The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society
Citations
1,526 citations
1,276 citations
Cites background from "The Structural Transformation of th..."
...Habermas's frustration with broadcast media was rooted in the ways that broadcast media was, in his mind, scaling the wrong kinds of content (Habermas, 1991)....
[...]
1,209 citations
Cites background from "The Structural Transformation of th..."
...…International Communication Association tradition (Horkheimer, 1937) incorporated theoretical elements of Marx and Freud and runs more recently through the work of Habermas (1989), whose theories of the public sphere have influenced more critical wings of political communication and media studies....
[...]
1,159 citations
897 citations
Cites background from "The Structural Transformation of th..."
...The unique nature of internet discussion, and its ability to transform the political environment into something reminiscent of, but radically different from, Habermas’s vision of the public sphere is extensively detailed by Poster (1997). Poster contended that rational argument, suggestive of a public sphere, can rarely prevail and that consensus is not possible online, specifically because it is an environment in which identity is defined very differently. Because identities are fluid and mobile online, the conditions which encourage compromise are lacking in virtual discourse. Dissent is encouraged and status markers are absent. Poster concluded that the internet actually decentralizes communication, but ultimately enhances democracy. Hacker and van Dijk (2000) agreed that the public sphere should be seen as a plural and decentered entity, in which conflict rather than rational accord plays a key part....
[...]
...The unique nature of internet discussion, and its ability to transform the political environment into something reminiscent of, but radically different from, Habermas’s vision of the public sphere is extensively detailed by Poster (1997). Poster contended that rational argument, suggestive of a public sphere, can rarely prevail and that consensus is not possible online, specifically because it is an environment in which identity is defined very differently. Because identities are fluid and mobile online, the conditions which encourage compromise are lacking in virtual discourse. Dissent is encouraged and status markers are absent. Poster concluded that the internet actually decentralizes communication, but ultimately enhances democracy. Hacker and van Dijk (2000) agreed that the public sphere should be seen as a plural and decentered entity, in which conflict rather than rational accord plays a key part. Net-related technologies certainly bear the potential of enhancing direct democracy models, but possess limited power within the representative models that are in place in most modern democracies. A commercial or public orientation influences how media, including the internet, are employed within democracies, and the extent to which they can promote civic concerns and lively discussion or simply reinforce the status quo. As Sassi (2000) pointed out, governments are not neutral parties, despite the growing degree to which the autonomous and uncontrolled nature of the internet is celebrated....
[...]
...The unique nature of internet discussion, and its ability to transform the political environment into something reminiscent of, but radically different from, Habermas’s vision of the public sphere is extensively detailed by Poster (1997). Poster contended that rational argument, suggestive of a public sphere, can rarely prevail and that consensus is not possible online, specifically because it is an environment in which identity is defined very differently....
[...]
...Habermas (1989, 1991) and fellow proponents of the public sphere value well-behaved and rational discussion; in their vision, logic and reason promote discourse and should guide a democratic society....
[...]
...The unique nature of internet discussion, and its ability to transform the political environment into something reminiscent of, but radically different from, Habermas’s vision of the public sphere is extensively detailed by Poster (1997). Poster contended that rational argument, suggestive of a public sphere, can rarely prevail and that consensus is not possible online, specifically because it is an environment in which identity is defined very differently. Because identities are fluid and mobile online, the conditions which encourage compromise are lacking in virtual discourse. Dissent is encouraged and status markers are absent. Poster concluded that the internet actually decentralizes communication, but ultimately enhances democracy. Hacker and van Dijk (2000) agreed that the public sphere should be seen as a plural and decentered entity, in which conflict rather than rational accord plays a key part. Net-related technologies certainly bear the potential of enhancing direct democracy models, but possess limited power within the representative models that are in place in most modern democracies. A commercial or public orientation influences how media, including the internet, are employed within democracies, and the extent to which they can promote civic concerns and lively discussion or simply reinforce the status quo. As Sassi (2000) pointed out, governments are not neutral parties, despite the growing degree to which the autonomous and uncontrolled nature of the internet is celebrated. Even though the internet bears the potential of unifying several fragmented public spheres on issues shared by all, Keane (2000) views the internet as most promising for the growth of macro-public spheres, or public spheres that connect citizens on a global or regional level, and aptly notes the presence of users who treat the medium not as surfing travelers, but rather as citizens who generate controversies about matters of power and principle....
[...]
References
1,526 citations
1,276 citations
1,209 citations
1,159 citations
897 citations