Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- contributions:structural-change [2020/08/25 18:20]
Sophia Bickhardt
+++ contributions:structural-change [2020/09/01 13:03] (current)
Sophia Bickhardt
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 =====Long Version=====
-The Internet and social media have created new opportunities to obtain information, communicate and mobilise politically. This brings changes in political culture and thus in the struggles for the power of interpretation. Terms such as "fake news" or "filter bubble" are often used. False reports are not compatible with the journalistic and scientific ethos. Nevertheless, mistakes cannot always be avoided. And the temptation to manipulate, i.e. the targeted exertion to gain influence on the thinking, perception and feelings of others, is not uncommon. But this is not only due to human weaknesses or lack of morality. Among many other aspects, one should also consider the current **"structural change of the public sphere"**. To this end, we will first refer to the considerations that Jürgen Habermas presented in his habilitation thesis of the same name.((1 Habermas, Strukturwandel)) In contrast, we will examine the characteristics of current forms of the public sphere and ask about the chances of a democratic public sphere in times of digitalisation.
+The Internet and social media have created new opportunities to obtain information, communicate and mobilise politically. This brings changes in political culture and thus in the struggles for the power of interpretation. Terms such as "fake news" or "filter bubble" are often used. False reports are not compatible with the journalistic and scientific ethos. Nevertheless, mistakes cannot always be avoided. And the temptation to manipulate, i.e. the targeted exertion to gain influence on the thinking, perception and feelings of others, is not uncommon. But this is not only due to human weaknesses or lack of morality. Among many other aspects, one should also consider the current **"structural change of the public sphere"**. To this end, we will first refer to the considerations that Jürgen Habermas presented in his habilitation thesis of the same name.((Habermas, Strukturwandel.)) In contrast, we will examine the characteristics of current forms of the public sphere and ask about the chances of a democratic public sphere in times of digitalisation.
 Jürgen Habermas described the emergence of a civil public sphere and its socio-structural conditions with the emergence of capitalism and mercantilism. In contrast to the representative public sphere in feudal societies, which was preferably reserved for the king or other representatives of the political order, the civil public sphere was characterized by private individuals forming an audience, gathering together and cultivating a "critical reasoning" first on literature and art, and later on events of a political and social nature. The concept of the public sphere itself had emerged from the 18th century onwards. Oriented towards the exchange of arguments, the culture of conversation had developed in salons in France, coffee houses in Great Britain and later also in the table societies on German territories. To this control of the powerful through publication and a rational, critical debate, Habermas fundamentally links the possibility of democratic influence: communicative power can help to control the actions of administrative power through legitimation or the withdrawal of legitimation. It was no coincidence that "the public sphere is the amniotic fluid of democracy" was also said during the democratic upheaval in the GDR in 1989.((See the letter from Friedrich-Wilhelm Frhr. von Sell to B. Bohley from 15/ 11/1989, “Betreff: Angebot der Hilfe, eine neue Medienordnung für die DDR zu schaffen, denn 'Öffentlichkeit ist keine 4. Gewalt, sie ist das Fruchtwasser der Demokratie'” https://www.havemann-gesellschaft.de/archiv-der-ddr-opposition/?pid=2&extendedSearch=1&search_active=1&search_type=2&search_area=all&suchtext=&signatur=KFr&datum_von=&datum_bis=&ort=&personen=&searchDetailTyp=4&searchDetail=5255; this phrase was also used by Christoph Singelnstein, https://www.zeit.de/1992/06/ein-neues-gesicht.)) According to Habermas, such a public discourse is not necessarily an end in itself. The moment of communicative understanding is inherent in it. As the aim is to reach a social consensus through a rational process of developing a common point and decision-making to which all actors are bound.
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Of course there are **limits** to this ideal. In modern society, they are rooted in the role of the mass media and their political and economic interests, and thus their **media power**. Access to free and critical exchange must also be open to **all**. However, education and private property were access criteria for membership in bourgeois circles, so that large parts of society were excluded. Moreover, forms of publicity among farmers and workers are hardly considered by Habermas. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, communication scientist and founder of the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research, addressed the issue of social-psychological boundaries. She analysed **The Spiral of Silence. Public opinion – our social skin** and thus ambivalences, contradictions, dependencies and aspects of the exertion of power in public-political communication.((Find a summery of her considerations on the website from Thomas Petersen et al., http://noelle-neumann.de/wissenschaftliches-werk/schweigespirale/ (retrieved 06.04.2020).))
