Abstract This article proposes the conceptual model called the Situational Self-Orientation Model of Digital Publics (SOMP) as an extension of the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS). The model aims to explain the digital publics’ communicative behaviors. It suggests five propositions by introducing three different working self-concepts (individual, relational, and collective self) on the issue. The different self-concepts affect involvement recognition and induce different self-oriented motivations (self-interest, interpersonal, and intragroup motivations) and self-oriented communication (I-oriented, You-oriented, and Us/Them-oriented communicative actions). The model is expected to provide theoretical and practical contributions to understanding the digital publics’ communication behaviors better.
{"title":"The situational self-orientation model of digital publics","authors":"Hyelim Lee","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article proposes the conceptual model called the Situational Self-Orientation Model of Digital Publics (SOMP) as an extension of the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS). The model aims to explain the digital publics’ communicative behaviors. It suggests five propositions by introducing three different working self-concepts (individual, relational, and collective self) on the issue. The different self-concepts affect involvement recognition and induce different self-oriented motivations (self-interest, interpersonal, and intragroup motivations) and self-oriented communication (I-oriented, You-oriented, and Us/Them-oriented communicative actions). The model is expected to provide theoretical and practical contributions to understanding the digital publics’ communication behaviors better.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135854394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For the Habermasian theory of the “public sphere” to make sense in the 2020s, it must be able to address the modern tendency toward global systemic crises. To examine the relevance of the Habermasian public sphere to today’s deeply interconnected digital world, this article provides a selective reading of Habermas’ writings on the public sphere, examining how he developed the concept from its conceptual core (1962) through his Legitimation Crisis (LC; 1973) and The Theory of Communicative Action (TCA; vol. 1 [1981] 1984, vol. 2 [1981] 1987). Working from the perspective of the “differentiated lifeworld,” we show here that the theory’s background assumptions about reality (truth), solidarity (justice), personality (authenticity) are now being exposed and destabilized by current crisis tendencies and imaginaries. Here, we examine three exemplary (and interconnected) global disruptions that expose these assumptions: the climate crisis, the intensification of financial inequality in the Global North, and the rapid push toward datafication. Through our examination of whether the public sphere as Habermas conceived of it can exist in today’s world, we provide a more expansive form of criticism of the public sphere (which is usually critiqued on the narrow grounds of the rational bias of communicative rationality). Here, we underscore the fundamental importance of addressing the complex system-lifeworld dynamics that are today re-conceptualizing and re-contextualizing the “public sphere” in this era of contemporary global crises.
{"title":"The public sphere and contemporary lifeworld: reconstruction in the context of systemic crises","authors":"Lewis A. Friedland, Risto Kunelius","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 For the Habermasian theory of the “public sphere” to make sense in the 2020s, it must be able to address the modern tendency toward global systemic crises. To examine the relevance of the Habermasian public sphere to today’s deeply interconnected digital world, this article provides a selective reading of Habermas’ writings on the public sphere, examining how he developed the concept from its conceptual core (1962) through his Legitimation Crisis (LC; 1973) and The Theory of Communicative Action (TCA; vol. 1 [1981] 1984, vol. 2 [1981] 1987). Working from the perspective of the “differentiated lifeworld,” we show here that the theory’s background assumptions about reality (truth), solidarity (justice), personality (authenticity) are now being exposed and destabilized by current crisis tendencies and imaginaries. Here, we examine three exemplary (and interconnected) global disruptions that expose these assumptions: the climate crisis, the intensification of financial inequality in the Global North, and the rapid push toward datafication. Through our examination of whether the public sphere as Habermas conceived of it can exist in today’s world, we provide a more expansive form of criticism of the public sphere (which is usually critiqued on the narrow grounds of the rational bias of communicative rationality). Here, we underscore the fundamental importance of addressing the complex system-lifeworld dynamics that are today re-conceptualizing and re-contextualizing the “public sphere” in this era of contemporary global crises.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47951558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“Polarization” is a common diagnosis of the state of contemporary societies. Yet, few studies theorize or systematically analyze how polarization evolves in media content. To guide future empirical studies, we introduce a public sphere perspective on polarization. Discursive Polarization, defined as divergence emerging in public communication, may disrupt the public sphere if left untamed. Its analysis should combine the study of ideological polarization (increasing disagreement about issues) and affective polarization (growing disaffection between groups) as evolving in communication. Both processes may be measured in media content. We propose a framework combining the study of journalism and digital communication networks, investigating (1) content and (2) networked interactions regarding both political issues and social identity formation. The exploration of how the public sphere is disrupted in the process of Discursive Polarization may help us to understand the wider social phenomenon of polarization: before societies break apart, debates break apart.
