No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Überlegungen und Hypothesen zu einem erneuten Strukturwandel der politischen Öffentlichkeit
Abstract
The public sphere is important for democracy and it is changing. Its current development is taking place at the point where three sequences of institutional change meet and interact: globalisation, commodification and the digitalisation of social dimensions. The contributions to this volume examine these developments in discussion with the public sphere theory of Jürgen Habermas, who presents his own reflections on a renewed structural transformation of the public sphere. The book is aimed at a broad interdisciplinary audience from the social and cultural sciences who are interested in lively and functioning public spheres and would like to gain an overview of related opportunities for and challenges to the legitimacy and effectiveness of democracy based on well-founded contemporary diagnoses of our times. With contributions by Marcus Baum, Timon Beyes, Ulrich Brinkmann, Leonhard Dobusch, Renate Fischer, Nancy Fraser, Jürgen Habermas, Heiner Heiland, Maximillian Heimstädt, Otfried Jarren, Sandra Kostner, Georg Krücken, Felix Maschewski, Anna-Verena Nosthoff, Claudia Ritzi, Christoph Roos, Hartmut Rosa, Martin Seeliger, Sebastian Sevignani, Philipp Staab, Thorsten Thiel, Tanja Thomas, Hans-Jörg Trenz, Silke Van Dyk, Fabian Virchow and Michael Zürn.
... An exclusive focus on digital traces of communication also risks overemphasizing policies to limit the impact of a skewed highly active minority while overlooking the unused potential of the silent majority for public discourse online. For a comprehensive understanding of the structural transformation of the public sphere in the digital age, one must go beyond the apparent usage behavior of few, but consider the largely invisible behavior of the majority of the public (Habermas 2021). Instead, the examination of web browsing histories across the broader public offers new perspectives to address these methodological challenges. ...
... However, most research in the field is still being conducted as explorative case studies, mostly with a focus on the content or the deliberative quality of communicative acts online (Felicetti et al. 2016;Jensen 2003;Jonsson 2015;Pedrini 2014). Also the rooting theorist of deliberative democracy and the concept of the public sphere, Jürgen Habermas, explicitly emphasized the methodological challenge of empirically examining online deliberation in a recent piece on the restructuring of the public sphere in the digital age (Habermas 2021). The conceptualization of deliberation as the emergent property of a system, involving the dynamics of contexts and platform design elements with different functions for democracy, comes with serious questions for empirical research (Esau et al. 2017;Boswell and Corbett 2017;Fleuß et al. 2018;Niemeyer et al. 2015). ...
... However, a distinction between websites that primarily provide information and other websites that specialize on discussions, seems hardly detrimental to public discourse. On the contrary, this distinction could reflect the ideal of a shared factual baseline that is built by quality information providers on which basis then conflicting discussions can safely occur in other arenas (Habermas 2021;Krause 2008). ...
Does the internet facilitate everyday public deliberation? Previous research on this question has largely focused on specific aspects, such as online news media diets or political discussions on social media. However, increasingly complex media environments are composed of different arenas with different respective potential for democracy. While previous work extensively dealt with the quality of political discussion online, it is a necessary but overlooked step, to consider the upstream features of digital infrastructure and usage. Using digital trace data from Germany, this study maps out which websites are relevant for online public discourse, introduces a measure of deliberative potential along six dimensions (information, communication, participation, connectivity, inclusivity and heterogeneity), and explores different types of websites alongside high level usage patterns. Besides a class of mainstream informational hubs, a class of quality information providers that includes most established public broadcasting sites was found. A third class of niche online forums hosts political discussions among more tightly-knit online communities, supporting previous findings of incidental exposure to political content online. While the mainstream information hubs in the sample attract a much larger volume of clicks, users spend relatively more time consuming political information on quality information sites as well as on niche online forums to engage with politics online. This project takes a more holistic perspective of the diverse ecosystem of online deliberation, while presenting a first quantitative exploration of a deliberative system.
... More generally, scholars also investigate the polycentric nature of internet governance and critically reflect on new modes of platform governance (Gorwa, 2019b;Hofmann, 2020). At the intersection of political theory and digital politics, some researchers have recently called to describe and explain the digital transformation of knowledge orders more comprehensively to understand the changing nature of publics and democratic orders (Berg et al., 2020;Habermas, 2021). ...
... Many scholars have argued that changes in communication technologies will affect the publics, claiming that the internet is defining a "new public sphere" (Castells, 2008;De Blasio et al., 2020;Habermas, 2021;Papacharissi, 2002). However, platforms are not truly independent of government control and corporate influence, as they are privately owned and can be subject to censorship and manipulation. ...
... However, platforms are not truly independent of government control and corporate influence, as they are privately owned and can be subject to censorship and manipulation. Additionally, these platforms can be seen as echo chambers (Habermas, 2021), where individuals are only exposed to information and perspectives that align with their own beliefs, rather than a diverse set of perspectives. Either way, social media has pluralized virtual publics by shaping audiences, denoting institutions and infrastructures, and providing a space for the formulation of common interests (Napoli, 2019). ...
