In what ways do you see blogs being used for political purposes and/or civic discourse and how is this useful (or not)?
"A sphere of nonpublic opinion generated mostly by the mass media," is Jurgen Habermas' description of the state of public discourse as quoted by Matthew D. Barton is his article "The future of rational-critical debate in online public spheres," the most provocative of this week's political readings. Habermas (quoting C.W. Mills) makes a distinction between public and mass. Public discourse, while organized, is not controlled by any outside influences and is fluid, organic, real. Whereas, mass is discourse force-feed to the masses, who are unable to do anything but utter rote repetitions of what they've been feed. It is artificial, contrived and fake.
I had not yet read Barton's article when I previewed all the political websites on the schedule but I was looking for actual discourse. I have to say that the majority of posts in reaction to articles on the political sites were nothing but rote repetitions. I think it's really sad but I think our country is so politically polarized that discussions are filtered through party platforms before anyone speaks their mind on a blog - at least on these political websites.
I found one refreshing exception. Although not actually on the syllabus list I found some actual discourse within Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics blog. It can be linked to off of both Tom Udall and Swing State of Mind websites on the list.
I was reading the latest story in Bill McCamley's column trimming Politics. There was some very interesting discourse taking place in reaction to McCamley's post. One in particular struck me as, while opinionated, not partisan. Going by the name of Ben, the poster gave his thoughts on whether the government or individuals should pay for their health care. I could not tell what party he might affiliate himself with.
So while I wish it weren't so, it does seem that we are the masses being influenced by the mass media and original thinking and discourse is suffering for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jessica-
I am torn when it comes to the potential for real debate online as well. I know there is room for lots of voices in the blogosphere, but are those voices really listening to one another? It seems that too often we go to the Internet already convinced of what we "know" and looking only to find others to back us up. Is this the "critical-rational debate" Barton dreams of? It sometimes seems the same as the fake feeling that in a democracy, "the majority rules." Who makes up this majority though? Who has access to it and voice within the democracy. It reminds me of the distinctions between mass and public. Sometimes all we have is the illusion.
Jessica, your response echoes some of what Kaleb was saying about the pitfalls of blogs. I believe that many, many ideas are filtered several times before reaching the public, which inherently affects how the public reacts or responds to such things. But in the same vain, it's nice to have some many sources to draw on, and so quickly. The Web has changed how fast and how we consume information. Like everything, it's important to think critically about the information we receive and from whom.
I agree that what I saw on the "party line" blogs was more of the same old -- but other sites, like the one you mentioned, seem more able to wallow in the issues...
I am sure that we all have been in "conversations" were the person with whom we are speaking is more concerned with getting a chance to speak, rather than listening and responding intelligently to what is being said. Jessica, I think you make a very good point, observing that within the blogosphere there is a tendency for people to search for corroboration, rather than truth. Is this pattern of behavior really all that different from what many might consider normal conversation? Furthermore, is conversation really ever dialogic? Do people really come to conclusions thru logic?
Post a Comment