The Public Sphere and Internet - Literature review Example

Running Head: Public sphere Name Course Tutor Date 1.1 Literature Review 1.2 Habermas’s Concept of Public Sphere This paper explains Habermas’s concept and traditional understanding of the public sphere and how he was able to take up similar themes in his early works in 1990s within the context of developing the notion of the public sphere in the modern era. The paper also analyses critically Habermas’s engagement with other western theorists in the area of public sphere. This notion has enabled the formation of rational public opinion that seriously guide the political systems which is seen as vital to strong democracy by many theorists (Vallier and D’Agostin,1996). This public sphere is being constituted through the employment of this concept through empirical research to evaluate the democratic quality of everyday communicative practice. According to Gunaratne (2006), Habermas’s public sphere theory has become a key starting point for such evaluations. His work provides the most present and efficient critical theory for public sphere which its focus has involved historical and politico-economical discovery related with descriptions of institutional formation and with invasions by the systems media (Goode, 2005).  1.3 Habermas’s Analysis of Public Sphere In his studying with Horkheimer and Adorno in Frankfurt in 1950s, Germany, Habermas described the public sphere system as one that is extremely intricate, consisting of communication publics and spatial for different sizes, exclude cover, which can overlap but which can influence each other mutually (Kellner, 2000). His concept of public sphere is an empire within social life where public opinion is created and accessed by everyone. According to Habermas, the public sphere is a product of democracy and the engagement within it is blind to class positions. He visualizes it as sphere of private people coming together as public. After the examination of the public sphere history, Habermans hold that there is no existence of separation between the private and public sphere in medieval times, due to the class pyramid of the feudal system. This system means that rulers saw themselves as the state but not as state representative, and they represent power to the people and not the people. Consequently, in sociological perspective, the significant of public sphere depends on its potential as a form of society integration (Calhoun, 1992). Habermas explains that the harmonization of private life is not easily undertaken by self sufficient individuals who sustained private sphere. In his study of public sphere, on the concept of political participation, he provides the concept of reliably democratic political participation that was a normal way of measuring altitudes, behavior and views of students. Mills is a western theorist who analyzed the generalization of politics in the media perceiving the correspondence between marketing commodities and selling politics. Mills focuses on the scheming functions in public opinion shaping. Habermans (2006) explains that the principles of the public sphere entailed discussion of all matters of general concern in which the argument of this discussion was applied to establish the public good and general interest. Thus, the public sphere takes as fact the freedom of speech and assembly and the rights to freely participate indecision making and in political debate. 1.4 Habermans’s Idealistic of the Public Sphere Habermans tends to overestimate the importance of emancipator feature of the modern public life, hence underrating the sway of it repressive element, given that his one side emphasis on the fact that bourgeois public sphere carries a “rational-critical “character. He critically understands that it is appealing to idealize the bourgeois public sphere in a way beyond any tactical lawful idealization of the sort involved in ideal- typical conceptualization (Vallier, 2006). He states that, the public sphere is less filtered through by power relation than society as whole. Habermans sees the laissez-faire model of public sphere as something that is unprecedented in history. The symbolic resources of analysis depend on the social resources power, where the ideological nature of public discussion is rooted in material organization of social resource. The discussions created within the bourgeois public sphere shows the most powerful social group particular interest. In Hebermans’s ideology, the public sphere is a communicative sphere of rational-critical means to underrate the substantive effect of interest-laden hierarchies on communicative interactions constitution, in stratified society. 1.5 Habermans’s Account on Public Sphere Dahlberg (2004) described Habermans’s account of public sphere as largely based on gender-blind. Following the objections raised by feminist critics, in his response, he admits that it is very hard to ignore the patriarchal nature of the modern European public sphere. Within the context of his work, he illustrated that in most western societies, gender inequality is manifested in heterosexist and masculine nature of normatively, which a key element of modern public spheres. To account for the normative significance of power division in gender in the modern society, one need to understand that modern public sphere cannot run away from ubiquity and constructed forms of discussions of patriarchy. Consequently, Habermans critics (Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge 1996) have criticized Habermans idea of concentrating on bourgeois public sphere while neglecting plebeian and proletarian public sphere. 2.0 Habermans’s Theories of Public Sphere 2.1Communicative Action Theory Habermans (2006) describes this theory as individual action deliberate to endorse common understanding and cooperate in a group as “contrary” to strategic action. It is simply designed to achieve ones personal goals. More than visualizing of one liberal or democratic public sphere, Habermans has theorized a multiplicity of public spheres which sometimes overlap and also conflicting. According to Dahlgren (2005) Mary Ryan is a theorist who realized the Habermans irony of switching his focus from the social-history. Other western social scientists and philosophers who in their hundred pages of their publication have criticized Habermans’s Theory of Communicative Action include Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, George Herbert Mead, Max Weber and Talcott Parsons. They complained that he has distinguished his theory with theirs. Habermans argues that communication and languages are the key feature of the human life world that are able to oppose money and power underrate communicative structures (Susen, 2011). For Habermans, from the clear point of theorizing the public sphere, he concedes that from the time of developing the distinction. Habermas’s emphasis on political will formation has been conceived as processes which promote balanced and moral subject through reflection, public reasoning and reaching consensus from the time that the communicative action theory and difference between system and life world became vital to his project. 