Traditional conceptions of democratic publics are changing due to the rise of social media as a global communication tool. While social media brings people together globally and creates new spaces for creativity and resistance, it is also a space of harassment, discrimination, and violence. As recent debates about hate speech and the distribution of “fake news” have shown, the political responsibilities and consequences of regulating online content remain unclear. More recently, the EU is increasingly paying attention to platform providers. How is the EU legitimizing its new approach to social media platform regulation and how will this legislation shape transnational publics? This article contributes to ongoing debates on platform regulation by governments and other political authorities (especially the EU as a transnational legislator) and discussions about the shape of online publics. By applying a discourse analytical perspective, key legitimation narratives can be explored. I argue that the EU claims political authority over corporate interests by introducing new legislation to regulate social media platforms with the Digital Services Act. On the one hand, the EU imagines an idealized democratic online public without harmful and illegal content. On the other hand, the new legislation serves the EU’s agenda on digital sovereignty, taking back control from big and US-based enterprises. There is a strong consensus about four legitimation narratives: (a) “What is illegal offline has to be illegal online”; (b) the EU is “taking back control”; (c) the EU is “protecting small businesses, consumers, and our citizens against big tech”; (d) the EU is developing “a golden standard and rulebook beyond the EU.” Held together by the idea of democratic procedures, authority, and sovereignty, these narratives are demanding more action from social media providers to act on harmful and illegal content.
... PSM have a fundamental role to play in this public sphere transformed by the digitizing process (Habermas, 2021), for which they need, at the very least, to maintain budgetary levels due to increasing competition from commercial operators (Donders, 2019). This digital turn presents important theoretical, political and strategic challenges for the creation of the future version of the PSM, in a context in which there is still citizen support, although this varies considerably between countries and regions (Donders, 2021). ...
The platformization and entry into the international television market of large video-on-demand (VoD) service providers has had an impact on all agents in the sector, as well as on operating rules, consumption habits, and financing, production and distribution models. In the case of public media, innovation is conceived as a strategic driver and the only sustainable alternative for their survival, repositioning and renewal in order to be relevant for citizens. This research analyzes 15 European public broadcasting corporations from Germany (ARD), Austria (ORF), Belgium (VRT and RTBF), Denmark (DR), Spain (RTVE), Finland (Yle), France (France TV), Great Britain (BBC), the Netherlands (NPO), Ireland (RTÉ), Italy (RAI), Portugal (RTP), Sweden (SVT) and Switzerland (RTS). A total of 18 interviews were conducted with senior managers of these corporations and one EBU member to shed light on innovation priorities, key points and areas of optimization, which allows identifying the conceptual, strategic and operational lines that these media will follow in the next stage. It is concluded that these broadcasters focus their efforts on the transversal implementation of high technology, particularly AI, for the improvement of their production and distribution operational routines; on the settlement and improvement of their VOD platforms; on digital positioning and cybersecurity; on the creation of stable communities; on the optimization of the user experience (UX) and the attraction and search for relevance for a young audience (16-25) often distant from their performances.
... 13. Into the 2000s, Habermas continues to take this line. He argues that the kinds of pluralism fostered by internet media is a serious threat to the functioning of the public sphere (Downey & Fenton 2003;Habermas 2006;Geiger 2009;Habermas 2021). He does occasionally recognise the importance of private spaces for the operation of the public sphere. ...
It is widely accepted that public discourse as we know it is less than ideal from an epistemological point of view. In this paper, we develop an underappreciated aspect of the trouble with public discourse: what we call the Listening Problem. The listening problem is the problem that public discourse has in giving appropriate uptake and reception to ideas and concepts from oppressed groups. Drawing on the work of Jürgen Habermas and Nancy Fraser, we develop an institutional response to the listening problem: the establishment of what we call Receptive Publics, discursive spaces designed to improve listening skills and to give space for counterhegemonic ideas.
... Um Grenzen dieser Relativierungen angeben zu können, zitiere ich abermals Habermas' Analyse zum erneuten Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Habermas sieht in solchen De-Legitimierungen eine Gefährdung des "deliberative[n] Modus der Meinungs-und Willens bildung" und der "problemlösende[n] Kraft einer Demokratie"(Habermas 2021: 471 und 479).8. Ankunft in der WissensgesellschaftMit dieser kleinen Schrift habe ich drei Ziele verbunden. ...
Je gesellschaftsprägender die Universität, desto mehr wird sie sozialisiert und entzünden sich an ihr soziale Auseinandersetzungen – erst wenn beides zusammentrifft, befinden wir uns in einer Wissensgesellschaft. Keine andere Institution steht für die Wissensgesellschaft so wie die Universität: Sie ist ihr gesellschaftsprägender Dreh- und Angelpunkt, stellt doch Hochschulbildung mittlerweile in vielen Ländern den Normalbildungsstandard dar. Die Universität erbringt für Politik, Wirtschaft, Recht und alle anderen Felder Leistungen, ohne die diese nicht mehr auskommen: wissenschaftliche Expertise, Innovationen, gerichtsfestes Wissen und vieles mehr. Auf diese Weise wirkt sie in diesen Feldern mit und wird von ihnen sozialisiert. Damit geht einher, dass sie in wachsendem Maße kritisiert und zunehmend grundsätzlich angegriffen wird: Die Geltung und Nützlichkeit wissenschaftlichen Wissens wird bestritten und Hochschulbildung als „Elitenprojekt“ skandalisiert. Dies mag verstörend sein, aber auch darin beweist sich die immens gestiegene gesellschaftliche Bedeutsamkeit der Universität.
... Social media platforms give citizens the opportunity to gain information on political issues and actively participate in political communication. However, research suggests that social media may not bring us closer to the ideal of deliberative democracy (Habermas 1996(Habermas , 2021, with concerns that social media use may contribute to societal fragmentation if it reinforces previously-held beliefs by limiting exposure to attitude-challenging information, due to user preferences to interact with like-minded people (homophilic selective exposure). Related concerns focus on social media as a potential driver of societal polarisation by fostering hate speech and the spread of mis/disinformation, thereby undermining the foundations of democratic consensus building. ...
