Joshua S.

Public Spheres

            The internet, especially social media, has dramatically improved and shaped today’s world and culture. Whether it be for educational, professional, or entertainment purposes, the internet, more specifically social media, has this incredible ability to connect millions of people all across the world. Social media is one of the few places where people can express themselves freely and where people can not only bring issues to light, but also help solve issues. Social media has become a major and revolutionary method, in today’s world, where people can become part of a community in which they are able to participate and solve issues which matter to them. Although public spheres are an intangible concept, social media in itself has become one of the best modern representations of public spheres. However, as much as the internet, specifically the social media public sphere, have helped shape societies and helped make them more progressive, they have not been fully inclusive. Even though the public sphere is supposed to be a space of critical thinking for all, people have not been truly accepting of all and rather use the social media public sphere to blindly hate upon and exclude people because of their views and ideas, which leads to a fractured and unfair society.

            Social media has not only dramatically changed the way in which societies are formed, but it has also changed the way in which public opinion is formed. In Jurgen Habermas’ article, “The Public Sphere”, he claims public spheres to be a concept of social life in which people behave as a public body where they discuss, in an unrestricted fashion, about any general matter. The public sphere functions, “as a sphere [space] which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (76). Before, the only way issues people cared about were brought to the public spotlight was through newspapers. Newspapers would function as the middlemen between the people’s opinion and agencies. However, in recent history, social media has largely taken part as the new middlemen and carrier of public opinion. This was mainly due, as Habermas described, “[to] the public sphere [being] transformed by the influx of private interests, which received special prominence in the mass media” (78). The boundaries between private and public interests began to come together and form as one. This transformation has affected the way today’s public spheres are shaped and the way information is distributed. The internet, especially social media, have caved lately on a major key point of public spheres, rational debates and critical thinking. Social media has had a tough time retaining this attribute mainly because of today’s media and their manipulation of news. The lack of critical thinking in the social media public sphere has allowed people to be easily manipulated by the content that media and news organizations produce. This manipulation of people has the ability generate a certain consensus or public opinion, which could guide millions of people to think a certain way or do certain things they might’ve not originally done.  In essence, people will only listen to their ideas, not to the opinions of others, and this manipulation of news has reinforced this ignorance. With the lack of clear guidelines or boundaries for the social media public sphere, public opinion becomes easy to manufacture into whatever powerful agencies want it to be. The lack of questioning or thinking, which is perpetuated through the social media public sphere, is driving people to think a certain way and continue to hate upon certain values or people, especially on social media. Thus, when people don’t accept or inform themselves on other views and morals, they are not only violating a major key point of the public sphere, but it also makes it difficult for people to have a fair and true public sphere, in other words, a fair and just society.

            Moreover, the social media public sphere has also struggled to be inclusive. In Nancy Fraser’s article, “Transnationalizing the Public Sphere”, she points out how even though public spheres are suppose to be an area in which all citizens are able to participate and take action in public matters, it only grants that opportunity to a few. According to Fraser, “a public sphere is supposed to be a vehicle for mobilizing public opinion as a political force. It should empower the citizenry…to exercise influence over the state” (Fraser). People should be able to exercise their right to freely express their ideas and advocate for what they believe in. However, within social media, certain people have been excluded from fully participating in discussions, or in other words, the public sphere. The certain people excluded are those who oppose or think differently, especially if those ideas differ from those in the majority. People who have a difference of opinion from the majority or anyone who propose controversial ideas do not necessarily inspire people to have a coherent debate or discussion. Instead, people find it much easier to lash out and berate anyone who opposes them. This lack of critical thinking and discussion does not help create a democratic valued and progressive public sphere among people. With growing communities, expanding ideas, and developing cultures, public spheres, especially the social media public sphere, should be able to adapt and adhere to include all. Fraser points out how, “the increased salience of transnational phenomena associated with ‘globalization’… [and] ‘multiculturalism’… have made it possible–and necessary­–to rethink public sphere theory in a transnational frame” (Fraser).  In order to truly have the concept of public spheres flourish, in which all people are able to promote their general interests, everyone must have a fair opportunity to participate, especially within social media. In essence, the social media public spheres should be an effortless, but viable, opportunity for everyone to have a say in the way their society will be shaped. Being unable to create a true, powerful, and inclusive public sphere violates the principles in which they were created upon. Therefore, it makes sense to reconstruct social media (public sphere) to platforms (spheres) that trespass barriers of either color, race, or socioeconomic status, in order to establish a more open and global discussion among people. Not only that, once this true sense of inclusivity is established within social media, in other words within public spheres, true participation at a transnational level would be perpetuated which will lead to an inclusive and better united society.

