Habermas' Public Sphere
How well does Jurgen Habermas’ concept of the ‘public sphere’ describe the culture of the internet?
“Public sphere can be understood as a harmonious participation of different people without one overpowering the other and I believe that the same theory can be applied to the Internet and online communication today”.
Joanna James
What gives the clash of coffee shop talks and online participation in the discussion by commenting on the news? Surely, this differs from what an influential political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote about in his book “Clash of civilization”. The case with civilization is merely an upgrade of cultures but burdening and open issue among politicians. As for the “clash” of the natural discussion in an open air practiced in the XVII century with the global networking is about upgrade of communication. The latter is vice versa to the first is warmly welcomed by the contemporary communicators. Internet enlarged the scale of discussion as well as it made it right away. Ideas and theories come to existence but the perception of them is dictated by the generation and the status quo of the situations in this or that society. Thus, as it seen in the case of the clash of civilization it is a long-term collision of cultures but clash of conversation in primitive way and internet gives out such social network giants as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others. Those giants are doing good job by connecting people and making world shrink as well as being successful in the world business. Exploring the many issues caused by differences between cultures raised by Huntington is not this paper’s task, nor comparison of the public sphere and online communication of digital generation. Instead the paper raises the issue of early type of public information exchange in the case of public sphere studied by Jurgen Habermas in his book called “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere:
“Public sphere can be understood as a harmonious participation of different people without one overpowering the other and I believe that the same theory can be applied to the Internet and online communication today”.
Joanna James
What gives the clash of coffee shop talks and online participation in the discussion by commenting on the news? Surely, this differs from what an influential political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote about in his book “Clash of civilization”. The case with civilization is merely an upgrade of cultures but burdening and open issue among politicians. As for the “clash” of the natural discussion in an open air practiced in the XVII century with the global networking is about upgrade of communication. The latter is vice versa to the first is warmly welcomed by the contemporary communicators. Internet enlarged the scale of discussion as well as it made it right away. Ideas and theories come to existence but the perception of them is dictated by the generation and the status quo of the situations in this or that society. Thus, as it seen in the case of the clash of civilization it is a long-term collision of cultures but clash of conversation in primitive way and internet gives out such social network giants as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others. Those giants are doing good job by connecting people and making world shrink as well as being successful in the world business. Exploring the many issues caused by differences between cultures raised by Huntington is not this paper’s task, nor comparison of the public sphere and online communication of digital generation. Instead the paper raises the issue of early type of public information exchange in the case of public sphere studied by Jurgen Habermas in his book called “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: