As described by the great German philosopher Jürgen Habermas himself, the public sphere is defined as a virtual or imaginary community that does not necessarily exist in any identifiable space. The public sphere comprises “private people gathered together as a public,” articulating society’s needs with the State. It consists of two elements: lifeworld and system. The lifeworld is the world in the individual social actors. Alternately, the system consists of the market economy and the apparatus of the State.
Habermas’ theory first rose to fame in the 18th century; the idea has never played such an essential role in society as its role today in modern history.
Public spheres are now undeniably unavoidable. As the internet continues to grow rapidly, so are the communities that reside on many platforms. New, online public spheres have created spaces for personal exploration and networked expression by individuals (a topic we discussed in class).
I recently came across an article by Matt Barton that dates back nearly fifteen years ago, to 2005, titled “The Future of Rational-Critical debate in Online Public Spheres.” The article resurfaced after endless debates regarding misinformation, fake news, data-driven influence campaigns, and how we differentiate “social media” and “news media.” The article highlights that, yes, there are advantages to the online public sphere, allowing for the communication between strangers at their own will and immediate access to hundreds upon thousands of perspectives, thoughts, and opinions. However, there are downsides to such a free space.
The article raises questions about how everyday digital writing and circulation practices align with broader democratic aspirations. The article intends to explore what these social and technological developments, like Facebook and Twitter, mean for the health of public discourse and how we (as users) engage with the material that is accessible to us online.
I found the Op-Ed quite remarkable, given its time of publication. Fast-forward over a decade and a half later, how do these projected concerns compare to the same problems we have today and the concerns we have for the future? Nearly parallel. It puts things in perspective. People’s concerns about the online public sphere years ago are valid, translating to today, where we have seen the effects of the online space and have even more worries about what the online public sphere holds in the future. What role with public sphere play in our future? I’d offer you to take a read through Barton’s Op-Ed to get an idea.
The Future of Rational-Critical Debate in Online Public Spheres by Matthew D. Barton