Social media platforms such as Twitter/X are increasingly important for political communication but the empirical question as to whether such communication enhances democratic consensus building (the ideal of deliberative democracy) or instead contributes to societal polarisation via fostering of hate speech and “information disorders” such as echo chambers is worth exploring. Political deliberation involves reciprocal communication between users, but much of the recent research into politics on social media has focused on one-to-many communication, in particular the sharing and diffusion of information on Twitter via retweets. This paper presents a new approach to studying reciprocal political communication on Twitter, with a focus on extending network-analytic indicators of deliberation. We use the Twitter v2 API to collect a new dataset (#debatenight2020) of reciprocal communication on Twitter during the first debate of the 2020 US presidential election and show that a hashtag-based collection alone would have collected only 1% of the debate-related communication. Previous work into using social network analysis to measure deliberation has involved using discussion tree networks to quantify the extent of argumentation (maximum depth) and representation (maximum width); we extend these measures by explicitly incorporating reciprocal communication (via triad census) and the political partisanship of users (inferred via usage of partisan hashtags). Using these methods, we find evidence for reciprocal communication among partisan actors, but also point to a need for further research to understand what forms this communication takes.
... First, there is a widespread assumption in both journalistic and academic discourse that the rise of social media has been crucial for understanding the articulation, circulation, and consumption of alternative facts. The plethora of empirical media and communication studies research on the topic bears witness to this assumption, as do theoretical arguments that put forward the communicative structures of digital publics as the central element for understanding the so-called crisis of truth (Habermas 2021;Staab & Thiel 2021). A better understanding of the functioning of alternative facts in social media will help to further illuminate the nexus of social media and spread of alternative facts, regardless of if one agrees with the underlying hypothesis of the central causal role of social media in the rising prominence of alternative facts (or even with the idea that their importance has risen at all [Carlson 2020]). ...
Understanding social media discourses as conversations and interpreting them as such allows reconstructing the communicative function of alternative facts as a practical achievement making a difference in interactive sensemaking. Using the documentary method approach to conversation analysis for interpreting the doing of alternative facts in conversations on the Facebook pages of the right-wing party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), this article shows: (1) doing alternative facts has to be understood in the context of identity performances which bracket questions of facticity; (2) doing alternative facts is part of an overarching conversational dynamic of “suspicious investigation” held together by a shared orientation toward un-truthing mainstream reality construction; (3) and this dynamic immunizes itself against critique via identity performance and identity misrecognition.
... Aunque constatan ciertos usos democráticamente beneficiosos de los big data, por ejemplo, en la detección de la corrupción y el fraude fiscal, los autores aportan argumentos de peso que corroboran su conclusión de que el concepto de opinión pública algorítmica no cumple con las funciones de los procesos participativos por parte de la sociedad civil y que es, en definitiva, incompatible con los presupuestos del modelo democrático. Una esfera pública virtual estructurada por algoritmos socava las bases de la deliberación democrática, como la presunción de veracidad, las condiciones simétricas de participación o el reconocimiento mutuo como miembros iguales (Habermas 2021). Por el contrario, hacen hincapié en la necesidad de luchar contra estas tendencias con los medios de la democracia tradicional desde el seno de la sociedad civil para reducir en la medida de lo posible las consecuencias devastadoras de las influencias manipuladoras generadas o potenciadas por la inteligencia artificial. ...
Deliberation, polarization and post-truth. Rethinking responsibility for digital societies Resumen: Ante las tendencias de autocratización y la pérdida de calidad democrática en muchos Estados, el artículo aborda los procesos de polarización que conducen al bloqueo político e institucional y limitan el margen de acción política. Amplificada por la digitalización de la esfera pública y el uso sistemático de desinformación, la polarización conduce a un deterioro de los procesos deliberativos. Esta pérdida de funcionalidad democrática ha dado aliento a un revisionismo democrático tecno-optimista que propone modelos de democracia algorítmica. Frente a los peligros de estas tendencias desenmascaradas como antidemocráticas, perfilamos un concepto de responsabilidad democrática adaptado al entorno de la sociedad digital. Abstract: In face of autocratization trends and the loss of democratic quality in many states, the article addresses the processes of polarization that lead to political and institutional deadlock and limit the scope for political action. Amplified by the digitization of the public sphere and the systematic use of disinformation, polarization drives a deterioration of deliberative processes. This loss of democratic functionality has encouraged a techno-optimistic democratic revisionism that advocates models of algorithmic democracy. Against the dangers of these trends unmasked as anti-democratic, we outline a concept of democratic responsibility adapted to the digital society environment.
... Digitaler Wandel als umfassender gesellschaftlicher Transformationsprozess vollzieht sich wesentlich als Medien-und Kommunikationswandel. Von einem neuen oder digitalen Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit ist in diesem Zusammenhang die Rede (Thiel 2020;Eckert 2021;Seeliger und Sevignani 2021;Eisenegger et al. 2021), dem auch der Autor der ‚ursprünglichen' These vom Strukturwandel etwas abzugewinnen vermag (Habermas 2020(Habermas , 2021. Das moderne Konzept der Öffentlichkeit ist bekanntlich eng mit der Vorstellung eines Publikums verknüpft, etwa in der vielzitierten Definition als "Sphäre der zum Publikum versammelten Privatleute" (Habermas 1990, S. 86) oder als Ort, "wo ein Sprecher vor einem Publikum kommuniziert, dessen Grenzen er nicht bestimmen kann" (Neidhardt 1994, S. 10). 1 Doch worin besteht der Wandel von Publikum und Öffentlichkeit in der digitalen Transformation der Gesellschaft? ...
