DIGITAL MEDIA CULTURES
By definition the public sphere is an arena for individuals to come together with the common interest of communicating about specific issues. Through this interaction they expect to find solutions, give ideas, information and also try to influence powers that control the society.
There are factors that govern who qualify to be in a certain public sphere. First, all participants must have something in common. It can be a norm or even a political belief. Once these participants come together they can actively discuss matters. The participants are networked in such a way that information can be readily passed to and fro and the decisions arrived at amicably.
The other sphere is the rise of a different kind of social arena. It results from discontented individuals who feel the current status quo in public spheres is working against them. They are known as the counter-publics.
Their aim is to propagate their views which have not been prioritized by the public spheres. In most cases the counter publics consist of people who think they are a minority in relation to the objectives of the public spheres. It can also represent a group of participants who feel that the public sphere is not strong enough as they would expect. They feel like the system is working against them and there is no opportunity for them to be heard unless they come together. This can also be as a result of individuals who feel they are in a position to lead others but cannot get that chance in the public spheres. These are some of the traditional notions of the public and counter public spheres.
When the digital age comes into perspective, all the previous concepts about public and counter public networks many not hold much water. For instance, for individuals to work together in the hope of influencing the political state of a country or region it means they have accepted to pool their resources together. It is all for the common good. But with the rise of social networks the society has been broken down into segments. You might be using one network to reach the group that shares similar values with what you are propagating only to find they jumped to another network. It is therefore not possible to get the back up of a bigger portion of the population.
What this has led to is erosion of the social capital. (Robert Putnam, Social capital makes Democracy work). We need to understand the ability of the society to use its resources of trust, social strength to transform the political scene. If the society does not pull together it is pulling apart thanks to the fragmentation of the public sphere.
Lately most people do not actively participate in politics or even the elections. This might have been brought about by discontentment and feeling that their contribution will not change things for the better or worse. They opt to take the back sit and watch things happen. The number of people championing for democracy is therefore reduced resulting into political authorities that people did not expect. All this because people did not work together share ideas in order to come up with solutions.
The lack of social capital has also yielded the rise of counter publics. These have been instigated by individuals who think they have the solution and do not want outside influence. They may take advantage of the lack of unity in the community or public sphere to gain social mileage. Counter publics shed light on issues that have been done away with or have not yet been focused before.
In the process one of the key objectives of public spheres, to influence the political power in a region will not be achieved.
Instead of building on the need to increase togetherness, technology then leads to networked individualism (Barry Wellman). It is now possible for people in inaccessible areas to send and receive information. They only participate in the arenas they want to and which must also possess the same networks. Some of the methods that have led to networked individualism include teleconferencing and instant messages, Skype. People using these methods are linked using a telecommunication system which has to be controlled by either of the parties. This has reduced financial costs especially for companies and people who are on different parts of the world but it has considerably shrunk the social capital. Unity of people is quickly fading out.
With this rise in networked individualism we can only conclude that digital technology has given rise to a new breed of people who solely depend on the internet to make a social impact. (Danah Boyd, Super Publics).We are giving rise to a generation that has lost touch with the need for direct human interaction and is instead preferring to use a medium, create a new person and then communicate to the world.
According to Face books Press room, more than 35 million users update their status daily. This is statistical information from one social site and does not signify what happens in other sites. The figures may go higher or lower than that in other social networks. The bottom line is a big potion of the society is online. This wave of online networking has been fueled by the ability to condense distance and time. For example, A Ugandan correspondence student in New York can still know what is happening in the country of origin by reading the updates and feeds posted by friends. The student can also communicate despite the difference in time zones. The student only needs to open an account and create a user profile, instantly a digital equivalent of the student is created. It is as if a replica of the student is alive but this time, living in a social network. The student is now in a position to control what other users in the network can view about herhim.
