Draft for Comment
 
        Usenet and the ARPANET Mailing Lists (1981-1982)
            The Emergence of the Modern Public Sphere 
                     A Habermasian Approach
                              by Ronda Hauben
                              rh120@columbia.edu
 
     In his thesis "The Internet As A Public Sphere: A 
Habermasian Approach" Nien-Hsuan Fang (1995) documents the 
political crisis of modern times and the important role that 
discussion and debate have played in previous periods of 
political crises. He raises the question of whether the Internet 
can help to make needed discussion and debate possible again. 
Reviewing the scholarship describing the modern political crisis, 
Fang proposes that the theory of Jurgen Habermas provides a 
helpful theoretical foundation to approach the problem. "More and 
more communication studies," Fang writes, "adopt Habermas's 
theory in analyzing the new media and civil society. Many 
researchers (Garnham, 1992; Hagen, 1992; Hallin, 1994) have 
already suggested that Habermas' theory sheds a new light on the 
issue. The public sphere, defined as the `realm of our social 
life...in which citizens confer...about matters of general 
interest' (Habermas, 1974, p. 49), is adopted as a useful 
category for evaluation of contemporary public communication in 
the new information environment." (1) Fang proposes that "The 
research question then has to be shifted from "what is the 
technological impact on democracy," to "what is the possible 
realization of the democratic potential of a civil society within 
which the new technologies are embedded." 
 
     Summarizing Habermas's theory on the role of the public 
sphere in democratic society, Fang explains how the public sphere 
"came to represent `a realm of our social life in which something 
approaching public opinion can be formed' (Habermas, 1974). 
However, the process by which this opinion is formed is of 
central importance, a process of rational discussion. (Habermas, 
1974) A crowd, in this sense, cannot be characterized as a public 
sphere, nor can a mere audience," explains Fang. "Political 
discussion is required, and is the hallmark of democratic 
politics. As Habermas puts it, it is the medium of discourse that 
is `unique and without a historical precedence' (Habermas, 1974, 
p. 52.) So while the term `public' is synonymous with `state-
related,' the goal of the public sphere is realized through 
practice of rational-critical discourse on public, state-related 
matters." (2)
 
     Fang goes on to describe how in the early 18th century, the 
discussion of the role of government had spread from salons to 
magazines and newspapers. "Public opinion exerted its action-
oriented power....The discursively formed ideas, originating from 
the salons and newspapers... influenced political decision-
making." (3) 
 
     In our time, however, the role of the press has changed. 
"The mass media have undergone a transition," writes Fang, "from 
acting as a public organ concerned with a rational common good to 
a commercial tool which aligns itself with special interests both 
in and out of government. The distinction between state and 
society becomes blurred and rational-critical debate gives way to 
the production and consumption of culture." (4)
 
     This change in the nature of the press and the public sphere 
has resulted in a political degeneration as well. Fang explains: 
"The nature of politics, publics, and spheres all have been 
undergoing drastic changes. A forum provided in the media to 
continue these changes is necessary to sustain civil society. A 
new version of civil society is needed."(5)
 
     Fang questions if the Internet can provide the means for 
the new version of the public sphere that will reinvigorate civil 
society. His work, therefore, documents the importance of examining 
the nature of the Internet to see if it can be helpful to answer 
the question of whether it is providing for the emergence of a 
new public sphere. 
 
     Habermas's book "The Structural Transformation of the Public 
Sphere," describes the corruption of the public sphere in our 
times by privileged commercial interests. He asks if there can be 
a joint action "from the unresolved plurality of competing 
interests; this plurality in any event makes it doubtful whether 
there can ever emerge a general interest of the kind to which a 
public opinion could refer as a criterion." (6) Writing in the 
early 1960's, Habermas proposed that there must be a set of urgent 
issues that could bring together what would otherwise be competing 
interests. He maintained that the fight against nuclear 
annihilation is the public issue where such joint work is 
possible:
 
