My phd research project studies the Habermasian public sphere – and the ways in which particular services of the internet can transform our understanding of this concept.
I plan to put together a more detailed string of articles about the underlying concepts of the research – its theoretical, philosophical background so to say -; hopefully the following brief introduction will do until then.
The public sphere. Here, the public sphere refers to a totality of discussions between members of a public, and tangible / intangible institutions that accommodate these discussions. These discussions might concern e.g. works of art – or products of the culture industry – (“cultural public sphere”), or issues related to the distribution, state, and practice of political power in a given society (“political public sphere”).
Power in a democratic society can only be legitimate, if it is used in order to serve the common best interests of the society. Unfortunately finding out what these common best interests are, is more than tricky. But if people discuss – critically reflect on; conduct reasoned debate about – their problems, then eventually the best interests of the society will be crystallized in these discussions and debates. This is why the (political) public sphere is important: it mediates between members of the public and the political institutions of a society, and at the same time it legitimates the power of these latter.
(This merely describes the thought which I think is the most important in the model of public sphere.)
The media. The media have a crucial role in making the public sphere work. Modern societies are large; face-to-face communication can only accommodate a small number of participants; but mass communication provides a way in which thoughts can be spread across the society. The media also provide a focus: at any given time, everyone is involved in thinking about a vast array of problems, and in various media certain problems, that are expected to be relevant not just for the individual but larger groups, are presented. In that, the democratic quality of the media is inherently compromised: not every point of view will be represented, not every issue will be lifted out as important, and of course not every group in society (however we define “group”) will gain an equal amount of representation.
Habermas emphasizes the key role of the established “national quality media” in the workings of the public sphere. And this is where the internet comes into the picture.
The internet. The internet has been seen as having a democratizing potential, because in theory it provides its users with a vast array of information sources, as well as with the possibility to make one’s voice heard all across the net. (And it does so by eliminating geographical boundaries.) On the other hand, this possibility doesn’t in any way guarantee that meaningful discussion will develop: it’s easy to make yourself heard on the internet by starting your blog or discussion forum – but eventually this might lead to the total fragmentation of the online public sphere.
And this is the basic problem I’m looking into. Does the internet contribute to the creation of meaningful public spheres? If so, how, and if not, why not?
The research. My research focuses on particular services of the internet, namely, social news sites – such as Digg, Reddit or Newsvine -, blogs, and discussion forums. There is an empirical element to the study: to gather data about how these services work, and what kind of output they produce. In the light of these findings, I will then try to construct a model which describes their (possible) role in the operation of a conventionally understood “public sphere.”
I plan to follow a 3-pronged approach; that is, to break the research down into 3 stages.
In the first phase, which is going on right now, I examine social news sites, with focusing on the ongoing presidential election campaign in the United States. The second phase is planned to deal with the critical discourse analysis of said social news sites, and certain blogs, and finally, the third phase is dedicated to critical discourse analysis of certain conventional discussion forums.