A sliver of a real-life example of how the social media public sphere could improve by becoming more understanding and inclusive is through many of today’s adjunct professors and their inability to have a social media presence. In the article, “Free speech on campus? Not for adjunct faculty, it seems”, by Kellie Bancalari, it describes how adjunct professors have become, “particularly vulnerable when it comes to expressing [their] views freely…because if they say something incendiary in public or on social media, it just might cost them their jobs” (Bancalari). Multiple professors have been fired for expressing personal opinions on social media and even though they don’t share the same benefits as tenured professors, “ the expression of an opinion is not grounds for firing unless [they clearly demonstrate they are unfit for the position]…and that goes for both tenured and non-tenured professors” (Bancalari). Even though all professors have research that could benefit society, knowledge to instill, and essentially the same degrees, the lack of a simple tenured contract is what opens up adjunct professors (specifically) to a vast amount of insecurity and risk. Multiple adjunct professors have been relieved from many valuable teaching positions because of their expressed opinions on social media that range from personal beliefs, to race, to politics (etc.). Professors, at the end of the day, are regular people trying to make a living doing what they love to do. Professors are entitled to have an opinion just as much as anyone else, nevertheless, adjunct professors are restrained by fear of receiving backlash, and life changing consequences, simply because people would not like what they say. However, it’s not only adjunct professors who face backlash for expressing their ideas in the social media sphere. Nowadays, it’s anyone who advocates for their ideas, whether on social media or other platforms, that suffer detrimental consequences. Once people start to advocate their views and morals, everybody begins to attack and criticize each other if they a difference of opinion. The lack of logical discussion and critical thinking among people in the social media sphere continues to harm and divide societies. Having everybody agree upon something is difficult enough and instead of having a coherent and logical discussion about their difference of ideas, people would rather push for more extreme options (getting people fired, berating, demoralizing people, etc.). Thus, due to the inability of the social media public sphere to act as a true social space where people are free to discuss about societal problems and influence real action, people fail to create a public sphere in which everybody can participate. Because of the failure to include all, a lack of diverse ideas and perspectives is purputuated within social media which leads to impertinence and ignorant society.

All in all, a lack of acceptance of different ideas, cultures, and values in today’s society is amplified by social media, a failed representation of public spheres. It may take time to readjust social media to include everybody, even though it should not. Inclusivity, and truly allowing all people to participate in a logical discussion, can reap great benefits towards improving society without hurting or undermining anybody

• My essay describes how not everybody can fully participate in the concept of public spheres even though the idea of public spheres was meant to be a space for all to discuss.

• This is meant to be a message to the people who are in the public sphere, they should use their common sense, because even though they are included in the discussion, not everybody debates or discusses with logic or critical thinking (as described in my essay).

• As described in my essay, people attack or hatefully criticize on those with different ideas from them. Unfortunately, instead of logically discussing and understanding each other, they just blindly attack each other.

Bibliography

 Bancalari, Kellie. “Free speech on campus? Not for adjunct faculty, it seems,”. USA Today

(August 29, 2017), online: http://college.usatoday.com/2017/08/29/free-speech-on-campus-notfor-adjunct-faculty/

Fraser, Nancy. “Transnationalizing the Public Sphere,”. republicart. (March 2005). online:

http://www.republicart.net/disc/publicum/fraser01_en.htm

Habermas, Jürgen. The Public Sphere, An Encyclopedia Entry. Media and Cultural Studies:

KeyWorks, 2nd ed., eds. Meenakashi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner. pp. 75-79.

Malden, MA. Blackwell 2012

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton