DIGITAL DEMOCRACY: CYBER SPACE AS A PUBLIC SPHERE Joan Macapagal Dizon

Media 301: Media and Culture

Instructor: Eulalio R. Guieb III Submitted to the Department of Broadcast Communication University of the Philippines-Diliman September 4, 2013

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 2 of 11

ABSTRACT This paper, Digital democracy: cyber space as a public sphere, attempts to show the appropriation made of cyber space as a public sphere. It aims to illustrate the relationship between public sphere and virtual space such as the internet and how it is utilized by the consumers of cyberspace. It presents the common grounds and the differences between Habermas public sphere and the seeming public sphere in cyberspace by discussing identified roles and functions of public sphere in the mentioned two loci. It also tries to analyse the function of this virtual public sphere in the exercise of democracy. It aims to theorize on the capacity of the cyber space to be a public sphere, a venue where democratic principles and concepts are manifested.

Keywords: public sphere, cyberspace, virtual space, democracy

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 3 of 11

ABSTRAKT Ang sanaysay na ito, Digital democracy: cyber space as a public sphere, ay naglalayong ipakita kung paano ginagamit ang cyberspace bilang public sphere. Nais din nitong ilarawan ang relasyon sa pagitan ng public sphere at virtual space gaya ng Internet and kung paano ito ginagamit ng mga tao. Ipinapakita din nito ang mga pagkakatulad at pagkakaiba ng konsepto ng public sphere ni Habermas at ng cyberspace public sphere sa pamamagitan ng pagtalakay sa mga papel at tungkuling ng nabanggit na mga lokus. Naglalayon din itong mag analisa sa kakayahan ng virtual public sphere na magpalaganap ng mga gawaing pang demokrasya. Intensyon din ng sulating ito na mag balangkas ng teorya ukol sa kakayahan ng cyberspace na maging isang public sphere kung saan makikita ang mga prinsipyo at konseptong pang demokratiko.

Mga Susing Salita: public sphere, cyberspace, virtual space, demokrasya

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 4 of 11

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY: CYBER SPACE AS A PUBLIC SPHERE

Can miles truly separate you from friends? If you want to be with someone you love, aren't you already there? Richard Bach (1970)

The Internet is woven into the fabric of the rest of life. Nancy Baym (2006)

The cyberspace is a public sphere and a democratizing one, at that. This statement might seem loaded and may raise many contestations and might not sit well with scholars, especially those from the Habermassian tradition of the public sphere. However, I will posit several arguments that will somehow show that, despite seeming shortcomings, the cyberspace can be and is indeed a public sphere that is also reflective of Habermas concept. In the same vein, I will also attempt to establish that like its predecessor, the virtual public sphere is capable of manifesting democratic engagements. Habermas Public Sphere First, what is Jrgen Habermas concept of the public sphere? In his critical work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in 1962, he traced the history of the concept and practice of public sphere and defined its characteristic nature. According to Habermas (1962), a public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public; they soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor (p. 27). Based on Habermas discussions, three important things characterize the public sphere: one, equality is an overriding notion among the participants, as status and rank are shed and not paid attention to; two, the focus on common concerns, which are deemed worthy of critical attention by the participants; and three, the nature of inclusivity, since it could never close itself off entirely and become consolidated as a clique (p. 37). These so-called norms of a public sphere, although critiqued by some scholars as questionable, (such as Nancy Fraser who countered these assumptions with her own concepts in

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 5 of 11

her 1990s essay, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy) are the bases on which Habermas places public sphere as a democratic exercise since these allow the exchange of ideas among private individuals in a public forum, with the hope of affecting state decisions. By the public sphere we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed (Habermas, 1964, p. 49). Aside from these, the focus of Habermas public sphere is its embodiment in the physical realm and its existence in face-to-face communication. Face-to-face discussion, for him (Habermas), was the vehicle and process of enlightenment and face-to-face interaction in assembly was bestowed as the primary medium of participation in the public sphere (Cho, 2009, pp. 815-816).

