The New Public Sphere
Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Anonymous
Habermas believed to have a true democracy you need to have a public sphere of political debate. Where anyone of any age, sex, race and socio-economic background was free to debate in a arena free from the personal/private matters.
Most now agree that this is impossible. Habermas based his ideals on models that themselves didn't fit his Public Sphere ideal. The Athenians, first to have a public sphere in the form of assemblies, allowed only men and not slaves to participate. Later, the print informed bougeouis culture of the 1800's, another reference for Habermas, was seen as exclusive to the middle-class due to financial and class differences.
While these problems have been identified, it is still agreed that a form of Habermas' ideal public sphere is a goal to aim for in a demoractic society. Only problem is, with populations sprawling from one side of the country to the next, the place for such a debate is physically impossible to establish. From the late 19th century, the media was tasked with facilitating this public sphere, and things like the TVNZ charter came about, along with letters to the editor and later, interactive content like text, phone and email in. Only problem was, most of the time, the communication was one way, not a debate. Even texts, phone calls, and emails in were screened for approprateness and entertainment factors. Clearly, it was not freely accessed by all. But this was considered the best we could get, until Facebook.
Facebook has but one limit - you must have and email address, and by extension, a computer with internet, not a large problem in the majority of 1st world countries, like NZ.
On Facebook, through personal Walls, News Feeds, Groups and Event Planners, messages can be spread, updated and debated by any member and members can be quickly mobilized to act.
The popularity of Facebook has seen all manner of politicans create a page and membership, from John Key to UN member Helen Clark. The Public Sphere then, going beyond Habermas' ideal by allowing direct debate with the heads of state politics without screening or discrimination.
Certainly there are holes, particularly the combining of the private and public on Facebook. But there remains no doubt in my mind that the new form of the public sphere has arrived in the shape of Facebook.
Most now agree that this is impossible. Habermas based his ideals on models that themselves didn't fit his Public Sphere ideal. The Athenians, first to have a public sphere in the form of assemblies, allowed only men and not slaves to participate. Later, the print informed bougeouis culture of the 1800's, another reference for Habermas, was seen as exclusive to the middle-class due to financial and class differences.
While these problems have been identified, it is still agreed that a form of Habermas' ideal public sphere is a goal to aim for in a demoractic society. Only problem is, with populations sprawling from one side of the country to the next, the place for such a debate is physically impossible to establish. From the late 19th century, the media was tasked with facilitating this public sphere, and things like the TVNZ charter came about, along with letters to the editor and later, interactive content like text, phone and email in. Only problem was, most of the time, the communication was one way, not a debate. Even texts, phone calls, and emails in were screened for approprateness and entertainment factors. Clearly, it was not freely accessed by all. But this was considered the best we could get, until Facebook.
Facebook has but one limit - you must have and email address, and by extension, a computer with internet, not a large problem in the majority of 1st world countries, like NZ.
On Facebook, through personal Walls, News Feeds, Groups and Event Planners, messages can be spread, updated and debated by any member and members can be quickly mobilized to act.
The popularity of Facebook has seen all manner of politicans create a page and membership, from John Key to UN member Helen Clark. The Public Sphere then, going beyond Habermas' ideal by allowing direct debate with the heads of state politics without screening or discrimination.
Certainly there are holes, particularly the combining of the private and public on Facebook. But there remains no doubt in my mind that the new form of the public sphere has arrived in the shape of Facebook.