Blog Prompt 1

Blog Prompt #1: The Contemporary Public Sphere

Most writing about the public sphere tends to focus on the ways that contemporary public life falls short of the democratic ideals that theoretically inform it. Thus, Habermas bemoans the structural transformation of the public sphere in the era of welfare state social democracies, the decline of rational debate and the deterioration of the media from organs of public opinion to agents of propaganda. Nancy Fraser points out the way that the norms of the bourgeois public sphere as an ideology continue to obscure and legitimize class, gender, and racial inequality. By contrast, Catherine Squires argues that critics -- like Dawson-- who say the Black public sphere is in decline are ignoring the diverse and lively discourse taking place in the rich variety of Black public spheres.

What do you think about the health of public life and the public sphere -- or diverse public spheres-- in contemporary America? 

Contemporary American public spheres contain both beneficial and toxic traits which make up our modern communication system. With the invention of the internet and social media, sharing information is as simple as it has ever been. While it gives the illusion that everyone can participate and share ideas, is that truly the case? The diversified public spheres that we've created have certainly played a crucial role in the way our society has progressed but is the availability and constant stimulation of social media diluting the real purpose of public discourse? Online platforms such as Facebook give the appearance of expressing yourself but are your ideas really being heard?  With the availability of these public spheres, I fear we may be losing touch with what it means to truly engage in intellectual discussion and discourse without the mask of a computer screen.

Do you think online platforms like blogs and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) that consume so much of our time and attention are functioning as public spheres, perhaps even as subaltern counter public spheres of various kinds?

Social media provides us with a platform to share ideas, opinions, and communications with one another but its excessive availability makes it counterproductive in many ways. The internet provides a blog for every topic, a niche group for every idea, and it can bring together like-minded individuals through shared values. While this can certainly be beneficial, it also provides people a place to complain instead of taking action. Think back 100 years ago, if something annoyed you, you couldn't simply take out the tiny computer in your pocket and send a message to 1000 of your friends so they could commiserate with you. Instead, if you had a legitimate problem or concern, you had to do something about it. The internet allows us to be passive, to express our ideas without truly expressing them, and to argue for the sake of arguing.

And, if so, are the multiple public spheres flourishing online a good thing or is this multiplicity/fragmentation helping to promote increased political polarization and conflict?

The fragmentation of these niche groups and communities online is positive in that it allows us a place to express ourselves and connect with others, however; it gives individuals a reason to continuously have something to fight for, something which divides us from others, and increases conflict. When you identify with a certain group it typically means you are rejecting the ideals of another and this is preciously what social media allows us to do. The internet indulges us as we watch the world behind the rose glass we have created, and instead of coming together as a whole and debating issues, we take to social media- where we usually surround yourselves by those with like ideas anyway. The fragmentation of so many groups only breeds conflict and I believe we should focus more on the things we have in common, instead of focusing on our differences