Media,http://mcs.sagepub.

com/
Culture & Society

Internet-based media, Europe and the political public sphere

Terje Rasmussen
Media Culture Society 2013 35: 97
DOI: 10.1177/0163443712464563

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/35/1/97

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Media, Culture & Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mcs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 17, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

464563
2013
MCS35110.1177/0163443712464563Media, Culture & SocietyRasmussen

Article

Media, Culture & Society

Internet-based media,
35(1) 97104
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
Europe and the political sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0163443712464563
public sphere mcs.sagepub.com

Terje Rasmussen
University of Oslo

Keywords
differentiation, digital media, Europe, internet, public sphere

Since the late 1990s, the plethora of internet-based media made it evident that the mass
media had not exhausted the potential of the concept of the public sphere. But, the radi-
cally democratised access to media that this entailed indicated that the Habermasian line
of theorising the public sphere needed revisions, particularly when applied to internet-
based media on a supra-national scale. The contemporary public sphere tends towards a
more dispersed structure than its 19th- and 20th-century versions critically analysed by
Jrgen Habermas. In the 1960s, Habermas was highly critical of the intervention of
large-scale commercial mass media into the public sphere but, in later writings, realised
and appreciated the (quality) presss role in a modern public sphere (Habermas, 1989,
1996, 2008). The continuing structural transformation of the public sphere propelled by
the internet has consequences for its normative power; its ability to provide legitimacy.
From the perspective of formal politics, this forms a paradox: democratisation of media
and an extended freedom of expression imply less power for formal politics to fulfil what
is envisioned precisely as democratisation. With the expansion of the public sphere
through digital media, politics will find it more difficult to identify normative founda-
tions for legitimate decisions.

Structural changes
It is hardly surprising that new media research in the 1990s turned to Habermas study
of the transformation of the early European bourgeois public sphere, and to

Corresponding author:
Terje Rasmussen, Department of media and communication, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1093, Blindern,
0317 Oslo, Norway.
Email: terje.rasmussen@media.uio.no

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

98 Media, Culture & Society 35(1)

later theories of political deliberation, to understand the significance of the internet in

relation to social change and politics. Theories of public meaning-constitution
addressed precisely what the internet offered: a limitless discursive space, with dra-
matically expanded possibilities for productive and enlightening meaning-formation.
Research has demonstrated that digital forums of various sorts have the capacity to
mediate engagement and critical discussion about issues of common public interest.
It has examined the ability of the internet to support public deliberation, examining
how blogs and forums contribute to the critical public sphere locally, nationally and
internationally by reproducing normative conditions for public opinion formation
(Becker and Wehner, 2001; Benkler, 2006; Dahlberg, 2001; Rsnen and Kuovo,
2007).
With the advent of the internet, the collective, mainstream nature of the hitherto
mass-mediated public sphere becomes more in tune with the thesis on individualisa-
tion in modern society (Bauman, 1992; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). With
interaction and participation enhanced by comparison with reception, subjective pref-
erences and viewpoints are more easily articulated and linked to others, re/producing
webs of intersubjectivity. The autonomy and self-realisation typically associated with
the modern individual fits better with a public sphere partly reproduced through
internet-based personal media as opposed to mass media. The personalisation of
media on the internet enables the individual desire to voice opinion directly in social
networks, to participate in campaigns and social movements, and to exchange opin-
ions in social media in his or her own ways and language, drawing upon personal
experiences, knowledge, engagements, values and judgements (Becker and Wehner,
2001; Benkler, 2006). Because the threshold for speaking up in the public sphere is
reduced in online environments, more people take part, a trend that minimises the
threshold further. Whereas general mass media, including their online versions, tend
to produce homogeneity so as to target mainstream markets, the majority of internet
forums, blogs and Facebook walls produce a heterogeneity that seems to have diffi-
culties in controlling itself reflexively.
An essential question, therefore, is how this complex public sphere can ensure
legitimacy and stability for the political system. In this article, I argue that the current,
differentiated political public sphere will provide a less stable platform for political
decision-making. However, this does not imply that the idea of a singular public
sphere should be abandoned. For every representative and formal political institution,
such as municipal and regional authorities or parliaments, there is a public sphere
working as a normative resonance board for its decisions. In relation to national par-
liaments or the EU parliament, for example, there is a circulation of topical commu-
nication oriented towards processes related to these institutions. In analysing how this
works, I speak of the public sphere in the singular for one theoretical and one empiri-
cal reason. Theoretically, it makes it easier to see the essential role of the public
sphere in a deliberative democracy, particularly when, as here, the public sphere is
addressed as an instrument for formal politics; consequently, I consider the public
sphere as a societal domain connecting the private sphere and the state. Empirically,
completely isolated public spheres in time and space are highly unlikely phenomena
due to the constantly circulating, flowing and leaking nature of communication. Thus

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

Rasmussen 99

the serious structural challenge I address here is not the complete splitting of public
political discourse but the increasing differentiation of groups, topics and styles
within the public sphere, which may make it less suitable as a guide to public opinion,
as seen from formal politics.

