Friday, September 12, 2008
Week Four Discussion of Readings
This week I would like you to respond to the assigned reading by discussing the concept of the “public sphere” in light of the issues raised in Chapters 3 and 4. Drawing from the work of cultural theorists and composition scholars, Weisser shows how a genuine public sphere is to be understood as a site of deliberative conflict where democratic values and ideals of social justice are upheld. Given Weisser’s treatment of the public sphere, it appears that locating an actual public sphere in today’s society might be difficult. In your view, are there any actual current public sphere’s that are actively sustainable and made available to citizens in meaningful ways? If so, where? If not, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
My first instinct is to say that no there is not a current public sphere that is actively sustainable and made available to citizens in a meaningful way in today’s society. However, as I thought about it, the thought of today’s court system as a public sphere made me rethink my answer to that question. You have a deliberative conflict where the democratic values and ideas of social justice are to be upheld. If the system works as it is designed, a citizen does have input in that they elect judges and are able to serve on juries in order to help justice be served appropriately. We have the right to bear witness to these proceedings and give testimony that helps keep the innocent free from persecution and the guilty punish for their crimes against society. The evidence for and against the defendant is made public in the court for evaluation by the jury and the judge to decide if it is can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
It can be argued that the system does not always work because innocent people are sent to jail and the guilty are sometimes set free. But, in the general population, I believe our system does work and qualifies as a public sphere in a sense. We do have input if we choose to use it and we do have the ability to effect change in society in this way.
While the judicial system in our country, I do agree that it is a platform where being a citizen qualifies a person to communicate their notions. There are interventions put in place to assist those in need of help and most often, these services are funded by the state, or taxes. The judicial system has been created with the democratic, or liberal approach in my opinion, meaning that while some individuals are punished for their offenses, reform and opportunity are always available.
I enjoyed reading your explanation.
Kristi
I truly hope that I am not missing the "big picture" with regards to this discussion, but more so now than ever, I believe that the nature of politics is a public sphere where the efforts are ethically and financially sustainable, individuals are instinctively connected with pertinent issues, and no matter how hard you try to avoid the campaign messages, there are outlets in every aspect of the public in which we live.
From the text readings, I internalized a few different points that I find relative to my thought; first, there is a recognized sector of important target audiences outside of a traditional classroom that is sought and these experiences individuals have with politicians leave a lasting impression regarding a perception or view of public discourse. Secondly, the issues are open to the scrutiny of citizens regardless of factors such as socioeconomic status, credentials, or ancestory. Lastly, and I believe this can at times be an art-form, campaign managers and politicians are brilliant manipulators of planning obvious and not-so obvious ways of communicating their message to a particular person(s) through a familiar mode that symbolizes comfort or security. Lastly, I believe politics/campaigning is an example of a public sphere because when election day nears, and everyone's issues are obvious, there is a message of motivation to continue the strive for equality and self-improvement for everyone which leaves citizens feeling touched and hopeful.
Oh what a tangled web we weave: the public sphere on the internet
I agree that finding an actual public sphere in today’s society is a difficult. But I see the greatest opportunity in the internet’s capacity to be used as a public sphere. There are, of course, many challenges involved with making the internet “actively sustainable and made available to citizens in meaningful ways,” but I see the internet as the venue with the most potential out of all the options in today’s society.
Weisser revealed the ideology behind the public sphere from Habermas to Negt/Kluge to Fraser, but it was Fraser’s exploration of the impact of race, class and gender on the sphere piqued my interest. Can the internet be an “equalizer”? Is the digital divide narrowing enough to become a public sphere?
The concept of “public” vs “private” can be blurred online. Sometimes I think it is blurred too much if you consider the fact that many use blogs as their personal diaries and reveal things that don’t really relate to “common good” or even good taste or common sense.
The analysis of the role/function of newspapers and letters to the editors is also an area I’d like to further explore. I’ve seen the community dialogue that was once articulate letters become nearly indecipherable comments posted on websites (examples: visit www.cincinnati.com and view the responses to articles on politics). However, the discussion has opened the discussion to many who would never have seen their names in print (even if now it’s just a screen name on a webpage).
For better or worse, people don’t espouse their views on street corners (soapbox concept) anymore – this discourse has been relegated to the internet.
A public sphere? My gut still goes back to the whole internet thing, especially the idea behind blogging. I, myself, do not blog (well, except for here, lol), but I do think that that is probably the closest format to a true “public sphere” that we can come to. I understand Ward’s concerns with it, but I am hard-pressed to find this “ideal” spot. However, I think I may have come up with a couple random choices.
