The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln Dahlberg
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere

The Internet as the Public Sphere

2012 ◽  
pp. 467-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarice Hanson ◽  
Alina Hogea
Keyword(s):  
Civic Engagement ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Public Space ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Action ◽  
Seminal Work ◽  
Temple University ◽  
The Public Sphere

The Internet has often been heralded as a tool for e-governance and public action because of its ubiquity, accessibility, and the ability for users to participate in online expressions of opinion. In this chapter we discuss the potential for the Internet to function as a public space for facilitating civic engagement. While we draw from the seminal work of Jurgen Habermas to identify the preconditions for the functioning of a “public sphere,” we address four distinctly different approaches to the discussion of the Internet’s role as an effective tool for deliberative democracy by highlighting the contributions of scholars and practitioners who engaged in a dialog on the topic at a symposium held at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 25, 2010.

scholarly journals Bloggers and Deliberative Democracy in Indonesia's Blogosphere

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (28) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Jacky
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Discursive Construction ◽  
The Public ◽  
Study Support ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Relationship

<p>The study of the relationship between the Internet and democracy has produced two main debates. Some studies have said that the Internet has significantly contributed to democracy while others disagree. This study challenged the thesis of Habermas (2006) about the relationship between the Internet and Deliberative Democracy. This study was built on the following propositions: that the Internet causes bloggers to become parasitic, fragmented, and isolated; that it is effective in breaking down authoritarian regimes to create an egalitarian relationship, but it fails as a deliberative medium. This study used the concept of the public sphere and Habermas’ Deliberative Democracy (2006). It also explored the use of 2.0 qualitative methods with a hacking analysis perspective. Moreover, it gained data from the Internet by using the latest version of 2.0 Web and a virtual community. It focused on both discursive and non-discursive construction. The results of this study support only one of Habermas’ three propositions: that the Internet creates egalitarianism. Thus, this study rejects Habermas’ thesis apart from this one proposition. Furthermore, this study recommends that further research be done using the same propositions but on Twitter instead of the Internet.</p>

scholarly journals Complexity, diversity and the role of the public sphere on the Internet

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 961-984
Author(s):  
Nathan Eckstrand
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Complex Adaptive Systems ◽  
Adaptive Systems ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Complex Adaptive ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Relationship

This article explores the relationship between deliberative democracy, the Internet, and systems theory’s thoughts on diversity. After introducing Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy and how diversity fits into it, the article discusses various ideas about whether and how it could work on the Internet. Next, the article looks at research into diversity done in the field of complex adaptive systems, showing that diversity has both good and bad effects, but is clearly preferred for the purpose of survival. The article concludes with an analysis of how the results of systems theory’s study of diversity can assist society in bringing democracy to the Web.

Im Archiv der Öffentlichkeit

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf Maresch
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Structural Transformation ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Oder Eine ◽  
The Public ◽  
Postal Services ◽  
The Public Sphere

Durch den digitalen Medienwandel ist der Begriff der Öffentlichkeit problematisch geworden. Die Debatte fokussiert sich zumeist auf die Frage, ob die sogenannte bürgerliche Öffentlichkeit durch das Internet im Niedergang begriffen ist oder eine Intensivierung und Pluralisierung erfährt. Rudolf Maresch zeichnet die berühmte Untersuchung der Kategorie durch Jürgen Habermas nach und zieht den von ihm konstatierten Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit in Zweifel. Dagegen verweist er auf die gouvernementalen und medialen Prozesse, die jede Form von Kommunikation immer schon gesteuert haben. Öffentlichkeit sei daher ein Epiphänomen nicht allein des Zeitungswesens, sondern der bereits vorgängig ergangenen postalischen Herstellung einer allgemeinen Adressierbarkeit von Subjekten. Heute sei Öffentlichkeit innerhalb der auf Novitäts- und Erregungskriterien abstellenden Massenmedien ein mit anderen Angeboten konkurrierendes Konzept. Mercedes Bunz konstatiert ebenfalls eine Ausweitung und Pluralisierung von Öffentlichkeit durch den digitalen Medienwandel, sieht aber die entscheidenden Fragen in der Konzeption und Verteilung von Evaluationswissen und Evaluationsmacht. Nicht mehr die sogenannten Menschen, sondern Algorithmen entscheiden über die Verbreitung und Bewertung von Nachrichten. Diese sind in der Öffentlichkeit – die sie allererst erzeugen – weitgehend verborgen. Einig sind sich die Autoren darin, dass es zu einer Pluralisierung von Öffentlichkeiten gekommen ist, während der Öffentlichkeitsbegriff von Habermas auf eine singuläre Öffentlichkeit abstellt. </br></br>Due to the transformation of digital media, the notion of “publicity” has become problematic. In most cases, the debate is focused on the question whether the internet causes a decline of so-called civic publicity or rather intensifies and pluralizes it. Rudolf Maresch outlines Jürgen Habermas's famous study of this category and challenges his claim concerning its “structural transformation,” referring to the governmental and medial processes which have always already controlled every form of communication. Publicity, he claims, is an epiphenomenon not only of print media, but of a general addressability of subjects, that has been produced previously by postal services. Today, he concludes, publicity is a concept that competes with other offers of mass media, which are all based on criteria of novelty and excitement. Mercedes Bunz also notes the expansion and pluralization of the public sphere due to the change of digital media, but sees the crucial issues in the design and distribution of knowledge and power by evaluation. So-called human beings no longer decide on the dissemination and evaluation of information, but algorithms, which are for the most part concealed from the public sphere that they produce in the first place. Both authors agree that a pluralization of public sphere(s) has taken place, while Habermas's notion of publicity refers to a single public sphere.

On Waxen Wings: Challenges to the Public Sphere in the Network Age

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Francoeur
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Digital Space ◽  
Multiple Viewpoints ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Economic Production ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Communicative Space

There is a tendency, particularly among Western pundits and technologists, to examine the Internet in almost universally positive terms; this is most evident in any discussion of the medium’s capacity for democratization. While the Internet has produced many great things for society in terms of cultural and economic production, some consideration must be given to the implications that such a revolutionary medium holds for the public sphere. By creating a communicative space that essentially grants everyone his or her own microphone, the Internet is fragmenting public discourse due to the proliferation of opinions and messages and the removal of traditional gatekeepers of information. More significantly, because of the structural qualities of the Internet, users no longer have to expose themselves to opinions and viewpoints that fall outside their own preconceived notions. This limits the robustness of the public sphere by limiting the healthy debate that can only occur when exposed to multiple viewpoints. Ultimately, the Internet is not going anywhere, so it is important to equip the public with the tools and knowledge to be able to navigate the digital space. 

Evidence of an Open Government Data Portal Impact on the Public Sphere

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Pedro Lourenço
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Research Effort ◽  
Open Government ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Open Government Data ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Google Search ◽  
The Impact

Data portals are being created as part of open government strategies to increase transparency. But although the potential of the internet to increase transparency (as data disclosure) has been widely considered in the literature, there is no reported evidence of any of the released data actually being used by their ultimate recipients (citizens) for public accountability purposes. This descriptive research effort aims to find evidence of the impact of open government portals, asserting whether data is indeed being used and for what purposes. One contract portal was selected and Google Search was used to find portal references on the internet. A qualitative content analysis approach was adopted, whereby references were examined with respect to its main purpose and data usage. Evidence was found of contract data being used, among others, to identify possible situations of corruption, nepotism and misusage of public resources, support argumentation on public policy debates and, in general, to hold public officials accountable in the public sphere through ‘blame and shame' sanctions.

scholarly journals Progressive Social Movements and the Internet

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Social Change ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Social Power ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Media Technologies ◽  
The Public Sphere

Because of the field’s foundational concerns with both social power and media, communication scholars have long been at the center of scholarly thought at the intersection of social change and technology. Early critical scholarship in communication named media technologies as central in the creation and maintenance of dominant political ideologies and as a balm against dissent among the masses. This work detailed the marginalization of groups who faced restricted access to mass media creation and exclusion from representational discourse and images, alongside the connections of mass media institutions to political and cultural elites. Yet scholars also highlighted the ways collectives use media technologies for resistance inside their communities and as interventions in the public sphere. Following the advent of the World Wide Web in the late 1980s, and the granting of public access to the Internet in 1991, communication scholars faced a medium that seemed to buck the one-way and gatekeeping norms of others. There was much optimism about the democratic potentials of this new technology. With the integration of Internet technology into everyday life, and its central role in shaping politics and culture in the 21st century, scholars face new questions about its role in dissent and collective efforts for social change. The Internet requires us to reconsider definitions of the public sphere and civil society, document the potentials and limitations of access to and creation of resistant and revolutionary media, and observe and predict the rapidly changing infrastructures and corresponding uses of technology—including the temporality of online messaging alongside the increasingly transnational reach of social movement organizing. Optimism remains, but it has been tempered by the realities of the Internet’s limitations as an activist tool and warnings of the Internet-enabled evolution of state suppression and surveillance of social movements. Across the body of critical work on these topics particular characteristics of the Internet, including its rapidly evolving infrastructures and individualized nature, have led scholars to explore new conceptualizations of collective action and power in a digital media landscape.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document