The hidden structures of the digital public sphere

Abstract

In recent years, scholarly discourse has been dominated by concerns about the political public sphere: fake news and conspiracy theories are seen to have gained credence in “the age of social media,” strong polarization characterizes public debates even in established democracies, and, information abundance notwithstanding, more and more people appear to be disengaged from political news. In addition, print is unlikely to have a future; the prospects look equally bleak for linear TV programs. While more voices can permeate the public debate, only a handful of media enterprises are in control of the information market. Again, the field has turned to Jürgen Habermas’ groundbreaking perspective on the structural changes of the public sphere, first published more than 60 years ago. As before, it is displaying theoretical strength: better than any other approach, it seems capable of showing us the bigger picture. On top of that, Habermas again took up his seminal analysis in his latest contribution to political theory, a small book on the New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas, 2022). In the book, Habermas emphasizes again the relevance of public discourse and deliberation for contemporary democracy and criticizes, rightly so, the distortions that capitalist structures and economic logic cause for democratic processes.

While many of the patterns Habermas described in the original version of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1992 [1962]) are still relevant,¹ it is also necessary to consider what has changed. On the one hand, this means examining aspects that have varied in Habermas’ analyses. On the other hand, it means including aspects that are missing entirely from his reflections. To these ends, my remarks first look at the role of journalists and other actors in the public sphere. Despite the persistence of economic interests in mass media organizations, Habermas’ latest work sometimes appears nostalgic for mass media journalism's democratic performance while neglecting the achievements or potentials of non-professional actors on digital media platforms. Drawing on the concept of “opinion leadership,” I argue instead that we should concentrate our evaluations of the digital public sphere not only on professional expertise and norms, but also on the merits of independence, the ethos of community dedication, and on what determines trustworthiness.

Second, my contribution focuses on the “sub-structures” of the public sphere that do not play an important role in Habermas’ reflections, but which influence democratic processes in manifold ways. Digital media not only reinforce economic concentration, lead to a fragmentation of the political sphere, and provoke a less rational style of discourse. They also draw public attention away from the local or regional level and towards high-level politic, which—at the same time—provokes widespread depoliticization. Despite the growing availability of all kinds of information, regional and local politics tend to go unnoticed by most citizens. In addition, the number of people completely decoupled from political information is on the rise. I maintain that not only does this set into motion processes of re-nationalization and strengthens right-wing populism, but that it also challenges the embeddedness of political parties in society and it endangers representation of regional interests and perspectives in the public sphere.

Since the invention of Gutenberg's printing press, a myriad of social, economic, and political forces have shaped the political public sphere. Over the past 30 years, globalization and technological innovations have led to a situation that is more complex and fast-changing than ever. Therefore, in the digital age, it is all the more important that contemporary democratic theory not only describes the different structures and sub-structures of the public sphere and discusses their implications for democracy, but that it also focuses on their relations to each other.

Thus, we are now faced with the extremely difficult task of figuring out whether the observed forces and structures are part of a balanced system that, overall, fulfills the public sphere's democratic functions—or whether we are being confronted with dangerous, anti-democratic trends.³ The more indicators we find that speak to the latter, the more important it becomes for democratic theory to work on possible solutions as well as to criticize the status quo. It must do so in an interdisciplinary manner in order to be more innovative, more purposeful, and considerably more critical and provocative than are the rather vague references to the significance of journalism and political education, which currently inform most contributions in democratic theory. We must take a closer look into the internal structures of the public sphere than Habermas’ analysis does, which focuses on the groundwork instead of tracing and explaining the different fragments of the digital public sphere. These new perspectives might most easily link up with the theoretical perspective on “complex democracies” (Benson, 2009, p. 17) that integrates aspects of the deliberative and the elitist (gatekeeper) model as well as constructivist perspectives. In any case, they will have to focus on media systems and media regulations as well as on cultural influences and societal changes.

“Today, ‘Public Sphere’ has become almost a cliché and is perhaps one of the most frequently used words in sociology of media and communications,” stated Rodney Benson (2009, p. 179) more than 10 years ago regarding the impact of Habermas’ works. An inherently broad concept like the public sphere will always be at risk of being imprecise. However, given the relevance of deliberation studies in the digital age, “public sphere” will continue to be a pivotal term in contemporary scholarly discourse. Habermas’ latest works provide proof that it is worth sticking with the term: the structural transformations of the public sphere are of great importance for democratic quality and stability. To analyze relevant changes carefully—those that are obvious as well as those more hidden—will help shape public discourse, media systems, and normative orientations in a democratic fashion. By embracing this ambition, the “public sphere” will always be a fundamental perspective—and therefore much more than a cliché.