... Using an inclusive definition that deliberately ignores Habermasian objections about the sharp distinctions between public and private communication in democratic theory (cf. Habermas, 2021), these formations can be already described as "publics," and further distinguished into different types of publics with their own structures and dynamics. Depending on these attributes, some such publics may then also be described as "groups" or "communities," for instance. ...
“The” public sphere is now irretrievably fractured into a multiplicity of online and offline, larger and smaller, more or less public spaces that frequently (and often serendipitously) overlap and intersect with one another. This diverse array of what have been described variously as public spheres, public spherules, platform publics, issue publics, or personal publics nonetheless serves many of the same functions that were postulated for the public sphere itself. However, while the communicative structures, functions, and dynamics of many such spaces have been studied in isolation, we still lack a more comprehensive model that connects such case studies in pursuit of an overarching perspective. This article sets out a fundamental toolkit for the development of such an empirically founded model of the contemporary spaces for public communication. It identifies the crucial conceptual building blocks and empirical approaches that may be combined to produce genuinely new insights into how the network of such spaces is structured, and in turn structures our everyday experience of public communication.
... On the other hand, arguably, electoral campaigns are both normatively guided by the same fundamental democratic ideals as political discourse as a whole and factually embedded in it (see e.g., Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012). Campaigns also share, to a considerable extent, the general malaises of political discourse (Habermas 2021;McCarty 2019). Accordingly, the may thereby turn themselves into illegitimate political competitors, it does not follow that they should not be treated as genuine or equal members of the political community. ...
This paper establishes moral duties for intermediaries of political advertising in election campaigns. First, I argue for a collective duty to maintain the democratic quality of elections which entails a duty to contain some forms of political polarization. Second, I show that the focus of campaign ethics on candidates, parties and voters—ignoring the mediators of campaigns—yields mistaken conclusions about how the burdens of the latter collective duty should be distributed. Third, I show why it is fair to require intermediaries to contribute to fulfilling this duty: they have an ultimate filtering position in the campaign communication process and typically benefit from political advertising and polarization. Finally, I argue that a transparency-based ethics of campaign advertising cannot properly accommodate a concern with objectionable polarization. By contrast, I outline the polarization-containing implications of my account, including a prohibition on online targeted advertising, and intermediaries’ duties to block hateful political advertising.
... Bedingungen des digitalen Medienmarktes (PlaÅormisierung, Algorithmisierung, Datafizierung usw.) weiter deutlich ausdifferenziert (Eisenegger, 2021;Habermas, 2021), während auch grundsätzlich von einer "Krise des Allgemeinen" (Reckwitz, 2017) ...
In diesem Beitrag wäge ich medienwirtschaftliche Chancen und gesellschaftliche Risiken von fachjournalistischen Nischenmedien wie Politico, Table.Media, Tagesspiegel Background (sog. Verticals) gegeneinander ab und unterbreite Hinweise für empirische Anschlussforschung zu diesen neuartigen Medienprodukten eines "deep journalism".
Der Lockdown im März 2020 hybridisiert den Wohnraum. Die architektonischen Grenzen der Wohnung erweichen in der Digitalisierung. Urbanisierung, ökonomische und ökologische Veränderungen, demographischer Wandel und Migration verlangen nicht erst kürzlich nach einer erneuten wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Reflexion über das Wohnen – gerade in Städten – und auch nach Fragen der Gestaltung angemessenen Wohnens. Die im europäischen Raum wohl radikalste Veränderung von Wohnräumen in der Moderne ist im 19. Jahrhundert im Zuge zunehmender Industrialisierung und Zuwanderung in den Städten zu sehen. In der Gegenwartsliteratur werden Wohnideale und -konzepte des 19. Jahrhunderts wieder aufgegriffen und ermöglichen es, neue Bedingungen und Möglichkeiten des Wohnens im Zusammenhang mit der Pandemie als historisches Problem zu reflektieren. Dabei spielen v.a. die in der Digitalisierung gewonnenen Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten zwischen den im Zuge des Lockdowns abgeschlossenen privaten Räumen und der Öffentlichkeit eine Rolle. Der folgende Aufsatz soll zunächst die theoretisch-geschichtlichen Hintergründe offenlegen und daraufhin zwei Texte der Gegenwartsliteratur – ELFRIEDE JELINEKS Lärm. Blindes sehen. Blinde sehen und MARICA BODROŽIĆS Pantherzeit – im Hinblick auf das Wohnen zu untersuchen und dabei die Texte nach ihren Reflexionen über Wohnen und Öffentlichkeit, Wohnen und Digitalität sowie Wohnen und Ich zu befragen. Der Versuch, der Gegenwart – in zuweilen durchaus fragwürdiger Hinsicht – einen besonderen Sinn zu geben, aber auch der Versuch, die menschlichen Lebensbedingungen in der Pandemie ästhetisch zur Erfahrung zu bringen, verbindet die beiden sonst sehr unterschiedlichen Texte.
