Paste your essay in here..Nov. 27, 2018
Just a few hours ago, while checking out my Instagram feed, I was surprised by a post of my friend that showed her thoughts about the reality of people posting content and sharing opinions on social media platforms these days. She said that she was “ tremendously annoyed” by the fact that there was an increasing number of people sharing thoughtless personal opinions and inaccurate information on social media platforms such as Instagram or Twitter. As a frequent user of social media, my first thought was trying to oppose her opinion, but then I realized that she was absolutely right. It is hard to deny that the content pool on digital media such as social media platforms in the current time does not have the quality that reach the “Habermasian gold standard” (Pavlik & Mclntosh, 2018, p.412).
In 1964, the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas publicized his notion of the public sphere. To clarify this concept, I would like to mention Pavlik & Mclntosh’s interpretation of Habermas’s public sphere, “The public sphere, as first described by German social theorist and philosopher Jurgen Habermas, was an arena for rational-critical debate, where the best argument won the day and where rank or privilege took a back seat to the quest for knowledge and truth” (Pavlik & Mclntosh, 2018, p.412). Therefore, it is easy to relate that the “Habermasian gold standard” (Pavlik & Mclntosh, 2018, p. 412) of a public sphere signifies a media environment where the supreme communication skill is the power of argument and “all participants abide by shared rules of rational argument and civic mindedness” (Pavlik & Mclntosh, 2018, p.412). This essay is going to explain why I think that the digital media environment in our society today does not meet the “Habermasian gold standard” and explicate why I suppose that digital media helps and hinders the notion of public sphere at the same time.
Firstly, I would like to briefly mention the definition of “digital media” by A Dictionary of Media and Communication as “computer-based communications technology, and especially the mass media, as in digital broadcasting (digital television, digital radio) and digital publishing media (such as e-books and e-zines), particularly in contrast to the “traditional” medium of print or to analogue broadcasting” (Chandler & Munday, 2016). In The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article, published in 1964, Jurgen Habermas said that “By ‘the public sphere’, we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens” (p. 50). Looking at the reality of the current time, it is inevitable that digital media such as the internet, social media, or mobile phones helps the notion of media in the aspect of participants’ access. The appearance of digital media technology has obviously provide much more people all over the world easy access to information and content. I would like to bring out the example of social media platforms as “For some people, social media has pervaded their lives so intensely that it is difficult to remember how communication occurred before social media” (Burns, 2017, p.15). Many social networking platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter now provide billions of individuals around the world free and easy access to communicate as well as receive and create contents. In addition, as Diana Mihaila said in 2015, “social media is ‘the it thing’ in the 21st century, when almost every person on the planet has a cell phone or access to one, and more and more people are online daily or have easy access to an internet connection” (p.74). She then continued, “Everyday, almost one billion and a half people are active on Facebook, millions and millions are using the internet for information, research, entertainment, and Google become the main source of information globally, with 3 billion queries a day in 2015” (2015, p. 74).
Additionally, Habermas mentioned in his article that individuals of the public sphere “behave neither like business of professional people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy” (1964, p. 49). Later in the article, he said, “Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion-that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions-about matters of general interest” (1964, p. 49). It is hard to deny that many components of digital media such as social networking sites provide people the equal opportunity to freely express their thoughts and opinions without being affected or interrupted by elements such as government censure or commercial manipulation. As an example, I would like to bring out the story of the origin of the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia where social networking platforms were the only tool for people of this country to raise their voice without being censored by the government and helped create a successful revolution against the tyranny in 2011.
As I have mentioned earlier, the public sphere of Habermas is “an arena for rational-critical debate” (Pavlik & Mclntosh, 2018, p. 412) or “an idea which calls for a rationalization of power through the medium of public discussion among private individuals” (Habermas, 1964, p. 55). From my perspective, digital media such as the internet or social media with its open and easy accessible nature can also be a hinder for Habermas’s notion of the public sphere. It now takes only seconds for people to express their thoughts and opinions with just a “click” on social networking sites, blogs, or personal websites. Therefore, it is hard to contradict the fact that not everyone is sharing thoughtful and rational opinions in the digital media environment. To add on, Pavlik and Mclntosh said in Converging Media that “Nevertheless, a coherent public sphere in which all participants abide by shared rules of rational argument and civic mindedness, the Habermasian gold standard, has proven elusive, particularly given the diversity of people online and their various, often conflicting, interests and perspectives” (2018, p. 412).
To conclude, I personally think that digital media helps the notion of public sphere of Jurgen Habermas by providing billions of people equal opportunity to share their thoughts. However, it also hinders his concept as the nature of digital media can encourage inconsiderate arguments in some circumstances.