At the end of chapter 3 in Alan McKee’s The Public Sphere: An Introduction, he offers this question: “But if we allow different groups to communicate in different ways- abandoning the ideal of a single form of universal rationality that everybody has to employ- will that lead to fragmentation of our public life? If we imagine many distinct and overlapping public spheres, involving different people communicating in different ways, do we end up with a kind of Babel where society falls to bits?” Well, I hate to be the one to burst McKee’s bubble, but think that we are far beyond limiting how different groups communicate. I think that it would be nearly impossible to put any sort of barrier on the way that these groups communicate within their own discourses and with other sectors of the public sphere. And even if it was possible to mandate some sort of rule or norm on how to communicate in the public sphere, it would not go over well. People are used to talking in certain ways, using certain words, and sharing their opinions how they see fit.
At the same time, however, I don’t see the “fragmentation” that he is talking about as a bad thing. It is inevitable that there are going to be different “overlapping public spheres” because not everyone is going to focus on or communicate about the same thing. I could see this working ideally centuries ago, when members of a public would get together in person and discuss matters that concerned the entire town/city/etc. Items such as upcoming elections or new taxes would be discussed. At the time, that was the only way to have a meeting to communicate and discuss ideas (in a “real time” sense, not via newsletter or newspaper). But, as always, with the added use of technology in its ever-changing forms, multiple new gateways are opened for interacting in the public sphere. There is an entire “internet public sphere” that is separate from the “television public sphere,” that is then separate from the “radio public sphere” or the “in-person public sphere.” And those are just broad spectrums. There are thousands of public spheres within each of those spheres. On TV, there’s a sports sphere, an entertainment sphere, a talk show sphere, a “family friendly” sphere, and the list goes on. Each sphere as a slightly (or large) difference from the other, in what they communicate and what ideas they share with the public. But I still think that this fragmentation is a good thing for a few reasons.
McKee says that it is no longer possible to reach a consensus, which I agree with. If each of the smaller public spheres were put together and asked to reach a common point, I highly doubt that would ever happen. However, when they are in their smaller spheres will people who share the same ideas, they are more likely to avoid argument and reach a consensus. Also, as he discussed in previous chapters, diversity has its benefits. When one subset is juxtaposed with another, they can both learn from each other’s differences. By having smaller spheres that are vastly different from one another, the other spheres can observe how they are run and adapt (or not) any characteristics that they see fit to their own sphere. Having fragmented spheres also helps bring awareness to certain issues that would not have gained any light otherwise. Years ago, there never would have been an “African American” public sphere- especially because only white men were allowed entry to begin with.
I found these particular chapters connecting well back to McKee’s previous chapters, and the writings we have discussed thus far. I think that part of the reason we have so many “fragmented” public spheres is partially due to the rise in celebrities’ status. When a celebrity with a high status or great amount of media attention brings awareness to an issue, it then creates its own little public sphere because it is then “okay” to talk about. The example was given about young girls feeling like it was okay to address their own struggles with eating disorders after celebrities like Katherine McPhee and Brittany Snow came public about their own struggles. A smaller public sphere, eating disorders, is then created. Another example along those same lines occurred recently when Olympic gold medalist and Dancing With the Stars winner Shawn Johnson faced her stalker in court. A man, later tried for insanity, stalked her with weapons and other paraphernalia in hopes of capturing her and one day marrying her. She later did interviews on nearly every television station to address the issue, partly because she wanted to make it known that it is an issue that young women face and that it is okay to talk about to learn more on how to keep yourself safe. Again, another sphere is created. In both of these instances, having “fragmented” public spheres is a positive thing because it gives the members a safe place to discuss their ideas with people that they know have been through the same things.
I also think that, after reading these chapters, one thing is still clear: the only way to govern the public sphere as a whole isn’t through what is discussed, but instead how the different ideas are communicated. The public sphere is never going to be completely cohesive in that there are so many smaller spheres discussing a wide array of topics through different mediums. But what can hold that public sphere together as a whole is a set of rules that governs the actual communication. I said in the beginning that we can’t limit how groups communicate, and I stand by that. If some groups want to use slang, they can still do so. If some groups want to communicate solely through gchat and internet forums and never actually meet in person, that’s fine. If some groups have a different language entirely that is barely understandable to the wider public sphere, that’s okay too. But having rules like “no interrupting another person,” “only saying something when there’s a meeting in session,” or “no talking out of turn,” those rules could make the sphere cohesive.
