Announcements
- Charlotte Debate Team is Live!!!
Mondays: 5:30-6:30
Fridays: 5:00-6:00 {of course, there may be travel days on Fridays to tournaments}
Fretwell 219 - Speech-Debate General Interest Meetings
Thursdays: 5:30-6:30pm
Colvard 3140
Plan for the day
- Critical Analysis of Culture Essay–Due 9/19 on Canvas
- More Questions Than Answers
- How to ask more questions as opposed to finding the answers
- Critical thinking is a life-long goal…struggle
- Finish up Marshal McLuhan
- The Public Sphere
Preview of Contemporary Media Concerns
Jodi Dean explains the internet as a capitalist tool in a way that leads to our later discussions on the invisibility and ubiquity of cyberspace. The mid- to late-1990s promise of the internet was that “Democracy would be enhanced as all citizens acquired the ability to access information and express their opinions” (36); however, Dean explains this as the rhetoric of wishful thinking:
This promise of participation was not simply propaganda. It was and remains a deeper, underlying fantasy wherein technology covers over our impotence and supports a vision of ourselves as active political participants. Think of the rhetoric encasing any new device, system, code, or platform. A particular technological innovation becomes a screen upon which all sorts of fantasies of political action are projected.
Dean, Jodi. “Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism.” Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duke UP, 2009, p. 36.
It’s easy to see technologies as prostheses that extend our abilities, but Dean argues they also allow us to project a façade of engagement. Much has been said about slacktivism, shallow online dating, and mindless video gaming, but the rhetoric of technological salvation has less attention. Last class’s webpage refered to a discussion about selfies and McLuhan’s definition of narcissim being an extension of oneself as opposed to simply being vainity.
Brief History Lesson: The Public Sphere as Enlightenment Phenomenon
Think back to your history classes about the French Revolution (1789) or, perhaps, Les Misérables (“red….and black…”). You may remember the Estates General that “advised” the monarch:
- First Estate: Church/Clergy
- Second Estate: Nobility
- Third Estate: Peasants…(They’re revolting!)
Eventually, the Press would become known as the Fourth Estate, which supports Habermas’s idea that newspapers are important for forming “public opinion.” As feudalism and monarchy, in general, gave way to more representative, classical liberal forms of government, the public (citizens) deliberated on policy and elected representatives.
- classic liberalism: the state may not enroach on citizens’ rights or property without due process; the people are no longer merely subjects of a monarch.
- neoliberalism: the idea of a total (or nearly total) market-driven economy with little or no government regulations.
- In America, we often label people who promote this philosophy conservatives, neoconservatives, libertarians, or Republicans. In American popular media, the term “neoliberal” would be confusing because a “liberal” is considered (these are generalizations, of course) having the opposite view of the term “neoliberal.” This term is more a European one and rarely heard outside of academic discussions in America.
Below are some other definitions to be aware of because they’re important to Habermas’s overarching theory related to communication. We’ll cover this more when talking about critical theory, but Habermas isn’t anti-Enlightenment; instead, he has a more nuanced idea that rationality can be employed situationally and not as a Grand Narrative that governs all knowledge.
- objectivity: an unbiased approach to knowledge making, communicating, and deliberating.
- subjectivity: a more personal reference to “truth” based on one’s perspective and interpretation of phenomena.
- intersubjective: a group consensus of those with similar backgrounds and/or commitments to knowledge creation; sometimes called “expert opinion” in the case of specialized discourse communities.
- conventional wisdom: general assumptions of knowledge that are culturally defined (although not seen as culturally relative by adherents)
- common sense: pragmatic responses and decisions to events, including taken-for-granted socially constructed conventional wisdom.
- rationality: pursuing knowledge creation and communication based on convention and observable evidence.
- instrumental rationality: a means justifies the ends approach where one bases conclusions on what appears most pragmatic and, therefore, situationally advantageous. If a choice fulfills one’s ends, it’s situationally rational; however, assuming that’s the only way to think is rather myopic.
Habermas doesn’t use “instrumental rationality” in the essay you read for today, but it’s an important concept for his overall theory (spanning seven decades!). Habermas isn’t against reason overall, but he would caution thinking that “rationality” is a pure, objective approach to decision making when the context might ignore other factors. Consider how “instrumental rationality” responds to these statements:
- Fast food workers deserve a living wage
- Gig economy workers (ride sharing, deliveries, etc.) deserve unions
- Environmental regulations cost companies money
- Charging $0.05 for a plastic bag at the grocery store hurts consumers
I will often discuss “instrumental rationality” (or, simply, “instrumentalism”) when critiquing the belief that tools (or sciences) are useful in carrying out (or explaining) goals (or ideas). This isn’t anti-science or anti-technology. It’s asking us to reflect on ideas we’ve black boxed–assumptions that we don’t return to for debate. Similarly, I’ll use ahistorical to refer to ignoring the past history preceeding an event and focusing solely on responding and not understanding.
Jürgen Habermas “The Public Sphere” (1964)
Jürgen Habermas is still alive and well at 95.
- Public sphere: not the government, not a crowd, not the press (per se) but where public opinion is formed and (in theory) all citizens may contribute and be informed by this sphere.
- In what ways do people contribute to the public sphere?
- Is deliberation the only way to advance an agenda publically?
- p. 49: Habermas makes a big claim that “Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion…about matters of general interest” (49). He distinctly mentions the public sphere is where public opinion is formed. Whether or not it’s correct to discuss the “digital public sphere” as online spaces, such as social media, there’s no denying that this space is mediated by near total corporate and institutional control. Although debate happens online, even debate about net neutrality and corporate excess, there is no guarantee one’s voice or a group’s consensus is heard.
- p. 51: “Today, newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere.”
- p. 50: “…public opinion can by definition come into existence only when a reasoning public is presupposed.”
- p. 53: “…the newspaper publisher…changed from a vendor of recent news to a dealer in public opinion.”
- p. 54 (special interests): “The public sphere, which must now mediate [special interest] demands, becomes a field for the competition of interests.”
- p.55 (paraphrase): publicity is not an invitation for critical debate on a subject; instead, it’s to get people behind an issue.
If you get the chance, I highly suggest watching Elia Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd (1957). We’ve known for a long time that the media is influential…and superficial.
Next Class
We’ll finish up with Habermas and move onto a critique of the public sphere as a male-only domain.