     "The technical means for destruction increase among with the 
     technical means of satisfying needs. Harnessed by the 
     military, a potential for self-annihilation on a global 
     scale has called forth risks so total that in relation to 
     them divergent interests can be relativized without 
     difficulty. The as yet unconquerable state of nature in 
     international relations has become so threatening for 
     everybody that its specific negation articulates the 
     universal interest with great precision." (7)
 
     Habermas outlines as one of the conditions for a public 
sphere to be effective in the political realm -- "a relativizing 
of structural conflicts of interest according to the standard of 
a universal interest everyone can acknowledge." (8) 
 
     The urgent issue of the arms race that was debated on the 
fa.arms-d newsgroup on Usenet and the ARMS-D mailing list on the 
ARPANET in Spring 1981 defined a framework for the emergence of a 
new public sphere as Habermas predicted. (9) Despite their differing 
views on how to prevent nuclear annihilation, those discussing 
the issue agreed about the need for debate and for more people to 
be involved in the discussion. And the ARPANET and Usenet 
networking technology helped to make the debate possible. (10)
 
     In the heat of the debate on Usenet during this early period, 
one participant wrote:
 
    "The point is that there is no way of making us safe within 
     the strategic weapons game, and in fact we are so profoundly 
     unsafe despite 35 years of the most devoted efforts in that 
     direction, that the whole game seems worthless to me."
 
He goes on to describe the vicious cycle which he feels must be 
broken, "The reason I think everybody should become painfully 
aware of the problem is to provide motivation for making that 
leap of perception," to recognize the need to change the whole 
context. (11) 
 
     Explaining why he feels it is so important to discuss what 
would be the effects of a nuclear strike, he writes, "It's hard 
for me to believe that anyone who has made a serious attempt to 
grasp the scale of nuclear destruction would find it irrelevant 
to discussions of the issue."
 
     Another participant in the discussion agreed:
 
     "I agree that if Boston gets hit by a nuclear weapon, it's a 
     disaster, and that I want a strategic policy that will 
     prevent that somehow." 
 
However, he also notes: "What we don't agree on is, what's the 
best way to prevent it. That is a separate question." (12)
 
    He explains, "Agreeing that it should be prevented, does 
not mean I have to agree with you on how," he continues,  "I 
encourage you to defend your position on how to do it," he 
emphasized, welcoming the debate between the differing views, 
"but you can't do that merely by reiterating the claim that it 
needs to be prevented." 
 
     Though he believed that there could be reasons to discuss the 
damage that would result from a nuclear attack, he maintained 
that "it doesn't have much consequences for the argument about 
what US policies should be."
 
     The significance of this and other posts is that though 
there were clear differences between those participating in the 
discussion, there was a point of agreement that meant they had 
reason to continue their discussion. The agreement was that the 
arms race represented an important public question that could not 
be left in the hands of the elites of society to solve. Those in 
the discussion believed that the little people like them had to 
become involved in determining how to solve this pressing public 
issue.
 
     A post outlining the urgent need for public input 
in the debate, was added to the discussion:
 
     You don't have to be an expert to have your say on public 
     policy. You can go with whatever level of information you 
     have. For too long, the American people, the Russian people, 
     and indeed all the peoples of the earth have been 
     intimidated by the military technocrats on nuclear weapons 
     policies. These fateful questions have been monopolized by 
     the strategists and designers of military hardware. They 
     have created their own language and developed their lunatic 
     scenarios of such complexity that the mere citizen feels 
     excluded from the debate. We cannot allow this situation to 
     continue. The basic issue of catastrophe and survival are 
     well within the capacities of the average citizen and are 
     generally understood. The technical details of the awful 
     weapons are not the keys to basic policy.... (13)
 
     Another post was from Jon Webb <CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20>. (His 
post was submitted by REM@MIT-MC.) (14) Webb characterized the arms 
race as "a kind of feedback situation: USSR builds more weapons, 
which makes us nervous, so we build more weapons, which makes 
them nervous, etc." He proposed the need to create a negative 
feedback situation to change what was happening. "What we want to 
do is to create a `negative feedback' situation. I don't know how 
to do this. But imagine we could build a machine that would, say, 
eat nuclear weapons & have offspring. The supply of nuclear 
weapons would start to decrease. This would be easy because the 
offspring of this machine would be eating them anyway, and 
eventually things would stabilize at a much lower level than 
now...." He noted that, "Obviously such a machine cannot exist. 
But think in terms of a sociological change which would work that 
way...maybe there is some way to start a change in our society-
mind that would work that way. I think it's the only way little 
people like us can really affect things." 
 
