My thinker is a little jumbled this morning, so please excuse this disorganized compilation of my thoughts about the public sphere.
The invention of social media has both complicated and simplified Habermas's ideas and complicated them.
They are more complicated because there are a lot more variables in online content as well as burgeoning public circles that would have never existed if not for the social media arena in which they function. The lack of face-to-face interaction also serves to complicate analysis of Facebook as a public sphere because people tend to be a little more forthcoming with private information when shouting out to the public spheres to which they belong.
Habermas's ideas end up being easier to observe on social media. While some conversations are being blended in the private and public realms, other conversations are taking on a body and public sphere of there own. This is easy to observe when considering feminine rights associations like planned parenthood. They have recently been reaching out to women who have never contributed to their organization in order to ask about a relatively private matter, abortion, and publicizing it to an extent that they are making it easier and more comfortable as a topic of conversation for the public sphere.
If we sit back and take a moment to consider the nature of a public, I wonder, to how many distinct public circles do we belong? I myself can say that inside of social media and outside of it, I wouldn't be hard-pressed to think of ten or fifteen different conversations to which I feel that I have the membership qualifications to contribute my input.
To clarify, I feel perfectly inclusive and confident posting my views in an arena full of atheists, because this is a group to which I belong and I, through habitual practice, have appropriated that particular conversation into my character. Because I am a member of this public, I am capable of contribution. I would not feel as comfortable contributing to a conversation about mechanical engineering. This is simply a public circle of enthusiasts to which I do not belong as I have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation.
Our own personal blends of public spheres, the myriad of different conversations to which we our contributions are a viable addition to the topics at hand are continuously changing. As our lives change around us, our modes and arenas for discourse are altered with them. Soon, for example, we will all be graduating from college, and while for a time we will be able to contribute to conversations dealing with student affairs with relative familiarity, eventually that sense of belonging to the sphere of discourse surrounding what it is to be a student in today's more generalized public sphere of American society. As we leave behind some spheres, we will attain new ones to replace them. We will be joining communities that involve our work lives as well as communities as parents, husbands, wives, you name it.
Crikett,
ReplyDeleteI liked your post; well written.
It's interesting to think about voluntary publics and involuntary ones. That is, if you joined a conversation on atheism online that would be a voluntary membership on your part. But, participating in class discussion and the public that WRIT 376 will become, is somewhat non-voluntary. I mean, we *chose* to attend MSU for English, and that choice most likely (depending on where we're all at in our degree requirements) made taking WRIT 376 mandatory.
The interesting thing about these involuntary publics is that they seem to contain a much wider spectrum of ideas. There seems to be an undertoned idea that members in a public are similar, and usually I would find that to be true. But within involuntary publics, members seem to encompass a much wider range of backgrounds and ideologies. For example, I grew up in the Christian Church. As I developed into an adult, I internalized what I was taught as a child, and chose what I would accept versus what I would amend, and I have no problem joining classic conversations about God, life, death, morality- and contemporary conversations, too. Mostly what I'm pointing out is that our different backgrounds would seemingly distance us from each other, yet in the public of our class we can talk and discuss and laugh about the same things because other contributing factors give us camaraderie (our English major, our perspectives on writing, etc.)
Like you said, you can think of many different conversations/publics in which you are a qualified member, and I imagine nearly everyone could say the same. The crazy thing, is when these conversations and publics start to overlap, and how the influence of one can affect another.
Big thoughts!
Thanks for writing,
Anjeli
That's a good point. There are publics to which we belong without any choice in the matter. The classroom is one but, like you said, we do elect to be students and to place ourselves into that mode of discourse on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteThe question I have is, do we have a responsibility as members of a given public to contribute to the conversation and to the propagation of our interests as a public? Or, rather, can we consider ourselves members of the public without any sense of responsibility to our own self-representation?
As to the memberships to given publics and their influence on our opinions in other publics, I feel like this is where the individual has a bearing on the public opinion. The opinions that are presented and explained to me and the conversations I participate in are bound to alter my perception on the world as a whole, rather than just on the topic which was discussed. I don't think that we are capable of such compartmentalization as to keep separate thoughts and ideas from eventually merging along lines of similarity or overlap..
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
The original post and ensuing comments seem to lead the discussion to the topic of values. Obviously due to their membership in different (opposing) publics, Crikett and Anjeli may have some different values--but to what extent do these individual values from those other public spheres affect the "collective" values guiding the public sphere of this classroom? We talked today about publics centered on the goal of change or the goal of identity-building. I would argue that most, if not all, goals are born of certain values. (So the change towards which a certain public may strive reflects that public's values). Then again, all the members of a certain public are not likely going to share all the same values. So how does a public get on in a unified-enough manner to accomplish those goals? Or is a public *not* in fact value-driven (which I personally doubt)? Do members from particular publics tend to group in the same mutual publics? I guess my point is that, as we talk about publics and counterpublics, we may assume some sort of consensus among the members within those spheres. But perhaps that point of consensus (values? goals? both? neither?) is harder to identify than we might at first think. Or maybe not. Just some thoughts. :-)
ReplyDeleteThe notion of voluntary and involuntary publics is an interesting concept to explore due to how many publics could be considered to be involuntary. Sadie's comment got me thinking about how value-driven a public tends to be (more about that later).
ReplyDeleteSo, could belonging to certain kinds of counterpublics be considered involuntary? The Civil Rights Movement (or any racially formed publics) are an interesting example. We don't get to choose our ethnicity, so we are automatically assigned to racial groups.
So, what are we to make of minority racial groups who don't share the same values? These groups are already marginalized and by "sticking together" stand a better chance of having a voice. Further sub-grouping based on values could be counterproductive in attempting to get their voices heard.
I don't have any particular answers for this problem, but it's interesting to think about...