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, self-organized and self-moderated.
 Inside of this public space, counterpublics have emerged and organized themselves with the tools provided by the medium 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. Any savvy user of the site can gain access to lists of followers and data concerning active idea propagation as well as access to the ideas themselves and their reception among members of a given counterpublic.
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. The user then either creates new discourse surrounding the topic or publishes already existing discourse which is then discussed and debated amongst the members of the sphere.
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 members of the LGTBQ community. Because of the tools provided by the medium in which this community appears, we can make many quantifiable observations about the counterpublic in question. 2,151,929 Facebook users have identified themselves as either LGTBQ or allies of the community by “liking” the page. As a result of this action, they become active members in the discourse and anything posted to the “Lizzy the Lezzy” page will show up on their news feeds for their perusal and the opportunity to contribute to the conversation via discourse.

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. Members are generally welcome to contribute discourse to the community, though often the content is moderated in some way before the group accesses it freely. The community itself also has the ability to block any contributors who are spreading messages that are counter to the mora of the group or the group’s creator. Membership in this group is not hidden. Any Facebook user can access a list of users that the user has designated as “friends” that have identified themselves with the community.
Counterpublics  on Facebook do not necessitate agreement with particular ideas; they can form around individuals in the public eye, institutions, geographic communities manifesting themselves in meta-geographic space, and events. Erin Brokovich is a well-known environmental lawyer and activist who uses Facebook as a medium for spreading awareness around environmentally disastrous conditions. Though many of the discourse she posts to her followers is of a similar bent, the public that has formed around her as a public figure. Through her, users are able to contribute active participation in the spreading of awareness around any issue she poses.
Using one of Brokovich’s posts, we can quantify information regarding active participation surrounding an issue by studying the responses to it and noting the number of community members who “like” the message or “share” it with members outside of the group. On February 8th 2016, Brokovich posted a short examination of her stance on the issue of the flouridation of public water systems.

The post was “liked” by 6,193 of Brokovich's 580,584 followers, and 503 additional pieces of discourse concerning the issue were offered by users who left comments. When users particularly agree with a topic, they have the option to take the discourse and present it outside of the counterpublic in which it was generated. It is through this “sharing” action that discourse is circulated between publics with overlapping interests.
Facebook  facilitates the conditions necessary for private individuals to form public spaces based on any number of criteria that the creator has in common with their followers. It provides the tools and the space necessary for the creation of modern discourse and the circulation of common ideas in a form that allows the knowledgeable observer to collect hard data about issues and particular pieces of discourse.

Working draft for paper 1

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. 

Montana Marijuana Legalization Supporters- a public

For several years now, citizens all over the state of Montana have been banding together in support of the legalization or recreational marijuana use and cultivation. These citizens have found their way to one another and have formed a public around a shared value and are working to change "the public"'s perception of a controlled substance. They have written articles and bills, as well as campaigning all over the state to garner support for their movement, to the point that many citizens of Montana who don't even use Marijuana believe that it should be legal. They have created an internal discourse that has burgeoned into a sort of manifesto that is used to approach non-members of their public.

Warner- Publics and Counterpublics

Warner makes three different distinctions for the definition of "public" in his introduction. There is the public, or all of the people that have the cognitive ability to receive a particular message, as well as two distinctions of a public. One category is comprised of publics that arise around an idea- these are large, amorphous spheres that create their own discourse that is continuously being created and evolving. The other "a public" category refers to all  of the receptors of a particular piece of discourse. It is important to be able to distinguish between these three types of public before attempting to dive into Warner's work; he doesn't always make the distinction for you.

"A public is a space of discourse organized by nothing other than the discourse itself.... It exists by virtue of being addressed."-50
 Here, Warner places a great deal of emphasis on the discourse that gives birth to a public. He uses a series of questions to illustrate his meaning, one of which I would like to take up- "What would a public be if no one were addressing it?"-50  This opens up a whole bag of discourse options. Can a public exist without discourse? What would it look like? I think one way to think of a public that exists without being concretely addressed is a geographical community in which the members, should a topic of discourse arise, would be engaged in discussion as a public. Before the discourse arises, however, are the community members still considered a public? There is a sphere, but the members are not actively engaged in discourse, and so, there is organization without discourse. This is contrary to Warner's claim which I quoted above- this public (and I would consider it a public) is not organized by discourse but by geographic reality.
While Warner makes the claim that the discourse itself is the key to the organization of the public, he also acknowledges the converse idea, stating, "... a public is never just a congeries of people, never just the sum of persons who happen to exist. It must first of all have some way of organizing itself as a body and of being addressed in discourse."-51 This suggests that there is no concrete way to organize a public, that there is no real distinction of what bodies merit the term "public" and which don't.
"In the context of a public, however, strangers can be treated as already belonging to our world." -56
Warner explains that public discourse is among strangers, rather people that we do not personally know, but that are somewhat similar to us in demographic. This is essential to the notion that a public is accessible by anyone with the means to access it. They are not constrained by matters of connection.

Public Discourse Spheres

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.