     This debate over U.S. and Russian military policy was 
carried on the ARPANET funded by the U.S. government through the 
Department of Defense (DOD). It was also available on Usenet, 
which was then a bulletin board system available by UUCP to 
network sites using the Unix operating system. While access to 
the ARPANET was available to those contractors with DOD contracts 
to do research relevant to developing the ARPANET, Usenet was 
available to those academic or public computer sites using Unix, 
which was available at a low cost from AT&T. Many of those using 
either the ARPANET or Usenet were graduate students doing 
computer science research or operating university computer 
systems.
 
     Webb's post emphasizes that it is the "little people" that 
need to be able to affect things, and that the way they will be 
able to do so will be based on something different from the way 
issues were approached by the elites of society.
 
     Another post urged "First of all we need to devote 
significant resources (clever people, money, and time) to the 
solution of the problem posed by nuclear weapons. At the moment 
the amount of money spent to solve the problem is tiny compared 
to the amount spent for the weapons to aggravate it." He 
continues, "Since we are locked in a deadly embrace with the 
Soviets, we and they need to understand much more bout what they 
and we want, how we think about these problems, etc., etc...(15)
                               
     The person posting emphasizes the need to understand both 
the Soviet people and the American people if a way is to be found 
to solve this momentous problem. 
 
     In another contribution to the discussion, the poster 
raised the question of whether the Soviet Union was a monolithic 
entity. "The issue this raises seems to be the one that underlies 
all discussions of arms control," wrote Uphill, "that is the 
intentions/ reliability of the Soviets. While I have copious 
thoughts on that myself, for now I'd just like to raise the 
double question: 1) Is the Soviet Union the monolithic, 
intractible menace it is popularly imagined to be, and (possibly 
more importantly) 2) Since it is hard to foresee national 
consensus on 2), is it necessary to deal with this question in 
trying to envision a way out of the mess we are in? That is, is 
it possible to envision real reversal of the arms race in the 
absence of sincere Russian cooperation?" (16)
 
    Then he added, "Have at it, folks." In this way he indicated 
the desire for discussion of the issues raised in his post. Such 
an invitation to discussion regularly appears throughout the posts on 
the ARPANET mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups carried during 
this 1981-2 period.
 
     The importance of this discussion is that the participants 
identified an important issue. They agreed that such a 
significant public question required input and contributions from 
the public. Although they had divergent views, they had an urgent 
need to discuss their differences. They also felt the need to 
have input on this significant issue from others. Along with the 
urgency of the issue, their discussion was facilitated by the new 
medium provided by the ARPANET and Usenet.
 
     Another condition for the emergence of a new public sphere 
proposed by Habermas is that rational debate and discussion make 
it possible to create objective agreement. (17) 
 
     In August 1981, a post on Usenet described a problem that 
had developed in the poster's Volkswagon Rabbit automobile. The 
post asked for information from other VW owners to determine if 
others had encountered the same trouble. The post proposed that 
if the problem was sufficiently widespread, a complaint could be 
filed with Volkswagon and with the Consumer Protection Agency.
The post announced:
 
     Attention VW Rabbit owners, you may have a problem! The 
     radiator overflow tank on my vehicle developed several 
     cracks which permitted coolant to escape.  Because the 
     overflow tank is directly connected to the radiator system 
     without a valve, a leak in the overflow tank is just as bad 
     as a leak in the radiator!
 
     The cracks in the overflow tank appear to develop as a 
     result of the heat and high pressure which the tank is 
     subjected to. The tank actually flexes along several corners 
     as it is pressurized to 12-20 psi when the engine reaches 
     operating temperature.  This repeated flexing eventually 
     causes the plastic overflow tank to fail.
 
