Habermas, the Information Society and the Public Sphere

            In his chapter on information and democracy, Frank Webster uses Jurgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere to examine the relationship between the information society and the public/private interactions of its inhabitants.  Webster frames his analysis by discussing some of the concerns surrounding the proliferation of information brought on by the emergence of the ‘information age’.  He states that, “[Some] commentators tend to regard this information as being tainted, as having been interfered with by parties which have ‘managed’ its presentation, or which have ‘packaged’ it to ‘persuade’ people in favor of certain positions, or which have ‘manipulated’ it to serve their own ends, or which have produced it as a saleable commodity that is ‘entertaining’” (161).  The mistrust that Webster articulates for what can arguably be viewed as a bias and overly managed information society is fitting, and particularly problematic when coupled with his assertion that, “[T]his interpretation suggest that the democratic process itself may be undermined owing to the inadequacies of the information made available to the public, since, if the citizenry is denied, or if it voluntarily spurns, reliable information, then how can the ideal of a thoughtful, deliberate and knowledgeable electorate be achieved?” (162).  If we are thinking politically, as well as democratically, Webster leaves us with some big questions, namely: Does the growth of the information society expand on constrict the capabilities of the public sphere?

            Looking more closely as Habermas’ theory of the public sphere, Webster writes, “[The Public Sphere] is taken to be an arena, independent of government (even if in receipt of state funds) and also enjoying autonomy from partisan economic forces, which is dedicated to rational debate (i.e. to debate and discussion which are not ‘interested’, ‘disguised’ or ‘manipulated’) and which is both accessible to entry and open inspection of the citizenry” (163).  The individual independence and autonomy from partisan economic forces that Habermas highlights as a key feature of the public sphere seems antithetical to the grim image that Webster paints of an information society, in which knowledge without an agenda seems like a virtual (no pun) impossibility.  In truth, the notion of the public sphere itself, with or without the information age, seems a bit idealistic.  Even if individuals are collecting in a public space to form and discuss public opinion, exclusion seems inevitable on even the most basic levels such as access (i.e. who has the luxury to participate in these discussions within these ‘public’ spaces, and who is excluded).  Women immediately lose at least a portion of their stake, as do minorities and lower class individuals, and thus inequity still seems inherently built in.  Webster agrees, at least in part, questioning whether there ever really was a public sphere or if Habermas’ theory is merely a fairytale about an unreachable utopia (168).  Coupled with the rise of an alleged information society, Webster leaves us to wonder if the information age is merely deferring Habermas’ dream.

            As a whole, I am more inclined to side with those critics who caution users about the ways in which information is manipulated, however subtly, in the information age.  I did however find that Habermas’ concept of the public sphere illuminated some of the positive aspects of this emerging public information society/sphere, which often take a backseat to the boogeyman stories about the ubiquitous information age.  Specifically, I found Jim McGuigan’s concept of a cultural public sphere to be fascinating in light of Webster and Habermas’ thoughts.  He writes, “The term cultural public sphere… identifies a place where people may speak of ‘how to live’ (hence about matters such as marriage, children, body image, and personal vulnerability)” (201).  Perhaps purity of information, “correctness” and absolute knowledge are not signifying characteristics of the information age, but McGuigan does highlight the ways in which communities, and even virtual meta-societies are formed within the information society.  When considering issues like access, we can see how the internet offers at least a beginning towards forums of open discourse, when the opinion/s of public/s can be voiced and developed.  Furthermore, we are able to see numerous instances of support for issues like personal feelings, body image, vulnerability, etc. in unprecedented and ever growing ways.  A significant example that I found of this kind of support is the “It Gets Better” campaign for members of the LGBTQ community who are struggling with their identities.  This brief clip illustrates not only time impact of the campaign itself, but also the information society’s role in bringing it to fruition.  The video is one of many examples of how the information society has the potential to move us as a society towards multiple public spheres.  

Theories of the Information Society Part One

Part one of mine and Gina's presentation on Habermas, 

Castells and the Information Society.  Enjoy!

654 Pres Pt 1

Buying into Cultural Capital

          I found this week’s supplemental reading excerpt from The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno to be interesting and illuminating, particularly when paralleled with Bolter and Grusin’s Remediation.  In The Culture Industry, Horkheimer and Adorno examine popular culture as a commodifiable good, which they maintain is used to manipulate society into rampant and essentially automatic consumption.  The authors introduce the concept of cultural capital, which they explain to be, “[A] model of the huge economic machinery which has always sustained the masses, weather at work or at leisure—which is akin to work” (1114).  The danger of cultural capital, they argue, lies in its ubiquity, a circumstance that becomes problematic when combined with the assertion that, “Marked differentiations… depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organizing, and labeling consumers.  Something is provided for all so that none may escape; the distinctions are emphasized and extended” (1112).  What is emphasized in these lines is the homogeneity of cultural capital, as well as the ways in which it is self-perpetuating and constantly around us.