2.2 Habermas’s Discourse Theory Habermas’s communicative theory of action depends the perception that social order eventually depends on the actor’s ability to acknowledge the intersubjective legitimacy of the contrast claims on which social cooperation relies. In relation to legitimacy claims, the rational and cognitive characters are highlighted, to recognize the validity of such claims is to assume that good reasons could be offered to make it right in the eyes of criticism. This points out on a theory of discourse which is referred as “reflective form” of communicative action by Habermas. Dahlberg (2007) explains that this type of validity claim tallies as different from others only if one can prove that its discursive justification consists of features that make it different from other justifications. Habermas’s discourse theory presumes that, the precise type of validity claim one aim to justify the topic of argument and determines the specific argumentative practices which are appropriate for justification. Following the discourse theorists, Habermas supposes that one cannot fully articulate the normative alone in terms of logical elements of arguments, but rather through differentiating three aspects of argument making practice which he aligns with traditional perspective. 2.0 Public sphere relevance to media and political developments The media have fundamental importance in creating the institutional structure that enables the organization of the common interest in both nationally as well as internationally. Additionally, it provides communication channels and initiates and shape topics of public discussion. Public sphere has been facilitated by the emergency of new technologies, but the media became a public sphere through the emergency of new kinds of debates, political trends as well as identity claims which advanced within those new spaces (Lynch, 2012). The potential of online media creates large amount responses as well as reactions. According to Uslaner (2004), many are centred on the ability of digital and online media at the same time restricts and also empower people as they interact with one another in public life. As Lynch ( 2012) states, new public sphere is more than a driver of transformation or a new source of information for scholars. It gives new chances to engage with other scholars, activists as well as ordinary people, which also permits them to enter into western public sphere on their own conditions. Public sphere has changed the very stuff of politics. In regards to this, media contributes to the public debate by offering a platform for it and also by commencing discussions about the issues of general concern. They also facilitate by offering technological and organizational forum which is more essential by initiating discussion as well as setting the agenda for it (Clanak & Lipunja, 2003). On contrary to this, media are seen as deforming the public sphere and providing only the false impressions about it. Public sphere is an important component of socio-political organization which lies between the state and society. This is a space where individuals assemble as populace and articulate their independent views in order to influence the political institutions of society. There are various elements in Hebermas theory which require substantial cultural political research interest. As Duelund & Kultur (2002) asserts, public sphere as an idea and in its internal understanding was an term of the combination of both cultural and political democracy. It is a role of culture in a state that is governed by law and that still holds its legality in welfare-motivated cultural strategy in a new states governed by law. The establishment of the public sphere in Europe demanded a struggle and there emerged a new social life as well as cultural meeting places for the populace (Holton, 1998). Theatres, art exhibitions as well as concerts, beside the informal meeting places, composed later on the social precondition for the bourgeois public sphere. The places were where the public meet as free and equal populace. Later on, Europe developed a listening and a reasoning public which through books, theatres, newspapers, periodicals, concerts, salons, coffee houses, museums, art exhibitions as well as other cultural institutions, became the prerequisite for the political public sphere in the form of parliamentary gatherings. Contrary to this, the new cultural movements which exist today cannot be explained or be understood as the historical bourgeoisie from then the feudal structure of institutions and formations of experience (Duelund & Kultur,2002). 3.0 Public sphere and the internet Nowadays, some scholars have gone far to the extent of describing the internet, news, and so on, as the public sphere. The philosopher Jurgen Harbemas has been much attributed with the discussion on the public sphere which he defines as the realm of people’s social life where the public opinion is formed and accessed by every citizen (Ubayasiri, 2006). The internet, according to the signs of the time has a more universalistic dimension which makes some scholars regard it more of a public sphere in comparison to the old media as Jurgen Harbemas observed (Dahlgren, 2005). The reason as Heath (2005) maintains is because public sphere consists in the collective thought of people not as an agglomeration, but as a continuous exchange coupled with output. Furthermore, Heath calls it a political socialization that means political beliefs along with values. With this idea in mind, one can question the place of the internet in the talk about the public sphere. Dahlgren (2005) observes that the internet has received a permanent place in the in the intellectual prodding that has been stirred towards understanding. Dahlgren argues that democracy has been faced by challenges that arise as a result of the pressure from the public sphere. This