Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate
Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate
CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPHERE 102 Usenet newsgroups are unquestionably a component of the informal zone of the public sphere. Although Habermas (1996) argues that the informal zone is comprised of organizations and associations dedicated to influencing public policy, a more inclusive definition of the informal public sphere is suggested here. The definition of the public sphere should be expanded to include all forms of “associational space,” which provide the primary opportunity for citizens to converse with each other. These “core settings of informal public life” (Oldenburg 1989) have been identified by several terms, including “free spaces” (Evans & Boyte 1986), “third places” (Oldenburg 1989) and “micromobilization contexts” (McAdam 1988). Evans & Boyte (1986, 86) defined “free spaces” to include those autonomous places in which ordinary citizens “are able to learn a new self-respect, a deeper and more assertive group identity, public skills, and values of cooperation and civic virtue.” Put simply, they continue, “free spaces are settings between private lives and large-scale institutions where ordinary citizens can act with dignity, independence, and vision.” In their work, Evans & Boyte (1986) identify churches and informal women’s groups as free spaces. Oldenburg (1989) used the term “third place” to differentiate a space that was neither work nor home, and in which people had the freedom and autonomy to engage each other in public discussion. Third places – salons in the 18th century, barber shops, diners and corner taverns in the 20th, and perhaps electronic newsgroups in the 21st – are those autonomous settings, frequently featuring “regular” conversants (Liebow 1967, Anderson 1976), in which participants are free to discuss a wide range of social and political issues. McAdam (1988) used the term “micromobilization context” to suggest that such places have the possibility of serving as mobilizing tools sparking social movement activity. However, even without any clearly identified political activity resulting from the discussions, these associational spaces contribute to the opinion- and will-formation exercise that is the function of the public sphere in a democratic society. Usenet newsgroups provide extensive opportunities for individuals to comment on topics of public concern, and more importantly to engage in public discourse about issues of importance to society with other citizens. To the extent that these places are few and far between, democracy is threatened (Bellah et al. 1991, Barber 1984), as political discussion becomes formalized formulaic (Stanley 1983), losing the spontaneity necessary for full-fledged citizen discussion (Habermas 1996). Newsgroups, perhaps more so than any other forms of associational space, provide
CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPHERE 103 open access to anyone. 1 In a newsgroup, the force of the argument is more likely to be the sole source of discussion – rather than the social status attributes of the arguer – than in any other informal settings. Newsgroups provide unfettered access to the informal zone of the public sphere. There are no restrictions on entry or exit; individuals can and do move freely in and out of the conversation, both without sanction on themselves and without impact on others. There are no editorial forces limiting what topics may be brought up or discussed. In other words, there is a formal sense of equality of access inherent in the technology of the unmoderated group. As such, the talk.abortion newsgroup is an important part of the informal zone of the public sphere dedicated to a democratic resolution of the abortion issue. The newsgroup provides an opportunity for ordinary citizens to discuss the issue outside of the boundaries of reality and respect imposed on the deliberative public spheres. In the deliberative public spheres, representatives are more or less limited to choosing among pre-selected alternatives, and required to restrain their emotions in the interest of resolving this and other issues. Participants in the newsgroup are under no such restriction. The newsgroup provides opportunities for citizens to fulfill a number of functions of political talk, including agenda setting, exploring mutuality, affection and affiliation, and community building (Barber 1984). Participants are able to shape the agenda, and are not required to keep the topics under discussion to a predetermined, pre-selected set of options. Habermas (1996) identified this capability as one of the structural advantages of the informal over the formal zone of the public sphere. In shaping the agenda, participants have the potential to explore the “passions that make two (or more) separate identities one single we,” (Barber 1984, 184); that is, to uncover common ground and shared expectations. In addition, participants in newsgroups develop a sense of affection and affiliation with one another through their exchanges. These actions contribute to a sense of community building, to the “ the development of a citizenry capable of genuinely public thinking and political judgment and thus able to envision a common future in terms of genuinely common goods” (Barber 1984, 194). The assessment of the talk.abortion newsgroup over the course of the year found 1 That is to say, to anyone who has access to a computer and the Internet, and who has the skills enabling them to read and to write. And although access is today clearly distributed by social class, all available data suggest that this bias has weakened during the past five years, and will continue to do so in the future, to the point that access to computer networks becomes as ubiquitous as access to the telephone network or the broadcast television system.