     I am interested to know if other VW Rabbit owners have
     experienced this problem.  My tank failed after 16 months at
     15,000 miles.  Should enough evidence become available, a
     formal complaint may be filed with VW and the Consumer Pro-
     tection Agency.
 
     Thanks, -Ron Gordon BTL@MH NJ(18)
 
     By October 27, 1981 there was a newsgroup called 
NET.vwrabbit on Usenet. The first post to the newsgroup was:
 
     "I'm encouraged to see that there is a newsgroup for VW 
     rabbits being formed. I just bought a 4spd 4door LS gas a 
     few months ago, and appreciate sharing information. One of 
     the vicious rumors I have heard is that after 35K-40K miles 
     the transmission starts to give up the ghost. Anybody 
     concur? (19)
 
     The second post on the newsgroup suggested the change of 
name to NET.auto to "gain a wider audience." "I am not sure that 
there are enough vwrabbits out there, but I do think that 
net.auto could perform valuable services to the readership, and 
not just vw owners." (20)
 
     Other posts described electrical problems, diesel problems, 
excess vibration (21), but then a post described "the horrible 
COOLING SYSTEM MONSTER" in the VW Rabbits to save others from the 
problems that his family had had. (22) The post explained:
 
     "I am prompted to send a message on the vwrabbit net to 
     hopefully save someone the difficulties my wife and I have 
     had with our 77 Rabbits. We have two 77 Rabbits with Cool 
     Products after market air. In the last six months they were 
     both attacked by the horrible COOLING SYSTEM MONSTER, and 
     left the family considerably poorer. The symptoms of this 
     dreaded fiend were the following:"
 
     He described the overheating problem he had as "the radiator 
boiled over and the electric fan didn't go on. Reason? (one blown 
head later) if the thermostat is only partially stuck, it will 
let water into the upper 1/3 of the radiator and never cause flow 
in the lower 2/3s. Guess where the thermostatic switch for the fan 
is, yep the lower 2/3s. Since our temperature idiot lights have 
never worked, this caused a BIG problem. The fix for this (of 
course with 20/20 hindsight) is to replace the thermostat."
 
    Another post in the newsgroup noted that an article in the 
Chicago Tribune on December 2, 1981 announced the recall of 
450,000 Rabbits and Sciroccos to "reduce emmisions of nitrogen 
oxide and hyrocarbons."  Along with the emissions testing, "in 
cars with excessive oil consumption, dealers will install a new 
type of valve stem seal." (23)
 
     A newsgroup post dated December 15, 1981 asked about the oil 
burning problem "Do old rabbits just fade away." The post explained:
 
     "I have a '75 rabbit with only about 60,000 miles on it. 
     After the first two years, it has worked very well. Recently 
     though, it has started to burn oil rapidly (- 1 quart/800 
     miles). For those of you with early rabbits and lots of 
     miles: what has happned to your rabbits (besides progressive 
     greying behind the wheel)?" (24)
            
     By January 1982 a more general newsgroup called NET.auto was 
formed. A post asked if anyone had heard about the recall. 
 
     "Does anyone have any recent information on the possibility 
     of a recall of WV Rabbits to fix the oil burning problem?  I 
     heard about this a few months ago, but nothing recent, and 
     I'd like to hold off getting my car fixed if I can get it 
     done free in a month or so."
 
     Phil Karn (25)
 
 
     A post on Feb. 1 informed others that there had been a Consumer 
Reports describing the problem: 
 
    "I can't find the issue now, but in the most recent Consumer 
     Reports (Feb 82, I think) they mention the problem.  They 
     seem to think that the valve seals will fix it.  They also say 
     that the recall is only being honored for certain VW's - 
     many years and all non-fuel injection rabbits and non-
     rabbits are excluded, although I gathered they also affect 
     most of these.  Apparently the US Government is currently 
     suing VW to get a wider recall.  They advise owners of non-
     recalled VW's to get it fixed now and save the receipts - if 
     the government wins the suit you might get a refund.  Since 
     this is all from memory, of course you should go buy the 
     issue if you're affected."(26)
 