The first one comes after watching the Miami students protest the president’s house because of the power outage (I’m referring to Miami University up in Oxford). Could an argument be made that when a protest is formed, that a pretty decent “public sphere” is generated. The conflict of ideas is automatically there, and usually the democratic values are either “being upheld” or struggling to be made visible. So instead of trying to target a specific spot or place to say, “Here, here is the public sphere,” I wonder if it is more of a transient location that appears and then disappears?
My second idea is much more simple and commonplace. I thought, “Where can people go, from all walks of life, and share ideas, viewpoints and arguments about a vast number of things. What about a bar?” I know this excludes those who do not drink, but what if by “bar” I also meant the counter seating of restaurants? Sure, originally I thought of the bar at a local watering hole, but then I thought – what about the counter at like Bob Evans in the morning? Or Frisch’s? Sitting there usually places the individuals in a context to talk to others. You are not automatically joined by any common viewpoints (except hunger), but I think it does create this “public” forum for discourse.
Now, I will admit that such places may not lead to the most scholarly of discussions or discourse, but those were some of the ideas I had. I am interested in seeing what others have come up with.
I think rabe is right the counters at restaurants (and bars) create a public sphere. With the power outages everywhere, every place I went into people were talking about whether or not they had power, what the power companies told them, comparing notes on their experiences. This goes back to the need to connect with other people. We get so busy with our lives that we don’t always make time to communicate with those around us. But with nothing else operational, people immediately began talking to one another as they stood in line at the grocery store or waited for a table. I think he makes an excellent point & one that never occurred to me.
I believe there are public spheres that carry some, but not all, of the criteria described in the text. They have some validity since Weisser concedes that there is no thorough definition of the public sphere, that it is still an abstract concept. After all, if we don’t have an agreed definition, can we really use it as a standard? Until I read chapter 2, I was under the impression City Council is a public forum of sorts but now I’m not so sure. There are recurring scheduled meetings where the public can come and express opinion pertaining to community concerns and live broadcasts are now available on public access networks. Meetings fall within Habermas’ “general interest and common good” and are of common concern. On the other hand, Weisser says the public sphere is distinct from the state, so this may discount local council meetings. That being said, it is democracy in action where public discourse takes place.
While researching for our upcoming assignment earlier this week, I came across what I believe falls under public sphere activity. Members of the rural community in Lansing, Iowa, embarked on a public writing project and the collaboration developed into a general problem-solving forum for the community. So yes, there are some out there, though small in numbers.
I believe technology and especially the Internet will play a major role in the next wave of public dialogue. Newspaper circulation is in the decline (as workers at the now defunct Kentucky Post will attest to), while on-line format continues to gain momentum and is rapidly staking its’ claim as the communication of the new millennium. Not only will it go some way toward alleviating Nancy Fraser’s concerns regarding access, it is neutral ground that provides anonymity (if one chooses) in the realms gender, race and class. I believe we will develop more dialogue exchange in forums that will evolve beyond Wikipedia, My Space, blogs, etc. because we haven’t completely tapped the capability of this tool yet.
I too have at first thought the idea that no real public sphere currently exists today. But, as social interaction and open-mindedness seem to spread, I believe that many places could be deemed 'mini spheres.' I do not however, think that one single place (in todays sociecty anyway) could take on all the characteristics of what a true public sphere is.
Mentioned frequently is the internet, which I believe to be a good example of this mini sphere. The internet gives all with access to it a voice, and a voice without judgement on anything but what is offered. People who have not been able to openly express themselves or have a 'real say' in issues concerning them are afforded the opportunity through the internet.
Many people have chosen to take this priviladge and create things (such as online journals, websites, etc.) to reach out to people. Not only on day-to-day issues but political 'meaningful' issues as well. This covers a wide range of what all the theorists believe a public sphere is and should be made up of, and accomplish.
But, I think it could be argued that the internet is really only reaching those who want to be involved. It is not somehow broadcast to everyone, it is available for those who seek the information. As far as the internet providing people with an opportunity to express themselves without any stigmas, it does. But as far as having a real impact on democratic issues, I think that is up for debate.
I’m going to go with the negative on this topic and say that there aren’t any truly all-encompassing public spheres active today, though I do agree with Melissa’s idea of mini-spheres. I’ll go one further though and say that I’m not convinced that there has ever in history been a public sphere that wasn’t exclusionary of a large swathe of the population.
Part of it, for me, it comes back to economics. There will always be have’s and have-not’s. The internet cannot be a truly public sphere because you exclude by default those who cannot afford to purchase computers. The letters-to-the-editor venue has to be excluded because you exclude those who cannot afford the paper to begin with or the ink and pen with which to write their letters. These are obviously just unavoidable first-principles and I think are just modally necessary.
