A penny for your thoughts?

                                  Figure 1: The 18th century coffee house. (Mia Do, 2017)

Participation in public discourse laid the foundation for western democracy. People gathered to critically debate matters to further society and generate public consensus (Kuttainen, 2020). This collaborative practice continues today, where like-minded people assemble to converse and debate ideals and opinions.  

When discussing the significance of narrative and communication, Tuan (1991, p. 684) provides that “without speech – without the use and exchange of words and the ideas they convey – there cannot be, in the first instance, any human action or force directed toward preconceived goals”. Tuan’s insight highlights the necessity of communication within a public sphere, with the purpose to debate and resolve issues in the interests of society. Later thoughts were echoed by Hauser (1999, p. 91) in his publication Vernacular Voices: The rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres where he describes the public sphere as a “discursive place in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest”. The suggestion that the role of the public sphere as being central to the advancement of mutual interest has been voiced in the earlier work of German Philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Habermas argues that the monetisation of information transmission will contaminate the purity of public discourse (Kuttainen, 2020). The concept of ideas being forced upon the public, as opposed to being expressed by the public, were of grave concern. When analysing the modern public sphere (The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, 1962) Habermas argued there was a structural transformation which took power from the hands of the people and placed it into the hands of those distributing mass information (Hauser, 1999).

The global reliance on mass consumption of information has profound consequences for western democracies. Global networks such as Twitter and Facebook distribute information to global audiences with tailored agendas. Media companies, political parties, and organisations manipulate opinion within the public sphere to further their own interests (Kuttainen, 2020). Prior to the concerns of Habermas, fellow German Philosopher Theodore Adorno feared the mass transmission of information, particularly by radio, would be used to transmit propaganda (Kuttainen, 2020). Adorno argued such mediums will not advance the interests of society; rather, that open dialogue will be replaced by propaganda. Such concern seems justified, considering a handful of media companies control the global distribution of news media. Global networks distributing information have the potential to affect public opinion. Governments fall, elections won/lost, and countries engage in war. Such actions can be justified by public opinion, despite consensus being attained through propaganda, by those using the public sphere to further their own interests.

The mass distribution of information via global networks allow for targeted messaging for political and financial gain, often at the cost of intellectual debate and the broadening of knowledge. Twitter, for example, promotes its network as a platform for the exchange of ideas within the public sphere. Algorithms embedded in the technology of Twitter’s platform connects like-minded users. This process allows for the formation of mini ‘clusters’ of people whom share similar views and opinions, disengaging users from opposing views and promoting an ‘us and them’ culture.

Forethought of Adorno and Habermas is relevant today as global networks are used to advance political and financial interests.  It is pivotal that receivers of information question its dissemination and challenge its accuracy. After all, it is a public sphere, thus making it our collective responsibility to prevent its contamination. (558 words).

References

Graham, T. (2020). The story of #DanLiedPeopleDied: how a hashtag reveals Australia's 'information disorder' problem. The conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-story-of-danliedpeopledied-how-a-hashtag-reveals-australias-information-disorder-problem-144403

Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere. The MIT Press. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=e799caakIWoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hauser, G. A. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Vernacular_Voices.html?id=7UuCvESagZsC&redir_esc=y

Kuttainen, V. (2020). BA1002: Our space: Networks, narratives and the making of place, Lecture 5 Narrative and communication. [PowerPoint slides and Collaborate lecture]. Retrieved from https://learn.jcu.edu.au

Tuan, Y. (1991). Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81(4), 684-696. https://www-jstor-org.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/stable/2563430

Image Credits

Mia Do, M. (2017). [The 18^th century coffee house]. Retrieved from https://thespecsofmia.com/2017/03/31/bcm110-media-theory/