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.