scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society

About: This article is published in Quarterly Journal of Speech.The article was published on 1991-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 4902 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Public sphere.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Archon Fung1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors develop a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation, including who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action.
Abstract: The multifaceted challenges of contemporary governance demand a complex account of the ways in which those who are subject to laws and policies should participate in making them. This article develops a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation. Mechanisms of participation vary along three important dimensions: who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. These three dimensions constitute a space in which any particular mechanism of participation can be located. Different regions of this institutional design space are more and less suited to addressing important problems of democratic governance such as legitimacy, justice, and effective administration.

1,526 citations

Book ChapterDOI
10 Sep 2010
TL;DR: Ito et al. as discussed by the authors argue that publics can be reactors, re-makers and re-distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception.
Abstract: Networked publics must be understood in terms of “publics,” a contested and messy term with multiple meanings that is used across different disciplines to signal different concepts. One approach is to construct “public” as a collection of people who share “a common understanding of the world, a shared identity, a claim to inclusiveness, a consensus regarding the collective interest” (Livingstone, 2005, p. 9). In this sense, a public may refer to a local collection of people (e.g., one’s peers) or a much broader collection of people (e.g., members of a nation-state). Those invested in the civic functioning of publics often concern themselves with the potential accessibility of spaces and information to wide audiences-“the public”—and the creation of a shared “public sphere” (Habermas, 1991). Yet, as Benedict Anderson (2006) argues, the notion of a public is in many ways an “imagined community.” Some scholars contend that there is no single public, but many publics to which some people are included and others excluded (Warner, 2002). Cultural and media studies offer a different perspective on the notion of what constitutes a public. In locating the term “public” as synonymous with “audience,” Sonia Livingstone (2005) uses the term to refer to a group bounded by a shared text, whether a worldview or a performance. The audience produced by media is often by its very nature a public, but not necessarily a passive one. For example, Michel de Certeau (2002) argues that consumption and production of cultural objects are intimately connected, and Henry Jenkins (2006) applies these ideas to the creation and dissemination of media. Mizuko Ito extends this line of thinking to argue that “publics can bereactors, (re)makers and (re)distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception” (Ito, 2008, p. 3). It is precisely this use of public that upsets political theorists like Jurgen Habermas, who challenge the legitimacy of any depoliticized public preoccupied “with consumption of culture” (Habermas, 1991, p. 177). Of course, not all political scholars agree with Habermas’ objection to the cultural significance of publics. Feminist scholar Nancy Fraser argues that publics are not only a site of discourse and opinion but “arenas for the formation and enactment of social identities” (Fraser, 1992), while Craig Calhoun argues that one of Habermas’ weaknesses is his naive view that “identities and interests [are] settled within the private world and then brought fully formed into the public sphere” (Calhoun, 1992, p. 35). Networked publics exist against this backdrop. Mizuko Ito introduces the notion of networked publics to “reference a linked set of social, cultural, and technological developments that have accompanied the growing engagement with digitally networked media” (Ito, 2008, p. 2). Ito emphasizes the networked media, but I believe we must also focus on the ways in which this shapes publics-both in terms of space and collectives. In short, I contend that networked publics are publics that are restructured by networked technologies; they are simultaneously a space and a collection of people. In bringing forth the notion of networked publics, I am not seeking to resolve the different discursive threads around the notion of publics. My approach accepts the messiness and, instead, focuses on the ways in which networked technologies extend and complicate publics in all of their forms. What distinguishes networked publics from other types of publics is their underlying structure. Networked technologies reorganize how information flows and how people interact with information and each other. In essence, the architecture of networked publics differentiates them from more traditional notions of publics.

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)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For instance, this article pointed out that people have become increasingly detached from overarching institutions such as public schools, political parties, and civic groups, which at one time provided a shared context for receiving and interpreting messages.
Abstract: The great thinkers who influenced the contemporary field of political communication were preoccupied with understanding the political, social, psychological, and economic transformations in modern industrial society. But societies have changed so dramatically since the time of these landmark contributions that one must question the continuing relevance of paradigms drawn from them. To cite but a few examples, people have become increasingly detached from overarching institutions such as public schools, political parties, and civic groups, which at one time provided a shared context for receiving and interpreting messages. What are the implications of this detachment on how people respond to media messages? Information channels have proliferated and simultaneously become more individualized. Is it still relevant to conceive of ‘‘mass media’’ or has that concept been made obsolete by audience fragmentation and isolation from the public sphere? Does this new environment foreshadow a return to a time of minimal effects? If we are looking at a new minimal effects era, how can we distinguish it from the last such period? Retracing some of the intellectual origins of the field may help us identify the fundamental changes in society and communication technologies that are affecting the composition of audiences, the delivery of information, and the experience of politics itself. In particular, we are concerned with the growing disjuncture between the prevailing research strategies and the sociotechnological context of political communication, which may give rise to unproductive battles over findings (Donsbach, 2006). To the extent that research paradigms fail to reflect prevailing social and technological patterns, the validity of results will be in serious question. Consider just one case in point: the famous earlier era of ‘‘minimal effects’’ that emerged from studies done in the 1940s and early 1950s (Klapper, 1960). The underlying context for this scholarship consisted of a premass communication media system and relatively dense memberships in a group-based society networked through political parties, churches, unions, and service organizations (Putnam, 2000). At this time, scholars concluded that media messages were filtered through social reference processes as described in the two-step flow model proposed by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955; Bennett & Manheim, 2006). Although the classic study by Lang

