“
In view of these operational difficulties with the notion of public sphere, I wish to propose instead the concpet of ‘field’ as one possible way of overcoming the community / network impasse. Put simply, a field is an organised domain of practice in which social agents compete and cooperate over the same public rewards and prizes (Martin 2003). One advantage of field is that it is a neutral, technical term lacking the normative idealism of both public sphere and community. Moreover, fiel theorists have developed a sophisticated vocabulary that is increasingly recruited to the study of media (Benson 2007, Benson and Neveu 2005, Couldry 2007, Hesmondhalgh 2006, Petersn 2003). More pertinent to case at hand, field theory offers us a framework with which to analyse the Internet-mediated relations between local authorities and residents by treating these two parties not as discrete entities but rather relationally, as two sectors of a porous, conflict-prone realm that I am calling ‘the field of residential affairs’.
“
Despite Habermas’s insistence that the public sphere (Öffentlichkeit) was a phase in European history not a universal phenomenon, most new media scholars have used it as a normative, democratic ideal, that all modern societies should aspire towards (Benson 2007, Chadwick 2006). Thus, Dahlberg (2001) has evaluated the citizen-led initiative Minnesota e-Democracy, built around an email list forum, against five predefined public sphere criteria: autonomy from state and market, reciprocal critique, reflexivity, sincerity, and discursive inclusion. The problem with Dahlberg’s strategy is that it prescribes what counts as a domain worthy of investigation. Like community, public sphere is used both as a ‘rethorical token’ (Benson 2007: 3) an as a normative notion that guides research away from what is, and towards what ought to be.
A further difficulty with this concept is that its advocates, starting with Habermas, have failed to explore how public spheres are internally differenciated (Peters 2002: 4, Benson 2007; 4). ‘[W]hatever its qualities, any public sphere is necessarily a socially organised field, with characteristic lines of division, relationships of force, and other constitutive features’ (Calhoun 1992:38, quoted in Benson 2007: 4, my emphasis)
A further difficulty with this concept is that its advocates, starting with Habermas, have failed to explore how public spheres are internally differenciated (Peters 2002: 4, Benson 2007; 4). ‘[W]hatever its qualities, any public sphere is necessarily a socially organised field, with characteristic lines of division, relationships of force, and other constitutive features’ (Calhoun 1992:38, quoted in Benson 2007: 4, my emphasis)
“
It is here where the Internet most obviously makes a contribution to the public sphere. There are literally thousands of Web sites having to do with the political realm at the local, national, and global levels; some are partisan, most are not. We can find discussion groups, chat rooms, alternative journalism, civic organizations, NGOs, grass roots issue–advocacy sites (cf. Berman & Mulligan, 2003; Bennett, 2003b), and voter education sites (see Levine, 2003). One can see an expansion in terms of available communicative spaces for politics, as well as ideological breadth, compared to the mass media. Structurally, this pluralization not only extends but also disperses the relatively clustered public sphere of the mass media.
If the Internet facilitates an impressive communicative heterogeneity, the negative side of this development is of course fragmentation, with public spheres veering toward disparate islands of political communication, as Galston (2003) had argued. Here opens up yet another important research theme, one that must encompass an overarching systemic perspective. That various groups may feel they must first coalesce internally before they venture out into the larger public sphere is understandable; however, cyber ghettos threaten to undercut a shared public culture and the integrative societal function of the public sphere, and they may well even help foster intolerance where such communities have little contact with—or understanding of—one another. Fragmentation also derives simply from the mushrooming of advocacy groups and the array of issues available. While traditional online party politics and forms of e–government may serve as centripetal forces to such fragmentation, the trend is clearly in the direction of increasing dispersion. (…)
Two contending perspectives are emerging in regard to the role of the Internet in the public sphere. One view posits that while there have been some interesting changes in the way democracy works, on the whole, the import of the Internet is modest; the Net is not deemed yet to be a factor of transformation. Margolis and Resnick (2000, p. 14) concluded that “there is an extensive political life on the Net, but it is mostly an extension of political life off the Net.” So while the major political actors may engage in online campaigning, lobbying, policy advocacy, organizing, and so forth, this perspective underscores that there does not seem to be any major political change in sight. The argument is that the Internet has not made much of a difference in the ideological political landscape, it has not helped mobilize more citizens to participate, nor has it altered the ways that politics gets done. Even the consequences of modest experiments to formally incorporate the Internet into the political system with “e–democracy” have not been overwhelming (cf. Clift, 2003). E–government efforts to incorporate citizens into discussions and policy formulations usually have a decisive top–down character (see Malina, 2003, for a discussion of the UK circumstances), with discursive constraints deriving from the elite control of the contexts.
