Do the Internet and the World Wide Web have the potential to be a more idealised version of Habermas' Public Sphere?

The Public Sphere is a theory published by Jurgen Habermas in 1962, which is based on the coming together of people to share private ideas and develop and form opinions. Habermas worked as Adorno’s research assistant as part of the Frankfurt School of Philosophers and believes that The Public Sphere transformed the feudal society of the 18^th century to a democracy and believes that this is still relevant today as an aid to democracy.

Today, our principal source of information or news of politics and current events is the media, most commonly in the form of newspapers or television reports. However, with each of these forms comes a certain amount of bias or manipulation. Politicians use Spin Doctors to help them control the media. Therefore it is often the case that stories they want released receive a lot of media coverage and stories they want kept quiet are barely heard covered at all. However, it is important to remember that this is not always the case.

Most newspapers favour a particular political party and therefore often do not provide unbiased information or balanced arguments. This can prevent the public from forming their own opinions, as they are influenced by the stance of the newspaper. Television media is in theory not biased. However, the BBC is often criticised for being biased, particularly when discussing political issues. Conversely, the Internet serves a wide purpose in that its content can be so extensively varied.

The Public Sphere in the 18^th century, referred to gatherings of local people discussing local events. Today, the Internet allows people from all over the world to discuss local and global issues with one another. However, only between 15 and 22 per cent of the world’s population has access to the Internet, which therefore cannot yet be considered the modern Public Sphere. Nevertheless, advances in technology mean it is possible that one day everyone in the world will have access to the Internet and thus people from many different cultures will be able to form a public sphere together in which to discuss their ideas. The diversity of cultures would enrich discussion, as everyone would have different experiences and opinions.

Web 2.0 is the specific technology which would make this possible in that it allows anyone to publish information online. In order to have a discussion and form educated opinions, participants must have some prior background knowledge of the subject. The World Wide Web also serves as a source of information. Web 2.0 operated sites, such as Wikipedia, act as an excellent source of information, or provide the opportunity for people to publish information online themselves. Such information can be accessed from most homes as many have a computer with Internet access. This is of course much easier that buying a book or visiting the library.

In terms of discussion, forums, chat rooms and social networking sites create a space in which people are able participate in equal discussion whereby they cannot be judged by their appearance, nationality, or occupation. However, the ability to hide one’s true identity can also be problematic in that people may not be who they say they are. On the Internet, there is no way of ensuring people are who they declare to be, or that they are discussing matters honestly and without jest. Through the facility for anyone to publish information on the Internet, a more idealised version of the Public Sphere could be created. However, the availability of such information means it can be difficult to judge which information is reliable and which is biased or incorrect. If the wrong information is supplied, members of the public become misinformed and online discussions will no longer act as a Public Sphere.

Although the Internet provides opportunity for discussion, these discussions are not as instant as speech. Emails and posts can be edited before published or sent and thus the effectiveness of the discussion is lost. In order to create a Public Sphere, real time discussion must be used, as speech is spontaneous, and cannot be unsaid once said. Another issue is that without the interactive features of speech such as facial expressions and intonation, the intended meaning may be lost and people could be misunderstood. However, in the future it is possible that faster internet connections will allow video conferences with multiple participants to be set up in a chat room style and in this instance, a Public Sphere may be achievable.

In relation to other news forms, the Internet is a new technology and so many people do not understand how to use it to its full potential. People of an older generation in particular are not as comfortable with such technologies as younger generations. Therefore, until the current ‘Internet generation’ becomes the older generation, the Internet will not be able to function as a Public Sphere, because it would exclude certain age categories. The Internet must also be available to everyone across the world in order to create a Public Sphere otherwise; poorer groups or certain cultures would be excluded.

There is certainly potential for the Internet to become a more idealised version of the Public Sphere, but this is dependant on a number of important factors. Potentially, in the future the content of the Internet may be restricted, either by Government, or companies owning the sites. The Internet also has the potential to become more widely used and understood, available to everyone across the globe, and ultimately to create some form of Public Sphere in democracy can be promoted and developed.