It is difficult to come up with an initial definition of what the “public sphere” actually is. I, like many others seeking a concrete definition and explanation of any topic, consulted Wikipedia. To my dismay, although a broad and simply stated definition was provided, I was still left with many gaps in my own definition to fill in, with help from Habermas and his critics.
After reading Habermas’ initial work in defining the public sphere, I latched onto one particular component: “the public sphere contains a notion of publicity and a sense of openness and access.” Granted, those are actually two components, but they work hand in hand in helping to define the public sphere. First is the notion of publicity. Whatever is spoken, or otherwise stated through some other form, within the public sphere has the right to be advertised or exposed. Therefore every participant within the public sphere should be aware ahead of time that, while they may be speaking their mind within a particular forum, those same thoughts could be further publicly made. This automatically restricts what a person can say. If he or she is scared that what they say may be taken the wrong way, their thoughts and ideas become censored by themselves. Having said that, is the “public sphere” as it has been defined really an arena of free expression?
The idea of openness and access into the public sphere then comes into play. Openness presents an air of honesty and sincerity. If a person within the public sphere is aware of the aforementioned “notion of publicity,” how are they then able to be fully open? Celebrities are infamous of being in this predicament, and I often feel bad for them because of it. This could be because of my obsession with all things E! and too many subscription to People magazine. Regardless, celebrities are automatically in the public sphere because of the exposure they receive. Even if they are having private conversations with close friends, and not in some sort of open discussion arena, what they say becomes public. And regardless of how much they say that they stay out of the limelight, they are at least somewhat aware of the media exposure they receive. For that reason, they have to censor themselves at all times because of how they may be portrayed.
Nicholas Garnham says that “the media, through the market, are driven by the satisfaction of the individual.” Thus meaning the media will publish what the public wants, typically things stirring up controversy. This leads into another catch of the actual public sphere. Only one half of the public sphere (or, at least, how I see it) involves what is actually said. The other half is all about the interpretation of the public in the sphere. A person may think that they are getting their point across perfectly clearly. That same “perfectly stated point” can be interpreted, and will be interpreted, thousands of ways. Let’s face it, no two people think the exact same way. So that same stated point will have thousands and thousands of spins placed on it by the consumer.
Advances in the media only perpetuate the confusion. If a person is stating an idea in a public forum, face to face with other people, the receiver of that idea has the chance to see the person’s nonverbal cues, body language, facial expressions, etc. They also have the chance to hear the person’s vocal cues. However, the same idea reproduced in print media can have a completely opposite effect. I read somewhere that a “sarcasm” font should be invented. I couldn’t agree more. Because when someone is reading a quote from another person, without knowing the exact context or that quote or even the person’s expressions within the quote, so much is lost in translation. Advancing the public sphere and the definition therein along with the advancements in the means that the public can use to express themselves within the public sphere would benefit all of the participants.
No comments:
Post a Comment