The Internet & the Transformation of Public Space: Habermas

[tashez30]

I learning towards your and Habermas' argument on this question, especially since the Internet, although cheap and widely distributed, is not universally accessible for the purpose of public sphere debate and discussion.

[kidluna]

I wonder though.  So Advertisement and mass media have now taken on the narrative of the nation. The public spectacle insights the countries culture and history, most of which is back by big money. However, I feel like none of these critics take into account humans need for leisure and entertainment.

[UnderstandingTheSelf]

great video! it's great to see someone else using youtube to raise public debate and improve democracy :-)

[clandywandy]

Has the onset of digital television and the internet brought us closer or further away from Habermas ideal of an inclusive, participatory public sphere?

Thats my essay question. any ideas about how digital television is playin a role? thanks :)

[paulecia7]

Don't you think that public sphere or not, internet could never replace a direct human contact and the quality of the exchange will never be the same?

[GorgonzolaGorgonzola]

The concept of people "looking at themselves" through the mirroring agent of the internet is an interesting one. Do we not (generally) browse to the sorts of things which we feel represent the sorts of person/s we feel ourselves to be, that we would desire ourselves to be. Is not a/the public sphere merely the collected mass of so many narcissistic self-interests; the whole being the gravitational coagulation of so many particular instances of consciousness/self-interest.

[delsol00000]

Drawing upon theories of the public sphere, reflect upon how far you engage with media examples of public spheres. Do they allow you the freedom to debate societal issues/problems, if so, how? - is my essay question...i guess as i only use internet ic an only do it on internet... :P

[cooljeansguy]

I assume Habermas' Structural Transformation is a Marxist interpretation of the mass media. In terms of Marx' materialist theory, the mass media, including the internet, would be part of the superstructure which is ultimately grounded in the infrastructure. If Marx' materialist theory is correct, the internet is just a reflection of the more basic infrastructural circumstances. It's no different than other forms of media that Habermas speaks of that's colored by the need to make revenue.

[verylikeakitten]

Fascinating. I'm wondering, does this video and the dialogue it's sparked off constitute what Habermas would call an ideal speech situation? Meaning one in which everyone is allowed to take part and to question or introduce any assertion or attitude whatever, free from any internal or external pressure? If so, perhaps it has a chance of taking on the features of the rational-critical debate that Habermas feels has been lost from public life? Or is this an ideologically saturated medium?

[stefas2]

I am doing my BA thesis on the extent to which the youtube Cnn debates extended individual freedom. It can be argued that in the internet a number of mini-public spheres are formed. The problem is though two-fold. Equality of access in the public sphere. Less than 50% of US citizens have access to the internet. Those who do have are mainly white, young and of high socio economic status. 2) Socio-economic mediations. large multinationals are unfortunately commodifying the net. Hope that helps...

[morganovicio]

You've an interesting idea... If you consider the internet as a public sphere or an agora, it may be useful to acknowledge it not just as a virtual public sphere occupied by virtual citizens, but as a 'space' dis-embedded from territory. Consequentially, citizenship of this public sphere is no longer linked to territory and its relevant power structures. This raises the possibility of emerging new forms of public discussion and critique...

[cosmanthony21]

I didnt get a clear impression on your opinion on this. Do you favor public discourse?

[al3xgibson]

I favour public discourse and so does Habermas.

However, being in favour of it does not mean that it is occurring. I think that Habermas has a compelling argument for why it is not occurring, and how it should.

Hope that helps. :)

[gemmatni]

You might want to google Geert Lovink's latest article: "Blogging, the nihilist impulse". Good stuff along similar lines.

[cainvista]

why u don't upload the new video now?what ur talking about is very intereting,i expect to see u again,ur cute.

[cainvista]

are u single?

[Corrado7mari]

If you read German, there is a very good new collection of essays on Habermas and communicative freedom: Herborth & Niesen (eds.), "Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit" (Suhrkamp, 2007) ISBN 978-3518294208.

[Corrado7mari]

Next recomended Habermas readings, 'Legitimation Crisis' (rather slim), and 'Philosophical Discourse of Modernity' (a workhorse!). That should shake you up a bit, before thinking the internet can be the next public sphere that easily. Rationality is the key, the assumption that if asked you will be able to rationaly explain your statements and opinions. Can you? and can all who speak on the Net?

[al3xgibson]

I am critical about the promise of the Internet as a public sphere... and yet I hope it may become one. I am under no illusion that this will be easy

Thanks for the suggested reading.

[Corrado7mari]

Habermas is one of my favourite thinkers. Nice summary of STPS, but you have a lot of reading and thinking ahead of you, go on! The problem is that an inerconected space of free speech (like the Internet) is not enough to have a Publich Sphere, you need RATIONAL debate. What do the philfs from Marx to Adorno say about that and why did Habermas break with them?

[teeckard]

I've been thinking this for a while.

[sprichbeeke]

I think this is not unlike the nature/nurture "debate"...The question posed should not be...is it either public space or narcissistic endeavour...but to what degree does each of them shape these cyber platforms...I believe both are factors.

Great video..and it sounds like a very interesting book! Thanks!

[al3xgibson]

It's probably not one or the other... perhaps it's a scale of both... or perhaps it's neither.

It's important to raise the issues and have the discussion, cause a lot of these things are mistakenly assumed.

[IowaDolls]

Haha I laughed when you said millions of people looking at themselves, lol.

[pennilesscripple]

Great vlog thank you. Yes, YouTube seems to be a venue for UNcivil society to articulate its interests. However, it is no different than any agora—it will be what we make of it. Clearly there is a large gap between the possibilities we glimpse and the reality we witness, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the possibilities. I imagine that those coffeehouses had a fair number of narcissists, entertainers, and charlatans as well.

[al3xgibson]

I agree. Ghandi said - 'there is nothing civil about western civilization' ... or something to that affect.

Also, I suppose that YouTube is an agora (of sorts), but does that mean it is a public sphere, or just a public space?

[etourist2]

Certainly there are millions of people looking at themselves in some kind of collective mirror but there are also millions of people collaborating, generating vibrant discussion and sharing ideas. Other forms of media struggle with the speed at which their manipulations are torn apart online.

[al3xgibson]

I agree that it may not be an either/ or situation. That both a public sphere and narcissism are possible in the same space.

Other mass media tools create a public through ubiquity, but they lack effective feedback systems, which makes them ineffective for two-way communication (unlike the Internet). However the Internet has problems too, like info overload and isolated communities.

[geezerart]

You are so wise for such a young man!

[sonikalkemy]

kewl, :)