and democracy is concern, Facebook appear to be selective sometimes if not always. This is because individuals use Facebook to present private life to public which may not be an interesting experience for adults. Most of these adults above 40 years are parents and they are likely to come across private issues of their sons and daughters on Facebook. According to Goggin (2011), found Facebook to have influence in national politics. Facebook in itself is ineffective in passing the real message spoken or send by someone. As message undergoes series of Facebook users, it is interpreted differently thus changing the meaning of the original message. Also, not all individuals use Facebook in a good way but to harm the democratization in the public sphere. The point of ineffectiveness in public sphere is overlooked on what is called ‘slacktivism’ which entails casual participants with impractical sentiments with no useful action. This is supported by a critique by Fuchs (2008) that only committed actors of social media would promote Facebook power effectiveness in the public sphere. The protests of 2006 against education law in Chile showed that dedicated Facebook users used social media platform not as a replacement of the activities in the real-world but as a way of effectively orchestrating events of the protests. The activities that took place in the cyberspace exposed individuals to risk of violence, and in other cases there was an actual action of destruction. In the extreme end, Facebook can be a real platform in inciting political groups in the public sphere. Photos of events that took place during the hanging of Sadam Hussein were all over Facebook. The information was powerful to the public and different opinions on that death penalty were a discussion in online social space. The conservative dilemma was not adhered to whatsoever and therefore harming the relationship between private and public sphere (Couldry, 2014). In conclusion, the concept of public sphere and social networking sites with all strong points of constructive interaction and reliable information in social space has taken the world into tight spot. Businesses are becoming competitive so as political movements using Facebook as a platform of communication between individuals and contesters. However, Facebook has also had weakness in offering universality as well as having damaging effects to mass media. Although these problems are encountered day-to-day, advance in technology remains to be a key success factor of information movement and continuity. References Bentivegna, S. (2006). Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs. European Journal of Communication, 21(3), pp.331--343. Couldry, N. (2014). Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism. 1st ed. London: Cambridge, pp.72-100. Eickelman, D. and Anderson, J. (2003). New media in the Muslim world. 1st ed. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Fraser, N. (2007). Transnationalizing the Public Sphere: On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post - Westphalian World. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(4), pp.10-35. Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and society. 1st ed. New York: Routledge. Garnham, N. and Calhoun, C. (2007). Habermas and the public sphere. Global Media and Communication, 3(2), pp.201--214. Goggin, G. (2011). Global mobile media. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Habermas, J., Cronin, C. and Pensky, M. (2006). Time of transitions. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hodkinson, P. (2011). Media, culture and society. 1st ed. London: SAGE. Katz, E. and Liebes, T. (2007). No More Peace!” How Disaster, Terror and War Have Upstaged Media Events. International Journal of Communication, 1(1), pp.146-175. Kraidy, M. and Sender, K. (2014). T he Politics of Reality Television: Global Perspectives. 1st ed. London: Routledge. McCaffrey, P. (2012). The Arab Spring. 1st ed. Ipswich, Mass.: H.W. Wilson. Thompson, J. (2011). Shifting boundaries of public and private life. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(4), pp.49--70. Van Krieken, R. (2012). Celebrity society. 1st ed. London: Routledge. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2007). Journalists and the public. 1st ed. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Read More