[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’PSYCHOTROPIC | The public sphere’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY ANGELICA LOUISE PFLEIDER
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=”]
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
THIS write-up is a simplified version of a reaction paper we had to submit for our Public Opinion class. This is regarding the book of Jurgen Habermas entitled The Public Sphere.
He started with public opinion during the middle ages. Times were a little different then, the public sphere only belonged to the bourgeois or the high middle-class. They were the only ones who had the right to public opinion and the common people could only listen and follow. This was called “representative publicity.”
When the Renaissance came about, however, things started to change. Opinion formation started reaching the public through the birth of cafes, salons and pubs. This was where people could gather and converse about important issues.
Another change came about with the emergence of technology. This gave the masses more access to current events and gave them a medium to express their own thoughts on the issue. Print, radio, and TV served these purposes.
When computers and internet were developed, it gave rise to a newer medium: social media. The masses could get information instantly and could share their opinions for everyone to see.
Habermas though made a hypothesis about the road the public sphere is leading to. He called it the “refeudalization” or how the power of public opinion is returning to private individuals. This started out since the emergence of news agencies. They were the ones who had the power to withhold and dispel information to the masses. Any stories these companies did not wish to publish would go on unheard. At least social media has given a chance for smaller voices to be heard and has started a new form of journalism: citizen journalism or mobile journalism.
Social media is growing as a media platform. However, some people look upon it as a double-edged sword. People who have no access to the internet or who do not have social media accounts are left in the dark. Their opinions do not count as long as nobody can hear them and it seems as if social media is the only place where sharing your opinion counts.
It would be nice if opinions shared on social media were on matters that counted, but it seems as if most of the issues tackled are about celebrities, love teams or scandals. The public sphere previously used to be centered on reason, now it is centered around trends. Previously, you must have intellect to be a part of the public sphere; now as long as you know how to type you can rattle on about just anything.
This is what Habermas predicted. Refeudalization is happening. It may not be exactly the same as how it was during the Middle Ages but several aspects are returning. The media or gatekeepers took the place of the monarchs who were the sole players of representative publicity.
Though the goal of social media is to create a platform where anyone can share opinions, it has become similar to the bourgeois public sphere. Those who have no access to the internet, those in the mountains, the elderly, those in poverty are deemed ineligible to partake of the exchange of opinions online.
The fact that almost everything is shifting to online versions, even the traditional media like print, radio and TV, prove that the instrument that was made to bring everyone together is actually pushing us farther and farther apart./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
