Aspects of Jurgen Habermas’s original idea of public spheres as social spaces of discussion and debate, has proven to be universal to generations today. Some key principles that are upheld in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962), are relevant to how people interact today. In the digital age, there is now a whole realm of online media that grants easy access for virtually anyone with an internet connection to join a worldwide conversation.
Twitter does not thrive in a fixed space, instead, it flourishes in a online space all across the world. Twitter is a social space where different opinions are expressed, problems of general concern are discussed and collective solutions are suggested. People come together to talk about important ideas of the world that affect their worlds. In ways, Twitter sometimes operates as an ideal public sphere – where participants debate about common concerns, express themselves freely and where everyone in the online theatre or arena are open to debate and deliberate. This is seen in the gun control debates post-Stoneman Douglas shooting, or in the discussion of Brexit. However, due to the open nature of the media, Twitter conversations can lack all traces of civility or salvation. Any structure of an ethical debate can deteriorate, and people get hateful and nasty very quickly. Thus, it’s sometimes hard for solutions to problems to be developed among people on Twitter. Unlike Habermas’s theory, social media is now truly egalitarian space, that’s open to everyone. It’s certainly not the 18th century, and you don’t have to be a land owning white male to have a seat at the table.
My public sphere is comprised of influences from my micro, meso and macro worlds including: friends, Church, school, news, media and social media. My public sphere operates within these worlds and the influence is greater in some areas than in others. The bulk of my discussion and debating for important ideas comes from social media and media. However, credible information sourced to discuss topics comes from the news e.g The New York Times, The Project, Ted Talk podcasts. Social media discussion happens online on either Twitter or Reddit.
I subscribe to a lot of debates (under hashtags) on LGBTQ+ and gender issues in these forums and quite consistently, there is a distinct divide in the ethics and politics. Most notably, there is great distance between left and right politics, and progressive vs. conservative, regressive ideals. Views on modern issues including the role transgender athletes in the Olympics, same-sex couples rights, non-binary gender in schools and climate change are all examples of debates and issues that arise in my social media public sphere. Debates become problematic when one side gets inappropriately aggressive about their views and lacks the respect for the other side to consider their argument. As a low barrier, low culture form to access; everyone (with wifi) is included. However, the age of participants on social media is heavily skewed to a younger audience, and people over the age of 60 are far more likely to be excluded from online debates. The role of the media in my public sphere is significant as media sources the information we debate over. It is also responsible for the exasperation and publication of social media debates or trends gone wrong or gone wild, as seen recently with Fraser Anning’s controversial egging.
Reference List
Media-studies.ca. (2019). Jürgen Habermas and the Public Sphere. [online] Available at: https://www.media-studies.ca/articles/habermas.htm [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].
Opentextbc.ca. (2019). Habermas’ Public Sphere – Media Studies 101. [online] Available at: https://opentextbc.ca/mediastudies101/chapter/habermas-public-sphere/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2019].
internet kid 