Public Sphere Theory by Jurgen Habermas - Essay Example

Public Sphere Public Sphere Essay Plan This paper will discuss the public sphere, a theory which was coined by Jurgen Habermas, and specifically how Facebook has changed it. Habermas’ view of the public sphere involved people (men, elite and the rich) physically converging to discuss the matters that are affecting them. However, today, due to the spread of the internet and Facebook, people can discuss such matters at the comfort of their home. Also, today, people of all ages, backgrounds and even females, have a say in the public sphere. This paper concludes that the future of the public sphere lies in the digital media, such as Facebook, that offers exciting possibilities. In essence, the public sphere has, at all times, been virtual because its significance lies in its concept. Introduction The public sphere refers to a field in social life where people can team up to liberally talk about and identify societal issues, and, through that debate, persuade political act. It is a discursive space where people and groups come together to talk about matters of public interest and to achieve a common judgment (Habermas 1974, p. 49). The relationship between the public sphere, the media and democracy, has been the subject of huge and rising academic talks over the past four decades (Papacharissi 2009, p. 230). The most significant reasoning on the idea of the public sphere is, together with why it is vital, was produced by Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher. His notion offers both a starting and reference point of this paper. Habermas (2006, p. 411) claimed that the media played a huge role in forming a vital constituent, as well as catalyst for the survival of the public sphere. In essence, the media has been typified principally through its deemed evolution from a securing the public interest into commodifying (Papacharissi 2009, p. 230). The media today is deems people to be more as consumers/clients instead of just citizens. This paper will endeavour to review these debates and also study the present state of the media in aiding public debate, as well as underpinning democracy. The paper will include questions such as what is the purpose of the public sphere? Why must media be integral to it? What is meant by ‘public’? Is Habermas’s concept a useful one or does it need refinement? Do contemporary media strengthen or weaken the idea of a public sphere? What is the relationship between the State the private individual and the public sphere? And, how have new digital technologies of mediation served to extend, complicate or otherwise ‘disrupt’ Habermas’s concept? The media institution that will be discussed in this paper is Facebook. Purpose of the Public Sphere Deane (2003, p. 178) best describes the public sphere as a network of conveying information and opinions that are replicated through talkative action. The main beliefs of the public sphere, which initially materialised in the 17th century, concerned an open debate of all problems of general apprehension, where problems appropriate to the public good might be subject to knowledgeable debate and assessment (Deane 2003, p. 178). Therefore, the public sphere assumed freedoms of assembly and speech, a free press, as well as the right to freely take part in political discussions along with decision-making. The public sphere can be viewed as a place of acting in contemporary societies wherein political involvement is endorsed through the public talking and an empire of social life where public opinion is established (Habermas 1974, p. 49). The public sphere connects to needy people of the society to the elite, political leader (Habermas 1974, p. 49). This is why the media has to be integral to the public sphere. Particularly over the past 10 years, the dizzyingly fast change in the media has made it hard to track the implications and effects for public policy, as well as the direct impact on normal citizen’s lives (Habermas 2006, p. 412). A lot of this change has been stunning, and stunningly constructive for the development both the public sphere and of democracy. After the fall of the Berlin wall, as well as the massive political amendments, in 1989, which swept almost the entire world, there was a revolution of the media in almost every nation (Deane 2003, p. 178). Governments that considered their power base generally as rural areas, at first, liberalised the more city based print media, but frequently sought to keep control of the air media, mostly radio with its much wider reach to rural areas (Habermas 2006, p. 412). Liberalisation of radio turned out to be the most significant and sweeping change throughout this period that goes on now. There were, in reality, four mutually interlocking and reinforcing basis why governments opted to liberalise the media and broadcasting, which was a vital tool that allowed practice of political control (Habermas 1974, p. 50). What is meant by ‘Public?’ Habermas (1991, p. 23) claimed that occasions and events can be considered ‘public’ only when they are open or disclosed to everyone, in opposition to exclusive or closed affairs. This idea of the public only becomes clear in such terms as public education, public health, public ownership or public opinion. They are different from the ideas of private education, private health, private ownership and private opinion. The idea of the public is essentially related to the idea of the private. Habermas (1991, p. 23) argued that the idea of the public is correlated to the idea of the common. For Papacharissi (2009, p. 236), the public is, thus, the ordinary world, which brings people together and yet blocks their clash with each other. The public is based on four conditions: every citizen has access, there is creation of public opinion, there is conference in unrestricted manner (i.e., it is rooted in the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to speech/expression, as well as publication of people’s views) about matters of general interest, which implies freedom from economic and political control and there is free debate/discussion over the basic rules governing associations Habermas (1991, p. 23). Is Habermas’ concept a useful one or does it need refinement? Habermas initially claimed that a public sphere, free of governments, was formed out of a space that carved out in the coffee