Draft for Comment Usenet and the Internet Providing the Technology for A New Public Sphere: The Challenge for Our Times by Ronda Hauben rh120@columbia.edu The Problem One of the problems posed by Jurgen Habermas in his book "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" presents a crucial challenge to our times. Can we restore a functioning public sphere where there can be "intelligent criticism of publicly discussed affairs" (p 98) instead of the corrupt "conformity" imposed by powerful interests who try to use publicity to manipulate public opinion? Habermas's book was written and published in Germany during the 1960's when students in Germany and around the world were rebelling against bureaucratic and unresponsive institutions. His book, however, was not translated into English until recently, in 1989, a time marked by a battle for more democratic institutions in Eastern Europe, China and elsewhere around the world. We are currently in a period when there are large numbers of people dissatisfied with the political processes and structures governing the institutions affecting their lives. Recent events like the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the political and economic structures in many countries of Eastern Europe, the prodemocracy movement in China and Burma, the massive strikes for better living conditions in France and other European countries, and the low voter turnout and interest in Presidential elections in a country like the U.S. demonstrate profound dissatisfaction with the current political structures and processes. Democracy and the Public Sphere Habermas's work about the public sphere helps to shed light on this crisis of democracy that is prevalent around the world. His book "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" describes how a democratic process grew up in the period of transition from monarchy to parliamentary democracy. Habermas shows how the process developed in countries like England, France and Germany where individuals could congregrate to discuss the important issues of their day. Through discussion and debate which took place where they could gather, in coffee houses in England, in salons in France, and in table societies in Germany, these individuals were able to challenge the governing powers of their respective countries. This process of rational-critical discussion on issues of public concern created a vibrant new form which Habermas calls the "public sphere." The development of this public sphere, he argues, made it possible to influence and create an alternative political authority to that of the governing structures. This opposition stratum did not itself try to rule or challenge the main form of government rule. Habermas's analysis is that the development of a public sphere makes it possible to reconstitute the foundation upon which rule has been based, by contesting the ability of the rulers to control what Habermas calls "public opinion" and "publicity." In this way, this opposition stratum is able to challenge the power structures in an effective way making possible needed changes in society that will support the new conditions that have developed. Habermas explains that historically, prior to the development of political discussion groups, there were literary discussions which provided a training ground for critical reasoning among a stratum of individuals to clarify their self interest in the economic sphere. A contest for power began in the towns in opposition to the court. Early institutions of the towns which developed, such as coffee houses (Great Britain), salons (France), and table societies (Germany), provided the milieu where rational critical discussion could take place among the individuals who visited these establishments. These early percursors provided the transition between the old and dying form of authority of the court and the new and developing publicity of the citizen public sphere. Habermas contends that this newly evolving form of literary public sphere made it possible to pose the questions and issues appropriate to the changing needs of society and thus set the foundation for the creation and development of the public sphere in the political realm. Defining Terms To understand what Habermas defines as "public opinion" and "publicity", one must first consider his definition of "public. He points out how "public" is a term describing "open to all," as opposed to something which is exclusive. Public, he notes, can refer to state owned property, as a public building, or can be charged with the "task of promoting the public or common welfare of its rightful members." He examines how the term "public" can be connected with the concept of "opinion", and proposes that this combination of terms, "public opinion" is a concept that includes being a critical judge and also promoting communication among members of the public. In a similar way, the term "public sphere" can represent a specific domain, one that is public as opposed to private. For Habermas, the "public sphere" is something that is created in the process of rational-critical discussion on issues of public concern and in the development of common action. Thus opinions that have been debated in the public sphere lead to determining a course of action that will serve the public interest. (p 95) Habermas conceptualizes "publicity" as having gone through a structural transition. He writes: "At one time publicity had to be gained in opposition to the secret politics of the monarchs; it sought to subject persons or issues to rational-critical public debate and to render political decisions...to review before the court of public opinion." (p 201) Then Habermas describes how this original form of "publicity" has been corrupted by business interests who replaced the public purpose and the form of rational-critical debate which was the core of the early form of "publicity." He describes the corrupted form as advertising to influence policy making institutions and to justify support for big corporate interests. (p 193) "The sender of the message," he explains, "hides his business intentions in the role of someone interested in the public interest." (p 193) The sender of this corrupted message, according to Habermas, thereby strives to hide that his goal "is self preservation of a private interest." Habermas's Argument Habermas thus describes how the democratic process and intent of the public sphere is corrupted by this use of publicity by corporate entities. He writes, "Intelligent criticism of publicly discussed affairs gives way before a mood of conformity with publicly presented persons or personifications." (p 195) Originally Habermas conceived of a uniformity that the democratic discussion and processes achieve "by a time-consuming process of mutual enlightenment, for the general interest on the basis of which alone a rational agreement between publicly competing opinions could freely be reached." (p 195) Habermas then comments on how this is replaced by a new form of publicity that the business interests create, a consensus which is created by their use of a campaign to spread good will for their products or interests, and hence a new form of "publicity." Habermas equates this corrupted public show with a semi-feudalistic like practice where "suppliers display showy pomp before customers ready to follow." (p 195) Habermas argues that the democratic process that provided a challenge to the old power structure underwent a structural transformation into a corrupted anti democratic process of creating public opinion for powerful interests. This is the foundation of his argument about the development and structural transformation of the public sphere. Historical Framework for the Understanding the New Public Sphere In his documentation of the birth and development of the public sphere and his description of how its core has been replaced to provide a pretext for big business entities to campaign for political support for their private self interest, Habermas has done a signficant service. His work provides a historical framework to examine whether there is any hope for the restoration of democratic processes. Though his book is pessimistic that the critical rational public sphere he believes is essential for the functioning of a democratic society can be restored, his study sets a foundation to evaluate whether such democratic process are again possible. He raises the question: Is the rational-critical public sphere merely a historical category? Or is it representative of a more long term development which will be marked by substantative change? His work provides a significant guage with which to measure the public purpose and democratic structure of the functioning of the public sphere. Both the creation and subsequent corruption of a public sphere are historical categories that are related both to the conditions and the ability of the people based on their historical circumstances to affect what was happening. People moving to the towns in the early period Habermas writes about, were able to congregate in coffee shops, salons and table societies, and thus the newly formed towns provided the conditions for them to be able to have the discussion and debate needed to challenge the old power structures. While he wrote his habilitationsschrift in 1961 which was the basis for his book, students in Germany and around the world were beginning to congregate at their universities and to utilize underground forms of media like newspapers, films, teach-ins etc to create the new forms of public sphere that developed in the mid 1960's. In a similar way, in the 1990's, people around the world are gathering online via new forms of computer-communication media, like Usenet newsgroups and the Internet, and via this new form of public sphere, are discussing the important affairs of the times. Online Public Sphere of Our Time In a recent U.S. federal district court decision in a case involving the Internet (ACLU vrs Reno), one of the judges, Judge Dalzell, eloquently described the importance and power of Usenet and the Internet as a new media making possible democratic participation and discussion. He wrote: The plaintiffs in these actions correctly describe the 'democraticizing' effects of Internet communication: individual citizens of limited means can speak to a worldwide audience on issues of concern to them. Federalists and Anti-Federalists may debate the structure of their government nightly, but these debates occur in newsgroups and chat rooms rather than in pamphlets....The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Judge Dalzell documents that there is a vibrant new form of public sphere developing online which Habermas did not know about nor consider could be developing. Habermas's concept of the public sphere provides a way to recognize the democratic structures and the people who develop them as a crucial aspect of changing social and political structures. A new form of public sphere is being created as the conditions and the actors develop with the ability and the need for the democratic processes and forms of the public sphere. And in a similar way, there are those interests trying to corrupt this newly forming public sphere. Future chapters in this paper will endeavor to document what and how this new online public sphere has developed over the past 30 years. And how it continues to welcome more and more people to be part of the new democratic process it makes possible. The purpose of this paper is to see what this prototype public sphere makes possible and what the conditions are for it to grow and flourish. Habermas has done a crucial service in distinguishing how the democratic core and the corrupted core of the public sphere are fundamentally different despite the external similarities of appearance. Thus he has made it possible to grasp this fundamental difference and thereby have a thermometer by which to judge and defend the creation of a newly developing democratic online public sphere. Originally written Fall '97 Updated Fall '99