What effects has the internet had on the character of the public sphere?

Since I practically killed myself writing this, I present to you my uni essay for my sociology subject: The Public Sphere. Enjoy.

What effects has the internet had on the character of the public sphere?

The public sphere has come a long way from its humble beginnings. New technologies have surrounded and lifted up the public sphere to new heights that reach various actors from all over the globe that was never possible before. In particular, this essay will focus on the technology of the internet in relation to the public sphere in regards to key sociological theorists such as Eva Cox, Jürgen Habermas and others.

Though the internet has not fully brought about a perfected public sphere, it has certainly built upon it’s potential (Gimmler 2001: 22); as well as brought about new ways for younger actors in the public sphere to interact. This essay aims to discuss the new phenomena of Facebook groups and the internet as a tool for young users to discuss public life, thus sustaining the public sphere for another generation.

To discuss the public sphere at length, it seems beneficial to have a key description of what the public sphere is. The public sphere can be defined as individuals who come together to discuss political, social and current issues in order to form opinions through the exchanging of information, and with the aim of gaining political influence (Bell 2007: 1). Trust and respect is an integral part to enable these discussions to run smoothly for the possibility of new ideas to integrate and develop with new actors. Eva Cox says that this mutual trust engenders an ‘affirmation of self that comes from working with others in a group’ (1997: 5) for the individual actor, which is brought about by the discussion of new and old ideas.

The public sphere began around the 1800’s and was formed in coffee houses, where men, rich and poor alike, would come to share opinions of art, literature, economic and political issues of the time (Habermas 1989: 31-33). However, the public sphere today has much progressed from the 18th C. Some theorize that it has come close to being almost completely disintegrated (Lumby 1999: 220-221). It seems that younger generations are taking less and less interest in public and community life today (Putnam 2000: 15). Some blame capitalism and the media (Lumby 1999: 220-221); Eva Cox (1997: 56) blames the lack of importance placed on social bonding today. However, undoubtedly, the public sphere has been slowly eroding over time. Does the internet build on or corrode the potential of the public sphere? Though there are many arguments that believe that the internet takes away from the public sphere, this essay theorizes that the internet has created a new niche for younger actors and the public sphere to flower in.

Limitations of the public sphere and the benefits of the internet

One particular way the internet has revolutionized the public sphere is it’s ability to integrate what used to be ‘minor’ actors in the public sphere, whose opinion may not have been valued in the public sphere 50 to 100 years ago. Women, who were once so excluded from the coffee houses, now have a much larger scope of the public sphere. Eva Cox (1997: 2-3) stresses the need for a stronger opinion of women in the public sphere. She argues that their exclusion takes away important aspects of the female point of view from an exclusively ‘male’ public agenda that was so integral in the older public sphere. This will be discussed in more detail in relationship to Facebook below. Actors from various religion, ethnicity and age whose opinion may have gone ignored in the past, can now also contribute to all kinds of online thought today due to the mass availability of the internet.

Using the internet as a discussion forum for the public sphere avoids some obvious flaws of the ideal face-to-face communication of the old public sphere. Some of the new avenues that the internet opens up for the public sphere is the opportunity for young people to create a personal spaces (e.g. blogs, Facebook groups) to participate in discussion of political issues (Vromen 2008: 79-80). The internet is a space that younger people can feel more comfort and ease within, where political online discussions are open are to debate for everyone, unlike many offline political communities and organisations, where younger people may not feel at ease in. Vromen (2008: 88) discovered in some of her interviews, that younger people admit to feeling more at ease with self-created online communities instead of local communities that are run by older people. Vromen also discusses in her paper that studies have shown younger internet users tend to be attracted to ‘novel, mixed media forms of political expression’ and ‘peer to peer networks and discussions’ (2008: 81). She also argues that younger users are attracted to organisations that are generally non government or profit led, and are created by users of a similar age (or was made with younger users in mind (Vromen 2008: 83)). Facebook entails all of these objectives.

