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.

What interactivity means for the communications practice

The introduction of Web 2.0 has made the Internet more interactive, but what does this mean for the communications industry? How can interactivity be used to achieve objectives and goals? What is the formula for something to be classed as interactive? These are the questions I seek to answer throughout this blog post.

Background

Inside the digital world, interactivity can be found within mediated communications settings across a number of different platforms, channels and contexts. This is a radical transition from its origins of face-to-face conversation. Social interaction, and hence interactivity can be described as the geometric spiral metaphor for communication: Everyone is familiar with it (Rafaeli, 1988).

Research on public relations (PR) and the Internet has stated that interactivity between the public and the organisation is an issue of high relevance. Interactivity is one of the main characteristics of the Internet, and has been the subject of a number of studies in the field of communications (Capriotii, 2006).

Interactivity explained

In order to fully understand what interactivity is, we shall look at Rafaeli’s study in 1998. He describes interactivity as part of a responsiveness model and states that communication is not fully interactive unless specific criteria are met.

Interactivity is quintessentially a communication concept which comes in three different forms (Rafaeli, 1988). The distinction called for is between interactive, quasi-interactive (reactive), and non-interactive communication sequences. Quasi- and fully interactive sequences differ clearly from non-interactive as they offer two-way communication as opposed to one-way. The complete absence of interaction is marked by jolting, incoherent conversation (McLaughlin, 1984).

The difference between quasi- and full interactivity lies in the nature of the communication responses (Rafaeli, 1988). Interactivity requires that communicants respond to each other. The conditions for full interactivity are achieved when later stages in a message sequence depend on the reaction to earlier transactions, as well as on the content exchanged (Rafaeli, 1988). During a press conference, a journalist might say to a member of parliament “It is clear you do not agree with the public sector cuts, but do you believe there is room for compromise?” If an open response is delivered from this question, it is deemed fully interactive. A situation or medium remains quasi-interactive when previous interactions are unacknowledged. Quasi-interactivity is none the less a very important form of communication, especially when online.

Interactive content

Numerous organisations are using creative and interactive material to engage users and offer a more active and participatory experience, where both parties are contributing equally and with the aim to build relationships. Starbucks have used interactivity to great effect within their Web site statbuckscoffeeathome.com. A user can discover the coffee taste he/she is most suited to by taking a simple ‘Find My Perfect Coffee Quiz’(see figure 1). A user can view the different types of coffee available by moving the cursor over the coffee packets as shown in the image and ultimately discover which is their ideal coffee.

Figure 1:

The Internet enhancing democracy

The Internet is mainly about the exchange of information, and so is PR. Ordinary people are interacting with each other and a whole range of institutions 24 hours a day, but to what extent? The Office of National Statistics reported in 2010 that 73 per cent of households had Internet access and 30.1 million adults used the Internet every day or nearly every day, almost double the estimate in 2006 (see figure 2).

Figure 2:

We can say the Internet is creating its own society, one that has the potential to be exceedingly democratic. It offers public discourse to mass audiences and small groups across many cultures. Ideally, new media will facilitate public discourse that is free from what Habermas calls the imperatives of the systems world, i.e. money and power (Habermas, 1981 cited Shultz, 2000).

The Internet is revolutionising the ways in which companies do business with their customers, pushing the idea of markets as conversations and how the Internet unlocks the ability for businesses to engage in a new and instantaneous manner (Bright, 2010).

Friedland (1996 cited Shultz, 2000) suggested that the Internet gives people a fine tool for ‘electronic public journalism’ that is independent from professional media organisations, resulting in a more democratic system. This can reduce complexity of content, help users make judgements about what is important, and build shared beliefs. tripadvisor.com is a fantastic example of how an online citizenry can create credible opinion, and one that has the ability to significantly influence others. People are now saying that the percentage rating of a hotel on tripadvisor.com is more accurate than its ‘star ranking’.

However, the achievement of democratic consensus is related to opinions that are not merely announced but also discussed openly and free from distortions/gatekeepers (Shultz, 2000).

Web 2.0 provides space for this form of interactivity. Hacker states: “the more democratic a communication system, the more it will accommodate interactivity over mere connectivity” (1996 cited Shultz, 2000). Hence, we can say Web 2.0 holds the potential for what Habermas describes as the ideal speech situation (Gonzales, 1989 cited Shultz, 2000). For details on these criteria see Wikipedia.

Interactive journalism

Web 2.0 has changed the way journalists publish articles online. Readers are able to comment on news stories and interact with professional journalists. Internet sites of well-established media (e.g. the Economist) can play a decisive role as forums of valid information and serious debate, because they fall back on professional editors.

However, the problem of professional mass media going online is that their economic strategies often do not coverage with such a plan. Instead, their interest is to keep a tight rein on the advertising market (Shultz, 2000). Newspapers such as The Times have begun adding pay walls (see figure 3) to their Web site’s in order to fund online projects as well as the fight against free news service. This provides journalists with more time to monitor online articles and respond to reader comments creating more of a participatory, dialogic discussion.

Figure 3:

Conclusion

From my research, I believe online interactivity plays a significant role in aiding user satisfaction. As demonstrated throughout this blog entry, there are many ways in which interactivity can help create positive outcomes such as public discourse and equality of opinion. Engaging users online by making them feel apart of something is a great way to cultivate new relationships and provide a more interesting online experience. PR practitioners can use interactivity to formulate feedback response on their clients' products and services.

As always I will leave you with a question that is sure to make your brain tingle. At what point does interactivity become irritating?