Boeder - 6 views
-
Habermas
-
alperin on 21 Nov 11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structural_Transformation_of_the_Public_Sphere
-
-
Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit
-
yet their format effectively prevents interaction and deprives the public of the opportunity to say something and to disagree
-
i'm confused as to how electronic mass media prevents interaction. I guess its in comparison to meeting in the salons?
-
from Habermas view, the way that more people were influenced by radio, print, and the nascent television culture by a few who controlled the programming, combined with the emerging craft of public relations, with all the transmission of information going one-way from the few to the many. Habermas might see the #OWS as more akin to the salons -- the part where people engage in rational critical debate about the issues that effect their lives. But what Habermas didn't count on and personally refused to answer to me was the effect of Internet-based media on the public sphere. If he has a clue, he isn't talking. And I suspect that he lacks a clue. He once said that he doubted real discourse could happen in "a series of chat rooms." I've learned over the years that "series of chat rooms" is a signal that the person expressing an opinion about social media actually knows next to nothing about the subject. More interesting might be what Adorno and Horkheimer had to say.
-
- ...40 more annotations...
-
advertising
-
the media serve as vehicles for generating and managing consensus and promoting capitalist culture rather than fulfill their original function as organs of public debate
-
arguments are transmuted into symbols to which one cannot respond by arguing but only by identifying with them.
-
-
I agree that it is difficult to have true debates with electronic media when it is ultimately controlled by someone else. How much freedom can you have when the tools you are using are monitored? But I think social media plays a large role in organizing people to participate in the real world public sphere. -
-
That's interesting. Who are those using the Internet? What do they want to use Internet for? What can they achieve?
-
-
critical publicity distinct from the state and the economy
-
"critical theory"
-
If you're curious about Critical Theory, there is a course offered next term: http://cl.ly/Byxe . Its called Critical Pedagogy, but it will be a great introduction to critical theory.
-
-
cooperation rather than competition
-
Mitchell Stephens
-
-
-
I should add that Habermas is still writing and publishing, including on issues of around media: Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x/full
-
-
The prospect of the technical capabilities of a near–ubiquitous high–bandwidth Net in the hands of a small number of commercial interests has dire political implications. Whoever gains the political edge on this technology will be able to use the technology to consolidate power.
-
"the Internet is dominated by white, well off, English speaking, educated males, most of whom are USA citizens,"
-
I don't have recent numbers, but this has changed significantly since 1996. Although there is still an imbalance, I am sure the demographic that has access is not as easy to define as it was in the mid-90s
-
I found this link - it seems the majority of internet users are in Asia. I wondered why I don't come across more Chinese sites. Perhaps it's because I don't seek them out particularly being an English speaker. But maybe it's not really the users that are important. I might argue that it's the producers of content that are highly affecting the discourse online and the demographics described here are fairly accurate. It's one thing to have access to the internet and be a consumer of content, but another to have the time, energy and be educated enough to contribute in meaningful ways.
-
-
-
I once asked the head of Google Scholar about adding a 'language' feature on the search. He replied: "can you think of an example where your search does not define the language you want results in?" ... i.e. if you searched for chinese words, you'd get chinese results.
-
Language could be a barrier to forming "one" Internet that involves all participants in the world. Otherwise we are unable to communicate effectively.
-
-
"What public relations does, in entering public debate, is to disguise the interests it represents — cloaking them in appeals such as ‘public welfare’ and the ‘national interest’ — thus making contemporary debate a faked version"
-
-
the media are the public sphere
-
-
Not completely, although this might change after our class when we talk about the definition of public sphere. I think the public sphere is free of the political influence that can be found in popular media, but media does drive topics of debate in the public sphere and can be a forum for discussion. But my feeling is that conversations in the public sphere lead to political action and I'm not sure that is congruent with media that is influenced by political parties
-
-
-
Given that this article was published in 2005, I am surprised by the inclusion of this outdated notion. Does the author think its accurate? Did the reviewers also?
-
-
-
This reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's End of History. Somehow supposes that liberal democracy is the best form of government, and that we can only hope to refine it/tweak it. If we assume this is true, then past forms of democracy seem like a fair basis of comparison. I am not a fukuyamaist. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/rizkhan/2010/11/201011111191189923.html
-
-
The concept of the civil society appears to be dated in what is essentially a network society.
-
unitary character of the public sphere
-
transforming
-
In a sense, the public sphere has always been virtual: Its meaning lies in its abstraction.
-
"The public sphere," like "democracy" is a reification: there's no real "thing" there. It's an abstraction to describe a bundle of interrelated behaviors and situations that do happen: people either do or do not have freedom from fear of arrest when making public political statements; governments either do or do not let people know how decisions are made; people do or do not discuss issues that concern them; "public opinion" (another reification) either does or does not influence policy. Taken together, these constitute the idea of the public sphere. That it is a bundle of ideas, and therefore "virtual," does not mean it is unreal.
-
-
some ideas are more useful than others
-
I do find it's easy to find validation for your ideas on the internet because so many people are involved. And some ideas are just not the best...
-
-
consumerism poses a threat to the public sphere
-
a mode of discourse is already established, which actively discourages other modes
-
New communications technologies are being used in ways that extend democratic communication practices. As networks become structurally decentralised, ever wider publics gain access to them in ways that lead to an increase in the rate and density of public exchange.
-
lost much of its original political character in favour of commercialism and entertainment.
-
public debate has shifted from the dissemination of reliable information to the formation of public opinion
-
New forms of citizenship and public life are simultaneously enabled by new technology and restricted by market power and surveillance.
-
a cathartic role, allowing the public to feel involved rather than to advance actual participation
-
public sphere is not just a "marketplace of ideas" or an "information exchange depot," but also a major vehicle for generating and distributing culture.
-
"transparency"
-
tendency towards concentration of power when no adequate measures are taken to counteract this process
-
Theoretically, a network is both able to disperse and to concentrate power.
-
Is this operating under the assumption of one constant network? It seems that new technologies allow for the rapid rise, fall, and constant creation of new networks possible - which seems to counteract this tendency.
-
-
transnational and specialist news media increasingly serve a well–educated elite, while national and local media increasingly cater to the taste of disempowered social groups for whom globalisation only poses a threat
-
Dominant currents in the philosophy of technology thus essentialise technology, decontextualise it, and abstract it from culture and human meaning
-
it is on the verge of extinction.
-
-
public sphere’s pre–eminent institution, the press
-
-
If their ability to form political will, debate issues and influence society is expanded by the Internet, this is no way resembles a truly participative discourse of democracy
-
Notions of commodification and commercialisation still have their relevance in today’s mass communication theory: They pose a permanent threat to the cultural quality of media products and cannot be ignored.
-
He believes that the Internet can reverse the tide of public disdain for the media by providing a user experience that is immediate, interactive, and intimate. Bardoel (1996) points out that because of the increasing individualization and segmentation in communication such notions as "community" and "public debate" should be taken less for granted
-
"instrumental journalism."
-
Publicity loses its critical function in favour of a staged display; 4
-
Rather, the public sphere transcends these physical appearances as an abstract forum for dialogue and ideology–free public opinion, a lively debate on multiple levels within society. Interesting in this regard is that the German word for public relations is Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, which could both be translated as "work within the public sphere" or "work on the public sphere."
