Changes of the Mass Media and the Public Sphere

IF 1.7 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Javnost-The Public Pub Date : 1997-01-01 DOI:10.1080/13183222.1997.11008646111
C. Sádaba, W. Schulz
{"title":"Changes of the Mass Media and the Public Sphere","authors":"C. Sádaba, W. Schulz","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1997.11008646111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three different models of the public sphere have gained wide attention in the academic literature. In a recent article Gerhards (1997) contrasts two of these models, the discursive public and the liberal public, respectively. The former is linked to the well-known work of Habermas on the transformation of the public sphere (1962) and to some of his more recent reflections and modifications (Habermas 1992a,b). The latter model is rooted in theories of liberal democracy which were developed in political science. Gerhards also traces influences, among others, to the writings of Luhmann (e.g., Luhmann 1971). Both models are “ideal types” in the sense Max Weber introduced this term, i.e. they give a rather abstract, idealised notion of some basic features and functions of the public sphere. However, Habermas and Gerhards both claim that their respective models have empirical value and are suitable for a description of observable phenomena (Habermas 1992b, 451; Gerhards 1997). The two models have some key features in common. They both conceive of the public sphere as an intermediary system which links the “basis” with the “top” of the political system or, as Habermas puts it, the private and collective actors of the periphery with the political institutions in the centre. Both conceptions have some obvious resemblance with political systems models of the type devised by Easton (1965). Systems models of this type contrast input processes, output processes and conversion processes. Mass media are considered by these models as just one of several channels or agents through which the interests and the will of the people are transformed or “converted” into political decisions. The models differ with respect to the position and role of political actors, particularly of interest groups. In the liberal model organised collective actors, like interest groups and political parties, dominate the public sphere and provide inputs to the political decision centre. WINFRIED SCHULZ","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost-The Public","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1997.11008646111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

Three different models of the public sphere have gained wide attention in the academic literature. In a recent article Gerhards (1997) contrasts two of these models, the discursive public and the liberal public, respectively. The former is linked to the well-known work of Habermas on the transformation of the public sphere (1962) and to some of his more recent reflections and modifications (Habermas 1992a,b). The latter model is rooted in theories of liberal democracy which were developed in political science. Gerhards also traces influences, among others, to the writings of Luhmann (e.g., Luhmann 1971). Both models are “ideal types” in the sense Max Weber introduced this term, i.e. they give a rather abstract, idealised notion of some basic features and functions of the public sphere. However, Habermas and Gerhards both claim that their respective models have empirical value and are suitable for a description of observable phenomena (Habermas 1992b, 451; Gerhards 1997). The two models have some key features in common. They both conceive of the public sphere as an intermediary system which links the “basis” with the “top” of the political system or, as Habermas puts it, the private and collective actors of the periphery with the political institutions in the centre. Both conceptions have some obvious resemblance with political systems models of the type devised by Easton (1965). Systems models of this type contrast input processes, output processes and conversion processes. Mass media are considered by these models as just one of several channels or agents through which the interests and the will of the people are transformed or “converted” into political decisions. The models differ with respect to the position and role of political actors, particularly of interest groups. In the liberal model organised collective actors, like interest groups and political parties, dominate the public sphere and provide inputs to the political decision centre. WINFRIED SCHULZ
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
大众传媒与公共领域的变迁
公共领域的三种不同模式在学术文献中引起了广泛关注。在最近的一篇文章中,格哈兹(1997)对比了这两种模式,分别是话语公众和自由公众。前者与哈贝马斯关于公共领域转型的著名著作(1962)以及他最近的一些反思和修改(哈贝马斯1992a,b)有关。后一种模式植根于政治科学中发展起来的自由民主理论。格哈兹还追溯了影响,其中包括卢曼的著作(例如,卢曼1971)。这两种模式都是马克斯·韦伯引入的“理想类型”,也就是说,它们对公共领域的一些基本特征和功能给出了相当抽象、理想化的概念。然而,哈贝马斯和格哈德斯都声称他们各自的模型具有经验价值,适合于描述可观察到的现象(哈贝马斯1992b, 451;格1997)。这两种模式有一些共同的关键特征。他们都认为公共领域是一个中介系统,它将政治体系的“基础”与“顶部”联系起来,或者,正如哈贝马斯所说,将边缘的私人和集体行为者与中心的政治机构联系起来。这两个概念与伊斯顿(1965)设计的政治系统模型有一些明显的相似之处。这种类型的系统模型对比了输入过程、输出过程和转换过程。这些模式认为大众传媒只是将人民的利益和意志转化或“转化”为政治决策的几个渠道或代理人之一。这些模式在政治行动者,特别是利益集团的立场和作用方面有所不同。在自由主义模式中,有组织的集体行为者,如利益集团和政党,主导着公共领域,并向政治决策中心提供投入。“舒尔茨
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
Javnost-The Public
Javnost-The Public COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Javnost - The Public, an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed social and cultural science journal published by the European Institute for Communication and Culture in association with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, addresses problems of the public sphere on international and interdisciplinary levels. It encourages the development of theory and research, and helps understand differences between cultures. Contributors confront problems of the public, public communication, public opinion, public discourse, publicness, publicity, and public life from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Not Forgetting Black Lives Matter: Memory, Protest and Counterpublics Public Service Media in Northern Ireland: Prominence and Vulnerability in a Small Media System Counterpublics and Structural Change in Media and Politics: A Theoretical Framework on Transformations within a Long-Term Historical Perspective Anti-Systemic Counterpublics: Rethinking the Counterpublic Sphere Far Right > Digital Rights: The Precarity of Free Expression, Internet Access, Net Neutrality and Data Privacy in Bolsonaro’s Brazil
×
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