pressure, he argues has seen the destabilization of systems of political communication. The internet plays a role in this destabilization, and the destabilization has a positive side which is embodied in the change of old trends by their dispersion. The internet makes the public sphere more pluralistic by different ways such especially in an interactional way that is witnessed in the political communication. Gerhards & Schafer (2009) argue that the more traditional media was not capable of promoting are a free and pluralistic society in terms of communication. In this opinion, they concur with Dahlgren (2005) who sees the destabilization of political communication. However, for Gerhards & Schafer (2009) comparing the internet communication and the mass media’s. The comparison however, does not exalt any of the two types of media. The conclusion that is drawn is much neutral as the research is carried out in two countries (United States & Germany) that have relatively open as well as balanced media freedom. This automatically leads one to conclude that the public sphere can be more exercised through both of the two media. It therefore relative to attribute the notion of public sphere to the internet or the mass media because in some countries freedom is more constricted than in others. From the discussions above, it seems the internet may be taking a place that may replace or dominate every other media. To this due, some scholars like Dean (2003) has been instrumental in trying to demonstrate that the internet is not the public sphere. For him, mediation facilitated by computers cannot be defined as public sphere simply because it is far much inapplicable and that it is actually dehumanizing to the extent of representing a communicative capitalism. In this regard, the public sphere is cannot be defined in terms of the internet and as Dean (2003), continues to assert, public sphere ought and should bring citizens together in the social exchange and make mutual deliberations that do not necessarily need computer mediation. 4.0 Public Sphere, writing of history and recent media In regard to history, and the more recent media, various arguments have been originated. Susen (2011) has discussed Habermas’s account in detail. Simon maintains that the theory has been useful in the early period of the modern era, but he also states that it is inadequate in its framework to understand the late modern era and the societies of the time. She frames her argument by elucidating various ideas raised by Harbemas. One of these ideas is that of the historical dichotomy of the public/private spheres. The nature of public sphere is different in different historical contexts such as the classical, medieval, enlightenment and the modern periods. As such, different contexts have different manifestations of the society just as they have different representations of concepts. These, therefore give clear indication of the malleable nature of the public/private sphere. This conception can be likened to that of Oneill & Barnes (2008) who in a study about media literacy in Ireland that based itself on the legality culture, the political economy, critical awareness of media, the present interactive media, and the experience as well as competence. In all these categories, it was observed that larger groups of people liked the traditional media such as the newsprint, radio, et cetera, and yet they had willingness to acquaint with new media and technology. Secondly, parents showed interest in letting children interact with the new technologies. Still, groups between ages 26-33 were using the internet and the internet sites. Keen interest was shown by the community workers for they had integrated the use new technology in their work. The ethical values involved in internet use showed a lot of illegal downloads as high in the intensive users of the internet. There was a relatively moderate knowledge of the old media for most people a sign that it has infiltrated most of them. Squires (2002), considering the African Americans considers if there can be a coexistence of public spheres. At the first consideration, there may seem to be a possibility of coexistence of two opposing or countercultural spheres existing concomitantly at the same geographical setting. However, for she further observes in such a case, public sphere as single unit can turn out to be ambiguous. This ambiguity is can only be given a different appellation such as counter-public, satellite, marginal publics, and so on. This discussion takes the argument of Susen (2011) further where myriads of contexts have and will always define the public sphere differently. In general, the writing of history is composed of different audiences of the public sphere which have been perpetuated to the present day. As a conclusion in this section, it is more logical to state that while history has to be defined by the contexts of public sphere, recent media studies indicate an indifference to old media an enthusiasm for the new technology that is defining new contexts. References Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political communication, 22, 147-162. Dean, J. (2003). Why the net is not a public sphere. Constellations, 10 (1) 96-112. Gerhards, J & Schafer, M.S. (2009). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the US and Germany. New media and society. 20(10)1-18. Heath, R. L. (2005). Encyclopedia of public relations: 2. Thousand Oaks, Ca. [u.a.:Sage Lynch, M. (2012). Transforming of the Public Sphere. Washington: George Washington University. O’neill, B & Barnes, C. (2008). Media Literacy and the public sphere: a contextual study for public media literacy in Ireland. Dublin Institute of Technology. 1-120. Peter Duelund, N. K. (2002). On the Public Sphere as a Cultural Political Idea, The Nordic Cultural Model. Helsinki: Nordic Cultural Institute. Pregledni Clanak, P. L. (2003). Why if at all is the Public Sphere a Useful Concept? Politicka Misao , 116. Robert H. Holton (1998). Globalization and the Nation State. London:MacMillan Press LTD Squires, C.R. (2002). Rethinking the black public sphere: An alternative vocabulary for multiple public spheres. International communications association. 12(4)446-468. Susen, S (2011). Critical notes on Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Sociological analysis, 5 (1) 37-62. Ubayasiri, K. (2006). Internet and the public sphere. Central Queensland University. Uslaner, E. M. (2004). Trust, civic engagement, and the Internet. Political Communication. 21(2), 223-242 Read More