{"title":"When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication","authors":"M. Brüggemann, Hendrik Meyer","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 “Polarization” is a common diagnosis of the state of contemporary societies. Yet, few studies theorize or systematically analyze how polarization evolves in media content. To guide future empirical studies, we introduce a public sphere perspective on polarization. Discursive Polarization, defined as divergence emerging in public communication, may disrupt the public sphere if left untamed. Its analysis should combine the study of ideological polarization (increasing disagreement about issues) and affective polarization (growing disaffection between groups) as evolving in communication. Both processes may be measured in media content. We propose a framework combining the study of journalism and digital communication networks, investigating (1) content and (2) networked interactions regarding both political issues and social identity formation. The exploration of how the public sphere is disrupted in the process of Discursive Polarization may help us to understand the wider social phenomenon of polarization: before societies break apart, debates break apart.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42071193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Theories of the public sphere—or more recently, of plural public spheres—are core elements of communication and media research. A lively and dynamic debate exists about the respective theories, and the approaches employed to do so have diversified in recent years. This special issue of Communication Theory aims to assess the role and future of public sphere(s) theory in digital societies: if, and where, are concepts of the public sphere(s) still useful and needed, which criticisms are (still) valid, which not, which new ones might be necessary, and which concepts need to be developed or elaborated to respond meaningfully to the digital transformation? This editorial introduces the topic of and contributions to the special issue as well as nine theses on the development of public sphere(s) theorizing.
{"title":"Editorial: Reconceptualizing public sphere(s) in the digital age? On the role and future of public sphere theory","authors":"Mark Eisenegger, Mike S. Schäfer","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Theories of the public sphere—or more recently, of plural public spheres—are core elements of communication and media research. A lively and dynamic debate exists about the respective theories, and the approaches employed to do so have diversified in recent years. This special issue of Communication Theory aims to assess the role and future of public sphere(s) theory in digital societies: if, and where, are concepts of the public sphere(s) still useful and needed, which criticisms are (still) valid, which not, which new ones might be necessary, and which concepts need to be developed or elaborated to respond meaningfully to the digital transformation? This editorial introduces the topic of and contributions to the special issue as well as nine theses on the development of public sphere(s) theorizing.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41688459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Social cohesion is crucial for democratic societies since it unites individuals who do not have a direct relationship with each other. By representing social heterogeneity and enabling public debate, the public sphere is vital for fostering social cohesion. However, platformization—that is, the establishment of social media platforms as an infrastructure for public communication—challenges the constitution of publics and thus raises the question of whether the public sphere is still able to fulfill its cohesive function. Expanding on this question, our article systematically theorizes how platformization at the meso-level induces the emergence of a platformized public sphere at the macro-level. The article presents a framework that allows us to analyze: (1) which actors constitute publics in the age of platformization; (2) the logics according to which this happens; and (3) to what extent these logics, consisting of social media affordances and algorithms, contribute to the cohesive performance of platformized publics.
