I found this week's chapters by Everett very dense; at times, I felt I knew what she was talking about...but then as I continued to read, I became lost. Sophie's presentation really helped me situate Everett's main arguments about the digital divide and the digital public sphere. In fact, I am inspired to change my topic for our final conference paper so I can draw on larger course themes of globalization, diaspora, imagined community, online vs. real community, transnationality and the democratic public sphere. I do find it difficult, however, to answer the question about whether or not the Internet/digital technologies allow for greater participation among global citizens.
We often speak about the digital divide - not every citizen has access to technology such as the Internet - therefore, the digital public sphere is automatically not fully democratic because not every person has access to participate. However, the Internet's benefits for creating online spaces to "meet", and for people to gather and share information quickly about a wide variety of issues, cannot be denied.
I am especially interested in the comment threads of featured news stories on the websites of The Globe & Mail & The Record for example. It is interesting to see people voice their opinions on the information provided in an article and then continue to discuss with other citizens. However, another key aspect of the public sphere is to initiate change - and I wonder how much "change" is actually driven as a result of the information/public opinion expressed through online comments on a news article/website.
I know we have discussed this question at lengths in previous courses from last semester, but I’m curious to see if anyone’s opinions have changed since then on the legitimacy of a democratic, online, transnational public sphere. Is it possible? Or is it simply an ideology or utopic dream?
I think in first semester I believed that the Internet could facilitate a space for rational debate and stimulating discussion. With that being said, however, I am now questioning the notion of the public spheres existence in general. How can a democratic public sphere exist in Canada when we elect older white men to represent us in the House of Commons. How many of us can relate to them and how do they truly represent us?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marie, it is hard to imagine a space where Canada's diverse voices are represented and expressed. I decided to look at the government web site for the government representatives and found that there definitely isn't a representative for all people's groups in Canada. As I mentioned in class, I am not sure if there is a solution. If there were specified seats for certain groups of people, how certain can we be that those people would be qualified?
ReplyDeleteYou can check out the site and view profiles of each of our representatives to decide for yourself if you feel adequately represented.
However I do want to say that I think Habermas (and this is from my understanding of last semester) saw the public sphere as composed of those outside of government. As such, civil society was the group he was referring to when he spoke of the public sphere in his later writings. I remember reading a whole portion of that last semester and thinking, it could be possible if it involved the entire populace, outside of government and commerce. However is it possible to ever be outside of government, or even capitalism in general here in the West?
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
I find Habermas's concept of the public sphere extremely frustrating. I realize that it's an important concept for democracy (the two go hand in hand), but I find comparing anything to both democracy and the public sphere to be useless. This is because the two are ideals that will never be realized, it's absolutely impossible unless we are willing to change, bend or reshape their definitions. I feel that trying to adhear to these ideals is extremely problematic as what we are acting on are unrealistic and fantastical ideas about what is possible. By trying to adhear to these ideals we are distracted from how to solve real life issues. Both the idea of the public sphere and democracy are good on paper but fail to deliver in reality. I believe that both concepts rely on the idea that things will be alright if there were no differences, because after all no differences leads to no conflict and leads to decision making. And yet the concepts depend on difference. I'm not saying that ideals aren't important because it's certainly a good thing to strive for equality and fairness. But at the same time, conversations about whether or not something can be a public sphere tend to be circular (at least this is what I feel we experienced last semester!). In short, an online public sphere is a utopian dream. That's my rant for the day, I await Amanda's optimism!
ReplyDeleteWell I do feel the need now to comment on this conversation as my optimism has been requested!! I think in terms of the government, it is hard to see an equal representation of all people as their are fundamental problems with the first-past-the-post system of representation we currently have in Canada. I won't get into the details but a lot of the reasons for under representation by women and ethnic groups is due to our voting and party system (check out wikipedia for a quick overview). That being said, with regards to the online public sphere as a Utopian dream, I can see the hesitation of many people in discussing the Internet as a public sphere. There is not equal ability to connect, discuss or even to be heard. However, I think with social networking there is a new way to connect with the representatives we do have. For example, I follow my local MP (and some from other ridings) on Facebook. As a member of the opposition party he will often post questions and ask people to post what they think or how they feel about what is happening in government at the moment. While this is not an ideal interaction, it does at least give the feeling that there is someone to whom I can voice an opinion or complaint. Facebook by no means is an ideal participation site, but it is better then nothing at all. Also, it is interesting that in an attempt to connect with the younger (and more apathetic) generations, politicians and political parties have turned to social media as a way to connect with people. An example of this can definitely be seen in the US. During the 2008 presidential elections, people were asked to submit questions via youtube to be played at "town hall" meetings with the presidential candidates. The various parties (in the US at least) have also at times asked for input from citizens about directions to take the party and ways to help be engaging. While these are by no means perfect examples, I think they are examples that cannot be ignored. Like I said in my other response post, since the Internet is a platform like nothing we have seen before, perhaps we cannot study it the way we have studied previous media.
ReplyDelete