D:\Documents and Settings\Ana\My Documents\Biserka-knjiga ...

As John B. Thompson argues, the supposed re-feudalization of the public sphere
ignores new forms of social interaction that emerged with new electronic
communication, which is different in terms of space, since we are dealing with
mediated communication and not face-to-face interaction, characterized by
representative publicness. In his words, the idea of the public sphere, “… based on the
idea that individuals come together in a shared locale and engage in dialogue with one
another, as equal participants in a face-to-face conversation … bears little
resemblance to the kinds of communication established by and sustained through the
media, and hence bear little resemblance to the kind of public sphere which the media
have helped to create” (Thompson, 1995: 257). Thus, the “dialogical exchange” has
been replaced by “non-dialogical, de-specialized” forms of communication, based on
the visual (Thompson, 1995: 258). Another problem regards the idea outlined by
Habermas 10 on the public sphere which has “collapsed into a fragmented world of
consumers who are enthralled by the media spectacles unfolding before them and
manipulated by media techniques” (Thompson, 1995: 255). In Thompson’s account
recipients are not manipulated consumers, but individuals who interpret the content
in a creative manner.
The empowerment of media audiences:
an affirmative evaluation
Media users: from readership to co-creators
The creative potentials of the audiences and the notion of “active audiences” have
been put forward in the last few decades, with focus on the way meaning is created.
This idea first developed in the theoretical and empirical research conducted in the
field of cultural studies. 11
10 In the late 1980s, with the changes of social context, Habermas upgraded his theory, not so
much “in its fundamentals” but in “degree of complexity” (Habermas, 1992). Even though
the emergence of new electronic media changed the infrastructure of the public sphere that
became “infiltrated by power”, the move from a ”’culture-debating to a culture-consuming
public’ was too simplistic” (Habermas, 1992: 438). In addition, the “critical potential of a
pluralistic, internally much differentiated mass public, whose cultural usages have begun to
shake off the constraints of class” (Habermas, 1992: 438), was not taken into consideration
in the light of media research and public opinion polls in the 1960s, that showed pessimistic
results.
11 This academic discipline, formed in the early 1960s, carried a specificity in that it embraced
and connected earlier disparate disciplines in the humanities and social sciences (such as
philosophy, cultural and social anthropology, literary studies, communication studies,
political economy, art history, etc.) which represented a step towards the appearance of
interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches. At an institutional level, cultural studies
are primarily connected to the British school of cultural studies, i.e. the Centre for
Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) founded by Richard Hoggart.
49