The public sphere previously may have had problems with the congregating of actors in one space to discuss face-to-face, political and social issues. However, the net today eliminates problems associated with time and space in the public sphere. Conversations and discussions can be made speedily with an unlimited amount of people that were previously unreachable, across any nation (Norris 2002: 208). Eventually, physical public sphere interactions must end, and gathering with the same or another group of actors for further discussion may prove difficult. This is another problem solved by the internet, where discussions online can last, days, weeks, months. There is no possible set date for or need for, the end of a discussion, unless it has been fully culminated by the individuals involved.

The net also sharply reduces costs of interacting with larger audiences (previously only possible with television, publishing costs & media costs, etc (Bohman 2004: 134-135). Anyone with a computer can start up a blog, post an opinion, create groups or websites for very little cost (Bohman 2004: 134). This is another benefit for younger actors who may not have access to money, credit cards or credentials that are often required for spreading opinions to large audiences in the offline world.

The internet also provides access to all kinds of differing media, newspapers and blogs (Vromen 2008: 81) that allow access to thousands of opinions that an actor can use to make more informed choices with when discussing issues with others.

Facebook

Facebook.com is a social networking website that was created by a then 20 year old Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 that was used initially for Harvard university students. It became progressively more popular until it became the immense social network that it is today. Facebook boasts over 200 million active users as well as being one of the most visited websites in the world, giving sites such as Google and Yahoo a run for their money for website with the most traffic (Wauters 2009). Users generally use the site to connect with friends. Reports have shown it to even connect online users with long lost relatives and friends (Lewis 2009). As talked about above, the internet opens up a new niche market for previously unheard from actors, such as women, who were previously excluded from the public sphere. Interestingly, statistics show that female Facebook users are actually more prevalent than male users. What’s more, Facebook female users are growing larger and larger in almost every age group (as of 2^nd of Feb, 2009, statistics from InsideFacebook.com (Smith 2009)). Facebook members also come from all over the globe. It is available in over 50 languages, with 40 currently being developed. Though it was originally made in America, 70% of Facebook’s users originate from outside of the US (Facebook 2009). It is thus evident that Facebook then reaches many actors previously unreachable in the offline public sphere.

Though it was never created specifically for the public sphere, one aspect of Facebook has opened up a new niche for online users to discuss political and social problems. This aspect of Facebook is the joining and creating of groups. With the increase of technology on the rise, younger generations have less and less motivation to leave their computers since contact with others is easily achievable with online chat such as Msn Messenger, Skype and Yahoo Chat, as well as a plethora of websites that offer online chat. Combined with the advent of email and sending messages via Myspace, Facebook and Twitter, Eva Cox theorizes that Australians could eventuate into a ‘nation of agoraphobics’ (1997: 72), thus ending all optimism for community groups and public discussions outside of the home and the private sphere.

However, there is hope for younger generations and the public sphere. Facebook provide a way for younger generations to communicate and discuss all kinds of current issues that bother them in today’s society. Creating and joining groups is a new way for actors in today’s public sphere to create solidarities with other users and exchange opinions about all kinds of subject matter in order to influence political decisions. Though groups can be made about any given topic ; (e.g. dating & relationships, to food & drink, to hobbies & crafts), quite a few groups pertain to political interests of Facebook users. Facebook has over 500 political groups, with the first 500 having a minimum of at least 13,000 members, with the largest group boasting over a million users. Some of the most popular groups today (as of 8 June 2009), are mostly centred on American politics (e.g. Barack Obama: One Million Strong for Barack’ (abbreviated to BOOMSFB) which has over 1,000,000 users and ‘Stop Hillary Clinton: One Million AGAINST Hillary’ which has around 800,000. Clearly, a great deal of Facebook users are committed to expressing political opinion.