This evidence cannot be lightly dismissed, but what should be emphasized is that this perspective is anchored in sets of assumptions that largely do not see beyond the formal political system and the traditional role of the media in that system. Indeed, much of the evidence is based on electoral politics in the U.S. (cf. the collections by Jenkins & Thornburn, 2003, and Anderson & Cornfield, 2003). While the problems of democracy are acknowledged, the view is that the solutions lie in revitalizing the traditional models of political participation and patterns of political communication.
If the Internet facilitates an impressive communicative heterogeneity, the negative side of this development is of course fragmentation, with public spheres veering toward disparate islands of political communication, as Galston (2003) had argued. Here opens up yet another important research theme, one that must encompass an overarching systemic perspective. That various groups may feel they must first coalesce internally before they venture out into the larger public sphere is understandable; however, cyber ghettos threaten to undercut a shared public culture and the integrative societal function of the public sphere, and they may well even help foster intolerance where such communities have little contact with—or understanding of—one another. Fragmentation also derives simply from the mushrooming of advocacy groups and the array of issues available. While traditional online party politics and forms of e–government may serve as centripetal forces to such fragmentation, the trend is clearly in the direction of increasing dispersion. (…)
Two contending perspectives are emerging in regard to the role of the Internet in the public sphere. One view posits that while there have been some interesting changes in the way democracy works, on the whole, the import of the Internet is modest; the Net is not deemed yet to be a factor of transformation. Margolis and Resnick (2000, p. 14) concluded that “there is an extensive political life on the Net, but it is mostly an extension of political life off the Net.” So while the major political actors may engage in online campaigning, lobbying, policy advocacy, organizing, and so forth, this perspective underscores that there does not seem to be any major political change in sight. The argument is that the Internet has not made much of a difference in the ideological political landscape, it has not helped mobilize more citizens to participate, nor has it altered the ways that politics gets done. Even the consequences of modest experiments to formally incorporate the Internet into the political system with “e–democracy” have not been overwhelming (cf. Clift, 2003). E–government efforts to incorporate citizens into discussions and policy formulations usually have a decisive top–down character (see Malina, 2003, for a discussion of the UK circumstances), with discursive constraints deriving from the elite control of the contexts.
This evidence cannot be lightly dismissed, but what should be emphasized is that this perspective is anchored in sets of assumptions that largely do not see beyond the formal political system and the traditional role of the media in that system. Indeed, much of the evidence is based on electoral politics in the U.S. (cf. the collections by Jenkins & Thornburn, 2003, and Anderson & Cornfield, 2003). While the problems of democracy are acknowledged, the view is that the solutions lie in revitalizing the traditional models of political participation and patterns of political communication.
“
En definitiva, la xarxa no és més que un espai social més, una constel·lació de nous espais públics i privats oberts a l’apropiació col·lectiva. Uns espais, en gran mesura, nous, que coincideixen i es combinen amb un ús també alterat, urbanitzat i desposseït del joc infantil, dels espais públics i privats de tipus “físic” i “sòlid”. La progressiva desaparició o desprestigi de l’ús infantil d’aquest espai públic terrenal, juntament (i no separadament) de l’aparició de nous jocs i espais de tipus virtual o ciberespaial, dibuixen un escenari certament diferent al de les infàncies de fa vint o quaranta anys, però on l’educador, de l’adult, segueix complint-hi, en darrer terme, la
mateixa funció. De la mateixa manera que l’exploració de l’espai físic es fa sempre, primer, de la mà experimentada de l’adult, l’exploració del ciberespai també necessita del seny i de la capacitat d’il·lustrar, ensenyar i donar criteri i valors, d’aquesta mateixa mà adulta.
mateixa funció. De la mateixa manera que l’exploració de l’espai físic es fa sempre, primer, de la mà experimentada de l’adult, l’exploració del ciberespai també necessita del seny i de la capacitat d’il·lustrar, ensenyar i donar criteri i valors, d’aquesta mateixa mà adulta.
“
La opinión pública para Noelle-Neumann se constituye en la piel social, esta metáfora tiene tres connotaciones, (i) es el contenedor de lo social, (ii) se constituye en órgano perceptivo permitiendo la comunicación a través de su porosidad, (iii) por último se erige como la frontera entre lo de adentro y lo de afuera, una piel hecha de palabras. De esta manera,la opinión pública es el espacio y el tiempo en se lleva a cabo la acción social y que determina los confines donde son verdaderas las afirmaciones que ella sostiene.
