The idea of Public Sphere was first put by forward by
Habermas (1962, p7). Habermas put
forward the idea of Public Spheres as people getting together in a public place
to form a common understanding of an opinion; the common understanding
sometimes leading to certain actions by the state.
I remember from my childhood when the people of my village
(in Saudi Arabia) will get together to discuss matters that were important at
the time; for example issues related to the frequent electricity outages. The
village elders will chair the meet and the people attending will make a
collaborative decision on what actions to take; e.g. whether to write a letter
to the local electricity providers or to approach the local politicians. I can
still remember that in many cases, the meet will be very effective in defining
a plan of action and then executing it. Most of the times, there were positive
results.
Figure 1: Public Sphere (http://carlcassegard.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/fraser-and-transnational-public-Spheres.html, 28 September 2012)
The original idea of Public Spheres is probably not relevant
any more with the advent of internet technologies such as Twitter Sphere and
Blog Sphere (Ferree et al. 2002, p.299). The internet allows people to publish
their opinions, provide opinions in response to other people’s opinions and
join virtual groups that support a particular opinion (notice my extensive use
of word opinion, I believe that everything posted by common individuals on the web
space is nothing more than individual opinion).
For example, a user may write a tweet post that can potentially be read and
subscribed to by thousands of users within minutes.
I do not agree that idea of Public Spheres has been
completely replaced by the Internet Spheres; and I seriously doubt whether the
Public Spheres will ever be completely replaced by the Internet Spheres. One of
the things that come to mind is; do the contemporary Spheres such as Twitter
and blogs truly provide the complete freedom of expression? Have a read of the
following news item
I won’t go into the specifics of the news item. The point is
that someone was sued over what they said on twitter. Does it mean twitter
doesn’t allow for freedom of expression and isn’t a truly contemporary Public
Sphere? I visit a number of forums and groups online every day. There are
numerous instances where people are publically criticised over their views,
opinions and thoughts. I think it’s not complete freedom of expression if one
is constantly facing the fear of public criticism. I have even seen instances
where people with anonymous identity have wrongly criticised other people
posting that are actually using their own identity. I personally find that I am
not completely honest (or to put it more correctly, I am not bluntly honest) in
my opinions on the public forums because of the exact same reason; fear of
wrongful and non productive criticism.
In comparison to the Twitter Sphere, the Blog Sphere and the
numerous other Internet Spheres, I can imagine that people will be very upfront
and forthcoming about their opinions in a Public Sphere. The reason would be
that the discussion will be guided by some select individuals who are respected
for their intellect and position in their society. If the meeting was to go off
the track; the person chairing or guiding the discussion will take appropriate
actions to park the off the track discussions and ensure the meeting is
focussed on the issue being discussed. One can argue that this type of
moderation is against the freedom of expression. However, I think in the
context of a Public Sphere, it is critical for the meeting to be effective if a
meaningful conclusion is to be reached. I can relate this back to my example of
the meetings at my village. The intellectual and experienced village elders
were responsible for ensuring that everyone had the right to express their
opinion without having to worry about non-constructive criticism.
In addition to the issues discussed above, there is the even
greater issue of Internet Censorship. The Chinese government has blocked most
of the major social networking websites in the country in the name of Internet
security (Naubman, 1998, p258-260). In a Public Sphere, a restriction such as
this would have been much harder to implement for the Chinese government; as
this restriction in a physical sense (since Public Spheres were physical meets)
would be considered violating of very fundamental human rights. In comparison,
the freedom of expression on the Internet is still a fair way away from being
considered fundamental human rights. This is another reason I think the modern
Internet Spheres aren’t a true replacement of the traditional Public Spheres.
Figure 2: The Great Firewall of China (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/16/china-tightens-grip-on-vpn-access-amid-pro-democracy-protests-g/)
Another angle of discussion is the freedom of expression in
Public Spheres. There are numerous examples where the people are deprived of
their freedom of expression in Public Spheres. Vietnam is a prime example where
there are significant restrictions on people getting together, forming political
groups or expressing their opinions to the press. Therefore, the Internet Spheres
and Public Spheres both suffer the unethical barriers to people being able to
express their opinions freely.
In spite of the issues discussed above, I think the Internet
in general (including Twitter Sphere and Blog Sphere) is a great extension to the
concept of Public Sphere; a medium that knows no boundaries. The freedom of
expression is an issue that causes problems for both Public Sphere and the
Internet Spheres such as Twitter Sphere and Blog Sphere. The core purpose of
the Public Sphere and the Internet Spheres (in this context) is to allow people
to express their opinions freely and build a general consensus. To overcome the
issue of freedom of expression on the Internet Spheres, there are a few different
things that can be done:
1. Have specialised forums that facilitate discussion in an adequately moderated environment so that members of the forum feel the freedom of expression to contribute; without having to worry about non-constructive criticism;
2. International laws and regulations to protect people’s freedom of expression in the states that restrict the freedom of expression of people unethically;
3. The intellectuals in the subject areas of discussions taking the lead and directing the discussion.
These solutions aren’t at all easy to achieve given the complexities
of the Internet including having no boundaries, the Internet crossing the legal
jurisdictions and the sheer volume of members and their diversity. I think it
can only be achieved via educating people to respect each other’s opinions and promoting
the use of appropriate technical tools. In addition, the states that are
censoring the Internet need to be flexible and logical in their approach. For
example, China’s great firewall is not a solution to the problems they are
trying to address. It is breach of
people’s freedom of expression to just blanket block the Internet sites such as
Twitter, Google, YouTube and other mediums for people to share information and
express their opinions.
References:
Habermas, J.
(1962/1995). The structural transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry
into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Mit Press.
Marx Ferree,
M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the Public
Sphere in modern democracies. Theory and society, 31(3), 289–324. (p. 299).
Schwarz, K
(2012). Kelly Sued over Tweet. Online on 21 August 2012 at http://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/161508/kelly-sued-over-tweet/
Taubman, G. (1998). A not-so
world wide web: the Internet, China, and the challenges to non- democratic
rule. Political Communication. 15, p255–272
