Between (Conceptual) Crisis and Critique: Reclaiming the Critical Epistemic Value of Publicness

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Critical Sociology Pub Date : 2023-11-24 DOI:10.1177/08969205231211313
S. Splichal
{"title":"Between (Conceptual) Crisis and Critique: Reclaiming the Critical Epistemic Value of Publicness","authors":"S. Splichal","doi":"10.1177/08969205231211313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Different understandings of what it means to be critical in the social sciences, especially in terms of the distinction between instrumental and reflexive knowledge, can be illustrated by the ongoing conceptual disputes about the critical epistemic value of public opinion and the public sphere as the main instantiations of publicness. The concept of the public sphere has gained prominence in media and communication theory, filling a void created by the decline of critical public opinion discourse, which was overshadowed by promotional publicity and opinion polls. Initially rooted in the German concept of Öffentlichkeit, this idea was revived in the English term ‘public sphere’. Its adoption transcended disciplinary boundaries, sparking fresh critical perspectives in the study of publicness. Yet, this widespread adoption also brought about a certain dilution of the concept’s epistemic depth. The digital age, characterized by the ascendancy of the Internet and the blurring of public–private boundaries, has greatly reshaped our comprehension of the public sphere, and expanded the scope of the concept. Today, however, the public sphere concept faces a fate reminiscent of administrative public opinion discourse following the proliferation of opinion polls. At a time when society is faced with issues related to the control of digital platforms by oligarchs, reevaluation and revitalization of the concepts of the public sphere and publicness become essential for comprehending the dynamics of modern communication.","PeriodicalId":47686,"journal":{"name":"Critical Sociology","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205231211313","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Different understandings of what it means to be critical in the social sciences, especially in terms of the distinction between instrumental and reflexive knowledge, can be illustrated by the ongoing conceptual disputes about the critical epistemic value of public opinion and the public sphere as the main instantiations of publicness. The concept of the public sphere has gained prominence in media and communication theory, filling a void created by the decline of critical public opinion discourse, which was overshadowed by promotional publicity and opinion polls. Initially rooted in the German concept of Öffentlichkeit, this idea was revived in the English term ‘public sphere’. Its adoption transcended disciplinary boundaries, sparking fresh critical perspectives in the study of publicness. Yet, this widespread adoption also brought about a certain dilution of the concept’s epistemic depth. The digital age, characterized by the ascendancy of the Internet and the blurring of public–private boundaries, has greatly reshaped our comprehension of the public sphere, and expanded the scope of the concept. Today, however, the public sphere concept faces a fate reminiscent of administrative public opinion discourse following the proliferation of opinion polls. At a time when society is faced with issues related to the control of digital platforms by oligarchs, reevaluation and revitalization of the concepts of the public sphere and publicness become essential for comprehending the dynamics of modern communication.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在(概念)危机与批判之间:重拾公共性的批判性认识价值
对社会科学批判性的不同理解,特别是对工具性知识和反思性知识之间区别的不同理解,可以从关于公众舆论和公共领域作为公共性主要实例的批判性认识价值的持续概念争议中得到说明。公共领域的概念在媒体和传播理论中日益突出,填补了因批判性舆论话语衰落而产生的空白,而批判性舆论话语则被促销宣传和民意调查所掩盖。这一概念最初源于德国的 "Öffentlichkeit "概念,后来在英语 "public sphere "一词中得以复兴。这一概念的采用跨越了学科界限,为公共性研究带来了全新的批判视角。然而,这一概念的广泛采用也在一定程度上削弱了其认识深度。数字时代以互联网的兴起和公私界限的模糊为特征,极大地重塑了我们对公共领域的理解,并扩大了这一概念的范围。然而,今天,公共领域概念面临的命运让人想起民意调查泛滥后的行政舆论话语。当社会面临寡头控制数字平台的问题时,重新评估和振兴公共领域和公共性的概念对于理解现代传播的动态至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Sociology
Critical Sociology SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Critical Sociology is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research. Originally appearing as The Insurgent Sociologist, it grew out of the tumultuous times of the late 1960s and was a by-product of the "Sociology Liberation Movement" which erupted at the 1969 meetings of the American Sociological Association. At first publishing work mainly within the broadest boundaries of the Marxist tradition, over the past decade the journal has been home to articles informed by post-modern, feminist, cultural and other perspectives that critically evaluate the workings of the capitalist system and its impact on the world.
期刊最新文献
New Wave of Thinking About Revolutions From Labour Process Theory to Organisational Political Economy: A Response to Benassi, Ikeler and Wood Platform Organizations and Fields: Exploring the Influence of Field Conditions on Platformization Processes Disguised Workers: The Transformation of Labour and the Myth of Entrepreneurship in ‘Post-Socialist’ Polish Capitalism Contesting Power From the Periphery: The Latin American Sociological Imagination and the Media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1