Science and health communication have recently increased in importance, and not only because of crises such as anthropogenic climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Societies in general are growing more complex, and increasingly rely on scientific knowledge (Kohring, Vertrauen in Journalismus: Theorie und Empirie [Trust in journalism: Theory and empiricism]. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2004; Luhmann, Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität [Trust: A mechanism for reducing social complexity]. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2014; Summ & Volpers, What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583419, 2016; Weingart, Wissenschaftskommunikation unter digitalen Bedingungen: Funktionen, Akteure und Probleme des Vertrauens [The integration function of the mass media: Conceptual history, models, operationalization]. In P. Weingart, H. Wormer, A. Wenninger, & R. F. Hüttl (Eds.), Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter (pp. 31–59). Velbrück Wissenschaft, 2017), which goes hand in hand with the importance of public trust in science. Within this complex setting, science and health journalists are important actors who need to provide public audiences with reliable and solid information—especially during crises. However, in the current digital age, the functions of science and health journalism for society are challenged (Fahy & Nisbet, The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism 12(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412697, 2011), particularly because scientific information reaches public audiences via a variety of (digital) media outlets, where journalistic and non-journalistic actors compete for attention (European Commission, Eurobarometer: European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2237, 2021; Metag & Schäfer, Wissenschaftsbarometer Schweiz 2016 [Science Barometer Switzerland 2016]. www.wissenschaftsbarometer.de, 2016; National Science Board, Science & engineering indicators 2018. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf, 2018). Thus, for public audiences, the question of whom and which information to trust becomes ever more important.
Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über diskursprägende Theorien der digitalen Gesellschaft aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum. Danach werden mit einem Fokus auf den Wandel der Öffentlichkeit und der Arbeitswelt gegenstandsbezogene Perspektiven auf die digitale Transformation skizziert. Abschließend werden die aktuellen Entwicklungen mit der langfristigen Koevolution von Medien und Gesellschaft in Beziehung gesetzt.
Na contemporaneidade, ressoa o discurso acerca da imperiosidade de conferir à liberdade de expressão um caráter absoluto, desprovido de quaisquer restrições ou limitações. Nesse contexto, o presente artigo objetiva realizar uma análise aprofundada dos argumentos morais e filosóficos que fundamentam a concepção de que a liberdade de expressão deve ser concebida como um direito absoluto. Inicialmente, ante o aporte teórico de Milton e Mill, procuro apresentar e examinar as problemáticas associadas à tese que sustenta a indispensabilidade da liberdade de expressão em seu caráter absoluto, com base na crença de que apenas dessa forma seria possível promover um mercado de ideias irrestrito, no qual a verdade triunfaria incontestavelmente. Em seguida, lanço-me em análise crítica da tese que defende a absoluta liberdade de expressão sob a perspectiva de sua relevância primordial na busca pela autorrealização individual. Nessa conjuntura, exploro as teses delineadas por Scanlon, desvelando, igualmente, as possíveis vicissitudes advindas da aplicação do princípio milliano. Na sequência, amparado em Habermas, adentro o território da argumentação que atesta que as plataformas e meios de comunicação social não ostentam a condição genuína de esfera pública. Nesse sentido, a defesa incondicional da liberdade de expressão, intermediada por tais ferramentas, não se empenha primordialmente em fomentar a busca pela verdade e, muito menos, em propiciar a autorrealização do indivíduo. Por derradeiro, considerando as premissas elencadas, defendo a regulamentação das plataformas e mídias sociais, estabelecendo uma obrigação solidária destas em relação ao conteúdo veiculado pelos seus usuários. Sob tal ótica, aspiramos que a liberdade de expressão, exercida por meio desses canais virtuais, alcance seu potencial transformador na esfera do debate público, estimulando um debate público autentico e honesto, capaz de propiciar a construção sólida e embasada da opinião pública e da vontade coletiva.
In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat die sogenannte »neue« Rechte in Deutschland sowie in Europa und Amerika an Sichtbarkeit und Einfluss in Politik, Gesellschaft und Öffentlichkeit gewonnen. Diese Entwicklung ist eng mit dem Aufstieg des Rechtspopulismus und der Mobilisierung rechtsextremer Bewegungen verbunden. Die Beiträger*innen analysieren aus soziologischen, politik- und geschichtswissenschaftlichen sowie sozialpsychologischen Perspektiven die jüngsten Entwicklungen im Feld der »neuen« Rechten. Dazu nehmen sie sowohl globale Dynamiken als auch die Situation in lokalen Hotspots in Sachsen in den Blick und bieten so eine umfassende Zusammenschau neurechter Politiken über Ländergrenzen hinweg.
Massive anti-government protests erupted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. The crisis activated a potential for resistance that has been simmering under the impositions of late-modern knowledge society. Made salient by the pandemic conditions of sudden extreme reliance on scientific (non) knowledge, the corona protestors activated this potential for resistance and constructed their own counter-knowledge order bound by shared resentment of and distrust in the established order and facilitated by digital platforms. Utilising social network analysis and structural topic modeling for digital critical discourse analysis, in this paper I explore how the corona protest counter-knowledge order is constructed with a particular focus on its contexts, roles, and hierarchies. I find that far-right and conspiracy imaginations are used to level out hierarchies and detach epistemic roles from their contexts to reinstate a superior self into interpretative power. The counter-knowledge order’s inherent construction of unwarranted omnipotence points to a more fundamental resistance to the established normative orders of our society that should be addressed more effectively if we want to be prepared for future crises and not lose common ground for making sense of them.
Usually, disinformation phenomenon is discussed following the web and social media evolution, thus excluding numerous elements that have contributed to the rooting of the phenomenon and to the current success of disinformation campaigns. The work offers a particular theoretical framework to understand the effects that disinformation strategies have on the current democratic context: starting from the insertion of the disinformation in a broader phenomenological framework that holds together the cultural, technological and human elements that allow today’s disinformation strategies to generate significant social and political implications. The cultural element explains how the characteristics of postmodernism contributed to the public’s detachment from the authoritativeness of professional information and the birth of a truly alternative public sphere. The technological element has influenced the traditional editorial practices of news production and distribution, deteriorated the already fragile boundaries of journalistic authority and attributed an increasingly important role to the prosumer user and his preferences; this has favored the creation of hyper-partisan information spaces and amplified the human cognitive elements: the confirmation bias.