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....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The internet and its surrounding technologies hold the promise of reviving the public sphere; however, several aspects of these new technologies simultaneously curtail and augment that potential as discussed by the authors, and it is possible that internet-based technologies will adapt themselves to the current political culture, rather than create a new one.
Abstract: The internet and its surrounding technologies hold the promise of reviving the public sphere; however, several aspects of these new technologies simultaneously curtail and augment that potential. First, the data storage and retrieval capabilities of internet-based technologies infuse political discussion with information otherwise unavailable. At the same time, information access inequalities and new media literacy compromise the representativeness of the virtual sphere. Second, internet-based technologies enable discussion between people on far sides of the globe, but also frequently fragmentize political discourse. Third, given the patterns of global capitalism, it is possible that internet-based technologies will adapt themselves to the current political culture, rather than create a new one. The internet and related technologies have created a new public space for politically oriented conversation; whether this public space transcends to a public sphere is not up to the technology itself.

1,159 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard's vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy.
Abstract: The proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the road for a democratic utopia. This article explores the potential for civil discourse in cyberspace by examining the level of civility in 287 discussion threads in political newsgroups. While scholars often use civility and politeness interchangeably, this study argues that this conflation ignores the democratic merit of robust and heated discussion. Therefore, civility was defined in a broader sense, by identifying as civil behaviors that enhance democratic conversation. In support of this distinction, the study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and further suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard’s vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy (Lyotard, 1984). Thus, this study supported the internet’s potential to revive the public s...

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
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Archon Fung1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors develop a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation, including who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action.
Abstract: The multifaceted challenges of contemporary governance demand a complex account of the ways in which those who are subject to laws and policies should participate in making them. This article develops a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation. Mechanisms of participation vary along three important dimensions: who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. These three dimensions constitute a space in which any particular mechanism of participation can be located. Different regions of this institutional design space are more and less suited to addressing important problems of democratic governance such as legitimacy, justice, and effective administration.

1,526 citations

Book ChapterDOI
10 Sep 2010
TL;DR: Ito et al. as discussed by the authors argue that publics can be reactors, re-makers and re-distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception.
Abstract: Networked publics must be understood in terms of “publics,” a contested and messy term with multiple meanings that is used across different disciplines to signal different concepts. One approach is to construct “public” as a collection of people who share “a common understanding of the world, a shared identity, a claim to inclusiveness, a consensus regarding the collective interest” (Livingstone, 2005, p. 9). In this sense, a public may refer to a local collection of people (e.g., one’s peers) or a much broader collection of people (e.g., members of a nation-state). Those invested in the civic functioning of publics often concern themselves with the potential accessibility of spaces and information to wide audiences-“the public”—and the creation of a shared “public sphere” (Habermas, 1991). Yet, as Benedict Anderson (2006) argues, the notion of a public is in many ways an “imagined community.” Some scholars contend that there is no single public, but many publics to which some people are included and others excluded (Warner, 2002). Cultural and media studies offer a different perspective on the notion of what constitutes a public. In locating the term “public” as synonymous with “audience,” Sonia Livingstone (2005) uses the term to refer to a group bounded by a shared text, whether a worldview or a performance. The audience produced by media is often by its very nature a public, but not necessarily a passive one. For example, Michel de Certeau (2002) argues that consumption and production of cultural objects are intimately connected, and Henry Jenkins (2006) applies these ideas to the creation and dissemination of media. Mizuko Ito extends this line of thinking to argue that “publics can bereactors, (re)makers and (re)distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception” (Ito, 2008, p. 3). It is precisely this use of public that upsets political theorists like Jurgen Habermas, who challenge the legitimacy of any depoliticized public preoccupied “with consumption of culture” (Habermas, 1991, p. 177). Of course, not all political scholars agree with Habermas’ objection to the cultural significance of publics. Feminist scholar Nancy Fraser argues that publics are not only a site of discourse and opinion but “arenas for the formation and enactment of social identities” (Fraser, 1992), while Craig Calhoun argues that one of Habermas’ weaknesses is his naive view that “identities and interests [are] settled within the private world and then brought fully formed into the public sphere” (Calhoun, 1992, p. 35). Networked publics exist against this backdrop. Mizuko Ito introduces the notion of networked publics to “reference a linked set of social, cultural, and technological developments that have accompanied the growing engagement with digitally networked media” (Ito, 2008, p. 2). Ito emphasizes the networked media, but I believe we must also focus on the ways in which this shapes publics-both in terms of space and collectives. In short, I contend that networked publics are publics that are restructured by networked technologies; they are simultaneously a space and a collection of people. In bringing forth the notion of networked publics, I am not seeking to resolve the different discursive threads around the notion of publics. My approach accepts the messiness and, instead, focuses on the ways in which networked technologies extend and complicate publics in all of their forms. What distinguishes networked publics from other types of publics is their underlying structure. Networked technologies reorganize how information flows and how people interact with information and each other. In essence, the architecture of networked publics differentiates them from more traditional notions of publics.

1,276 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For instance, this article pointed out that people have become increasingly detached from overarching institutions such as public schools, political parties, and civic groups, which at one time provided a shared context for receiving and interpreting messages.
Abstract: The great thinkers who influenced the contemporary field of political communication were preoccupied with understanding the political, social, psychological, and economic transformations in modern industrial society. But societies have changed so dramatically since the time of these landmark contributions that one must question the continuing relevance of paradigms drawn from them. To cite but a few examples, people have become increasingly detached from overarching institutions such as public schools, political parties, and civic groups, which at one time provided a shared context for receiving and interpreting messages. What are the implications of this detachment on how people respond to media messages? Information channels have proliferated and simultaneously become more individualized. Is it still relevant to conceive of ‘‘mass media’’ or has that concept been made obsolete by audience fragmentation and isolation from the public sphere? Does this new environment foreshadow a return to a time of minimal effects? If we are looking at a new minimal effects era, how can we distinguish it from the last such period? Retracing some of the intellectual origins of the field may help us identify the fundamental changes in society and communication technologies that are affecting the composition of audiences, the delivery of information, and the experience of politics itself. In particular, we are concerned with the growing disjuncture between the prevailing research strategies and the sociotechnological context of political communication, which may give rise to unproductive battles over findings (Donsbach, 2006). To the extent that research paradigms fail to reflect prevailing social and technological patterns, the validity of results will be in serious question. Consider just one case in point: the famous earlier era of ‘‘minimal effects’’ that emerged from studies done in the 1940s and early 1950s (Klapper, 1960). The underlying context for this scholarship consisted of a premass communication media system and relatively dense memberships in a group-based society networked through political parties, churches, unions, and service organizations (Putnam, 2000). At this time, scholars concluded that media messages were filtered through social reference processes as described in the two-step flow model proposed by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955; Bennett & Manheim, 2006). Although the classic study by Lang

1,209 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The internet and its surrounding technologies hold the promise of reviving the public sphere; however, several aspects of these new technologies simultaneously curtail and augment that potential as discussed by the authors, and it is possible that internet-based technologies will adapt themselves to the current political culture, rather than create a new one.
Abstract: The internet and its surrounding technologies hold the promise of reviving the public sphere; however, several aspects of these new technologies simultaneously curtail and augment that potential. First, the data storage and retrieval capabilities of internet-based technologies infuse political discussion with information otherwise unavailable. At the same time, information access inequalities and new media literacy compromise the representativeness of the virtual sphere. Second, internet-based technologies enable discussion between people on far sides of the globe, but also frequently fragmentize political discourse. Third, given the patterns of global capitalism, it is possible that internet-based technologies will adapt themselves to the current political culture, rather than create a new one. The internet and related technologies have created a new public space for politically oriented conversation; whether this public space transcends to a public sphere is not up to the technology itself.

1,159 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard's vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy.
Abstract: The proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the road for a democratic utopia. This article explores the potential for civil discourse in cyberspace by examining the level of civility in 287 discussion threads in political newsgroups. While scholars often use civility and politeness interchangeably, this study argues that this conflation ignores the democratic merit of robust and heated discussion. Therefore, civility was defined in a broader sense, by identifying as civil behaviors that enhance democratic conversation. In support of this distinction, the study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and further suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard’s vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy (Lyotard, 1984). Thus, this study supported the internet’s potential to revive the public s...

897 citations