The Roles of the Internet In recent years, the Internet, or what is also popularly known as the cyberspace, has been appropriated for various reasons, causes and needs. In the paper Network Neutrality and Internet Service Provider Liability Regulation, Christopher Marsden (2011) mentioned that the Internet as a converged platform, is important since it has multiple functions (public library, shopping mall, caf, television, radio, telephone network, virtual office) and is an essential utility for consumers and citizens. Marsden (2011), in addition, cites Internet as an enabling technology that allows exchange of information, and citing Carnoy, et al. (1993), says promises (and delivers) real efficiencies in the economy and society generally, as it helps collaboration and improvement (p. 57). Moreover, new media, which includes social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, whose platform is the Internet, allow for the interplay of its consumers and therefore, circulates and mediates stories, with these becoming part of mass culture (Gray, 2009). But how are these connected to cyberspace being a public sphere?

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 6 of 11

The virtual public sphere It is important to stress that the Internet and all other platforms connected to it are merely media. In the same vein, the public sphere is, by itself, a concept of how private individuals appropriate public or physical realm to come together and create public opinions that will affect the context in which the public sphere is being utilized. In the question of accessibility, the cyberspace, like the public sphere, is supposedly accessible by anyone who wishes to use it. In fact, like the participants in the public sphere of Habermas, who are capable of intelligent discourses, consumers of the cyberspace are also deemed capable of producing their own content and generating a public that can interact with them, as in the case of bloggers. Most social networking sites are free and anyone can join and participate in the discussions. Conceptually, the Internet is also without censors, making it accessible and available, except, of course, when there is state intervention. An example of this is the banning of sites that a government think will threaten the security of the nation. I have experienced this first-hand when I had to use proxy-servers to access Facebook in Vietnam during the times the state was regulating peoples access to the social networking site. Is grounding of common concerns and issues effected in cyberspace the way it is supposed to be in public spheres? I say yes. One concrete example is the recently concluded Million People March (MPM) that took place last August 26. The organizers and participants of the MPM utilized various media, including social media, in encouraging and disseminating information about the march. People were invited online and during the march, people were kept abreast with what was happening through regular posting of updates via social media. Villa (1972), cited by Cammaerts in Critiques on the Participatory Potentials of Web 2.0, defines the current Habermassian public sphere as a discursive arena that is home to citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action (p. 358). Is this within the framework of a virtual public sphere? Again, I say yes. Features and technologies of the Internet and its platforms allow for peoples engagements in these discourses in cyberspace. These include chatrooms and chatboxes, group pages, comment boxes, messaging where people can debate, deliberate, agree or disagree, and even agree or disagree to take action. I, personally, make use of these features for my classes where I give my students something to ponder on which they comment on and where they can present their own takes and arguments on the matter. It may be helpful to also note one of Benklers (2006) case studies which shows how networked public sphere allows

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 7 of 11

individuals and groups of intense political engagement to report, comment, and generally play the role traditionally assigned to the press in observing, analyzing, and creating political salience for matters of public interest (p. 220). Except for websites dedicated to specific groups of people, the virtual space has also allowed for the dropping of status, and therefore, the seeming equality of participants. It does not really matter who you are, where you come from, the virtual space affords its users to participate without having to flaunt riches or be cowered by lack of properties. Like Habermas public sphere, the virtual space is inclusive. This can be gleaned especially in web pages of products and politicians where they (advertisers and politicians) ask anyone and everyone to comment or give suggestions on products, programs or projects.

On the contrary While I do not wish to critique Habermas concept of public sphere, I will raise some interrogations on a couple of his premises with regards to the authenticity of a public sphere since it will affect how a virtual public sphere will be seen. I am raising the same thing that Cho (2009) raised, Habermas privileging of face-to-face conversation becomes (more) problematic with regard to the possibility of a global public sphere (p. 816). Will a virtual public sphere be any less real because it is not face-to-face? I disagree. I do not think that public sphere can only exist in the physical realm. As Douglas Kellner (n.d.) puts it, the public sphere itself shifts with the rise of new social movements, new technologies, and new spaces of public interaction (para. 27). Additionally, Eisenlohr (2011) believes that public spheres are domains of circulating discourse and images that shape our collective and political identification and our knowledge of the elementary facts of all social and political life beyond the confines of our own radius of face to face interaction (p. 41). Deleuze (1994) belief that the virtual is indeed very real (p. 33), cited in de Souza e Silva and Sutkos work, may also strengthen the argument that cyberspace can be a public sphere.