Mit der Entwicklung hin zur Wissensgesellschaft gewinnt nicht bloß wissenschaftliches Wissen an Bedeutung, etwa für die Legitimierung politischer Entscheidungen, sondern wird auch zunehmend zum Gegenstand politischer und gesellschaftlicher Konflikte. Vor dem Hintergrund wissenspolitischer Konflikte diskutiert der Beitrag die wissenssoziologischen Implikationen der aktuellen Debatten über einen „antiliberalen Backlash“ und eine „große Regression“, die zunehmende Thematisierung der Politisierung des Wissens als ein multidimensionales Phänomen sowie die politiktheoretischen Implikationen der Wissensproblematik der Politik.
The pervasive force with which the current algorithmic colonization has spread across both the state and civil society is the result of an attitude and state of mind, a sense of confidence and naivety that can only be explained by referring to a prior cultural context capable of defining and paving the way for what is now underway. The aim of this chapter is to analyse the cultural and political foundations that have enabled the rapid spread of AI across all spheres of life, in other words, what has come to be known as the algorithmic revolution. To a considerable extent mistrust and inequality explain the current democratic drift, but algorithmic reason has engaged with this situation through its theoretical scientific approach and technological application to the different spheres of the state and civil society. However, these two facets of algorithmic development require and presuppose the application of evaluative criteria of legitimacy, or to express it in simpler terms, consistency and a certificate of validity in order to operate. The ongoing accelerated phase of algorithmic colonization is impossible to understand, and still harder to explain, unless we can comprehend what preceded it: a terrain fertilized by scientism or objectivism. However we may wish to refer to it, for years this terrain has been reducing human development to technological development, and now, as if amid a perfect storm, it has now been supplemented with neuropower and post-truth.
The aim of this chapter is to contrast the concept of the public sphere, a basic pillar of any democratic system, with the reality and expectations of a digital society. Big data and metadata have become a double-edged sword for the digitally hyperconnected democratic society. Meanwhile, the incredible potential of Big Data and the different techniques and technologies for exploiting data and metadata make it a product coveted by a system of institutions making up both the state and civil society. Although algorithmic democracy is based not only on the public sphere, the aim is to show the incompatibility between democratic participation and a public sphere artificially fabricated by technology platforms and their algorithms. In this chapter, we will look at the importance of the public sphere for democracy and the technologies that are constructing what we might call an artificial public sphere. We will be guided by the concept of the public sphere drawn from Habermas’s most recent works and discussions about whether we are looking at a new structural change in the public sphere or rather its fragmentation into a plurality of semi-public spheres now incapable of generating quality public opinion and, still less, digital citizenship.
Die Europäische Union befindet sich in einer umfassenden Krise, die sich von der Euro- und Finanzkrise der 2010er Jahre bis zu den disruptiven Ereignissen der Corona-Krise erstreckt. Deren politische Bearbeitung und jeweiligen Ursachen werden gegenwärtig in den Politikund Sozialwissenschaften sehr unterschiedlich beobachtet: Eine der häufigsten Annahmen sieht eine neue gesellschaftliche Spaltungslinie zwischen Globalisierung und Nationalstaat. Andere sehen die Krise als Effekt eines sich selbst überlebenden Neoliberalismus, der sich derart in die staatlichen Institutionen eingeschrieben habe, dass alternative Entwicklungspfade blockiert werden. Der Artikel greift die Fäden dieser verschiedenen Debatten beziehungsweise Ansätze auf und bündelt sie aus einer staatsund hegemonietheoretischen Perspektive neu. Durch diese theoretische Perspektive wird es möglich, die unterschiedlichen Krisen und ihre Bearbeitung in ihrem Zusammenspiel zu analysieren. Es entsteht eine posthegemoniale Konstellation, die maßgeblich durch die Entwicklungen europäischer Staatlichkeit in der Krise geprägt ist.
Ausgehend von Charles Taylors ‚republikanischer These‘ hebt der Artikel eine besondere Stärke der liberalen Demokratie hervor: Aufgrund derjenigen normativen Orientierungen ihrer Bürger:innen, die als funktional notwendige Bedingungen ihrer Existenz vorausgesetzt werden müssen, verfügt sie über eine besondere Quelle gesellschaftlicher Resilienz, durch die sie die gegenwärtigen, durch autoritäre Infragestellungen und Anfeindungen geprägten Herausforderungen bewältigen kann. Hierzu wird ein im Anschluss an Niklas Luhmann sozialtheoretisch reflektierter Begriff gesellschaftlicher Resilienz entwickelt, der normativ-rekonstruktiv im Sinne der Kritischen Theorie Axel Honneths auf die von Taylor als Patriotismus angesprochenen sozialmoralischen Ressourcen angewendet wird. Für diese Ressourcen, erweitert um neorömisch-republikanische Motive, wird der Begriff einer auch für liberale Demokratien notwendigen ‚republikanischen Disposition‘ eingeführt.
Neste artigo, submete-se à análise crítica a teoria da liberdade de expressão, com ênfase particularizada no ambiente digital, desafiando sua categorização como um direito absoluto. A investigação se ancora nas formulações de Milton e Mill, as quais postulam a liberdade de expressão como mecanismo indispensável para a circulação irrestrita de ideias no Mercado de Ideias, visando à busca e o encontro da verdade. Argumenta-se que o princípio do dano, tal como concebido por Mill, revela-se insuficiente para abordar complexidades contemporâneas, tais como bolhas algorítmicas e a disseminação de fake News. Para criticar esta noção milliana de dano, o artigo incorpora as contribuições de Jeremy Waldron, que elucidam o impacto deletério do discurso de ódio sobre a dignidade humana, tornando a restrição da liberdade de expressão também uma questão moral. Conclui-se que, no ecossistema digital, as condições epistêmicas e morais necessárias para a defesa da liberdade de expressão absoluta como busca da verdade são comprometidas, demandando uma reavaliação dos parâmetros morais que circunscrevem a liberdade de expressão.
