Internet and the public sphere
Introduction
The ideological arena that Jürgen Habermas has named ‘the public sphere’ provides the foundation for discussions of the public sphere in contemporary societies. However, the public sphere has been radically transformed by new mass media. Within one generation, the Internet has grown from a nascent technology into a tool that facilitates the phenomenon of the public sphere by transforming how people, businesses, and governments communicate and engage. It has also generated changes in society by connecting individuals and communities, providing access to information and education, and promoting greater transparency. In this essay, I will elaborate on the extent on which the Internet can be characterized as a ‘public sphere’ and the consequent effects on corporate communication.
The concept of the ‘public sphere’
“The public sphere is an indispensable element of a democratic society and the institutional core of democratic decision-making. (...) based on the idea that citizens participate in collectively binding decisions, articulate their interests and opinions openly, listen and evaluate the opinions and arguments of others, and, on that basis, make up their minds. The public sphere establishes an arena of discussion on public affairs and guarantees that all these processes are open to the public.”1 The concept of the public sphere has developed over the past centuries due to social, cultural, economical and political changes into a more dispersed structure than it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. The intellectual architect of the concept, Jürgen Habermas2, was initially highly critical of large-scale commercial mass media intervening into the public sphere. Over the years, however, he significantly advanced his thinking and realized and appreciated the role of the mass media in the modern public sphere. “Throughout the nineteenth-century – with the aid of books and mass newspapers – we witnessed the birth of national public spheres where the attention of an undefined number of people could simultaneously apply itself to the same identical problems.”3
1 Cf. Marcinkowski (2008), p. 4041. 2 Cf. Habermas, (1989).
3 Cf. ResetDoc (2014), n.p.
1
Is the Internet a public sphere?
Over the past decade, there has been much debate among scholars concerning the Internet’s ability to extend the public sphere. They have focussed on the potential of the Internet in cultivating a public sphere where clear, equal, and open dialogue among citizens can flourish. The optimists claim that the Internet technology seems to match all the basic requirements of Habermas’s public sphere: it is a universal, anti-hierarchical, complex, and demanding mode of interaction. “Because it offers universal access, unforced communication, freedom of expression, an unrestricted agenda, participation outside of traditional political institutions and generates public opinion through processes of discussion, the Internet looks like the most ideal speech situation.”4 However, some qualifying comments should be made as the “Internet plays an active role in the current dramatic differentiation of the public sphere, in terms of topics debated, styles applied and persons involved”5 as well as the self- regulating norms.
According to Papacharissi, it is the intent and related technologies that have created a new public space for conversation. “Whether this public space transcends to a public sphere is not up to the technology itself.”6 Compared to traditional media, Benkler suggests that the Internet allows for a broader, more inclusive and more densely linked public sphere.7 He argues that the Internet does not just place far more information in the hands of interested citizens. It also transforms public debates by enabling online communities to use collaborative methods to create content, correct inaccuracies and send readers to the most insightful commentators. Online discussion is fundamentally different in one respect from conversations over a dinner table. Most online content is potentially public. In a recent report, McKinsey&Company8 examined the evolution of Internet adoption around the world. The worldwide Internet user population was around 2.7 billion in 2013. At the current pace, an additional 500-900 million people are forecast to join the population by 2017. Yet, these gains will still leave more than 4 billion people to remain offline, which is 60
4 Cf. Buchstein (1997), p. 250. 5 Cf. Rasmussen (2013), p. 99. 6 Cf. Papacharissi (2002), p. 9. 7 Cf. Benkler (2006).
8 Cf. McKinsey&Company (2014).
2
percent of the world’s population. This is in contradiction to one of Habermas’ basic requirements of the public sphere: guaranteed access to all citizens.
Rasmussen argued that the rise of the Internet resulted in an expanded public sphere through the growth of intersubjective networks and more heterogeneity as a strategy against mass media. However, the public sphere is no longer producing legitimacy and new platforms for legitimacy have to be searched for. The public sphere has changed from reception into interaction and participation. 9 “Despite the fact that all online participants have the same access to information and opinion expression, the discourse is still dominated by a few.”10 Whereas the classical public sphere “resulted from the fact that the attention of an anonymous public was “concentrated” on a few politically important questions that had to be regulated”11, the web actually decentralizes and separates, illustrated by the thousand portals that are born everyday for different audiences on specific topics. Attention is arguably the most valuable resource online.