-With the **Internet**, the public is becoming more and more differentiated.((Habermas expresses a similar view and recognises a “deep evolutionary break” (Schloemann, Johan) in digitalisation following the invention of writing and printing. He sees the further development with a certain perplexity and would like to leave the analysis of the current structural change of the public to younger colleagues.) Now, in principle, not only everyone can read, as printing once made possible, but also write. The public conveyed through the Internet is thus more democratic, since social barriers to access are now much lower. At the same time, the balance of power with regard to the **power of the media** is shifting. Because with the emergence of the Internet, the attractiveness of print media is declining. Younger people prefer to obtain information via online channels. Advertisements are now increasingly placed in large Internet portals. The traditional, 'leading' media such as major newspapers or private and public radio and television stations are losing their influence and their authority to interpret is dwindling. Blogs and social networks on the Internet open up the possibility for citizens to inform and exchange information with other citizens without the mediation of a 'medium'. Problems such as disinformation and **false information** ("fake news") thus appear in a new form. They are not new – so-called "canards" have probably already existed since news were passed on. Manipulation and various forms of propaganda have also long been tried and tested methods of influencing opinion. What is associated with the Internet media is the word **"filter bubble"**. Perceptions and interpretations of reality are reproduced because they are only taken up and passed on through those circles that are personally preferred. But this is also known from the 'analogue' world and has prompted social scientists to discuss it. With regard to virtual social media, this is nevertheless promoted by providers such as Google or Facebook themselves. Their algorithms, by which certain messages are displayed and others are not, are not completely transparent. Nevertheless, settings can be used to influence what is displayed – In the hope that this will reflect a greater variety of perspectives on a topic.
+With the **Internet**, the public is becoming more and more differentiated.((Habermas expresses a similar view and recognises a “deep evolutionary break” (Schloemann, Johan) in digitalisation following the invention of writing and printing. He sees the further development with a certain perplexity and would like to leave the analysis of the current structural change of the public to younger colleagues.)) Now, in principle, not only everyone can read, as printing once made possible, but also write. The public conveyed through the Internet is thus more democratic, since social barriers to access are now much lower. At the same time, the balance of power with regard to the **power of the media** is shifting. Because with the emergence of the Internet, the attractiveness of print media is declining. Younger people prefer to obtain information via online channels. Advertisements are now increasingly placed in large Internet portals. The traditional, 'leading' media such as major newspapers or private and public radio and television stations are losing their influence and their authority to interpret is dwindling. Blogs and social networks on the Internet open up the possibility for citizens to inform and exchange information with other citizens without the mediation of a 'medium'. Problems such as disinformation and **false information** ("fake news") thus appear in a new form. They are not new – so-called "canards" have probably already existed since news were passed on. Manipulation and various forms of propaganda have also long been tried and tested methods of influencing opinion. What is associated with the Internet media is the word **"filter bubble"**. Perceptions and interpretations of reality are reproduced because they are only taken up and passed on through those circles that are personally preferred. But this is also known from the 'analogue' world and has prompted social scientists to discuss it. With regard to virtual social media, this is nevertheless promoted by providers such as Google or Facebook themselves. Their algorithms, by which certain messages are displayed and others are not, are not completely transparent. Nevertheless, settings can be used to influence what is displayed – In the hope that this will reflect a greater variety of perspectives on a topic.
 Besides "filter bubbles" there is also the problem of **"filter interpretations"**. It can be observed, for example, that in the context of certain political events of greater significance, a particular "wording" gains influence quite quickly. For example, the vast majority of politicians and the media described it as a "breach of a dam" or "breach of a taboo" when Thomas Kemmerich was elected Minister President of Thuringia on 5th February 2020 with the votes of the FDP (neo-liberal), CDU (conservative) and AfD (right-wing) parties. Such a quick discursive determination may offer a kind of interpretation aid. However, it is also accompanied by a given meaning. What promises orientation can thus per se exclude other points of view and promot eboundaries between different milieus of a society. The (results-)open dialogue, the frank 'dispute of ideas', in which truth – and with it democratic values – are fought for, is in danger of withering away – and with it a lively political culture.
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, Wikipedia-Artikel, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strukturwandel_der_%C3%96ffentlichkeit (aufgerufen 06.04.2020)
+\\
 **Author**: Sophia Bickhardt, weltgewandt e.V.
-{{:cc.png}}
-//This text is published under the terms of the Creative Commons License: by-nc-nd/3.0/ The name of the author shall be as follows: by-nc-nd/3.0/ Author: Sophia Bickhardt, funding source: Erasmus+ Programme for Adult Education of the European Union. The text and materials may be reproduced, distributed and made publicly available for non-commercial purposes. However, they may not be edited, modified or altered in any way.//
-//Copyright information on images can be found directly under the images.//
-//The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.//

DIGILIT

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools