Fun with Public Spheres

Let's order some coffee, grab a seat, start up a conversation, change the world.

Who would have thought that the importation of coffee from the Ottoman Empire would contribute to transforming the social/political structures of Western Europe. Frequented by both aristocracy and bourgeois society, they were a place to learn the news and exchange ideas. They were the nexus of "the public sphere". Jurgen Habermas defines the public sphere as ". . . a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed." The public sphere was not the physical coffee house, but the discussion that took place within its walls. It was made up of private individuals who as a public body transmitted the needs of society. The newspaper became a vital element of the public sphere and was no longer just a compilation of notices or recent events, but influenced public opinion. This changed once newspapers became commercialized. (around 1830) Jurgen says, "In the transition from the literary journalism of private individuals to the public services of the mass media, the public sphere was transformed by the influx of private interests, which received special prominence in the mass media."
Peter Boeder sums this up nicely:

"According to Habermas, the emergence of the mass press is based on the commercialisation of the participation of the masses in the public sphere. Consequently, this ‘extended’ public sphere lost much of its original political character in favour of commercialism and entertainment."

The conversations at the coffee houses were silenced by radio and television. The idea of public opinion was transformed into publicity and public relations.

Habermas' ideas have become a source of debate since the digital revolution.
Are internet communities just another form of media commodity controlled by commercial interests? Or are they virtual public spheres?

Pieter Boeder says that "New forms of citizenship and public life are simultaneously enabled by new technology and restricted by market power and surveillance." He quotes Rheingold's argument that "The consumer society, the most powerful vehicle for generating short-term wealth ever invented, ensures economic growth by first promoting the idea that the way to be is to buy." With each new form of social media, commercialization occurs and effects the discourse. Bloggers are now sponsored by companies to write reviews. Facebook removes Scrabulous due to pressure from Hasbro.

Poster says:

"The question of the potential for new forms of social space to empower individuals in new ways is foreclosed in favor of preserving existing relations of force as they are embodied in the state."

Institutions will impose their will. Napster is shut down. YouTube videos blocked due to copyright issues.

Boeder concludes "The public sphere is alive and well, although it will never be quite the same. Habermas' coffeehouse discourse has evolved in the direction of mediated communication within electronic networks: Its future is with the digital media, which offer exciting possibilities as digital networks enhance and change social structures"
Twitter seems to meet that "coffeehouse ideal" because the users have determined much of its language and protocols. And of course its use during the Iraq elections is evidence of its power to spread news and information directly from the user/citizen.

The public sphere as a face-to-face community has been transformed into a form of electronically mediated discourse.
But what sort of discourse? Habermas believed that critical and rational discussion would minimize prejudices and fortify democracy. Looking at online discussions I'm not so sure. Are we debating or hurling insults. Is this really participation? Sometimes I agree with Fernback and Thompson:

"It seems most likely that the virtual public sphere brought about by (computer-mediated communication) will serve a cathartic role, allowing the public to feel involved rather than advance actual participation."

Final Note:
I really liked Poster's idea that the internet is not a tool but a social space. (Hammer vs. Germany) When I think of it in those terms, its potential seems so much broader. Its not just a tool to make money, or communicate, but a place. A place to shop (of course) but also to interact, learn, create, contribute, enjoy. Nice.

Thanks. Must pass out now.