Satire and humour has become another form of expression that is greatly used by Facebook users to bring across opinions, an ideal which is not lost on political groups (e.g. group names such as ‘I have more Foreign Policy Experience than Sarah Palin’, ‘I’m a fan of the great hero who hit Bush with his shoes in Baghdad !’, to ‘Intelligent Women Against Sarah Palin’). This form of creative expression is used in a way for younger users to express their feelings about serious political matters in a comfortable and humorous way which they may be able to share with friends and family Facebook users who may not be as politically minded. Another example of younger users using satire in the political world is the popular website punditkitchen.com, where users insert political images with humorous captions. Political figures such as Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin tend to feature quite heavily, however, images generally tend to be influenced by current issues in the media. Political discussion is often sparked by comments that are posted in relation to each posted image and the caption author can respond to positive and negative discussion. However this is just another new way for younger people to discuss and respond to politics online.

Facebook users who join groups may have the option to post up support, arguments or general comments on the group ‘wall’. Depending on group privacy restriction settings, members may or may not have the option to upload photographs and videos, which are again, new ways to explore and discuss opinions with other Facebook users. Facebook users are also able to upload events, some of which can include public events and rallies for support of their group cause. Therefore, face to face interaction and discussion is not entirely cut off from the online public sphere. Online options such as chatting with other members, links to prevalent sites and info, videos and images have been shown to serve the public sphere well for other organisations and social movements in the past (Norris 2002: 209).

Creating and joining to show support to a group for their particular social or political ideals is only the beginning of the public sphere in Facebook. Facebook users also have the option to publicize their joining of a group on their page, which other users may comment on (another possibility for political discussion). Bohman stresses that a for a public sphere to have any kind of democratic significance, it must place importance on some kind of forum, ‘that is, a social space in which speakers may express their views to others and who in turn respond to them and raise their own opinion and concerns’ (Bohman 2004: 133). Democratic discussions of social and political issues occur mainly in the Facebook group discussion ‘threads’. Members of Facebook groups can begin discussion threads they feel they need to discuss with other users relative to the group name or topic. Often users can ask questions or make statements which they expect will spark conversation between themselves and other users. It is this political and social discussion between many different online users that creates the online public sphere. Discussion topics are used extensively and are created quite frequently. Taking the popular Barack group (BOOMSFB) into account, BOOMSFB currently has over 78,000 discussion threads, most of which receive active replies from online users every few minutes (Javed 2009).

Bohman (2004: 133), as well as Eva Cox (1997: 55) stress the need for mutual respect in any kind of debate in the public sphere. Since many users often approach sensitive and controversial subjects in the discussion threads, other group members have the potential to be offended which may result in non-respectful and open minded discussion. Fortunately, this is why many group administrators/creators put up a list of rules to prevent personal arguments from developing. A few of the rules BOOMSFB (Javed 2009) put in place include:

· No curse words in topic titles or used against other groups or members are allowed

· “All members of the group must be respectful to one another, even to those who aren't Obama supporters. You are welcome to speak in support or opposition of the topics presented, but always make sure you are attacking the issue and not the person.”

· Excessive disruption of topics not allowed

· Discussion topics must be relative to politics / world affairs unless specifically marked, or they risk being deleted

· Topics must have some sort of argument, or present some sort of relevant information

· No false attacks on members or politicians without evidence

· No harassment of other group members

Breaking of any of these rules could result in temporary or permanent loss of group membership. Evidently, these rules are put in place to facilitate and preserve respectful and analytical political conversation between group members. Considering our definition of the public sphere early on as the gathering of individuals to form opinions through the respectful exchange of information in order to order to gain political influence, it seems evident that Facebook group discussions clearly embody the public sphere.

However, do these groups attempt to influence political decisions? Vromen (2008: 81) stresses the importance of young users ability to have power in influencing and changing political and social decisions as a means of attraction for participation in the online public sphere. Vikki Bell (2007: 1) also talks about the desire from individuals in the public sphere to be able give meaning to their political discussion by implementing change that they feel is necessary.

