108Received 05.03.2023. Revised 14.03.2023. Accepted 19.04.2023.
Abstract. According to Jürgen Habermas, one of the leading figures in the conceptualization of the public sphere and public opinion, the public sphere must be considered as an arena that allows citizens to freely express, discuss, criticize and, eventually, publish their opinions on common topics. According to some new media theorists, such a sphere is being re-created within the age of new information technologies. The Internet’s contribution to public opinion and organization of social movements is also attributed to the development of deliberative democracy, changing the perception that citizens can participate in political processes only during elections. In this sense, the Internet can become a new impetus for democratization of societies and formation of a participatory culture, providing equal opportunities to all people, including members of diverse minority groups excluded from the public sphere in the era of traditional media. Supporters of this thesis are trying to adapt the concept of the public sphere by J. Habermas to the modern digital world. In other words, for them, the Internet-cafe of the 21st century plays the role of coffeehouses and salons of the 18th‑19th centuries. Those who analyze the new media from a critical perspective, on the contrary, see the Internet as a great machine that can be used to control and manipulate citizens. Approaching the issue from a completely different perspective, they note that new information technologies lead to capitalist exploitation and corporate control, on the one hand, and to the dissemination of false information and interference in the private life of citizens, on the other. In the field of economics, the concepts of “digital capitalism”, “cybercapitalism”, “surveillance capitalism”, and “wikinomics” are already widely used, implying the commodification of virtual data, which ultimately results in a huge “personal data market”. This study aims to compare the aforementioned perspectives and answer the question of whether the Internet can contribute to the formation of a free public sphere separate from the political sphere.
Keywords: Habermas, public sphere, public opinion, political participation, Internet activism, new media
REFERENCES
1. Hindman M. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2008. 200 p.
2. Morozov E. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York, PublicAffairs, 2011. 428 p.
3. Jarrett K. Interactivity is Evil! A Critical Investigation of Web 2.0. First Monday, 2008, vol. 13, no. 3. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v13i3.2140
4. Smyrnaios N. Internet Oligopoly: The Corporate Takeover of Our Digital World. Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018. 192 p.
5. Kışlalı A.T. Political Science. Ankara, Ankara University Higher School of Press and Broadcasting, 1987. 444 p. (In Turk.)
6. Hasdemir T.A., Coşkun M.K. Public Sphere and Social Movements. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Political Sciences, 2008, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 121-149. (In Turk.) Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ausbf/ issue/3081/42678 (accessed 08.03.2023).
7. Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 1991. 301 p.
8. Habermas J. Public Sphere. İstanbul, Hil Publications, 2004. 742 p. (In Turk.)
9. Rheingold H. The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1993. 447 p.
10. McCarthy T. Introduction. Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Massachusetts, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1989, pp. xi-xiv.
11. Coşkun M.K. Social Movements and the Proletarian Public Sphere. Economic Approach, 2006, vol. 17, no. 60, pp. 143-155. (In Turk.) DOI: 10.5455/ey.10622
12. Jenkins H., Purushotma R., Weigel M., Clinton K., Robinson A. J. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2009. 129 p.
13. Lievrouw L.A. Alternative and Activist New Media. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2011. 200 p.
14. Vivienne S. Digital Identity and Everyday Activism: Sharing Private Stories with Networked Publics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 243 p.
15. Özkaya B. Evaluation of the Internet as the Backbone of the Network Society in Terms of Democracy and Public Sphere. Algül A., Üçer N., eds. Democracy in New Media. İstanbul, Literatürk, 2013, pp. 135-163. (In Turk.)
16. Reynolds G. An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths. Nashville/Tennessee, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2006. 308 p.
17. Shirky C. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York, Penguin Books, 2008. 344 p.
18. Hewitt H. Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World. Nashville/Tennessee, Nelson Books, 2005. 260 p.
19. Goode L. Jürgen Habermas: Democracy and the Public Sphere. London, Pluto Press, 2005. 174 p.
20. Sayımer İ. Public Relations in the Virtual Environment. İstanbul, Beta Publications, 2012. 277 p. (In Turk.)
21. Mendes K., Ringrose J., Keller J. Digital Feminist Activism: Girls and Women Fight Back Against Rape Culture. New York, Oxford University Press, 2019. 224 p.
22. Van Aelst P., Walgrave S. New Media, New Movements? The Role of the Internet in Shaping the ‘Anti-Globalization’ Movement. Information, Communication & Society, 2002, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 465-493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180208538801
23. Juris J.S. Networking Futures: The Movements Against Corporate Globalization. Duke University Press, 2008. 400 p.
24. Hands J. @ Is for Activism: Dissent, Resistance and Rebellion in a Digital Culture. London, Pluto Press, 2010. 225 p.
25. Gerbaudo P. Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London, Pluto Press, 2012. 208 p.
26. Advan A. “Taksim Gezi Park Protests” in the Framework of Social Movements and Social Media Use. Dr. Diss. İstanbul, 2015. 352 p. (In Turk.)
27. Acar N. Social Media Presented as a Freedom Zone and Taksim Gezi Park Protests. Mediterranean Journal of Communication, 2013, no. 20, pp. 178-193. (In Turk.) Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/akil/issue/48086/608048 (accessed 08.03.2023).
28. Gerges F.A., eds. Contentious Politics in the Middle East: Popular Resistance and Marginalized Activism Beyond the Arab Uprisings. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 578 p.
29. Vanden H.E., Funke P.N., Prevost G., eds. The New Global Politics: Global Social Movements in the Twenty-First Century. New York, Routledge, 2017. 280 p.
30. Allam N. Women and the Egyptian Revolution: Engagement and Activism During the 2011 Arab Uprisings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018. 211 p.
31. Dwonch A.S. Palestinian Youth Activism in the Internet Age: Online and Offline Social Networks after the Arab Spring. London, I.B. Tauris, 2020. 224 p.
32. Ozgul B.A. Leading Protests in the Digital Age: Youth Activism in Egypt and Syria. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. 257 p.
33. Işık G. Social Movements from Virtual to Street. Ankara, Nobel Publications, 2013. 204 p. (In Turk.)
34. McChesney R.W. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy. New York, The New Press, 2013. 320 p.
35. Barassi V. Activism on the Web: Everyday Struggles against Digital Capitalism. New York, Routledge, 2015. 180 p.
36. Van Dijck J., Nieborg D. Wikinomics and Its Discontents: A Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Business Manifestos. New Media & Society, 2009, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 855-874. Available at: https://doi:10.1177/1461444809105356
37. Mohammed S.N. The (Dis)information Age: The Persistence of Ignorance. New York, Peter Lang Publishing, 2012. 206 p.
38. Bauerlein M. The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. New York, Penguin Group, 2008. 253 p.
39. Curran J., Fenton N., Freedman D. Misunderstanding the Internet. New York, Routledge, 2012. 194 p.
40. Bauman Z. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2005. 136 p.
No comments