One of the points discussed in today’s lecture was the suggestion that Habermas’ notion of the ‘public sphere’ was lost due to the widespread use of mobile technologies and the domination of the Internet. Adrian presented two possible views:

1. The internet had actually given rise to a type of culture where people could hone in and focus on what they liked or hated and could build walls around themselves, blocking off any outside views.

2. The internet provided an environment where everyone could engage in debate about everything, with full freedom of speech and the removal of fear of persecution.

Now, while I’d like to believe that the latter view is the truer one, it does seem overly optimistic and romantic. The internet is not a single, all-encompassing arena in which everyone gathers and discusses rationally with every single other person. It is an ever-growing collection of smaller arenas in which individuals gather with like-minded people to share the same praise about the same things, and perpetuate dislike and hate for the same things. When the groups from these arenas inevitably come into contact with a group with opposing views, chaos ensues. We would hope that the discussion is balanced and fair, but in reality what we get is emotion-centered arguments, quick judgements and even quicker conclusions that come without resolution. Examples abound on the most popular areas of discussion on the web (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube comments, etc.). The ratio of measured and well-thought arguments to judgmental and uncompromising comments is vastly skewed.

Granted, this does not mean that there is no such thing as thoughtful online discussion, but Habermas’ idea of rational discourse is not as prevalent on the internet as many thought it would be. But who is at fault there? Is it a flaw in the design of the internet, or is it a flaw in Habermas’ theory? Personally, I believe it is the latter. Habermas’ theory of the public sphere assumed that all people were capable and willing to engage in rational and logical debate, but that is not the case. Allowing your emotions and bias to lead your thinking is more tempting, it feels more natural, and it is what happens with many people. The internet did not make people irrational or judgemental. Rather, it gave them the freedom to be as rational or irrational as they wanted. It provided the environment where people who were already close-minded about a subject could join a forum or a group or a page or anything of the sort, that supported their own views and gave them the validation that they desired, thus making them even more resistant to the suggestions of any view that deviated from what they believed.