 
     Another poster remembered reading that there was to be 
a VW recall and that it would reimburse people who had had
certain repairs done to their cars before the recall notice 
arrived:
 
     What I remember reading about the VW recall (I think in WSJ)
     is that the notices are to go out in february 82, and that
     they will refund people who have it done before the notices
     go out.  It cost me something like $125 for a 79 Scirocco.  
     If you have the cash, and you can verify that you will get 
     refunded(try looking in an index to Wall Street Journal or 
     calling VW of America), it's probably worth doing before you 
     get the notice.  I spent most of last summer waiting for the 
     notice, and managed to get over 2 qts down more than once -- 
     that's not so good for the motor!
 
     John Eldridge   floyd!amicus  (27)
 
     Still another post warned that the problem could only be 
fixed by a larger repair than the recall was providing: 
 
     The $125 fix mentioned by amicus solves the symptoms, not 
     the cause.  I have a 75 Rabbit and had the valve seals 
     replaced for $130. To solve the problem permanently you have 
     to get a valve job which costs on the order of $500, 
     otherwise the oil burning will start to reappear in another 
     10,000 miles.  I have no idea which the recall will pay for 
     but my guess is the cheaper fix! (28)
 
     A later post challenged the cost of having a valve job, but 
proposed a means of fixing the problem. (29)
 
     I have a '76 Rabbit with 110,000+ miles on it. The "Bunny" 
     is tired so I figure its time for a major overhaul. With 
     regard to the oil burning problems, it is true that just 
     replacing the valve guides is no permanent fix. Stick valve 
     guides that is. I plan to use valve guides developed in 
     California for VW engines used in Super Vee racing which 
     will necessitate a complete valve job. However, I disagree 
     with the person who said it would cost $500, unless he was 
     quoting VW prices. If anyone would like to get info on these 
     guides, give me a jingle. (30)
 
     The NET.vwrabbit and later NET.auto newsgroups gave owners a 
way to share information about serious problems with their cars. 
They were able to help each other identify not only the problem, 
but also what was needed to fix it. They were also able to advise 
each other how to deal with the recall and with government and 
the need for a recall. This is the kind of mutual support and 
communication needed to deal with such a problem.
 
     Not only were those who owned VW cars interested in knowing 
about the problems with their cars, but perspective buyers also 
wanted information to determine what car to buy. A post to the 
newsgroup asked for recommendations about what American car to 
purchase:
 
          I am considering purchasing a new or not-much-used car. 
     I would prefer to buy American cars for the two big reasons 
     that 1) It helps our economy and 2) Parts, repairs, etc. are 
     usually cheaper, faster and easier to get than foreign cars 
     (the BMW nightmare mentioned earlier in this newsgroup is a 
     classic example-- the tailight lens on my '73 AUDI 100LS was 
     $85). The trouble is, I really do want a smaller economy car, 
     and American companies are just now starting to make them. 
     Does anyone know anything about these cars? Specifically I 
     am referring to things like Chvy Citation, Dodge Omni, Ford 
     Escort, etc. Are these good in snow? Reliable? Flames, raves 
     and horror storis are welcome. You may reply personally to 
     ucbvax!menlo1hao70!hao!woods or if what you have to say is 
     of sufficiently general interest, to this newsgroup.
                    GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods (31)
 
     In response came a post indicting the Detroit auto 
industry:
 
     Arrrrgggggg!  We could always declare Detroit as a foreign
     country.  Then we wouldn't be forced to buy their garbage.
     Although Greg's concern for our country's economy is quite
     commendable, I feel that supporting an organization that
     continues to ignore quality simply propagates the vicious
     circle of JUNK = WORSE STATE OF ECONOMY.  Is it morally
     right to "design in" obsolescence for the sake of economy?
     Would it not be better to make quality, feel good about
     doing it, and sell more product?  When is the last time
     the government came to the rescue of the Acme wing nut
     company when they were going under for making #10-23 nuts?
     Let's not continue to support these idiots when they
     won't listen to us.  It's not the American worker, either.
     It is the philosophy of Detroit management.  If this is
     not enough of a flame, I can relate the experiences of a
     close friend who works there.  You want to hear some
     tales of "engineering repression" and "design it to break"?
     I got a million of `em.
     FLAME OFF!
 
