Over the past decades the invention of internet and the development of social media have taken mass media and communications to a completely different level. The different networks have made it easier for the masses to communicate and share ideas by transforming any public space of communication into a broader and world-wide zone of ideological interaction and public opinion through a virtual platform. We read, watch, share and comment any content that we encounter in our social media fee in a daily basis. By doing so we are not only contributing our ideas to the topic being discussed, but we are unintentionally joining a community, a discussion thread, a space as similar as Habermas’ Public Sphere. Despite promoting ideological interaction and acting similarly to a space of public discussion, social media fails to follow Habermas’ original model of the public sphere.

The term “public sphere” was originally coined by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas who defined it as “the realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (Habermas 75). Through this space everyone is guaranteed the right to publicly express their beliefs and interact with others. However, Habermas’ public sphere ideally opted for a space in which democratic expression was allowed. He viewed modern democracy as the only political ideology that could guaranteed this type of interaction between the state and the citizens (Habermas 77). Habermas emphasizes on the bourgeois-liberal model of the public sphere. The bourgeois model of the public sphere, as he explains, always included ideological components, mainly focusing on the spread of democracy and similar western practices.

Thus, thanks to the public sphere, the concept of ideology ceased to be an abstraction and became important for the spread of democratic views and political concerns, especially those raised by the dominant groups (Williams 61). Nevertheless, by the 19^th century, a new wave of social movements and revolutions around the world challenged the traditional bourgeois model of the public sphere. The raise of the newspaper industry, or business, assumed an important role on the way public sphere debated political and social matters. Habermas highlights how “the appearance of newspaper meant joining the struggle for freedom and public opinion, and thus for the public sphere as a principle” (Habermas 78). The printed media opened a new way for the citizens not only to inform themselves but also to communicate their concerns and to express their views.

According to Habermas, the emergence of the public relations industry, the increased role of advertising and the increased concentration of ownership of media, caused the public sphere to weaken during the 20^th century. Habermas’ theory opposes the idea of conflict and strongly disagrees with any ideological difference since he believes that the public sphere ideally allows democratic representation and when the dominant groups are challenged the public sphere is damaged (Fraser 2005). Similarly, over the past two decades the public sphere has been altered by changes in society, but in this case the alternation has taken it to a different level. The creation of internet and the development of social networks impacted communication in both negative and positive ways.

As observed in the past two decades, social media has facilitated the spread of news and political debates as well as openly created a place for public interaction and discussion. Due to the speech limitations and censorship on behalf of the companies which have resulted from extreme political and ideological disputes between its users in the past years, social media neglects the creation of a public sphere. Scholars around the world have argued that with the creation of social media platforms, the public sphere – which some believed had disappeared – has not only returned to society but evolved and become a more challenging zone for debate and public opinion (Kruse, Norris and Flinchum). It is common nowadays to read and make any political statement on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. However, others believed that social media lacks the fundamental principles associated with Habermas’ public sphere concept. According to the results of a research held by Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris and Johnathan R. Flinchum, 72.4% of the participants enrolled in this research reported lack of civil discourse in social media when it comes to political opinions (2018). This shows that the existing interaction between users does not entail what Habermas’ believed was essential for the public sphere, this being the complete freedom of expression.

The use of social media platforms has, in a way, replaced the way we receive news and substituted most of the news channels aired in TV. The documentary Digital Disconnect shows how these new ways of communication have benefited or affected democracy and the way citizens are being informed about the government and its decisions. According to this documentary, the citizen’s opinion regarding internet and social media is divided into two categories: the internet skeptics and internet celebrants. On one side we have a group of people arguing against the internet and claiming how its development helped “an assortment of alt-right nihilistic trolls that used to operate in the fringes of American society [to be] now able to spread hatred and sensationalist fake new” (Digital Disconnect 2018). On the other side, we have the internet celebrants, those who believe in the “net effect” and its positive effect on democracy.

For the internet celebrants, the internet has provided a tool for its users to participate more directly in democratic polls and processes. Internet, some claim, has helped with the spread of democratic principles, and the most common example heads back to the Arab Spring. In 2010-2011, a series of protests and demonstrations took place in Middle Eastern countries that were eagerly trying to democratize. During these revolts, the main media tool used to inform and communicate was the internet (Digital Disconnect 2018). In such case, the internet indeed showed how it could benefit democracy. Nevertheless, nowadays the internet has also provided great amounts of non-reliable information sources, opening a new space for the so-called “fake news.” The spread of misinformation on the internet can also impact the way we perceive our world and how we make choices.

Finally, some scholars have also argued that companies like Facebook and Twitter have no other goal but to make profit out of the users. Christian Fuchs is a great advocate for this belief. He claims that companies like Facebook sell their users data to advertising companies without notifying its users. By doing this, Facebook earns profit out of the information and content of its users, whom do not receive anything in exchange and who are infinitely exploited (Fuchs 141). As we start to look more into it, we realize how the purposes of these platforms go beyond the development of new and better tools for communication, these companies also aim for the expansion of capitalism – an aspect that should be reconsidered through a Marxist perception of ideology.

Adolfo R. Gonzalez
March 15, 2019

Work Cited

Christian Fuchs, “The Political Economy of Privacy on Facebook,” Television & New Media, vol. 13, no. 2, 2012, pp. 139-159, online: http://fuchs.uti.at/wpcontent/uploads/polec_FB.pdf

Digital Disconnect. Dir. Media Education Foundation. Media Education Foundation, 2018. Kanopy. Web. 27 Feb. 2019.

Jürgen Habermas, “The Public Sphere,” in Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks, 2nd ed., eds. Meenakashi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, pp. 75-79. Malden, MA: Blackwell 2012

Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum (2018) Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media, The Sociological Quarterly, 9:1, 62-84, DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143

Nancy Fraser, “Transnationalizing the Public Sphere,” republicart (March 2005), online: http://www.republicart.net/disc/publicum/fraser01_en.htm

Raphael, The School of Athens. 1509-1511. Apostolic Palace, Vatican City. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiawbHG8YXhAhVkNH0KHdrmDfMQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fprogrammes%2Fb00j7txt&psig=AOvVaw3N7tJigzc-a2iMJcsO0-6p&ust=1552799088389276

Raymond Williams, “Ideology,” in Marxism and Literature, pp. 55-71. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.