{"title":"Social cohesion in platformized public spheres: toward a conceptual framework","authors":"Pascal Schneiders, Daniel Stegmann, Birgit Stark","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Social cohesion is crucial for democratic societies since it unites individuals who do not have a direct relationship with each other. By representing social heterogeneity and enabling public debate, the public sphere is vital for fostering social cohesion. However, platformization—that is, the establishment of social media platforms as an infrastructure for public communication—challenges the constitution of publics and thus raises the question of whether the public sphere is still able to fulfill its cohesive function. Expanding on this question, our article systematically theorizes how platformization at the meso-level induces the emergence of a platformized public sphere at the macro-level. The article presents a framework that allows us to analyze: (1) which actors constitute publics in the age of platformization; (2) the logics according to which this happens; and (3) to what extent these logics, consisting of social media affordances and algorithms, contribute to the cohesive performance of platformized publics.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47532296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As public sphere(s) have been ascribed core functions for democratic societies, correlating theories have a long tradition in communications research. Yet they often fail to bridge the conceptual gap between the macro level of public sphere(s) and the micro level of individual citizens. In this article, we propose a conceptual approach that helps to describe and explain the contribution of individuals to the construction of publics. Following Elias’ figurational approach, we propose a framework for the analysis of different kinds of publics as communicative figurations. To capture individuals’ contribution to these publics, we introduce the concept of public connection repertoires which represent individuals’ structured patterns of connection to different publics. This results in the figurational analysis of publics, based on the public repertoires of all individuals who connect to that public. We discuss implications of this approach for theoretical work on public spheres in changing media environments.
{"title":"Public connection repertoires and communicative figurations of publics: conceptualizing individuals’ contribution to public spheres","authors":"Uwe Hasebrink, Lisa Merten, Julia Behre","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As public sphere(s) have been ascribed core functions for democratic societies, correlating theories have a long tradition in communications research. Yet they often fail to bridge the conceptual gap between the macro level of public sphere(s) and the micro level of individual citizens. In this article, we propose a conceptual approach that helps to describe and explain the contribution of individuals to the construction of publics. Following Elias’ figurational approach, we propose a framework for the analysis of different kinds of publics as communicative figurations. To capture individuals’ contribution to these publics, we introduce the concept of public connection repertoires which represent individuals’ structured patterns of connection to different publics. This results in the figurational analysis of publics, based on the public repertoires of all individuals who connect to that public. We discuss implications of this approach for theoretical work on public spheres in changing media environments.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42250886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article assesses the post-democratic scenario of a public sphere that is detached from democracy. By describing how public spheres are transformed by the Internet, it is asked whether the co-constitutive dynamics between the public sphere and democracy still apply in the digital age, or whether we are witnessing an ultimate rupture. The field of contemporary public sphere struggles in response to the digital transformations is discussed in terms of: (1) the rebalancing of privacy and publicity; (2) the truth orientation and rationality of public debates; and (3) the modes of empowerment of the will of the people. By evaluating the empirical evidence for the deep disruptions of the public sphere and democracy, it will become possible to develop a better understanding of the self-corrective mechanisms of public sphere resilience and renewal in the digital age.
{"title":"Democracy in the digital public sphere: disruptive or self-corrective?","authors":"Hans-Jörg Trenz","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article assesses the post-democratic scenario of a public sphere that is detached from democracy. By describing how public spheres are transformed by the Internet, it is asked whether the co-constitutive dynamics between the public sphere and democracy still apply in the digital age, or whether we are witnessing an ultimate rupture. The field of contemporary public sphere struggles in response to the digital transformations is discussed in terms of: (1) the rebalancing of privacy and publicity; (2) the truth orientation and rationality of public debates; and (3) the modes of empowerment of the will of the people. By evaluating the empirical evidence for the deep disruptions of the public sphere and democracy, it will become possible to develop a better understanding of the self-corrective mechanisms of public sphere resilience and renewal in the digital age.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135187330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article takes issue with public sphere theories’ lack of focus on the consequences of social inequality. Citizens divide the work of following politics between them, and we need a cohesive conceptualization of such divisions, through and beyond today’s intrusive media and with attention to social inequalities. Instead of ideals of fully informed individual citizens, I propose we take the empirical fact of distribution of citizens’ public connection as a starting point and anchor our theoretical ideals in the social world with an “ethnographic sensibility.” Doing so facilitates an operationalized concept of distribution of citizens’ public connection into four elements: issues, arenas, and communicative modes, which citizens variously rely on over time. With such an operationalization, we can assess when and for whom the distribution of public connection goes too far and disfavors certain citizens. This helps bring public sphere theory beyond the conundrum of our societies’ paradoxically uninformed citizens.