- Page 51 and 52: CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY & THE PUBLIC
- Page 53 and 54: CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY & THE PUBLIC
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY & THE PUBLIC
- Page 57 and 58: Chapter 4 Abortion Discourse in the
- Page 59 and 60: CHAPTER 4. ABORTION DISCOURSE IN TH
- Page 61 and 62: CHAPTER 4. ABORTION DISCOURSE IN TH
- Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 4. ABORTION DISCOURSE IN TH
- Page 65 and 66: CHAPTER 4. ABORTION DISCOURSE IN TH
- Page 67 and 68: CHAPTER 4. ABORTION DISCOURSE IN TH
- Page 69 and 70: Chapter 5 Measuring the Public Sphe
- Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 5. MEASURING THE PUBLIC SPH
- Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 5. MEASURING THE PUBLIC SPH
- Page 75 and 76: CHAPTER 5. MEASURING THE PUBLIC SPH
- Page 77 and 78: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 79 and 80: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 81 and 82: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 83 and 84: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 85 and 86: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 87 and 88: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 89 and 90: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 91 and 92: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 93 and 94: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 97 and 98: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 99 and 100: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
- Page 101: Chapter 7 The Expanding Public Sphe
- Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPH
- Page 107 and 108: Appendix A The talk.abortion newsgr
- Page 109 and 110: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 111 and 112: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 115 and 116: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 117 and 118: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 119 and 120: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 121 and 122: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 123 and 124: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 125 and 126: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 129 and 130: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 135 and 136: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 137 and 138: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 139 and 140: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 141 and 142: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 143 and 144: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 145 and 146: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 147 and 148: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 149 and 150: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
- Page 151 and 152: APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPHERE 103<br />
open access to anyone. 1 In a newsgroup, <strong>the</strong> force of <strong>the</strong> argument is more likely<br />
to be <strong>the</strong> sole source of discussion – ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> social status attributes of<br />
<strong>the</strong> arguer – than in any o<strong>the</strong>r informal settings. Newsgroups provide unfettered<br />
access to <strong>the</strong> informal zone of <strong>the</strong> public sphere. There are no restrictions on<br />
entry or exit; individuals can and do move freely in and out of <strong>the</strong> conversation,<br />
both without sanction on <strong>the</strong>mselves and without impact on o<strong>the</strong>rs. There are no<br />
editorial forces limiting what topics may be brought up or discussed. In o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
words, <strong>the</strong>re is a formal sense of equality of access inherent in <strong>the</strong> technology of<br />
<strong>the</strong> unmoderated group.<br />
As such, <strong>the</strong> talk.abortion newsgroup is an important part of <strong>the</strong> informal zone<br />
of <strong>the</strong> public sphere dedicated to a democratic resolution of <strong>the</strong> abortion issue.<br />
The newsgroup provides an opportunity for ordinary citizens to discuss <strong>the</strong> issue<br />
outside of <strong>the</strong> boundaries of reality and respect imposed on <strong>the</strong> deliberative<br />
public spheres. In <strong>the</strong> deliberative public spheres, representatives are more or<br />
less limited to choosing among pre-selected alternatives, and required to restrain<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir emotions in <strong>the</strong> interest of resolving this and o<strong>the</strong>r issues. Participants in <strong>the</strong><br />
newsgroup are under no such restriction.<br />
The newsgroup provides opportunities for citizens to fulfill a number of functions<br />
of political talk, including agenda setting, exploring mutuality, affection and affiliation,<br />
and community building (Barber 1984). Participants are able to shape<br />
<strong>the</strong> agenda, and are not required to keep <strong>the</strong> topics under discussion to a predetermined,<br />
pre-selected set of options. Habermas (1996) identified this capability<br />
as one of <strong>the</strong> structural advantages of <strong>the</strong> informal over <strong>the</strong> formal zone of<br />
<strong>the</strong> public sphere. In shaping <strong>the</strong> agenda, participants have <strong>the</strong> potential to explore<br />
<strong>the</strong> “passions that make two (or more) separate identities one single we,”<br />
(Barber 1984, 184); that is, to uncover common ground and shared expectations.<br />
In addition, participants in newsgroups develop a sense of affection and affiliation<br />
with one ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>through</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir exchanges. These actions contribute to a sense of<br />
community building, to <strong>the</strong> “ <strong>the</strong> development of a citizenry capable of genuinely<br />
public thinking and political judgment and thus able to envision a common future<br />
in terms of genuinely common goods” (Barber 1984, 194).<br />
The assessment of <strong>the</strong> talk.abortion newsgroup over <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> year found<br />
1 That is to say, to anyone who has access to a computer and <strong>the</strong> Internet, and who has <strong>the</strong> skills<br />
enabling <strong>the</strong>m to read and to write. And although access is today clearly distributed by social class,<br />
all available data suggest that this bias has weakened during <strong>the</strong> past five years, and will continue<br />
to do so in <strong>the</strong> future, to <strong>the</strong> point that access to computer networks becomes as ubiquitous as<br />
access to <strong>the</strong> telephone network or <strong>the</strong> broadcast television system.