WEBLOGS AND THE
PUBLIC SPHERE
Inspired by
article written by Andrew O'Baoill
on
Jurgen Habermas’ model of Public Sphere
In choosing
Jurgen Habermas' study of the various communications spheres on the web, which
further delineates to his audience, a factual yet intrinsic need for more
participants and the pooling of variant cultural resources, I have struck upon
an intention to acknowledge fully in its structure the parities within this
domains and its tributaries.
Andrew
O'Baoill’s layout and explanation of this particular facet in the technological
gamut of/for communicative rationality of information is an explicit way of
illustrating the need for polarities to be understood let alone unified. The
onus of which lies on the user, instead of on advertising or marketing
gimmicks.
He
says “I will here, however, generally be restricting my examination to those
weblogs which deal with issues in the political/legal domain of the public
sphere-one of three (along with Art/Culture and Science/Technology) identified
by Habermas.”
The
all-encompassing dual grounds of art and culture, science and technology,
politics and legislation perfunctorily bring out the essence of the timbre with
which the O’Baoill’s compartmentalizes Habermas’ tenets and includes his
reasoning of resonance in the political realm.
These
various socio economic grounds were synonymous with the education that Habermas
had growing up in a violently segregated and hierarchically politicized
Oligarchy of pre and post war Germany. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why
he chose to absolve slightly, the study of ubiquitous Politics, during his
life. It may seem ironic but it is also impossible to read between his
explanations without giving his background, attention. His political voice was
seemingly infused with his outward philosophical one – through which he was
able to reach his audience on an even plain – whether European or American,
poor or rich.
He
chooses philosophy even though his understanding of the breakdown of the means
on communication during his life as a young student gave more importance to
forced and cruel regimen. Perhaps to perpetuate his critical thinking and
improve conditions in society he needed to negate existing abject conditions
under the aegis of philosophy.
His
stance as a young adult was that of compassion for those who were denied their
voices. His desire to integrate society by way of philosophical language and
critical technique thus became his instrument of propagation. Even though
technology was only a mere twinkle in the mid 1900s when compared to today,
needless to say, the ability that Habermas demonstrated in terms of being able
to think ahead of his time and era in order to bring about efficiency of
thought and language while communicating with a public is astounding and is
what is most fascinating to me on a personal and educational level.
Public
speeches were considered the most eloquent way of being influenced by a certain
culture. The web in similar ways provides a platform for everyone today – to
influence and reach out, making the theoretical information the crux of all
things tactile and tangible in the communication process.
O’Baoill goes on to reiterates the
importance of sustenance and longevity of this kind of public space giving much
weight and importance to accessibility of critical information and language
through Habermas’ explanation but because it is a minute fraction of a thought
process of the big picture, the fascination hovers over the dialogue yet to be
had about the ever pervading changes in these dynamics given that singular
boundaries to each of the cultural, political and scientific domains, are
constantly being re-imagined.