plantations of enlightenment Europe (Habermas 1974, p. 49). The electronic era of the public sphere, in the 20th Century, rose to create a new method of communication, the BBC, for instance, was established to educate, inform and entertain (Macloughlin 2011, p. 13). However, this electronic age is more passive than active and, furthermore, the media once more promoted entertainments, which put negatively affected the public sphere. For Macloughlin (2011, p. 13), face-to-face communication of the public sphere was over, and democracy, therefore, must take into account the new forms of electronically conducted discourse. The 21st century Internet, today, could be perceived as pushing forward a modern public sphere by networked communication and online debates without any discrimination. Habermas (2006, p. 411) initially pictured the public sphere as a widespread system where people could have their say. What he failed to remember was that there were a lot of people that did not have any say. Habermas’ (2006, p. 411) idea of the public sphere, in 18th century, was formed for the interests of whites, men, learned and the rich. It left out women, young individuals and also the deprived. However, the internet, and particularly Facebook, changed this. Facebook is a highly commercialised social networking website, flooding its users with overwhelming adverts on every page (Papacharissi 2009, p. 238). A number of the adverts even characterise the information users offer the website when joining them. These negative mass media problems could be the sole reason why the Internet is not perceived by people to be the saviour of the public sphere, numerous theorists consider that the Internet is depleting social capital through its commercialisation and it time wasting narcissist endorsement (Macloughlin 2011, p. 14). Alongside these issues there is the huge problem, as well, of the digital divide that damages Habermas’ sensitivity of universality across his perfected public sphere. However, the proponents of cyberspace argue that internet debates will enhance political participation and open the way for democratic utopia (Macloughlin 2011, p. 21). Participatory websites such as Facebook, when deemed in a positive manner, could be considered to be the restorers of the public sphere because they offer a platform for networks of people to take part in discussions globally. Age, race, gender and class have no limits and everybody could function as a multitude. The pages found on Facebook can assist in establishing a public sphere because they allow individuals converse across continents and might be seen as the 21st Century coffee houses. Any person can create a public group on Facebook, whatsoever the concern or interest. The issue can be dealt with and established in the collective knowledge of Facebook users. Macloughlin (2011, p. 21) looks into numerous theories about internet social relations; According to the author, the actual power of virtual societies lies in the users’ ability to develop and build those societies not just select them. Macloughlin (2011, p. 21) also refers to the work of Papacharissi (2009, p. 91), who talks about globalization, a process, which arises when a local community has a much broader global interactivity or connection. Facebook also permits people to take part in online communal activity over long distances in the comfort of their homes (Papacharissi 2009, p. 239). We can argue that Facebook has undoubtedly turned into the best means of communication, which provides people with the chance to get involved with numerous communities that could improve social capital, and; thus, improve the structure of the public sphere. Do contemporary media strengthen or weaken the idea of a public sphere? When Facebook is analysed from the viewpoint of development, a growing problem might be rising, a problem marked by the collapse of public interest media. A fresh and aggressive market among media has created innovation, dynamism and frequently deeply enhanced democratic debate, and has, in many situations, in many countries, led to profound social change and positive or constructive debates (Deane 2003, p. 183). However, while the rise of Facebook in the dawn of liberalisation in a lot of nations was, at first, signaled by an rise of public discussions on a whole variety of issues, proof is coming up that, as competition increases, content is more and more being persuaded by the demands of sponsors and advertisers who pay for the freshly liberalised media, and an even more intense focus on productivity (Deane 2003, p. 183). The result is more city or town biased and consumer oriented discussions that have diminishing concern for or interest in citizens living in poverty (Wells 2009, p. 98). Along with the fast growth of Facebook is the rising power of advertising. Unless financed by political parties or wealthy people, by donors by the state, or by society contributions, Facebook is there to make a profit in order to continue to exist (Hardt & Antonio 2004, p. 44). Facebook is reliant on marketing. Advertisers are clearly concerned in those who are expected to buy their goods, which is usually a young, middle class viewer with disposable earnings (a much stronger market in media terms in less developed nations than the customary ABC1 market of vastly educated high earning people) (Deane 2003, p. 183). Content of Facebook today is more and more aimed at drawing advertisers and is thus centred on the key concerns of those advertisers wish to vend to (Hardt & Antonio 2004, p. 44). As anticipated, this, therefore, means that problems of concern to the poor, people in rural areas as well as other minorities, are not Facebook’s priority. However, in order to act towards what made them exist in the first place, the media should try and focus more on the public sphere than in just general advertising (Wells 2009, p. 98). What is the relationship between the state, the private individual and the public sphere? The empirical relationship between the state, the private individual and the public sphere is malleable and therefore differs between societies and over time. The continuum specificity of each social reality does not allow researchers to cut the public or private opinion to an outline of typological totality (Hardt & Antonio 2004, p. 55). Patterns of basic differentiation between the state, the private