Media and Public Spheres Ed. By Richard Butsch. Palgrave, NY: 2007.
The articles in this book focus on applying public spheres theories to various popular media, from the internet to newspapers, from television to the radio.
For a full list of articles in the book, go to this website and click on “Contents.”
Three articles which appeared to be particularly relevant to new media have been reviewed: “How Are Media Publics Spheres?”, “Connection or Disconnection?”, and “From Public Sphere to Civic Culture.
“Introduction: How Are Media Public Spheres?” by Richard Butsch, pages 1-14.
Butsch introduces two traditions of public sphere theory, what he categorizes as Habermas’ approach as opposed to Tarde’s approach. Butsch seems to favor Habermas.
He attempts to deal with the argument that “Instead of enabling a public sphere, as print had done in the late eighteenth century, some argue that the new mass media of the twentieth threatened to subvert the public sphere and democracy. Movies, radio and television became large and concentrated industries or government agencies that reached millions of people. They had great propaganda potential to truncate the range ideas in the public sphere and restrict debate” (Butsch 1). He sets the two sides of this question — whether modern media enhances or detracts from the public sphere (the democratic approach to citizens debating ideas and coming to conclusions) — as the focus of the book.
Butsch’s summary of Habermas’ public spheres theories:
“As Habermas interpreted the history, mercantile capitalism required a public space where information could be freely exchanged. This would become, according to Habermas, the bourgeois public sphere, where not only information about business, but about culture and politics might be freely discussed. From this historical analysis, Habermas extracts the characteristics of the public sphere that work to advance a democratic state. Within evolving bourgeois public sphere institutions, such as the coffee house, salon and the press, he finds conversation among equals whose private interests and inequality are temporarily suspended, which in turn allows for rational discussion and debate on questions of state policy and action” (Butsch 4).
“Connection or Disconnection?: Tracking the Mediated Public Sphere in Everyday Life” – Nick Couldry, Sonia Livingstone and Tim Markham, pages 28-42.
The authors state their project at the beginning, explaining, “We are interested in the possibility that, as scholars now argue, the problem with contemporary democracy lies in the displacement of public discussion” (28).
While they do not come to firm conclusions about whether or not media such as the Internet enhance or further displace public discussion, they set an important framework for considering what must be involved in analysis of public discussion, including:
- Considering the existence or nonexistence of “public connection” which involves citizens being oriented to the places where public matters are discussed and policies are made (29)
- An awareness that media consumption mediates the “public world” and often serves to sustain or feed public discussion (29)
- Understanding that “informed consent to political authority” is not only an ideal for democracy, but a necessity (29)
New media and digital convergence, for the authors, offer two possibilities. The first is an “ an intensification of public connection, as people become more skilful at adapting their media consumption to suit their everyday habits and pressures.” This is the ideal that should be sought, especially as the alternative is frightening. What new media can also do is “lead to the fragmentation of the public sphere into a mass of specialist ‘sphericles’ that can no longer connect sufficiently to form a shared public world” (29).
“From Public Sphere to Civic Culture: Young Citizens’ Internet Use” by Peter Dahlgren and Tobias Olsson. Pages 198-209.
The authors enthusiastically embrace the conclusion that the internet is doing wonderful things at creating new public spheres and more actively involved citizens. They analyze a previously performed study of Swedish 16-19 year olds, applying public spheres theories to the young adults use of and perceptions on the internet. They emphasize the importance of not just quantitative data, but also qualitative — only through interviews and other qualitative means can we come to understand the importance that people attach to their own daily practices.
In describing public spheres, the authors describe five essential categories:
- Values
- Affinity and Trust
- Knowledge
- Identity
- and Practices