     Sorry, Greg.  I can't help soapboxing on this subject.
     Randy King
     we13!rjk (32)
 
     The original poster responded:
 
          I did say in my message that I wanted to find out if 
     there WERE any good American cars. I think your flame on 
     Detroit is partially justified, but the responses I got to 
     my query were generally positive about the  new small 
     American cars, particularly Omni and Horizon. In spite of my 
     "commendable" concern for the economy, I have no intention 
     of buying a bad car just to avoid an import. The intent of 
     my message was not to suggest that we shouldn't buy imports, 
     but rather to find out if anyone out there has seen any 
     decent alternatives. True, the response from Detroit to the 
     energy problems has been very slow, but I think they are 
     (finally) moving in the right direction.
 
             GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods (33)
  
 
     These posts demonstrate how early users on Usenet were able 
to warn each other of problems and to rally support to both file 
complaints with the company responsible and with government 
agencies to oversee that the companies deal with the problem. 
Also, not only a particular company, but the industry policies 
and practices could be critiqued so as to put pressure on them to 
change.
 
     Thus early Usenet made it possible for users to have 
a way to have their voices heard over public issues involving 
corporations and government. These posts demonstrate a second 
condition that Habermas gives for the creation of a new public 
sphere. He proposes the need for the "neutralization of social 
power and rationalization of political domination in the medium 
of public discussion". (34) The identification and discussion of 
a common problem, one in an auto that can mean the loss of the 
auto, or endanger the passengers in the vehicle, made it possible 
to pressure the appropriate government agency to act to force the 
corporate entity to do something to correct the problem. Those on 
Usenet were able to involve themselves in a public policy issue, 
involving government and corporate entities.
 
     Another ARPANET mailing list, FA.apollo began on June 5, 
1981. The opening message described its objective:
 
     "Hello to the Apollo Mailing List. APOLLO discusses personal 
     work station computers such as the APOLLO work station 
     computer....APOLLO provides a way for interested members of 
     the ARPA community to discuss what is wrong with these 
     machines, compare notes on work in progress, and share 
     useful insights about these kinds of systems....Lastly, 
     welcome to APOLLO. I trust you will enjoy being part of thse 
     discussions. (35)
 
      Those joining the list or participating from the Usenet 
newsgroup included users working on research related topics, 
those who would be the future users of the workstations, 
officials from U.S. government agencies who were charged with 
implementing automation in their agencies, and so forth.
 
     Several posts on the newsgroup discussed the frustration 
related to the fact that the new Star workstation being developed 
by Xerox would not come with a programming language. Several on 
the list challenged that decision and indicated the reasons why 
they felt it so important to have a programming language offered 
with the workstation. A post summing up some of the sentiment 
expressed, explained "I think that the big flaw in the star is 
that they don't and will not sell [a programming language]...with 
it and therefore it is totally useless for me and I guess most of 
us." (36)
 
     Describing why Xerox made the decision not to include a 
programming language, one post explained:
 
     Xerox doesn't want to find themselves in the position of 
     supporting outside software, because outsiders don't have 
     the information and the methodology to write that software 
     in a consistent manner with the rest of the Star system.(37)
 
     The discussion on the list soon turned to the restrictions 
on commercial companies that were on the ARPANET. One of the 
managers of Xerox complained that those on the list shouldn't be 
talking about what would be included with the Star workstation as 
it was a violation of the acceptable use policy forbidding 
advertising of products to be having such a discussion. Others 
disagreed with him, noting that they were discussing a technical 
issue, and that it was appropriate that Xerox not advertise on 
the mailing list, but that they could have a technical person 
answer questions about their product. In the process of the 
discussion a post pointed out that Xerox had benefitted from the 
open forum and discussion over workstations in that it could then 
better meet the needs of the workstation communities.
 
