Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 34 While Fraser’s argument that social equality is a necessary condition for participatory equality in the public sphere is an important corrective to Habermas’s notion, the more general point remains. This equality of status among participants must apply so “that no one speaker (or group of speakers) could rightly monopolize the powers and means of assertion, disputation, and persuasion” (Keane 1984, 160): The parity on whose basis along the authority of the better argument could assert itself against that of social hierarchy, and in the end can carry the day meant, in the thought of the day, the parity of ’common humanity.’ Private gentlemen made up the public not just in the sense that power and prestige of public office were held in suspense; economic dependencies also in principle had no influence. Laws of the market were suspended as were laws of the state” (Habermas 1989, 36) Similarly, Mansbridge (Mansbridge 1983) suggests that equality is concerned with an equality of respect among members, or perhaps through an equality of respect for the ideas and values of its members. Equality can also be assessed by reference to communicative competencies. Meaningful participation in the public sphere requires communicative competence (Dryzek 1990). Although inequality in the distribution of communicative competencies among participants in the public sphere was recognized by Habermas (1989), at least as it applies to participation in the earliest public sphere, the ideal if not the realization was adhered to. Barber (1984, 197) too is concerned with the distribution among citizens of the ability to reformulate and reconceptualize political ideas. One function of discussion in the public sphere, he suggests, is to allow ordinary citizens access to the power of defining key terms and concepts. “Democracy means above all equal access to language, and strong democracy means widespread and ongoing participation in talk by the entire citizenry.” The dimension of diversity is reflected in Habermas’s (Habermas 1989) requirement that a full range of topics be considered in the public sphere. This is also the process of “denaturalization” suggested by Stanley (Stanley 1983), in which the political and social structure implied by the selection of topics and alternatives is revealed to participants, instead of remaining “hidden” or part of the “accepted” wisdom. In other words, there ought to be no boundaries on the possible alternatives considered in the public sphere. Habermas (Habermas 1989) notes the evolutionary progression of this view: as the market economy gradually came to produce and distribute works of philosophy, literature and art, the capitalist
CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 35 orientation required information and discussion and topics which had been the monopoly of the Church and of the State gradually came to be interpreted through the institutions of the emerging public sphere. The fact that these institutions existed indicated that the State and the Church has effectively lost control over certain domains which previously were not subject to question, and suggest that the public, as constituted through these institutions, was beginning to determine the meaning of literature, art, economics and politics on its own through vigorous discussion and criticism. Similarly, MacKuen (1990, 84) emphasizes the importance of a diversity of political views in order to produce public dialogue in which “individuals engage in political discussions with others who hold different viewpoints.” Dahl (1989, 339) too, notes that citizens must have access to information from a diverse group of sources in order for a democratic vision to be realized. A part of the first aspect of diversity is the range of views actually discussed in a public sphere. Opportunities to discuss any topics are not synonymous with having a full range of topics actually discussed. The idealized public sphere overcomes the “spiral of silence” (Noelle-Neuman 1984) that develops when individuals do not feel their views are acceptable in public discourse, and choose to keep silent rather than express them in the face of obvious opposition. Reciprocity refers to the opportunities to gain knowledge of the perspectives of others, and the degree to which these opportunities are realized. Rucinski (1991, 189) identifies conditions of full and partial reciprocity: Full, or symmetric, reciprocity occurs when all members of a collectivity know and understand the breadth of perspectives and their underlying interests existing in that social system. Partial reciprocity occurs in two primary ways: when all perspectives and underlying interests regarding a social/political issue are not known by all members of a collectivity; or when the perspectives are known, but the interests are not. The level of reciprocity within a system can be assessed by examining the direction and degree of association between the range of perspectives and the corresponding underlying interests within a collectivity and the extent to which members jointly understand the viewpoints of others and the interests underlying those perspectives. Operationally, then, reciprocity is the ratio of perspectives and underlying interests known to the perspectives and underlying interests available across members of a collectivity.
Page 1 and 2: Expanding the Public Sphere through
Page 3 and 4: Contents Acknowledgements 7 1 Compu
Page 5 and 6: List of Figures 3.1 Structure of a
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements When one takes eig
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER 1. COMPUTERS, CONVERSATION
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 15 2.1
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 17 Sch
Page 19 and 20: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 19 sta
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 21 or
Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 23 own
Page 25 and 26: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 25 new
Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 27 com
Page 29 and 30: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 29 Hab
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 31 pub
Page 33: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 33 the
Page 37 and 38: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 37 gen
Page 39 and 40: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 39 pub
Page 41 and 42: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 41 By
Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3 Technology & the Public S
Page 45 and 46: 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 69 and 70: Chapter 5 Measuring the Public Sphe
Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 5. MEASURING THE PUBLIC SPH
Page 77 and 78: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
Page 85 and 86:
CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 7 The Expanding Public Sphe
Page 103 and 104:
CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPH
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:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix B Density Scores Table B.1
Page 165 and 166:
APPENDIX B. DENSITY SCORES 165 Tabl
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix C Supplemental Analysis 16
Page 169 and 170:
APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 Best, Michael L. 1
Page 179 and 180:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 Fisher, Bonnie, Mi
Page 181 and 182:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 Hiltz, Starr Roxan
Page 183 and 184:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 Mansbridge, Jane.
Page 185 and 186:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 Pateman, Carole. 1
Page 187 and 188:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 187 Savicki, Victor, D
Page 189:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 189 U. S. Congress, Of
show all

Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?