Building the Public Sphere: Bases and Biases

Abstract

The paper continues the rhetorical line of research of the public sphere, approaching it from a general theoretical perspective. The goal of the present paper is twofold: it strives to understand the nature of the rhetorical personification of the public sphere, that is, the rhetorical slide from the many to the one, and it strives to identify the rhetorical roots of the public sphere, that is, reveal its general bases and biases. The paper traces four shifts in the discussion of the public sphere: From autonomy to inclusion, from ethnocentric to global, from transparency to mediation, and from logocentric to nonlinear. The role of time in the process of building the public sphere is underscored, presenting its dynamic as a complex topological process. It is also noted why and how this dynamic should be viewed as a tropological process.

Selective Posting: Willingness to post a message online

“…While researchers have articulated hopes (e.g., Sinekopova, 2006) and have provided some evidence to support those hopes (e.g., Benkler, 2006; Ellis & Maoz, 2007) that the transformation of offline public sphere to online should facilitate places where individuals can have an equal chance to participate and resolve differences, this paper provides a rather grim perspective on this ideal. It seems like online forums have the potential to engender negative consequences to our democracy by further polarizing people's opinions on important issues.…”

Frequent Contributors Within U.S. Newspaper Comment Forums

“…The public sphere is a sounding board for all affected members of society to discuss and influence solutions to problems (Habermas, 1989(Habermas, , 1998. It retains its emancipatory potential because of its thrust toward encouraging individuals to have an equitable opportunity to take part in deliberations (Sinekopova, 2006). Modern democracies make the claim that political power ultimately resides with citizens, making the rights of free expression of paramount importance.…”

Public Spaces of Dissent

“…This blurring between humans and technology fosters a mobility of publicness for people depending on the communication network a person's identity slides into (e.g. access codes, email addresses, contact numbers, bank‐account details, chat forums) (Sheller 2004, 48; see also Sheller and Urry 2003; Sinekopova 2006). Public space is thus comprised in this instance of multiple ways to map social behaviour, from the more visible methods like a police presence, architectural design, laws and so on, to more intangible methods associated with codes and programmes (see Crang 2000).…”