The Habermasian Public Sphere and Exclusion: An Engagement with Poststructuralist-Influenced Critics

Abstract

One trenchant critique of the Habermasian public sphere conception, voiced particularly strongly by poststructuralist‐influenced critics, is that it fails to fully account for exclusion. In this article I examine the strength of this critique. I begin by demonstrating how Habermasians have in many ways already theorized public sphere exclusion. Given this, I ask what is left of the poststructuralist-inspired critique. I argue that what is left is a deep disagreement with Habermasians about the grounding of the public sphere conception. I subsequently ask what difference, and moreover what positive contribution, a poststructuralist (rather than a Habermasian) grounding can make for understanding public sphere exclusion and associated politics.

Public Sphere Participation Online: the Ambiguities of Affect

“…Este modo comunicativo es, por supuesto, indispensable a veces, sobre todo cuando se acerca la toma de decisiones formal, como han afirmado los teóricos habermasianos. Sin embargo, insistir en esto como modelo general de las prácticas de participación puede resultar restrictivo para la subjetividad y su expresión, las cuales son centrales para la política (Dahlberg, 2014). Esa postura incluso puede tener consecuencias excluyentes: exigir un determinado género de comunicación formalizada que quizá no sea la forma de expresión más natural para todos los grupos sociales, y así contribuir a marginarlos y desempoderarlos.…”

Liquid democracy: the option of ICT to incorporate citizen participation in representative institutions

“…De cara al alegato contra la imposibilidad de alcanzar consensos justos e igualitarios, Lincoln Dahlberg (2001aDahlberg ( , 2001bDahlberg ( , 2001cDahlberg ( , 2007Dahlberg ( , 2014 ha buscado superar las objeciones con indicadores analíticos consistentes aplicables a los recursos deliberativos en Internet. Los indicadores analíticos positivos son: Reciprocidad, Validaciones externas e internas, Persuasión, Progreso, Respeto implícito y explícito.…”

‘Volunteering is like any other business’: Civic participation and social media

“…While social media can potentially help civil society actors access and circulate information in unprecedented ways, these technologies are embedded in unequal power relations that privilege government and corporate elites (Curran, Fenton, & Freedman, 2012;Dahlgren, 2013 social media platforms (Dahlberg, 2014;Fuchs, 2015;van Dijck, 2013 IndyMedia to the margins of the Internet) (Hestres, 2013;Papacharissi & Fernback, 2005; Author, 2014). Youmans and York (2012) show how the policies and user agreements of commercial social media platforms inhibit some forms of political participation by preventing anonymity and prohibiting certain content, resulting, for example, in Facebook banning the page ''We Are All Khaled Said'' which was used to mobilise protesters during the Egyptian uprising.…”

“…While social media can potentially help civil society actors access and circulate information in unprecedented ways, these technologies are embedded in unequal power relations that privilege government and corporate elites (Curran et al, 2012; Dahlgren, 2013). Social media platforms are characterised by increasing ownership concentration, with multinational media corporations such as Google and Facebook dominating the majority of social media platforms (Dahlberg, 2014; Fuchs, 2015; Van Dijck, 2013). Particularly, government policies and regulation as well as platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS) are important in this respect.…”

“…In addition to revenues from advertising, commercial social media have developed business models based on the collection of data that is re-analysed and sold to third parties (Andrejevic, 2013). Access to the data gathered as well as tools for analysis is limited to the major commercial players contributing another layer of unequal power relations (Dahlberg, 2014). These interests and conditions of unequal power relations further spur asymmetrical visibilities because the specifics of their collection and price are not made transparent.…”