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 8 of 11

Digital Democracy If cyberspace can be a public sphere, is it also safe to say that it can also be used for democratic processes? In Fischers The Rhythmic Beat of the Revolution in Iran, he has also shown how the public sphere was transformed and how the marriage of two types of media, one traditional, the other digital, became powerful tools for the revolution and call for action. Artemio V. Panganiban, in his column With Due Respect, also said this about social media, the newest species of the freedom of expression and are entitled to the same constitutional protection, thus No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances (2013, August 31). So, to answer the question of the virtual public sphere as espousing democratic practices, I answer, I believe so. We can participate in discussions wherever we are. The participants are moving but the debate locus is grounded in a virtual public sphere where different people can meet and exchange ideas and opinions. Although limited, the capacity of people to transmit and exchange information is a democratic practice that can affect the society and the people in it. The potential of online media generates a multitude of responses and reactions. Most are centered around the ability of digital and online media to simultaneously restrict and empower individuals as they interact with each other in public life (Papacharissi, n.d., p. 2).

Conclusion Is it possible then that the virtual space be a public sphere, a venue for democratic processes? I say it is. Despite the new media not rigidly meeting the norms of Habermassian public sphere, the cyberspace can still be construed as a public sphere, albeit a digitalized one, one that exists in the virtual world. As de Souza e Silva and Sutko (2011) points out in Theorizing Locative Media, mirroring Deleuze take on the virtual, The virtual is always ready to emerge, to have actual existence (p. 33).

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 9 of 11

Final Note: This is not, in any way, an encompassing analysis of cyberspace as a public sphere. In my reading for this paper, I have come across several problematic areas that might be opportunities for further studies. I have limited my discussions, however, on the capacity of the virtual world to be a venue for the creation of public opinions, to be a public sphere. JMD

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 10 of 11

References: 1. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. Retrieved from http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf 2. Cammaerts, B. (2008). Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0. In Communication, Culture & Critique 1, pp. 358-377. doi: 10:1111/j.17539137.2008.00028.x 3. Cho, Y. C. (2009). Public sphere. In Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. California: Sage Publication. 4. De Souza e Silva, A. & Sutko, D. (2011). Theorizing locative technologies through philosophies of the virtual. In Communication Theory, pp. 23-42. doi: 10:1111/j.14682285.2010.01374.x 5. Eisenlohr, P. (2011). The anthropology of media and the question of ethnic pluralism. In Social Anthropology 19, pp. 40-55. doi: 10:1111/j.1469-8676.2010.00136.x 6. Fischer, M. (2010). The rhythmic beat of the revolution in Iran. In Cultural Anthropology 25 (3), pp. 497-543. doi: 10:1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01068.x 7. Gray, M. (2009). Negotiating identities/queering desires: coming out online and the remediation of the coming-out story. In Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication 14, pp. 1162-1189. doi: 10:1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01485.x 8. Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Burger T. (trans.) (1989). Retrieved from http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/phil123net/publicness/habermas_structural_trans_pub_sphere.pdf 9. Habermas, J. (1974 Autumn). The public sphere: an encyclopedia article (1964). In New German Critique, 3. pp. 49-55.Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094033X%28197423%290%3A3%3C49%3ATPSAEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z 10. Kellner, D. (n. d.) Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: a critical intervention Retrieved from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/kellner.html 11. Marsden, C. (2010). Network neutrality and internet service provider liability regulation: are the wise monkeys of cyberspace becoming stupid? In Global Policy, 2 (1) pp. 53-64 doi: 10:1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00057.x 12. Panganiban, A. (2013, August 31). The power of social media. In Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/60093/power-of-socialmedia#ixzz2dqNfmpcx

Dizon, Digital Democracy, Page 11 of 11

13. Papacharissi, Z. (n. d.). The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond. In Handbook of Internet Politics. Retrieved from http://www.ciberdemocracia.net/victorsampedro/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/Papacharissi-The-Virtual-Sphere-Revisited-Handbook.pdf