            Although Horkheimer and Adorno do not discuss Bolter and Grusin’s concept of remediation explicitly, I found elements of their theories referenced throughout The Culture Industry.  In relation to cultural capital as a whole, Horkheimer and Adorno write, “How formalized the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end” (1112), a statement that alludes the concept of remediation.  This is not the remediation of a specific technology, as Bolter and Grusin discuss, but rather the remediation of a medium (and in this case, a power structure) that has been honed and refined to near perfection by building upon its previous procedures and operations for the ultimate goal of perfection. 

            One instance of this power structure exists in a monopoly, about which Horkheimer and Adorno write, “Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through.  The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows” (1111). This excerpt struck me as a distinct example of hypermediation, as the authors point out the ways in which acknowledging and even emphasizing the monopoly (medium) only adds to its power.  On the other side of the spectrum, the authors write, “The more intensely and flawlessly techniques duplicate empirical objects, the easier it is today for the illusion to prevail that the outside world is the straightforward continuation of that presented on the [film] screen” (1113).  Using film as a single example among many, Horkheimer and Adorno reference the concept of immediacy by illustrating the ways in which the effaced medium of cultural capital deceives consumers by blurring the distinction between themselves, the product (commodity), and “real life,” thus causing them to regard the act of consumption as merely another automated practice.

            The hazard of cultural capital, at least on an immediate level, is the threat of homogenization and erasure.  Copies of copies of various forms of cultural capital are promulgated as “new” when they are in fact reproductions of the old, perhaps in slightly newer packaging.  Through this practice consumers remain consumers who continue to be controlled, and nothing changes or advances aside from the precision through which they are advertised and sold to.  Power remains in the same hands, and the masses threaten to be dumbed down, if not dominated by the massive societal passivity that Horkheimer and Adorno caution their readers against.  Furthermore, the presence of Bolter and Grusin’s concepts of remediation, immediacy and hypermediacy highlight the power that is inherently built into these terms.     

The Politics of Mediation

This blog post is in collaboration with Gina Lawrence.

Video Game: World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) which enables users to assume the role of a character in a fantasy world where they must complete quests and work cooperatively with other players in order to advance within the world. The game remediates an earlier, single player, non-networked version of the game called Warcraft (also, Warcraft II and Warcraft III). Before the conception of Warcraft, there primarily existed similar games, in a more "real-life" application, such as Dungeons and Dragons. The links to Dungeons and Dragons remediate the concept of cooperative, group based collaboration, in order to achieve a community goal of advancement within the game.

World of Warcraft is an exquisite example of immediacy because it effaces the simulated aspect of the game as it connects real life players with one-another in real-time and enables them to communicate and interact in a way that ignores the simulated aspects of the gaming world. People can communicate through the online game with their voices, or via text, and interact in the same way that face to face interaction would take place, using their characters as embodiments of their gestures, emotions, and expressions. This blurs the line between the medium and "real life" by creating an environment of communication that intentionally mirrors reality.

Additionally, World of Warcraft contains elements of hypermediacy. The competitive aspect of the game highlights the medium by placing players in a shared task-oriented experience, in which they must devote real currency, which may be monetary, but also includes time, effort, and, at times, personal health. Although the competition exists in a simulated world, the cooperation between players is very real, and is constantly and repeatedly underscored as one's character progresses throughout the game.

Social Network: Facebook

Facebook is the largest social networking site on the Internet today, with nearly 1 billion users worldwide (Sengupta). The website remediates the concept of earlier social networking sites, such as Myspace, Livejournal, Xanga, etc. Various aspects of the site remediate older social technologies as well, such as chat rooms, photo sharing, blogs, instant messenger, and essentially any other socially-oriented site that has experienced any kind of significant success on the Internet in the past 20 years. The fact that it remediates all of these technologies is an indication of how well-developed and consistently maintained and updated that Facebook itself is.

Immediacy exists in the seamless integration of users into what is essentially the largest, most powerful, market-research tool currently in existence. Users operate under the guise of social networking, sharing their likes, interests, consumer habits, whereabouts, photos, and relationship preferences with their "friends," when in reality, they are contributing to ongoing market research that enables the website to advertise to their specific tastes, interests, demographic, etc., thus, making them the ideal consumer.

Hypermediacy is made more apparent through the "social" aspect of the website. Users exist in a constant state of awareness of the medium through which they are not only communicating, but representing themselves. The intimate link between who one is and how she represents that state of being though her profile is indicative of the user's hyper awareness of the medium through which she is presenting herself. In general, users are aware that there is an audience who is observing them, and they are generally conscious of the way that they present themselves to that audience. Examples of this are present in, but not limited to, over-edited photos, repeatedly revised status updates, strategic relationship tactics. Users are also aware that there are stakes for what is posted; employers, family members, and other unknowable viewers of the profile are able to see what has been posted.

