Public spheres and activism inside the online world

This reflective blog post will outline and analyse the concept of a public sphere, contextualising it in relation to the digital world. An example of contemporary activism will be provided to identify and externalise the existence of online public spheres and the impact they are having on the modern world.

The German social theorist Jurgen Habermas founded the idea of a public sphere in 1962. His work focuses on the “literate bourgeois public” and defines the public sphere as a space which gives voice to those who were previously not included in issues of governance (Habermas, 1989). The discussion-based concept is often mediated and includes open debate with the intention of changing policy. However, critiques point out that Habermas’s ideology is restricted in terms of class and gender, only middle class men could participate (Fraser, 1992 cited Poor, 2005). This is somewhat ironic as the purpose of a public sphere is to be democratic, not exclusive. Subsequently, the concept developed into accounting for the “public at large” which can act as critical counterbalance to the state (Jary and Jary, 2000).

Media content is becoming increasingly biased and controlled as news corporations become more dominant and authoritative. Rupert Murdoch’s controversial merge with BSkyB will further decrease market competition and add to a divide of power. The public is regarded “not as democratic citizens but simply as a mass of consumers” (McNair, 2006). Therefore, implications for democracy of this concentrated, conglomerated and hyper-commercialised media are entirely negative. As a result, “The public sphere has become anarchistic, vulnerable to conversions and communication disturbances” (Eriksen and Fossum 2000, p.189).

With regards to public relations (PR), Habermas (1989) argues that the practice “invades the process of ‘public opinion’ by systematically creating news events or exploiting events that attract attention”. We can say PR has the ability to set agenda and thus intervene, disrupting the bottom-up flow from citizens to those in power.

The offline public sphere remains gloomy and distant from its ideology. The UK’s so-called ‘Big Society’ lacks commitment and can be seen merely as a false act of corporate social responsibility, a delusive tactic to attract conservative votes. We are currently living in an information environment dictated by the elite. Our government likes telling our population what is ‘right’, but without democratic consultation. However, does the Internet change prospects for the public sphere? Are the ideals of democratic participation within reach as communication becomes more inclusive and less controlled?

The rapid development of Internet technology has made the public sphere more expansive, to the point where it can act more effectively. The rise of Web 2.0 has seen the fall of media gatekeepers, decentralising the information available. Furthermore, it has made communication instantaneous, globalised and accessible. Thus, the online world holds great potential for capacitating democracy, due to its participatory nature.

The direct connection between the Internet and the public sphere is that both hold the capacity to connect the previously unconnected, so ideas may be discussed to reach new understandings, often involving democracy (Poor, 2005). Dahlberg (2001) believes the Internet has formed an extension of the public sphere of rational-critical citizen discourse-discourse autonomous from state and corporate power through which public opinion may be formed that can hold official decision makers accountable.

Information regarding matters of importance such as public affairs can be easily stored online, making it accessible to a global audience. This entitles our population to a complete understanding of subjects that have previously been blurred by media conglomerates. Thus, the general public can become more informed and in turn, participate in discourse. Online space such as discussion forums, blogs and social media has triggered autonomous communication that is self-regulated. Our collective ability to share information has been drastically empowered through the development of interactive media platforms. Moreover, the Internet “can augment avenues for personal expression and promote citizen activity” (Papachrissi, 2002). However, individual opinion is of minimal relevance to a public sphere. For opinion to be democratic, it must be united with others and debated in a way that is fully interactive (Rafaeli, 1988).

One can agree the Internet facilitates democracy and holds the potential for the existence and extension of public spheres. For example, Slashdot is a web-based bulletin board which meets the criteria detailed by Poor (2005) for an online public sphere. It has several mechanisms promoting democracy such as allowing users to filter content and the ability to judge comments (ideas) on their own merit.

The UK’s public sector is currently witnessing an array of cuts in light of its unstable economic climate. This has triggered the birth of UK Uncut, a contemporary activist group and online public sphere that was brought about by a trend on Twitter. The phrase “social media for social change” is becoming increasingly realistic as the group gather mass support and a frequent supply of media coverage.
UK Uncut predominantly rebels against large corporations who don’t fully comply with tax laws and often give payments which are hugely below requirements. For example, Barclays paid the UK treasury £113 million in 2009, only 1 per cent of its profits (Treanor, 2011).

Video: A new age of protest: UK Uncut in their own words.



As detailed by Joyce (2010), UK Uncut is embarking into a space of ‘Meta-Activism’, “the practice of using digital technology for political and social change”. The movement has been driven by a consensus of ideology and the effectiveness of the Internet as a foundation for action.

PR professionals should monitor the public environment to identify and enhance strategic opportunities. Campaigns that have emotional meaning at their forefront are often highly successful. Obama’s “Vote for Change” campaign is a fantastic example whereby a public issue has been exploited to gain mass support. Public spheres are harnessing the Internet to voice opinion and gather strong support. Therefore, PR practitioners must understand this shift of influence and always consider public trends during the preliminary stages of a campaign strategy. A message which engages consensus has the potential to gain significant following and thus, attract brand loyalty and enhance reputation.

In conclusion, public spheres are becoming increasingly more influential, thanks to a rise in Internet use and understanding. Publics are able to voice consensus through various forms of digital platforms, reaching out to a global audience immediately. I believe the Internet is most effective as an extension to the public sphere; providing accessible information, space for mass participatory debate and a network for efficient organisation. Activist groups such as UK Uncut need to demonstrate consistency and relentlessness in the fight for democracy.