This is a very rough and probably not halfway done yet, but it's a start...
Quantifiable Counterpublics
Standing at the dawn of the digital age, we are assaulted with any number of new possibilities for the propagation of public discourse. Between the phones in our pockets, tablets and computers in our book bags, television sets in our living rooms, and even watches that can browse the Internet, we are constantly receiving discourse aimed at influencing our opinions in some way or another. Facebook in particular has become an invaluable tool for spreading a particular message. Within the confines of the Facebook universe, one can find quantifiable and observable instances of emerging counterpublics.
According to Habermas, “A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body.” (Habermas 49) Facebook, which is comprised of a conglomeration of approximately 1.6 billion active users is perfectly poised to become a tool for the study of the propagation of messages and ideas. It is a space in which a public has formed, and inside of that public, counterpublics have emerged in such a way that one can access data that puts a literal quantification of the number of members that are participating in any number of spheres of public discourse.Facebook is organized in such a way that any user who wishes to create a sphere of discourse surrounding an idea needs only to make a page or start a group dedicated to that idea and then begin working to attract users to the conversation.
For example, there exists a popular Facebook page, branded as a “community” by the site’s organizational system, called “Lizzy the Lezzy.” The group is dedicated to providing its LGTBQ members with a space to discuss the prejudices they face on a daily basis, share stories of triumph over bigotry and anti-gay propaganda, and feel generally empowered as a member of the LGTBQ community. This Facebook sphere is a counterpublic in Warner’s interpretation of the term,
… a counterpublic comes into being through an address to indefinite strangers. … But counterpublic discourse also addresses those strangers as being not just anybody. Addressees are socially marked by their participation in this kind of discourse; ordinary people are presumed to not want to be mistaken for the kind of person who would participate in this kind of talk or be present in this kind of scene. (Warner 86)
Any users of Facebook that are not LGTBQ or are not allies to the LGTBQ cause are free to avoid the discourse created within the community, though there are no membership requirements.
Ooooh, "avoiding the discourse"... that's interesting. What about people that purposefully interject themselves into the discourse, even though they're not wanted? Are you going to touch on exclusionary practices at all? I think this is a good start, and it's a particularly applicable analogy - relatable, practical, and substantial.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to see what other thoughts you have about this! You have a much better grasp of some of this material than I do, and even at this stage your project seems to be very concrete. Are you going to stick with the analogy format or are you going to dive into anything theoretical? Any problems you see with using Facebook as a public within the scope of our reading material?
Because Facebook and the digital age are SO relevant in our day, that this topic is a great one to discuss publics. As a reader I think it would be interesting to see how the digital age has influenced the idea of public to change, and how it pushes the boundaries of what it means to be a public. I too, think it would be in your best interest to discuss direct/indirect inclusion/exclusion and explain how Facebook has no wall to block the "haters" especially when discussing such a controversial subject.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoy how you claim that Facebook is a "tool" or vehicle to how such a public is formed. But according to Palczewski, the internet is simple a tool in which a public can be formed, so I am curious to see if you will explore how it would function as a public without Facebook? AKA their discourse? Are there other ways they are communicating? Or can it be an "imagined" public? I don't know, but I hope those questions generate some ideas for you! :)
I know we just got a bit of a taste of what your piece will look like, but I can't wait to see where you take this.
I like how you touch on the public and private nature of facebook communication. It's a unique attribute of cyberpublics that they don't exactly host *public* rhetoric in the traditional sense but a gathering of semi-private discourses. Often a status is written only to someone's friends but then shared far beyond that friend group to people who have never brushed shoulders with the original writer. Does that private rhetoric then transition to public rhetoric?
ReplyDeleteHow does the rise of videos pictures and other visual rhetorics on facebook change the nature of its public?
Great choice of a microcosm of publics to study!