Film: Mean Girls

The film, Mean Girls, tells the story of Cady Heron (Lindsey Lohan), a teenager, raised in Africa, who moves to the United States at the beginning of her junior year of high school, and must adjust to life as the "new girl" in a setting that is completely foreign to her. Thematically, the film remediates the concept of teenage-centric films which position the viewer to sympathize and associate with the film's teenage protagonist. On the media level, the film remediates television, specifically teen sitcoms--a throwback to The Babysitter's Club, Clueless, Saved by the Bell, and many others.

The most striking example of immediacy within the film exists in the archetypal characters that are meant to reel viewers in. There is someone for everyone from the goth to the gay to the uncertain teenager, which allows all viewers to see some piece of themselves in the film, and therefore, become further immersed in its plot. This, in turn, enables viewers to live vicariously through the "high school drama" with the hopes of having an idealized ending, in which their imagination is satiated.

Hypermediacy exists in the exaggerated nature of the film's plot itself. While viewers are positioned to personally associate with the characters, they are reminded time and time again that they are watching a film through the unlikelihood of the plot itself. This, in turn, reminds them that they are consuming not a singular product, but rather a multi-faceted commodity. Everything from the film branding itself to the vicarious teenage experience reminds viewers that they are engaging in a state of play and imagination that they are free to enter and exit whenever they choose.

Conclusion

In examining remediation, immediacy, and hypermediacy in relation to the aforementioned media venues, our rhetorical analysis reveals that each of these terms have distinct connotations that form our perceptions of them. Remediation implies a repurposing, but in that promises an improvement, which relates to immediacy and/or hypermediacy. In terms of immediacy, our analysis reveals what can, at times, be considered a deception-- a effacement of "truth" in favor of an unseen, unspoken secondary purpose that the user is intended to remain unaware of. Hypermediacy, rather, makes distinct reference to the medium in order to more overtly utilize the medium for commercial or monetary purposes. In examining these terms in this context, we are better able to understand the dynamics of power that not only exist, but overlap between them.

Works Cited

Bolter, J. David, and Richard A. Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. Print.

Mean Girls. Dir. Mark Waters. Perf. Lindsey Lohan and Rachel McAdams. Paramount, 2004. DVD.

Sengupta, Somini. "Facebook Test: How to Please The New Faces." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 May 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2012.

Erasing the (Social) Medium

            By the time I finished reading the introduction to Bolter and Grusin’s Remediation, I admittedly found myself struggling with the “so what” aspect of the text.  The authors tell us that, “Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiplying them” (5), before launching into a discussion about immediacy, hypermediacy, and the ways in which these factors characterize remediation.  For the purposes of this text, remediation essentially comes to characterize the process through which new media technologies improve upon or remedy prior technologies.  And so, being the education-minded future teacher that I am, I began to think about new media and the air of dread that it seems to carry in some classrooms, where instructors are either unwilling, or unprepared to utilize new media effectively in order to help their students write.  Still, I struggled with the concepts of immediacy/hypermediacy and why, or even if they should matter in the classroom. 

            It wasn’t until I got to the chapter on videogames that I began to realize the high stakes that these mediums and/or their effacement carry.  In this chapter Bolter and Grusin write, “[L]ike television, these [video] games are about monitoring the world.  Television and video cameras monitor continuously the visual scene at which they are pointed” (93).  While this “monitoring” refers mostly to computer and videogames, its implications seem far more significant during the period after the book was published (1999), during what was essentially the wake of social networking on the internet.  Once I began thinking of monitoring and mediums in this capacity, I immediately thought of Facebook, and then I remembered this telling little segment from the animated series Futurama.

          Perhaps advertisements aren’t so subliminally advanced that we see them in our dreams, yet, but the immediacy of a technology like Facebook makes us highly susceptible.  And then I realized why immediacy and the medium, or in this case, the effacement of the medium, are so important.  When I thought about Facebook in terms of “monitoring” I was reminded that this site for social networking is essentially the most brilliant market research platform ever created—it’s voluntary, it’s free, and most amazing of all, it’s essentially invisible.  What Facebook represents is a network in which information is constantly imported (likes, check ins, status updates, etc.), processed, and then exported in the form of advertisements catered specifically to the wants/needs/likes/desires of its very consumers, all under the guise of social networking. 

            Is this manipulation?  It is voluntary, after all.  And then I realized the significance of immediacy and remediation, because perhaps the most ingenious element of Facebook is that although it does not expressly efface/hide its tremendous capacity as a market research tool, it is so well integrated into the experience of the site itself that even if any of its users do figure it out (which is not difficult to do), hardly anyone will care enough for it to impact their habit/s of sending and receiving information.  When we think about information being disseminated in this matter, a myriad of other issues arise, from its potential uses to its ethical implications and beyond.  And aside from that I can’t help but wonder, in a medium/space/world of so much information, does knowledge exist?