individual and the public sphere differ between societies (Hardt & Antonio 2004, p. 55). The main beliefs of the public sphere include an open debate of all problems of general concern where deviating discussion was used to establish general concerns, as well as the public good (Tétreault 2001, p. 61). Therefore, the public sphere assumed freedoms of assembly and speech, a free press, as well as the right to unreservedly take part in political discussions and decision-making. Habermas (1974, p. 51) that suggested, after the democratic revolutions, the working class public sphere was institutionalised in legal orders that ensured a wide array of political freedoms, and created a judicial system, which was to intervene between claims between various groups or individuals, or between groups and individuals along with the state. The public sphere is a liberal model that sees a human as having a significant say in the formation of free will (Wells 2009, p. 103). The state is brought in just to monitor the people, plus the views of the public sphere are meant for them (Wells 2009, p. 103). It is on this theory that the interesting idea of the political thinker as a public thinker depends (Habermas 1974, p. 51). Political philosophy of the suggesting sort needs a public sphere in which to formulate its recommendations (Wells 2009, p. 103). Devoid of such a sphere, the relation between the state, the private individual and the public sphere becomes dangerously problematic, and a problem comes up over what the importance of political philosophy may be and whether or not it has any importance or significance, at all (Habermas 1974, p. 51). How have new digital technologies of mediation served to extend, complicate or otherwise ‘disrupt’ Habermas’ concept? Papacharissi (2009, p. 244) argues that the idea of the information society is the fresh dominant notion of the public sphere. In evaluating the range of discourses that distinguish these fresh technologies such as Facebook, Papacharissi (2009, p. 244) is also "bemused" by the level to which they either open a technophilic dialogue that presents Facebook as people’s salvation, or it symbolises a technophobic dialogue, which demonises Facebook as the main cause of all our issues. Therefore, leading currents in the values of technology decontextualise it, essentialise technology and abstract it from human and culture meaning, and hence fail to distinguish how deeply entrenched technology is in day to day life. Boeder (2005, p. 1) tries to respond to how Facebook can either be utilised as a tool of domination or democratisation, for developing a more democratic culture, and for empowering groups and people who do not have power. The way Facebook has affected Habermas’ concept can be perceived in two ways: extended or disrupted. It has extended Habermas’ concept in that people communicate more effectively with the media concerning their issues, which can be easily channeled to significant bodies Boeder (2005, p. 1). However, it has disrupted Habermas’ concept in that people no longer have to converge together to convey their issues as this was Habermas’ initial argument Boeder (2005, p. 1). Facebook has established a fresh public sphere, a fresh realm of internet democracy, and are; therefore, disputing public intellectuals to achieve techno-literacy and take advantage of the new technologies for supporting progressive causes along with social transformation Boeder (2005, p. 1). Conclusion Over the decades, the idea of the public sphere has been related to matters in media theory as diverse as consumerism and commodification, culture and media ownership, participative surveillance and democracy to its breach by PR practitioners, globalization, mapping of virtual communities and also the future of journalism. This paper has reviewed these debates and also studies the present state of the media in aiding public debate, as well as underpinning democracy. The public sphere refers to a field in social life where people can team up to liberally talk about and identify societal issues, and, through that debate, persuade political act. It is a discursive space where people and groups come together to talk about matters of public interest and to achieve a common judgment. The public sphere is still alive and well, even though it will never be the same again. Habermas’ coffeehouse discussion has grown in the direction of arbitrated communication in electronic networks. As of now, its future lies in digital media, such as Facebook, that offers exciting possibilities. In essence, the public sphere has, at all times, been virtual because its significance lies in its concept. References Boeder, P 2005, Habermas’ heritage: the future of the public sphere in the network society, viewed 12th April at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1280/1200#p15 Deane, J 2003, Media, democracy and the public sphere, viewed 12th April at http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/edicion/media/16Chapter10.pdf Habermas, J 1974, The public sphere: an encyclopedia article, New German Critique vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 49-55. Habermas, J 1991, The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Habermas, J 2006, Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research, Communication Theory vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 411-426. Hardt, M & Antonio, N 2004, Multitude: war and democracy in the age of empire, The Penguin Press, New York. Macloughlin, B 2011, To what extent does Facebook function as a public sphere? viewed 17th April at http://www.academia.edu/1440456/To_What_Extent_Does_Facebook_Function_as_a_Public_Sphere Papacharissi, Z 2009, The Virtual Sphere 2.0: the Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond, in Andrew Chadwick, Philip Howard (Eds.) Handbook of Internet Politics, Routledge, New York. Sparks, C 2001, The internet and the global public sphere in mediated politics: communication in the future of democracy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tétreault, M A 2001, Frontier Politics: Sex, Gender, and the Deconstruction of the Public Sphere, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 53–72. Wells, C 2009, Separate Spheres, in Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth, Encyclopedia of Feminist Literary Theory, Routledge, New York. Read More

 

Read More