{"title":"Operationalizing distribution as a key concept for public sphere theory. A call for ethnographic sensibility of different social worlds","authors":"Hallvard Moe","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article takes issue with public sphere theories’ lack of focus on the consequences of social inequality. Citizens divide the work of following politics between them, and we need a cohesive conceptualization of such divisions, through and beyond today’s intrusive media and with attention to social inequalities. Instead of ideals of fully informed individual citizens, I propose we take the empirical fact of distribution of citizens’ public connection as a starting point and anchor our theoretical ideals in the social world with an “ethnographic sensibility.” Doing so facilitates an operationalized concept of distribution of citizens’ public connection into four elements: issues, arenas, and communicative modes, which citizens variously rely on over time. With such an operationalization, we can assess when and for whom the distribution of public connection goes too far and disfavors certain citizens. This helps bring public sphere theory beyond the conundrum of our societies’ paradoxically uninformed citizens.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44433201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article proposes to conceptualize the public sphere as a dynamic network of actors and contents that are linked with each other by communicative actions. This perspective allows us to theoretically derive and empirically describe the entire range of small to large network structures and their evolution over time. First, we will define the elements of these networks, which include the actors, content, communicative actions, and content relations. Based on these entities, four communicative roles (producer, recipient, curator, isolate) will be distinguished. Second, we will summarize how these actors perceive the communicative situation and how they select from behavioral options. Third, we will show how this combines with the network dynamics and outcomes that are discussed in the different lines of research. This provides not only the basis for understanding the link between the communicative actions on the micro-level and macro-level structures, but also new avenues for normative discussions.
{"title":"The public sphere as a dynamic network","authors":"Thomas N. Friemel, C. Neuberger","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article proposes to conceptualize the public sphere as a dynamic network of actors and contents that are linked with each other by communicative actions. This perspective allows us to theoretically derive and empirically describe the entire range of small to large network structures and their evolution over time. First, we will define the elements of these networks, which include the actors, content, communicative actions, and content relations. Based on these entities, four communicative roles (producer, recipient, curator, isolate) will be distinguished. Second, we will summarize how these actors perceive the communicative situation and how they select from behavioral options. Third, we will show how this combines with the network dynamics and outcomes that are discussed in the different lines of research. This provides not only the basis for understanding the link between the communicative actions on the micro-level and macro-level structures, but also new avenues for normative discussions.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42232285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this manuscript we consider the inconsistent ways the concept of “counterpublics” has been taken up in the field to make the claim that considerations of social power must be recentered in the theorization of publics. To do this we provide an in-depth genealogy of the concept of counterpublics, analyze its use by critical scholars, and then consider its application in empirical studies of digital networks and right-wing publics. We argue that scholars studying digital and far-right publics in particular must take the critical analysis of power seriously. Through this lens, we show that classifying right-wing movements as “defensive” is more theoretically and empirically accurate. In doing so, we conceptualize public spheres as indelible outgrowths of social structures, even as they work to transform them in turn, and provide a framework for scholars to understand public spheres through the lens of history, social differentiation, relations, resources, and access.
{"title":"Recentering power: conceptualizing counterpublics and defensive publics","authors":"Sarah J. Jackson, Daniel Kreiss","doi":"10.1093/ct/qtad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this manuscript we consider the inconsistent ways the concept of “counterpublics” has been taken up in the field to make the claim that considerations of social power must be recentered in the theorization of publics. To do this we provide an in-depth genealogy of the concept of counterpublics, analyze its use by critical scholars, and then consider its application in empirical studies of digital networks and right-wing publics. We argue that scholars studying digital and far-right publics in particular must take the critical analysis of power seriously. Through this lens, we show that classifying right-wing movements as “defensive” is more theoretically and empirically accurate. In doing so, we conceptualize public spheres as indelible outgrowths of social structures, even as they work to transform them in turn, and provide a framework for scholars to understand public spheres through the lens of history, social differentiation, relations, resources, and access.","PeriodicalId":48102,"journal":{"name":"Communication Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45266123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：