The article discusses the main stages and approaches to analyzing the problem of publicity using the example of the works of Heidegger, Horkheimer, and Adorno. The reasons for the absence of a positive concept of publicity in German philosophy of the first half of the twentieth century are shown, as well as the connection between a negative attitude towards publicity and the global socio-historical pessimism of that time. The significance of the theory of publicity presented in two studies of Habermas, “Structural Changes of the Public Sphere” (1962) and publications 2021–2022, is analyzed, as well as its connection with the political theory of democracy. Habermas interprets the “public sphere” as a special space for the application of critical discourse, emerging in the era of the emergence of capitalism. If in feudal society “publicity” is identified with the state, then in the 18th–19th centuries. a practice of discussions about literature is emerging, gradually expanding to a critical discussion of social processes. With the achievement by the middle of the twentieth century bourgeois society at the stage of “mass democracy” and the intervention of the state, which actively uses manipulative technologies, the rational foundations of the discourse of the public sphere give way to non-rational ones. The area of publicity becomes an area of confrontation and conflict between the interests of various social groups. New structural transformations in the sphere of publicity become noticeable in 2010–2020 and are associated with the emergence of new media, the new role of social networks. One of Habermas’ main critical arguments points out that the media structure changed by digitalization may deepen contemporary problems with contemporary Western democracy and result in deepening of it’s crisis. Habermas’ theory is contrasted against the theories of other media theorists (Marshall McLuhan, Niklas Luhmann and others).
Der Beitrag rekonstruiert die Genese des digitalen Subjekts durch eine historisch-systematische Analyse medialer Formen organisationaler Strukturbildung. Die Systematisierung subjektiver Handlungsmöglichkeiten, die in Organisationen entwickelt und kultiviert wird, schreibt sich durch die Nutzung von Softwarelösungen als Praxis digitalen Selbstmanagements fort. Daraus resultiert für Medien- und Organisationspädagogik die gemeinsame Aufgabe, die Eigenlogik digitaler Strukturbildung für die Frage nach der Souveränität des digitalen Subjekts zu reflektieren.
Die Meinungsmacht der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien schien lange Zeit weitgehend unangetastet. Als Folge der digitalen Transformation hat sich das geändert. Das Überwinden von Informationsasymmetrien gelingt immer weniger, stattdessen wachsen die Ränder des Meinungsspektrums. Die zentrale Frage lautet: Wie kann gesellschaftliche Vielfalt künftig angemessener abgebildet werden, ohne Verbindendes weiter abzubauen? Die Beiträger*innen des Bandes loten die bestehenden Medienstrukturen kritisch aus und zeigen mögliche Alternativen auf. So könnte ein konkurrierendes Modell der Direktbeauftragung von Medienmacher*innen, finanziert aus den bestehenden Beitragseinnahmen, ARD, ZDF und Co. zum Sparen zwingen und das System in Bewegung bringen, ohne Mehrkosten zu verursachen.
The main purpose of this paper is to assess the validity of the contention that, over the past few decades, the public sphere has undergone a new structural transformation. To this end, the analysis focuses on Habermas’s recent inquiry into the causes and consequences of an allegedly ‘new’ or ‘further’ [erneuten] structural transformation of the political public sphere. The paper is divided into two parts. The first part considers the central arguments in support of the ‘new structural transformation of the public sphere’ thesis, shedding light on its historical, political, economic, technological, and sociological aspects. The second part offers some reflections on the most important limitations and shortcomings of Habermas’s account, especially with regard to key social developments in the early twenty-first century. The paper concludes by positing that, although the constitution of the contemporary public sphere is marked by major—and, in several respects, unprecedented—structural transformations, their significance should not be overstated, not least due to the enduring role of critical capacity in highly differentiated societies.
Der vorliegenden Artikel begreift BNE nicht als blossen politisch-administrativen Aktionsplan, sondern fragt danach, welchen besonderen Beitrag das Fach Deutsch dazu beitragen kann. Den Ausgangspunkt hierzu bilden die drei Zugänge des Projekts Climate Thinking (Universität Kassel): Über Klimawandel sprechen, Vom Klimawandel erzählen, Über Klimawandel nachdenken. Diese ermöglichen es, das komplexe Phänomen Klimawandel als Matters of Fact (Latour 2004) und dadurch als relevanten Gegenstand des Fachs zu erfassen. Auf dieser Basis entwickelt der Beitrag drei Perspektiven auf und für einen Deutschunterricht für nachhaltige Bildung an der Schnittfläche sprachlicher, literarisch-ästhetischer, politischer und ethischer Bildung. Die drei Perspektiven werden an der Graphic Novel Eva. Klima in der Krise (2022) von Arild Midthun und Bjørn H. Samset, dem Rap-Track Schäm dich (2020) von Conny sowie dem Brettspiel Gigawatt. A game about the energy transition (2021) exemplarisch veranschaulicht.
Schlüsselwörter: Deutschdidaktik, Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, Klimawandel, Rap, Graphic Novel.
Quelle: Leseforum.ch 2/2023; DOI: 10.58098/lffl/2023/02/788.
