According to the entry of “public sphere” in Wikipedia, the term “implies a spatial concept, the social sites or arenas where meanings are articulated, distributed, and negotiated, as well as the collective body constituted by, and in this process, ‘the public’.”
The birth of Habermas’ idea of public sphere was tied to the debates or discussion taken place in the actual open spaces existing in real world: coffee houses in Britain, or salons in France. Yet as Boeder points out in his essay, “Habermas’ heritage: The future of the public sphere in the network society,” to separate “[public sphere] from the medium in which it develops” is a rather crucial step in understanding “the Habermasian concept of public sphere.” So the public sphere is more of an abstractive concept than a physical existence; it resides in many public places in society such as café, meeting halls, book clubs…, just to name a few, but those places are not equal to public sphere. A coffee shop where customers sit quietly, sipping their coffee while reading magazines can hardly be viewed as public sphere. In other words, what is happening in those public spaces is another key element to form public sphere.
So, what is happening then? In my opinion, communication is the big umbrella here: conversation and dialogue are the basic forms of communication; discussion and debate function as negotiation mechanism when disputes occur in the process of communication; human reason, or rationality, is the underline rule for the communication to take place and to keep ongoing; consensus/public opinions are produced, regulated, circulated, and distributed in the process as well.
Public sphere is thus defined by and born with both the communication that involves and engages the public and the space where such communication is taking place. It is worth noting that a lively, healthy public sphere has certain political implication as an inquiring and monitoring force in society opposed to authorities such as government, church, or canons. And that is why Habermas claims that public sphere is destroyed by the prevailing belief and practices of capitalism, commercialism, and consumerism, as well as the growth and domination of mass media. Forged, fake public opinions are circulated and distributed for commercial or PR purposes; profit-making—to attract, entertain, or hook their customers—replaces the political implication of public sphere as the sole focus now; mass media also carry assumptions and imagination about certain “topical” subjects and filter out marginal issues that don’t fit in the mainstream discourses. To borrow Habermas’ words, public sphere as such is “a public sphere in appearance only.”
Then, will public sphere revival in the era of the Internet?
It is true that the spread of broadband network makes more and more people have access to the enormous cyberspace, and that the bubbling of online social networks carves out immediately useable spaces that, unlike mass media which restrain the possibility for public to interact, welcome and encourage participation and engagement. There are more spaces for people to utilize, to open up conversation/discussion/debate that would not have room in the territory of conventional mass media.
However, an open space is not necessary a public space. Forums or blogs that are wide-open to the public don’t guarantee the participation of the masses. People certainly have more freedom to speak out, to express themselves, yet without audience, whatever they are doing is only soliloquy; no communication is happening there, and no attention is drawn to there either. This is where networks will really help. Having networks helps to increase the exposition—more chance for people to meet, to get involved, and to recruit their peers to participate—to the world. Without such connections, these lonely but open spaces in the virtual world would probably be like some unattractive small stores outshined by the fancy, appealing, and well-known supermarkets nearby.
I believe that the concept of public sphere can be realized in the virtual world, but in a transformed, evolved manner—maybe more fragmented and more diverse. There won’t be a sole, unified public sphere but many open spheres of rather lower scale. These open spheres are accessible and connected to the public. Then the spheres build bridges among one another from different directions, in different levels, and for different purposes, according to their shared interests, similar focuses, or overlapping concerns, forming a variety of public spheres where prosperous communication is taking place, dispute and negotiation are ongoing, and opinions are examined, challenged, and reformed.
No comments:
Post a Comment