But I don’t think that that precludes in any way the viability or usefulness of forums that are proven to be exclusive to some percentage or portion of a population or historical period. There is a far cry between escorting street urchins from coffee houses in 18th Century London while discourse was going on and the state of the so-called ‘blogosphere’ of the 21st Century.
I think that the internet is self-conscientiously aware that it is exclusive by its very nature and because of that blogs are a very good forum for creating the illusion that your voice is being heard in a way that matters. Ultimately though, publishing your own blog that deals with large national issues is really akin to just another voice in the screaming mob. On the other hand though, when geared toward smaller, local issues though, the internet can be a very precise tool that I think can lead to change.
I think that social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, etc., are examples of “public spheres” for community discourse. The purpose of these sites is to build “communities” online for those who want to share their interests, thoughts, photos, and activities, and view those of others. Social networking on the internet has become a powerful way to communicate and share ideas and information. Millions of people all around the world use these sites and it seems they have become a regular part of everyday life. There are applications within these sites to form “groups” to which users can join. There topics of these groups vary widely, but there are many that exist for furthering social and political causes. Members of these groups discuss their issues and topics separately from their personal pages and, in a sense, these groups become “public spheres” for discourse. Social networking sites also allow people to upload videos and hold discussions in forums. These are all portals for public discussion and I think they are redefining the way people interact with one another.
There are also many websites that are adapting the social networking model for social causes. According to Wikipedia, “such models may be highly successful for connecting otherwise fragmented industries and small organizations without the resources to reach a broader audience with interested and passionate users.” One of these websites – SixDegrees.org – was created by Kevin Bacon and its purpose is to inspire online giving to charities through a social network. People like to feel like they are a part of a community and these networking sights give users the opportunity to interact with like-minded people who are passionate about certain issues.
I would have to say that public spheres exist in different ideological arenas. If we go by Susan Wells theories wherein she uses Habermas’s cultural theories to account for the public sphere as a “discursive domain where private individuals assemble to debate matter of public matters” then there are instances of public spheres. These of course are not “true” public spheres in the sense that they give a voice to persons of every race, ethnicity, social, gender or economic set, but rather exist within each of their own groups. For instance, groups like the Sierra Club. It is for people who have interest in ecology and conservationism. There are national, state and local chapters, members, officers, and meetings are held to discuss common concerns of “that club.” They ask people to volunteer their houses or properties for meetings, and discussions are very much a part of the group. I would say that everyone is given the opportunity to voice an opinion or ask questions and in that way it is equal. They raise funds to lobby for environmental causes so their voices will be heard in the political arena. Of course, there is a membership fee, and while it’s not expensive and discounts are offered to students and seniors, it could exclude someone who doesn’t have the money, but meetings are also opened up to anyone at times. As in any situation, there are some people who speak more than others and I have witnessed in most groups what Wells sites from contemporary feminist research that “in mixed sex deliberations men tend to interrupt women more than women interrupt men, men also tend to speak more…” But due to personality traits and most people’s dislike for public speaking, sometimes people just don’t want to speak up. They go to be informed and supportive of a cause that is shared with others in the group. So it is a public sphere of sorts, seated in a common interest.
The same would be true of college organizations. They are a place to be heard by your peers but not everyone has the means or inclination to attend college, so in that way they are not “true public spheres.” But most often, people of the same ideologies join the same kind of groups. So how do you break that barrier? I think the “exclusions” that Fraser discusses as problematic in 17-18 century are still present today. For all the “discourse” and supposed laws prohibiting sexism, racism, ageism and all the other isms, they still exist and “propertied, (or wealthy) white males” are still ruling the roost.
Another problem I see with the discussion of public spheres is that not everyone cares about the issues that are discussed. Those with no regard for the environment, even if caring for it is in their best interest, probably wouldn’t want to attend the above mentioned gatherings. That’s going to be true of any gathering. Not everyone is interested in everything so there will never be a total representation of all peoples. You can offer meetings “open to the public” but if persons of the “public” aren’t interested in participating, short of forced participation, you’ll never have complete representation of all peoples. Weisser says he uses the term “public sphere to stand for the concept of the public sphere, not for any existing site or sites,” and he argues that “discourse has and continues to occur,” but admits that he sees “the brunt of these discussions surrounding this topic as dealing with public the public sphere as theoretical abstraction.” So public spheres, as pseudo public spheres can exist.