Differentiation as democratic problem

The current astonishing differentiation of topics, styles and participants transforms the
public sphere and how we view it in relation to democracy and culture. The internet
plays an active role in the current dramatic differentiation of the public sphere, in terms
of topics debated, styles applied and persons involved. The diversity of communication
on the internet is in part caused by (a) anonymity and quasi-oral styles of communica-
tion opening the way for extreme viewpoints, uncivil characteristics, unconventional
ways of argumentation, (b) diversity of communicative forms and genres (in social
media like Facebook, chat forums, Twitter, blogs and homepages with comment func-
tions), and (c) diversity of inter-textual connections among online forums (hyperlinks,
RSS feeds, social media, search engines). In its reciprocity, heterogeneity and resistance
to censorship, the internet complements the mass media. On the one hand, the national
and international mass media enable broad attention around some prioritised public top-
ics of national interest. On the other, the internet underpins the individualisation and
segmentation of modern societies, with attention and engagement spread among a wider
range of topics, making a political focus difficult to trace by those in formal politics. As
a modern response to a dynamic democracy, the plethora of digital arenas for debate
offers less guidance for politics but more possibilities for personal expression. Compared
to conventional mass-mediated journalism, online journalism tends to be more com-
partmentalised and based upon self-selection and personalisation. Selection criteria are
produced by those who communicate. Rather than simply offering carefully edited
information, the majority of internet-based media provide a differentiated space for
interaction and user-composed information that tends to be rather specialised often
closer to personal opinion, unconfirmed information and rumour. In general, whereas
the mass media tend to work toward the mainstream and conformity, the internet encour-
ages diversity.
One cannot ignore the negative side-effects of this diversity polarisation of debates,
isolation of issue-based groups, unequal participation, lack of responsiveness and respect
in debates, and uncivil and hateful speech have all been addressed by scholarship on
internet-mediated deliberation (see Brandenburg, 2006; Dahlberg, 2001). Online, too
many extreme viewpoints never meet the better argument. The compartmentalised and
segregated character of certain discussion lists and blogs makes it difficult to see how
their normative communication may be integrated into larger sentiments of public opin-
ion. What seems to be lacking in many forums on the internet is a culture for civil, public
communication (Coleman and Blumler, 2001). Due to the lack of personal presence and
editing functions, semi-public communication on the internet is often uncivil in style, in
spite of its open and accessible nature. In spite of being public, it often draws on genres
and styles for private communication such as dialogue, the confession, the non-serious
accusation, condemnation, the curse, etc. The effects are twofold: (a) the discussion faces

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

100 Media, Culture & Society 35(1)

problems encompassing the complexity of the issues discussed and (b) the discussion
faces problems attaining a sufficiently self-referential, self-critical level where the nor-
mative aims of the discussion are themselves subject for discussion.
Still, most online forums fulfil some basic requirements of a public sphere: as for the
mass media and local meetings, they are ethically committed to free speech and dialogue.
There is generally a commitment to making oneself understood and to understanding
others in an open space with an assumed indefinite audience, if for no other reason than
to enable rhetorical shortcuts or reach compromises. Some sort of communicative or
cooperative action seems to appear.

Self-regulating techniques
At first glance, on the internet there are few functional equivalents to the long-established
editing and regulatory agencies in mass media, such as editors and journalists. However,
there are plenty of intermediaries on the internet, in addition to human editors: search
engines, moderators, tags, filters, leaders and followers, blog-lists, RSS feeds, meta-sites.
Such mechanisms support paths that delimit the immense spectrum of communication
(Benkler, 2006). In spite of its diversity, communication on the internet is embedded in
larger, techno-supported normative frameworks that tend to mainstream interaction. The
term community, though often used to characterise value-based collectives of consen-
sus-building and loyalty, is inadequate in accounting for online interaction, assuming too
much fellowship and coercion while clarifying little about the empirical nature of public
interaction and communication. Instead, an extended interpretation of the public sphere is
needed (a) that recognises the role of the media without discriminating crudely between
online and offline interaction, (b), that accounts for the construction and transformation of
multiple and overlapping networks without losing sight of the reciprocity and stability of
everyday interaction, and (c) that accounts for purposive/instrumental, affective and
expressive practices. If the ritualistic and cultural aspects of the term community are
toned down, it may capture the individual orientation towards stable social and political
networks, while the term networked community more aptly covers the decision-oriented
(rather than tradition-oriented) nature of current political expression.
My point is that one need not normatively assume strong cohesiveness as an a priori
value of contemporary communities, whether local, national or super-national. Rather I
think it is more constructive to bring in insights from network analysis and simply think
of social and political networks (or associations). Whereas social communities consist of
a group of people interacting over time within a normative frame of reference, social
networks are more variable in terms of interaction intensity, and the interaction itself
tends to generate self-regulating norms. Also, a focus on the network emphasises the
nature of communicative relations (ties) over the particular individuals involved and
their common features.