     What some of these posts demonstrated, however, is the 
reluctance of some management of commercial entities on the 
ARPANET to have their products critiqued in the online forum. 
The discussion also demonstrates that the provision forbidding 
corporate public relations activities and advertising 
protected those on the ARPANET and early Usenet so they could 
freely discuss and critique a product. Therefore critical 
discussion could take place rather than advertising or deceitful 
promotionary activities.
 
     Habermas's critique of the corruption of the press analyzes 
how "the press itself became manipulable to the extent it became 
commercialized....it became a gate through which privileged 
private interests invaded the public sphere."(38) His critique 
demonstrates the benefit to be gained from protecting the public 
sphere from commercial corruption, as was done on the early 
ARPANET and thus also on Usenet. Habermas describes one of the 
mechanisms of commercial corruption: "The sender of the message 
hides his business intentions in the role of someone interested 
in the public welfare."(39) This overpowers citizen access to the 
public sphere preventing rational and critical debate of public 
issues that need to take place.  Habermas proposes therefore, 
that "a mere guarantee that the state will refrain from 
intrusion," is no longer adequate to protect the public sphere 
from commercial abuse. (40)
    
     The implications are that there is a need for the protection 
of those involved in the rational discussion that the public 
sphere makes possible. The ARPANET acceptable use policy 
functioned to protect those on early Usenet and the ARPANET so 
they could create a new public sphere.
 
     Thus the material available in the 1981-2 Usenet archives 
demonstrate that the hope that Habermas proposes the emergence of 
a new public sphere makes possible, is indeed more than just a 
dream. In the article "The new canals of Amsterdam", scholars 
from Holland describe the importance of the Habermas vision for 
revitalizing political democracy now that the Internet can make a 
new form of public sphere a reality. They write:
 
     The public sphere referred to by the proponents of 
     electronic democracy is in a way a return to what Habermas 
     (1962) distinguised as the burgerlich Oeffentlichkeit. In 
     his analysis of the formation of public opinion during the 
     development of captialism in Western Europe, Habermas 
     envisaged a social space between the state and civil 
     society....In the salons in France, the tea and coffee 
     houses near Parliament in London, and similar places 
     elsewhere in Europe, private citizens, the avant garde of 
     the bourgeois class, `men of letters' assembled as a public 
     publically discussing and thus controlling the workings of the 
     state. Their power lay in their sensitivity to new social 
     issues which they `launched', so to speak, into the decision 
     making arena. Their discussions were fed and disseminated by 
     an increasingly independent press, which transformed private 
     views into public opinion."(41)
 
     There is thus new hope for democracy represented by the 
emergence of a new form of public sphere that has been created on 
early Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists.
 
 
                            Footnotes
(1) Fang, pg. 6.
 
(2) Ibid., pg. 37.
 
(3) Ibid., pg 37-38.
 
(4) Ibid., pg 40.
 
(5) Ibid.
 
(6) Habermas, J., The Structural Transformation of the Public 
Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society, 
(originally appeared in German in 1962), translated into English 
in 1989, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pg. 234.
 
(7) Ibid., pg 234-5.
 
(8) Ibid., pg 235.
 
(9) In the 1979-80 period both Usenet and the ARPANET Mailing 
List ARMS-d were created. Usenet and the ARPANET Mailing 
lists were online means of providing for a broad discussion of 
issues of interest to those participating. By fall of 1980 those 
on Usenet began to be able to read and participate in some of the 
mailing lists that were available on the ARPANET. In Spring 1981, 
there was a debate ongoing over how to deal with the challenge to 
the survival of the human species represented by the escalation 
of the nuclear arms race.
 
(10) The data I am exploring is an archive of posts on Usenet 
during a relatively early and important period in its 
development. Usenet began in 1979, but pioneers explain that it 
grew and developed in the period when Mark Horton brought his 
site at the University of California at Berkeley onto Usenet, 
which began around Winter 1980.
 
     A collection of posts from May 1981 - May 1982 known as the 
A News Archive exists. May 1981 is the date that Henry Spencer 
in the Zoology Department at the University of Toronto brought his 
site onto Usenet. By May, 1982, many sites, including Spencer's 
adopted new software known as B News. The A-News archive thus 
documents an early and important period in the development of 
Usenet and also provides a window into what was happening on 
the ARPANET Mailing Lists.
 