The effects of Internet on corporate communication
The Internet has clearly revolutionized the way we communicate, and this is particularly true in the business environment. Accompanying this revolution has been a growing demand for businesses to disclose more relevant information to an ever-wider group of stakeholders, on a more frequent and timely basis. To meet stakeholder demands for greater speed and volume of communications, businesses can make use of the Internet as a more effective way of communicating.
The Internet is also changing the rules of communication engagement as it affects the position of organizations and their publics in the communication flow structure. The public now has greater say on how the image of an organization should be judged and this presents special challenges to organizations. Being an active platform the Internet is ‘populated’ by people who are interested in issues and actively speak for or against such issues. It is therefore very difficult to suppress adverse opinions. In fact one of the major effects of the Internet is to speed up the formation of powerful
9 Cf. Rasmussen (2009)
10 Cf. Papacharissi (2002), p. 14. 11 Cf. ResetDoc (2014), n.p.
3
activist groups in online debates in a sort of electronic ‘town hall meeting’ were the fate of organizations could easily be decided with the whole world watching. Activists have successfully used the Internet to strengthen their position against strong commercial organizations. This means that the Internet is a powerful tool in the hands of both the big and the small. Only those who can constantly negotiate the tide of perception management through effective communication, mediation and negotiation, by possessing the technical skills of Internet usage as well as understanding the capabilities and limitations of Internet platforms can significantly alter the web of stakeholder networks and power dynamics between activists and organizations.12 With the Internet, the discharge of the gatekeeping function is further enhanced since the Internet provides more communication channels for the dissemination of information. Taking the speed of the Internet and the simultaneous dissemination it allows, it becomes even more pertinent to harness the framing of messages for the benefits of their organizations. This is facilitated by the challenge of hidden identity over the Internet. As a result negative views of an organization expressed over the Internet may not necessarily represent the views of the corresponding number of users but of one user manifested as many. Nonetheless, firms need to be very sensitive about how information over the Internet space is managed.
Besides its facilitations in the area of providing prompt and efficient customer service and efficient transaction mechanisms, the Internet provides a low cost gateway into international markets. The Internet extends the market reach and operational efficiency of enterprises13, implying that the Internet provides firms with the opportunity to alter market focus, product policy and size orientation overnight.14
Conclusion
While there is potential for interaction and inclusive engagement, the Internet remains inaccessible to 60 percent of the world's population and discourse is dominated by the few. The heterogeneous nature of web discourse and participation means that it cannot yet be said to represent a de facto public sphere as per
12 Cf. Coombs (1998).
13 Cf. Dholakia/Kshetri (2004). 14 Cf. Dholakia/Kshetri (2004).
4
Marcinkowski's “institutional core of democratic decision-making”. Yet it does enable collaborative content creation, instant publishing, and can channel the attention of the many onto the “same identical problems”, all of which pose both opportunities and risks for businesses.” Rather than asserting that the Internet itself acts as a public sphere, it is safer to suggest that certain websites and online media content perform public sphere functions. Nonetheless, the Internet is a very important medium for corporate communication. However, considering the speed of the Internet and the simultaneous ‘viral’ dissemination it allows, it becomes even more pertinent for business people and marketing professionals to harness the framing of messages for the benefits of their organizations.
5
Bibliography
Benkler, Y. (2006): The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Buchstein, Hubertus (1997): Bytes that Bite: The Internet and Deliberative Democracy. in: Constellations 4, no. 2, p. 250.
Coombs, W.T. (1998): The internet as a potential equaliser: new leverage for confronting social irresponsibility. in: Public Relations Review, 24(3), pp. 289-303.
Dholakia, R.R. & Kshetri (2004). Factors impacting the adoption of the internet among SMEs. in: Small Business Economics, 23, pp. 211-322.
Habermas, J. (1989): The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcinkowski, Frank (2008): Public Sphere. in: Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed.): The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 4041- 4045.
McKinsey&Company (2014): Offline and falling behind: Barriers to Intern, McKinsey&Company.
Papacharissi, Zizi (2002): The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. In: New Media Society, Vol. 4(1), pp. 9-27.
Rasmussen, Terje (2009): The significance of Internet communication in public deliberation. in: Javnost-the public, Vol. 16, No.1, pp. 17-32.
Rasmussen, Terje (2013): Internet-based media, Europe and the political public sphere, in: Media, Culture & Society 35(I) 97-104.
6
ResetDoc (2014), Internet and Public Sphere: What the Web Can't Do, URL: http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000022437, accessed on November 16th, 2014.