“Polarization” is a common diagnosis of the state of contemporary societies. Yet, few studies theorize or systematically analyze how polarization evolves in media content. To guide future empirical studies, we introduce a public sphere perspective on polarization. Discursive Polarization, defined as divergence emerging in public communication, may disrupt the public sphere if left untamed. Its analysis should combine the study of ideological polarization (increasing disagreement about issues) and affective polarization (growing disaffection between groups) as evolving in communication. Both processes may be measured in media content. We propose a framework combining the study of journalism and digital communication networks, investigating (1) content and (2) networked interactions regarding both political issues and social identity formation. The exploration of how the public sphere is disrupted in the process of Discursive Polarization may help us to understand the wider social phenomenon of polarization: before societies break apart, debates break apart.
Gustav Roßler widmet sich in diesem Beitrag der Frage, worin die Struktur der Öffentlichkeit besteht. Er skizziert einen soziologischen Öffentlichkeitsbegriff, der Öffentlichkeit als Struktur mit vier Momenten fasst: dem Publikum, das etwas zur Kenntnis nimmt und diskutiert; der Sache, die für das Publikum interessant oder problematisch ist; der Instanz Öffentlichkeit, auf die sich explizit beruft oder implizit bezieht, wer sich öffentlich äußert; dem Medium, durch das diese Äußerung und Kommunikation artikuliert und übermittelt wird. Zuletzt werden Veränderungen der Öffentlichkeit durch digitale Medien entlang dieser Momente kartiert.
Schlüsselwörter: Öffentlichkeit, Struktur der Öffentlichkeit, Publikum, digitale Medien, öffentliche Meinung, Pragmatismus, Kritische Theorie, Systemtheorie, Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie, soziale Heterogenität
Mit der Digitalisierung geht eine Entgrenzung der Öffentlichkeit einher. Medientechnologien stellen nicht nur Möglichkeitsräume bereit, in denen Konflikte verhandelt werden. Sie transformieren auch den politischen Diskurs. Vor allem »die sozialen Medien« werden oft als Bedrohung einer konstruktiven Debattenkultur betrachtet. Die Beiträger*innen treten einen Schritt zurück und fragen aus sozial-, kulturwissenschaftlicher und philosophischer Perspektive, wie Öffentlichkeiten hergestellt und transformiert werden. Sie erörtern theoretische sowie empirische Perspektiven und analysieren normative Fragestellungen, die angesichts globaler Dynamiken und neuer Formen von Kulturkonflikten an Bedeutung gewinnen.
Communication scientists have come up with a host of criteria to gauge the quality of journalistic output. However, covering the economy and business comes with additional challenges. The issues this type of journalism deals with are rather abstract and, at times, detached from everyday experience. Problems tend to build up slowly and unnoticed. Economic interests are strong, as are outside influences trying to sway editorial boards, reporters and publishers, while the power to do so is unevenly distributed. This chapter conceptualizes quality with regard to economic journalism. It stresses different dimensions of editorial independence. And it proposes a system of news values for economic journalism, the ESSF formula.KeywordsMedia QualityPublic sphereNews valuesAgenda settingAttention cyclesRent seekingJournalistic independence
In this chapter, I argue that the field of climate politics represents an ideal object of investigation when studying the changes in political communication in a hybrid media system. The triangle between politics, media, and citizens has become much more complex through the prevalence of social media and the relevance gains of civil society organizations which benefit from social media. The fact that civil society actors can easily participate in political communication via social media and thus not only become highly visible but can also directly mobilize citizens’ support without detour via mass media, facilitates climate activism globally. The changes in communication practice are labeled the fourth age of political communication—in perpetuity of Blumler’s account of different ages of political communication. While the previous changes in the relationship between media and politics have been considered as harmful to a well-functioning democracy, the most recent age has implications which are less clear. With regard to climate politics, it means an increase in attention for climate activists and better opportunities for activists to be seen and to monitor the opinion climate. However, it also entails the risk of polarization, possibly over the climate issue. The chapter discusses commonalities and differences between Germany and India and elaborates on the future of climate politics in both countries.
Zusammenfassung
Der aktuelle Medienwandel verändert die Struktur der Öffentlichkeit und beeinflusst dadurch auch politische Prozesse, die für die Konstitution der Demokratie relevant sind. Treibende Kraft des Wandels ist der erfolgreiche Zutritt global agierender privater Plattformen in den Medienmarkt. Ausgehend von der These der Gestaltungsbedürftigkeit von Öffentlichkeit systematisiert der Beitrag demokratische Gewinne und Gefährdungen des plattformisierten Mediensystems: Die Artikulationsmöglichkeiten aller steigen, während die Chancen zur nachvollziehbaren Kontextualisierung, Aggregation und Bewertung von Interessenanmeldungen abnehmen und der Gesamtinklusionsgrad der Öffentlichkeit sinkt. Die zukünftige Medienordnung wird daher zu einer demokratiepolitischen Aufgabe ersten Ranges. Sie muss den funktionalen Besonderheiten, Stärken und Schwächen der jeweiligen Medien, allen voran der Plattformen, Rechnung tragen und das Gesamtsystem der Medien bezogen auf seinen Beitrag zu einer vielfältigen und auf Inklusion angelegten Öffentlichkeit regulieren.
What kind of education is needed for democracy? How can education respond to the challenges that current democracies face? This unprecedented Handbook offers a comprehensive overview of the most important ideas, issues, and thinkers within democratic education. Its thirty chapters are written by leading experts in the field in an accessible format. Its breadth of purpose and depth of analysis will appeal to both researchers and practitioners in education and politics. The Handbook addresses not only the historical roots and philosophical foundations of democratic education, but also engages with contemporary political issues and key challenges to the project of democratic education.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.