Despite the fact that public spheres were meant to foster discussions and deliberations some participants are using social networks as a monitoring tool. (Burns, Alex, Eltham, Ben (2009). Organisations have realized that since social networks are taking priority in human life it would be best to try and target these people on the social sites in with the aim of marketing their products.
This is not what public spheres were intended for. (Wikipedia-Fraser 1990) They are not marketing spheres rather they should be used by people with the aim of focusing on development of the political and social front. When marketing and research is conducted on the social networks it gives a leeway to biased opinions because of the fear of reproach or punishment because the walls that protected the individuals ideas from non partisans in that public sphere have been tampered with. It is due to this reason that people who rise against political strong holds are easily tracked down.
In addition to that, social networks have been turned into a medium to dispatch news. People are rushing to what is expected to act as the social arena to get news making stories (Hope, Christopher (2007). Out of curiosity and not the desire to actively participate in the discussions there, these individuals click in and out of websites and social sites. Once their hunger is satisfied they hop to another section. This hoping business sometimes brings in new participants in the public spheres online (Matthew Goodwin, Activism in contemporary Extreme Right Parties). The new comers are probably not comfortable in the social sphere they adhered to. Their stay is not guaranteed. If their needs are not amicably met in the current group they will move out. The availability of these online public spheres also gives people a chance to learn more about them before joining them. They can get in or out without disturbing the function ability of the group. For example on Face book you can decide to become a member of any group and if you do not wish to continue with your membership, its just a click away.
Digital media has taken counter publics to a whole new level. (Burns, Alex, Eltham, Ben (2009).
The fight for public diplomacy is taking a bit of diplomacy in itself. Instead of seeing bloody protests on the streets they have been replaced by a substantially powerful social network voice. Because most of the social sites are available beyond the boundaries of the country in conflict it is possible to have a mass following all championing for democracy.
The counter public spheres have also acted as help groups for people facing a similar problem. For instance, The Alcoholics Anonymous. These support groups help individuals conquer problems with the right information in mind. They can also act as debate opportunities for people undergoing the same predicament to come up with possible solutions and influence the public policy making to their favour.
The political strong holds of a country can be stirred by widespread coverage of the internal crisis. This has led to restrictions of some social networks ability in some countries. With the recent rise in political uncertainties during election periods the social networks have become a popular site to air grievances and views in relation to what is happening in any country of the world.
If the average person spends more than 35 minutes per day on Face book and has an average of 130 friends it shows that social life has moved to the internet (Face book Press room statistics). The conversations that would previously be held in the mall or at a coffee house are now taking place with a big audience present but they are not party to the discussion (Danah Boyd, Super Publics). This has shrunk the number of people who can participate in a social arena.
Doubts have also been raised about most of the content on social networks. Since most of the sites are being used in the place of other human interaction activities, there has been a rise in irrelevant material that is being highlighted in some of the social networks. Pear Analytics conducted a research using 2000 tweets which had been obtained in the United States of America (U.S) and England. They were collected over a 2 week period. The results were analysed in 6 categories. The biggest percentage was indicated as pointless babble.
That is what people are doing on the social networks, being social. The length to which a person goes socially is different. Some individuals act like the public watch dogs exposing others shortcomings with the aim of tarnishing their public image. This is not an element of public spheres. A public sphere consists of people with common interests trying to iron out issues that affect the society (whole or part).
Confidentiality of information in the social networks has also become a concern. The strong urge to pass information sometimes overrides the need to observe confidentiality. In a public sphere the information leaving the group should be amicably arrived at by the team of participants. If there is a leakage of information it means the arena should be ready to face prejudice or outside interference.
In essence, the presence of social networks has altered the perception of public and counter public spheres.
Digital media has opened up inaccessible parts of the world and given people an opportunity to discuss issues and make decisions without the hindrances of time, space or distance. We cannot continue holding onto concepts that may not work in this digital age. We should accept that the public sphere has changed. Offline networks are being reconstructed on line through new user profiles. They can be changed, stored and replicated.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment