A few weeks ago, I posted a blog called The New Public Sphere which referred to the internet. Today I wish to expand on this notion with reference to weblogs and podcasting and how they both fit into Habermas’ ideal of the public sphere.
Jurgen Habermas is a German philosopher and sociologist who wrote a great deal of theory on the concept of the public sphere. In his writings of this notion he used accounts and dialogue that took place in coffee houses and salons in eighteenth century England, however, this historical form of the public sphere represented only a bourgeois culture which was restricted by gender and socio-economic class. Habermas’ idealized notion of the public sphere was one where individuals would be able to come together in a public space and participate freely in the exchanging of their own ideas which would ultimately influence the state. It would be open to anybody regardless of rank or status and would allow for rational debates centered on any topic. Yet, with the rapid growth of blogging and podcasting that has taken place over the past few years, has Habermas’ ideal version of the public sphere already been reached?
Well almost. I would argue that weblogging has played a more vital role in this process than podcasting. Although both relatively new forms of media bypass the boundaries posited by mainstream journalism, podcasts (with exception to those made by ordinary members of the public), generally serve only as a new hub for files that may have already been broadcast (such as those that appear on radio) to be downloaded at a more convenient time and place. Blogging is a much more interactive process, whereby members of the public can create posts and others can comment and give feedback, potentially forming a discussion.
Unlike the bourgeois public sphere of the past, the new realm offered by the internet has allowed the coming together of all people; regardless of demographics, giving those who weren’t already included in mainstream media a voice that could be heard by others.
Weblogging and podcasting are open to all members of the public. Easy to use software programs such as this one that I have chosen to use in creating this blog have allowed anybody to post their ideas on the web with relative ease. Yet there have been some suggestions that these technologies are not as freely available to everybody as is often perceived.
In Andrew O’Baoill’s article, he asserts that the problem with weblogging technology is that despite being open to everyone, it is usually only used by those who are younger, wealthier and more educated. He does however assert that public computer sites provide an exception, with the existence of weblogs created by the homeless as evidence of this.
Yet as time progresses this younger generation will become the older generation and those that follow will not have the problem of not knowing how to use computers as they will have grown up with them. So it will be then; and only then that Habermas’ ideal of the public sphere will be fully reached.
I am by no means implying that everyone’s opinion will be viewed on a global scale, it is obvious that the prominent will always receive more attention. Blogging and podcasting technology have merely created a space for personal ideas and opinions to be expressed and responded to, regardless of whether or not we know who has published the material. Habermas’ ideal model of the public sphere still needs some work, but given time, it will become inevitable.
Articles relating to this topic:
Jurgen Habermas (in Wikipedia)
Habermas' public sphere (in Wikipedia)
Poor, Nathaniel. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. University of Michigan: Department of Communication Studies. 2005.
Gurak, Laura, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratcliff, and Jessica Reyman. eds. 2004. Into the blogosphere: rhetoric, community, and the culture of weblogs.
Baoill, Andrew O. 2004. Weblogs and the public sphere. Into the blogosphere: rhetoric, community, and the culture of weblogs.
Lampa, Graham. 2004. Imagining the blogosphere: an introduction to the imagined community of instant publishing. Into the blogosphere: rhetoric, community, and the culture of weblogs.
Raynes-Goldie, Kate. 2004. Pulling sense out of today's informational chaos: LiveJournal as a site of knowledge creation and sharing. First Monday. 9, no. 12.
Crofts, Sheri, John Dilley, Mark Fox, Andrew Retsema, and Bob Williams. 2005. Podcasting: a new technology in search of viable business models. First Monday. 10, no. 9.
4 Comments:
Do you really believe the Public Sphere to be an inevitable development as participation in blogging grows? Have you considered reasons why the Public Sphere is largely not evident in the 'real world'? Obviously the potential for anonimity and freedom from physical harm are 2 large reasons why the internet might work as the Public Sphere but they could also work against it. There may be other reasons as well. It's important to consider not only that which enables but also that which may oppose.
Inevitable is a very strong word which I perhaps shouldn't have used but I do think that the internet provides a definite possibility for the public sphere to thrive. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, not for at least the next few decades, we will have to just wait and see.
Hey Danielle,
I think that the public sphere can be achieved also through the internet as new form of public space. Developments over time and the ageing of the population will, I believe as you do, enhance realisation of Habermas' public sphere
Thanks Sarah,
I think the internet's impact on the public sphere is one open to much debate. It is difficult to foresee the future so for the time being we can only look at all of the facts and try to determine what each of us believes to be a logical answer.
Post a Comment
<< Home