Jurgen Habermas was born in 1929 and attended the Frankfurt school while studying under Adorno and Horkheimer. In 1962 he wrote, “Structural Transformation in the Public Sphere”, his first book about the public sphere. This book expressed his thoughts on how democracy is achieved through opinions formed from public discussion – which is now often done on social networks and blogs via Web 2.0. Habermas believed that democracy developed in the 18th Century through men meeting together, for example in coffee houses to read books and journals, and discuss and form opinions on what they had read. According to Habermas, “Citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion; thus with the guarantee that they may assemble and unite freely, and express and publicise their opinions freely”. For the public sphere to be successful the men must have had somewhere to meet, previous knowledge on the topic , willingness to revise opinions based on the discussions and equality during the discussions. The use of Web 2.0 makes global discussions easier as people are able to access blogs and publicise their views on current affairs.
During the 20th century most of our knowledge of politics and current events had come from the media, such as television and newspapers. Politicians have learnt to control the media to ensure that they receive positive media coverage; this is through use of Spin doctors. Newspapers are often bias to political parties which hinders the public from forming their own opinions on what they have read. The lack of discussion about politics or current events means that Habermas’ public sphere is near non-existent in modern society.
However, it is believed now that the Internet is potentially becoming a public sphere. The diversity of the internet means that people are able to communicate via different means online; emails, blogs, newsgroups, social networking and chat rooms. During the 18th century public spheres were just for local discussions, however, with the help of Web 2.0 discussions now involve people from all over the world. Different cultures in the world mean that the discussions will be broader than those in the 18th century as people from different countries and backgrounds will differ in terms of their opinions thus allowing educated opinions to be formed. The use of Web 2.0 also makes it easier for people to feel comfortable about expressing their opinions as there is no prejudice based on who they are, only by what they say.
Access to the internet makes it easier for more people to be involved in online discussions as they are able to research the topic to enhance their knowledge. However, there is some unreliability about what information can be found on the internet. This is due to the control that the public can have on what is written via both chat rooms and blogs, and also by websites such as Wikipedia whereby you can edit what is written about particular topics. If the public were misinformed on a topic it can stop the discussion from acting as a public sphere. Only if a method of verifying whether the information placed on websites was correct could this help the make the Internet a public sphere.
The use of webcams and microphones means that modern public spheres are able to mimic the public spheres that began in the 18th century as they are more personal due to the fact it is known who is voicing their opinions.
As generation X have not grown up with the Internet it means that many discussions have amateur opinions as many of the bloggers are younger and may not have a fully informed opinion. If more of the older generation were able to access blogs and chat rooms with ease it would mean that there would be a more diverse discussion thus creating a better public sphere.
Public spheres could also be hindered in the future by the controls of government bodies or large corporations. This could create restrictions on what is discussed or what opinions people are allowed to voice. Restrictions were made in the past of radio broadcasts and television broadcasts, and this could also happen to public spheres. If restrictions were put on public spheres it would mean that discussions would become bias due to the control the corporations or the government would have. If the same restrictions that were put on broadcasts in the past were applied to blogs and chat rooms it would make personal opinions and freedom of online speech near impossible. As the media is influential to society - through use of many mediums including the Internet – the owning of public spheres by corporations will disable the publication of much of the content that is attempted to be publicised online; “The way the number of owners of telecommunication channels is narrowing to a tiny elite, while the reach and power of the media they own expand, is a converging threat to citizens” – Rheingold.
Potentially the Internet could become a modern public sphere. However, it is dependent on the development of the internet and peoples knowledge on the use of chat rooms and blogs. It could also potentially become an area in which restrictions of content are put in place
to protect any companies that own particular sites, or by the government who may want to protect certain political parties.