From the readings, I tend to lean more toward Fraser’s theory of what “public” means. She contends that “arrangements that accommodate contestation among a plurality of competing publics better promote the ideal of participatory parity than does a single, comprehensive, overarching public”.We all know that the U.S. is a melting pot of different cultures, ethnicities, etc. But in addition to that our society places an enormous emphasis on being an individual, therefore most people strive to identify themselves independently from anyone else. Due to this, it seems that there would not be a logical way to accommodate everyone with one public sphere. What one person finds important and feels the need to discuss is obviously going to be different from what the next person feels compelled to discuss. Neither does the public sphere have to be some grand institution. Weisser asserts that public writing does not have to reach large and diverse audiences for it to make an impact. With that in mind I believe that the Internet could definitely be considered a viable public sphere. What makes this a public sphere is that many people have access to the internet, and you can post whatever you want on there. So the internet is a great vehicle where people of all different backgrounds, representing vastly different interests, could share information, information that could ultimately lead to social change. The classroom itself could be considered a current public sphere. Courses for instance, that include service learning opportunities certainly aim to bring people together for the sake of analyzing and discussing democratic values while simultaneously putting the discussions and skills learned inside the classroom to use within the community. The internet and the classroom are just two examples of what could constitute a public sphere, and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with the number of people it reaches, only the fact that people have the ability to come together. Really if you think about it, any place where people can gather and discuss issues relevant to their particular interests, could be considered a public sphere.
One of the first places I considered for locating the public sphere was the internet, but I quickly realized that not everyone has equal access to it, let alone the ability to utilize as effectively as others. Further, most of those with limited (or no) access or utilization skills are likely those more economically disadvantaged. So, I clearly think that the internet is, in general, not the place we’re looking for.
I then wondered about our little blog here. If each of us has equal access, we would seem to have equal opportunity to express our thoughts here. (Of course, I had that thought before I was without electric for three days.) Even though it (internet access) is one of the “requirements” for taking classes, I suspect that the privacy and solitude I have in my little office may be better suited for what we’re doing here than many others who share a computer and internet hookup with family, often (if you’re smart parents) in a public space in the house.
But something kept sticking with me in trying to force this blog into being a “mini public sphere,” again, assuming we all have equal access. I had to hunt to find where Weisser quotes Negt & Kluge in saying that “the public sphere has no homogenous substance whatsoever” and then used the phrase “modes of social experience” in lieu of public sphere referring to Nancy Fraser’s concept (p77).
If a public sphere can exist only as an abstract or ideal, then what we may need to be looking for is the next best thing. Certainly, I agree that in the classroom we run into difficulties—some of us express themselves boldly whole others are resistant to speak at all—so this blog (small as it may be) may be the closest we can get to the ideal. We all have the opportunity to speak (and not be marginalized).
I whole heartedly agree with Anna who indicated that technology widens the public sphere. There is an ethical perspective that can be applied to this issue. The more the public sphere opens, the more literacy becomes important to society in the areas of critical thinking evaluations, information processing abilities, fact finding, and communication skills. All of which must be taught by competent rhetoreticians, action researchers, and communicators.
Aimem makes an important observation by noting that the court system does not always work. It definitely misfires much too frequently. However, systematic errors or biases that result in social injustice are more likely to be corrected if citizens engage in on-going debates that promote awareness and solution proposals. This type of healthy discourse, is of course contigent on the public being literate.
Jason says he is negative on this subject. Likewise, I have problems with the concept of "political correctness" or the literacy of what one should or should not say in the public sphere. I believe that political correctness messes with "free speech." Furthermore, if people have anti-social or destructive ideas, I'll never know how to guard myself against them, if they don't say what they are thinking where I can hear it. Anyway, who decides what is correct?
I honestly don't believe that society is as sympathetic to the concept of free public speech and intellectual exchanges today, as it was in the post World War II and 1960s eras. I often get the impression that I annoy people with my "in your face" spoken style. That's not my intent (smile). Such a mode of expression has always created mixed reactions, but is less acceptable in 2008, why? Whatever happened to guts, passion, and meaning? The internet and talk radio are the primary public spheres today and they definitely reflect the "it takes all kinds" perception of the world.
Many of us identified the growing influence of the Internet as a forum of sorts for public discourse. I was interested in Rabe’s comments on the transient nature / location of the “public sphere.” The Miami University group may not form again, unless there is another power outage or some other hardship that precipitates a public sphere on a needs basis. Does this imply there may be a fluid quality to it? Negt and Kulge say we must not limit our discussions to a single conception of public sphere but to envision it in a variety of overlapping, often contending areas.
We don’t have consensus yet on what a public sphere is, but plenty of examples of what it is not. With the growing interest in service-learning, a clearer understanding can’t be far behind.
Post a Comment