On its face, Habermas gives a pretty sound theory for how democracy operates through the public sphere. His notion that there is a cycle to the democratic process and that change starts with ideas discussed in intimate spheres which eventually move through literary spheres and ultimately into the political public sphere seems logical to me. I can even see his point about how The State apparatus can constrain or loosen the economy and how unfettered capitalism can lead to concentrations of wealth and influence which can ultimately short-circuit the democratic process. We have certainly seen that in the form of powerful lobbying groups which represent the interests of Big Business.
Putting aside my skepticism about the economy's singular role in influencing the democratic process (what about religion/morality, education...?) and the somewhat antiquated notion of the literary public sphere (do all social and political movements start at Starbucks?), where I have the most trouble with Habermas is in his insistence on critical-rational thought and civility as essential elements of democracy.
Habermas says democracy depends on critical-rational deliberation which is completely devoid of emotion or personal identity. I wonder how easy that is to achieve, or even how necessary. When was the last time you heard two people discussing or debating an issue that didn't involve some element of emotion or personal identity? Although emotion should not get in the way of logic or reasoning, I think passion and a sense of personal stake have always been an essential part of social and political movements.
The second requirement of democracy, according to the model, is that there be civility and decorum. If we are all supposed to abide by Parliamentary procedure and not speak out of turn, there would seem to be little room in the model for protest. An event like the Boston Tea Party could be considered quite uncivil, but it was not doubt highly effective at inspiring others to take up the cause of liberty. The civil uprisings that occurred across the Arab world in 2011 as part of the "Arab Spring" could hardly be considered civil, yet these uprisings resulted in significant political change for the peoples of those countries.
I'll leave it to someone else to take up the question of whether there is an online public sphere. On a side note, I think it is interesting how Habermas uses the term "publicity" to refer to the speaking out in support of ideas or change. We generally use the word publicity to mean drawing attention to someone or something for commercial purposes.
You raise some good thoughts about Habermas. From the way I understand it, movements, even if violent, would ultimately affect the literary public sphere. The example Hess gave about the shoe maker was a good one. What if from the coffee shop people were so outraged they broke into a riot? ultimately this would raise awareness of the injustice going on and affect the public sphere to influence the public opinion.I also think the model works with economy being the central influence in a democratic process, but that is because I see economy not as just inclueding the exchange of finances but the exchange of resources. From this definition, influences of religion and education would also be a part of it.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of an online public sphere: Whether we are communicating via word of mouth, via written message, or via visual stimuli does isn't it all still in the literary public sphere?
I think I agree that it would still be part of the literary public sphere if we could agree that it fits in the model. Some of the qualities that Habermas expressed may not be present in an online environment. A lot of the communication we experience via the internet could be considered in the intimate sphere. If it is a space like Facebook, we are primarily communicating with friends and family. Even if you were part of an online community with people you came to know and develop relationships with, the sphere could possibly be considered intimate. The biggest problem I face in taking Habermas and applying it to the internet is the idea of structure and civility. The internet as a whole seems too loose to fit these ideas. At the same time, there are many structured, civil spaces on the internet. So I do not know that we could apply this in the aggregate but perhaps we could find different sites that would act as good examples.
ReplyDeleteJohn I must give you props on breaking down this article and presenting relevant areas of discussion. One thing that comes to my mind when I participate in this course whether online or in class is how much of our society thinks critically on a regular basis. I think rational deliberation among the general public is rare. (Just my observation) I think most conversations at Starbucks are about emotions or just people catching up. My theory goes along with Plato's in that not only are most people ignorant of social issues, but they find them overwhelming and don't find the time to develop an opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis leaves those in control of media with a lot of influence. The general public is complacent and lacks passion for a cause because they don’t feel any sort of oppression. Take the example of the occupy movement. The occupy movement only existed in the general public’s eyes while it was in mainstream media. Now that it has left and is no longer news the majority of the population believes the protests to be over. (Which they are not) The protests in Arab countries had significant impact because there was united passion from the people to literally fight for their cause.
What I am saying is emotions are necessary in deliberation. In order for one to feel the need to deliberate and make change they must feel passionate about this change. This is why I think Americans are complacent and don’t feel the need to deliberate. A large portion of Americans don’t feel a need for change, so they are more likely to jump on a band wagon or a trend. Opinions have become more fashionable than passionate.
I agree with you when you say that the media has a lot of influence. For the most part, the media determines which social issues we are aware of. This may be why a lot of Americans lack the motivation to take a part of the literary public sphere. I agree that there is a large amount of Americans who seem to be more worried about fashion or popularity, rather than political issues, and I also believe that the media is a large factor in this.
DeleteThe public sphere is seen as a forward moving cycle from intimate spheres, economy, literary public sphere, political public sphere, and finally resilting in public opinion. Concering on-line rhetoric, I tend to see it flowing differently. The literary public sphere, where the most important exchange of ideas should be happening, seems to be rendered ineffective by the crush of the economy on one side and the political public sphere on the other. For example, economic disparity may influence one to engage in civil discourse (via the literary public sphere) but the desire to reach a solution and act upon it may "rush" the process. The individual or groups desire to alter public opinion may betray their original (more civil) intent by placing greater importance on ecomomic or political influence and not debate in the literary public sphere. In digital rhetoric, time could be an increasingly important factor.
Delete- I agree with your statement that American’s are complacent and do not feel the need to deliberate. I honestly believe we are in a time where people could care less about current events and once the initial impact is over people go back to living their everyday lives. I think a lot of this has to come from the educational process that we have. All that most students have is one required semester of government and economics, and if their classes are anything like mine it is pretty much a joke. Without a good background and understanding of mechanics of the government and the economy it is hard to become involved and that is why many American’s care more about entertainment news than the fact that there are political parties trying to outlaw birth control and the consequences that that could bring.
DeleteRegarding the question of the existence of an online public sphere, I have my doubts about reaching an answer. While I agree with Dahlgren's (2005) assertion regarding the purpose of most online discourse, "the kinds of interaction taking place can only to a small degree be considered manifestations of the public sphere; democratic deliberation is completely overshadowed by consumerism, entertainment, nonpolitical networking and chat, and so forth" (p. 151), the deliberative nature of various sites occupying communicative spaces online are often considered efficacious by their users, and should not be entirely disregarded. Online forums that exist to facilitate political or otherwise deliberative discussion, sought out through purposeful browsing habits of their content contributors, may not appear to achieve measureable social or political goals, but remain valuable due to shifting notions of involvement, as "Politics becomes not only an instrumental activity for achieving specific goals, but also an expressive activity, a way of asserting within the public sphere, group values, ideals, and belonging" (Dahlgren, 2005, p. 155).
ReplyDelete