Quite a few Facebook groups are quite proactive in getting attention to their political views. One example of this is ‘Petition: Contraception is NOT Abortion’ group which lists ways to assist their cause. The ‘Recent News’ feed informs group users that they can sign a petition, invite extra friends to the group, post up the group on their profile (which increases visibility for friends of the member which the group may gain new members from) and deliver petitions to political members who have the power to change legislations (Green 2009). Another group, ‘Let’s collect 1.000.000 signatures to support the Palestinians in Gaza’ (Slh 2009) supports Gaza against illegal action against its citizens. They enlist the help of members to

• Enlighten friends about their cause
• Contact the media in support of Gaza
• Contact elected officials to support Gaza and put pressure on Israel
• Contact the UN Security Council / other agencies.

This particular group has also provided international and American specific letters to President Obama pleading their cause as well as providing 25 translations of their group mission into different languages. Though this is just one political group, there are many similar groups who seek to get their cause in the media to increase awareness about their ideas and eventually gain political recognition.

The combination of political discussion among individuals and an evident desire to gain political recognition in an equal, democratic setting shows that Facebook groups are indeed a new way for younger (and older) generations to participate in the public sphere. Though this method is significantly different from older methods of the public sphere, it also eliminates problems associated with time, space and the exclusion of certain actors. Though it may lose some of the original character of the public sphere,

whatever the argument, one cannot deny the immense potential that the internet can possibly bring. Though it currently cannot claim to have ‘fixed’ all it’s problems, the internet has certainly built new avenues for the public sphere to be explored in. For it to reach full potential online requires a careful execution of those involved to maintain continual and democratic discussion of current political and social issues to keep the public’s view top priority in the state’s mind. It is clear that websites such as Facebook has given a way for new generations from demographics the world over the public sphere potential that previous generations have never seen before.

References:

Bell, V (2007) ‘The Potential of an Unfolding Constellation: Imagining Fraser’s Transnational Public Sphere’ Theory, Culture and Society 24(4): 1-5

Bohman, J (2004) ‘Expanding dialogue: the Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy’ in Crossley, N and Roberts JM (eds.) After Habermas: new perspectives on the public sphere Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp.131-55

Cox, E (1997) A Truly Civil Society Marrickville: ABC Books

Facebook (2009) ‘Statistics’ http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics, downloaded (10/6/2009)

Gimmler, A (2001) 'Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the
internet', Philosophy and Social Criticism 27(4): 21-39

Green, A (2009) ‘Petition: Contraception is NOT Abortion!’ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=66bb558d4ecf564e0109574a2a440f32&gid=35731530029&ref=search downloaded (10/6/09)

Habermas, J (1989) ‘Social Structures of the Public Sphere’ in Habermas, J The Structural Transformations of The Public Sphere, Cambridge Mass: MIT Press

Javed, S (2009) ‘Barack Obama (One million strong for Barack) http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=ts#/group.php?sid=e0ba4c717edb78d02c6fb5e624e2945f&gid=2231653698&ref=search downloaded (10/6/09)

Lewis, P (2009) ‘Mother Finds Son after 25 years via Facebook’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/29/woman-reunited-son-facebook-paros, downloaded (10/6/09)

Lumby, C (1999) ‘Media Culpa – democracy and the postmodern public sphere’ in Lumby, C Gotcha: life in Tabloid World Sydney: Allen and Unwin pp.220-249

Norris, P (2002) ‘New Social Movements, Protest Politics and the Internet’ in Norris, P Democratic Phoenix, Reinventing Political Activism Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.188-215

Putnam, R D (2000) ‘Thinking about Social Change in America’ in Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon & Schuster pp.15-28

Slh, R (2009) ‘Let’s collect 1.000.000 signatures to support the Palestinians in Gaza’

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=054babaee7aaa0b6a5475e38309250c2&gid=8454730966&ref=search downloaded (10/6/09)

Smith, J (2009) ‘Fastest Growing Demographic on Facebook: Women Over 55’ http://www.insidefacebook.com/2009/02/02/fastest-growing-demographic-on-facebook-women-over-55/, downloaded (10/6/2009)

Vromen, A (2008) ‘Building virtual spaces: Young people,
participation and the internet’ Australian Journal of Political Science 43(1): 79-97

Wauters, R (2009) ‘Compete: Facebook US Traffic Nearing Google, Yahoo’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060900625.html downloaded (10/6/09)