Two dimensions of public communication

With this in mind, the fragmentation of the internet can be more maturely and socio-
logically understood. For analytical reasons I distinguish between two dimensions of

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

Rasmussen 101

the public sphere related to the topics, styles and the participants involved which
serve different democratic functions: The representational dimension refers to the
broad representation of heterogeneous topics, styles and groups which has never been
present in conventional mass media, only in rather peripheral social settings (clubs,
parties, unions, therapy groups, etc.). Aided by the internet, these fringes of cultural
and political life have entered the public sphere, enabling a dramatic expansion and
differentiation of public communication. The diversification of identities, issues and
styles has made the public sphere increasingly democratic and inclusive. As Habermas
(2008: 53) argues: The price for the welcome increase in egalitarianism due to the
internet is a decentring of the modes of access to unedited inputs. In this medium, the
contributions of intellectuals can no longer constitute a focal point. By contrast to this
distribution of popular opinion, the presentational dimension refers to the deliberation
over some common issues by central figures in leading media, acting as, and replacing,
the voices of the people. This vocal elite of intellectuals draws on representational
interaction, transforming and narrowing it into statements which set the public agenda
and act as a simulation of a public opinion vis-a-vis formal political decision-making.
This two-layered expansion and differentiation can be seen as the prime structural
transformation of the public sphere today.

The case of Europe

To illustrate the argument, I would like to examine the European context. With the Euro-
crisis in particular, the European political project seems to stand at a crossroads, and it is
interesting to examine the phenomenon of a European public sphere in this context (as
also discussed by Habermas, 2008). Research by Bernhard Peters (2004) shows that
national newspapers increasingly cover EU politics, European institutions and the EU in
general, but the increase is slow. In relation to a common European identity, we refer-
ences are modest. All in all, national public spheres resist Europeanisation. Peters con-
cludes that, in fact what occurs is more Americanisation than Europeanisation, suggesting
that the presentational dimension of a European public sphere is underdeveloped.
Although a broad representational dimension has emerged through a multitude of local
media and digital forums in this wealthy corner of the world, I would argue that the EU
as a singular political project will have major problems as long as a European public
opinion cannot be identified through a presentational dimension to balance and synthe-
sise the representational diversity.
The need for a unified sphere of legitimacy for European political power was only a
distant vision until supra-national power based on democratic principles was introduced
in Europe. With the establishment of the European Union, supra-national power
addresses, so far without success, supra-national legitimacy. Politically and culturally,
Europe remains a space of nation-states, nations and regions, each with its national pub-
lic sphere and, as Habermas argues, a European public sphere can only emerge if these
become responsive to one another (Habermas, 2008: 87, 183). Indeed, economic and
scientific integration (as well as integration of arts, sports and religion) have, since
Second World War, hardly been accompanied by the constitution of a common European
public opinion. Rather we have seen a number of new regional political territories and

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

102 Media, Culture & Society 35(1)

their corresponding environments of political communication. Add to this a mixture of

media types, media organisations, languages, themes and conflicts, and we have a pic-
ture of an extremely complex network of public communication. Although there are
overlapping agendas, international circulation of some quality newspapers, coverage of
international events and international NGOs, a contemporary European public sphere
can only be imagined in a soft, weak-tie sense. European public opinion can, at best, be
detected as a complex network of topics and viewpoints circulating as multiple voices on
local, national and international scales. But a presentational dimension is still needed for
a public opinion to articulate itself vis-a-vis EU politics.
Diversity itself does not prevent an international public sphere from realising itself
because the term public refers not to media technologies nor to language but focused,
political communication. In spite of the necessity of a converging and unifying presenta-
tional dimension of a public sphere, the absence of common European media and a lingua
franca may not be an absolute obstacle it only means that a limited number of national
media may serve the presentational function for the EU political elite. It also requires
more cultural and linguistic effort for issues and viewpoints to circulate and converge
through the multitude of mass media and digital media. Nor is a community with unifying
values an absolute requirement. As Habermas (2008) has argued, a post-national discourse
is possible which takes difference into account. Contrary to communitarian perspectives
associated with a strong notion of community (as mentioned earlier), a deliberative, net-
work-oriented public sphere consists of a multitude of interconnected webs of communi-
cative flows, reproduced by different groups, issues, genres and media, indirectly laying a
foundation for solving mutual problems (Bohman and Rehg, 1997). In a Habermasian
view of a deliberative public sphere, issues, solutions and problems are confronted with
each other and tested through a self-improving process of open opinion formation. The
distinction between public and not-public communication is reproduced by deliberation
itself. Potentially, a minimal but sufficient sense of collective identity, a sense of us,
emerges from such communication, supporting and reproducing further deliberation.
Legitimacy is produced not so much by the quantity of participation as by the diversity
and integration of meaning. That is why an essentially male-dominated and bourgeois
public sphere could serve progressive reform (Habermas, 1989, 2005).

Meaning across the media

This short article has argued that the political public sphere should be understood as
referring not to who but to how in other words, to a distributed space that is the
medium for, and produced by, public communication, where the public more or less
overtly dedicates its statements and arguments to specific political institutions. A public
sphere can partly be understood as interconnected public debates with some deliberative
value and consequence. To examine the European public sphere, research needs to focus
less on participation and more on the translations and interconnections between media
and agendas in Europe. The question is whether what I have called the presentational
dimension can be fulfilled satisfactorily through such inter-media responsiveness. It is
not likely that genuine European media, will emerge on any significant scale, and a
European public sphere cannot rely on the development of such overarching arenas.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

Rasmussen 103

There will be no BBC for the EU. Only traces of a European public sphere can be identi-
fied in an indirect, network-oriented sense not as a supra-national sphere, but as a
multitude of mediated and unmediated discursive processes aimed at opinion formation
at various levels, interconnected directly and indirectly.
What could be a European public sphere in the future is currently a complex network
of observations of discourses, media and audiences. It is the very complexity of all these
connections that potentially informs various discourses with new insights and possible
solutions. In such an indirect and contingent way European publics receive and contrib-
ute to international opinion formation. But how formal politics can steer this public will
without a common and focused media remains a central challenge for democratic poli-
tics. For the present, the primary references for communication will probably remain
close to immediate concerns about life-world issues like employment, personal econ-
omy, children or the local environment. What can be identified through media analysis is
a secondary self-reference concerning the conditions and future of Europe, just as we can
see even stronger secondary references to global concerns of climate change threats.
Citizens of the EU have only national, segmented and topical zones of what may be ele-
ments of a more robust European public sphere in the future. And thus far, despite grow-
ing and widespread concern about the current crisis (and hence increasing debate about
common concerns), these zones form fragile and unstable European publics, only indi-
rectly and unintentionally oriented towards an integrated will formation in Europe. One
realistic way ahead for a multi-mediated European public sphere is to encourage inter-
net-based interconnections between organisations, movements and associations of all
sorts in order to make circulation of meaning in Europe more dense and robust. Such a
public sphere must also recognise the existence of conflict and disagreement as being
productive for a common political frame.

References
Bauman Z (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim E (2002) Individualization. London: Sage.
Becker B and Wehner J (2001) Electronic networks and civil society: reflections on structural
changes in the public sphere. In: Ess C (ed.) Culture, Technology, Communication: Towards
an Intercultural Global Village. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Benkler Y (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and
Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bohman J and Rehg W (eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brandenburg H (2006) Pathologies of the virtual public sphere. In: Oates S, Owen D and Gibson K
(eds) The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters and Activists. New York: Routledge.
Coleman S and Blumler JG (2001) Realizing Democracy Online: A Civic Commons in Cyberspace.
London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Dahlberg L (2001) Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: a critical analysis.
Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 7(1).
Habermas J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category
of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas J (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and
Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014

104 Media, Culture & Society 35(1)

Habermas J (2005) Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta

Politica 40: 384392.
Habermas J (2008) Europe: The Faltering Project. Cambridge: Polity.
Peters B (2004) Ach Europa: questions about a European public space and ambiguities of the
European project. Eurozine, 21 June. Available at: www.Eurozine.com (accessed October
2012).
Rsnen P and Kuovo A (2007) Linked or divided by the web? Internet use and sociability in four
European countries. Information & Communication and Society 10(2): 219241.

Downloaded from mcs.sagepub.com at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on August 10, 2014