    This archive also provides a means of studying early Usenet 
posts. Therefore this paper will focus on the data from this 
1981-2 period as the principles guiding Usenet and ARPANET 
Mailing lists were established early on and thus this archive 
provides a concentrated source of especially important data.
 
(11) FA.arms-d.0027, Aucbvax.1472, fa.arms-
d,CSVAX.upstill@Berkeley, June 1 11:45:58 1981, Response to RMS 
response
 
(12) Fa.arms-d.0025,Aucbvax.1467,RMS@MIT-AI
 
(13) Quoting from the newsletter of the Council for a Liveable 
World, Fa.arms-d.0064,Aucbvax.1801
 
(14) Fa.arms-d.0054,Aucbvax.1600,sent by REM@MIT-MC
 
(15) Fa.arms-d.0060, Aucbvax.1723,CAULKINS@USC-ECL
 
(16) Fa.arms-d.0028, Aucbvax.1473,upstill@Berkeley
 
(17) Habermas, p. 233-234.
 
(18) Net.general.0088,Aallegra.106,NET.general,
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!allegra!rdg
Tue Aug  4 20:43:10 1981,VW Rabbit Problem
 
(19) NET.vwrabbit.001, Aucbvax.4707, Robert Henry 
 
(20) NET.wvrabbit.002,Azehntel.122,Barry Kercheval
 
(21) Net.vwrabbit.0003,Net.vwrabbit.0004, Net.vwrabbit.0005 
 
(22) NET.vwrabbit.0006,AZehntel.127,net.vwrabbit,zehntel!fred
Thu Nov 5 16:35:03 1981
Overheating
 
(23) NET.vwrabbit,net.auto.vw,NET.vwrabbit.0010,Aihps3.171
 
(24) NET.vwrabbit.0013,Aucbvax.5484,soiffer     
 
(25) Net.auto.0005,Aihnss.1538,net.auto.vw
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!karn
Wed Jan 27 15:53:09 1982
Oil Burning
 
(26) Net.auto.0008,Acbosgd.2005,net.auto.vw
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!npois!harpo!cbosg!cbosgd!mark
Mon Feb  1 18:38:53 1982
Re: Oil Burning
 
(27) Net.auto.0009,Afloyd.50,net.auto.vw
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!floyd!amicus
Mon Feb  1 11:26:20 1982
Re: Oil Burning
 
(28) Net.auto.0012,Amhtsa.129,net.auto.vw
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!lsw
Mon Feb  1 16:14:59 1982
Re: Oil Burning
 
(29) Net.auto.0016,Norm Thompson,BTL,cbosg!sparky
Acbosg.2020,net.auto.vw
 
(30) utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!chico!harpo!cbosg!sparky
Fri Feb  5 13:52:34 1982
VW OIL BURNING PROBLEMS
 
(31) Net.auto.0014,Ahao.174,net.auto
menlo70!hao!woods
Tue Feb 2 10:45:03 1982
New american Cars
 
(32) Net.auto.0015,Awe13.154,net.auto
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ihnss!houxi!houxg!lime!we13!rjk
Wed Feb  3 22:31:33 1982
Sovreign Republic of Detroit
FLAME ON!
 
(33) Net.auto.0017,Ahao.178,net.auto
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods
Fri Feb  5 10:08:37 1982
Re: Sovreign Republic of Detroit
 
(34) Habermas, pg 234. 
 
(35) Introduction to Apollo mailing list.
 
(36) Fa.apollo.0042,Aucbvax.1694.Gregg.Galss@MU-10B
 
(37) Fa.apollo,Aucbvax.1649.fa.apollo,TA@SU-AI,June 21.
 
(38) Habermas, pg. 185.
 
(39) Ibid., 193.
 
(40) Ibid., p. 227-8.
 
(41) "The new canals of Amsterdam" by Kees Brants, Martin 
Huizenga, and Reineke van Meerten, in "Media, Culture and 
Society", 1996, vol 18, pg. 245.