Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere

Abstract

). In a time of growing cynicism and disillusionment towards politics, we have seen across Western democracies erosions of trust and engagement in political and media systems (see e.g. Brants, 2012;Coleman, 2012;Coleman & Blumler, 2009). As Blumler and Coleman (2001) argue, the current political communication structures that make up the public sphere are poorly serving certain democratic values, such as "opportunities for committed advocacy, rounded dialogue, sustained deliberation, and especially the provision of incentives for citizens to learn, choose, and become involved in, rather than merely to follow and kibbitz over,

Everyday Talk on Twitter: Informal Deliberation About (Ir-)responsible Business Conduct in Social Media Arenas

“…Accordingly, we argue that agonistic communicative practices are only one way through which social media may contribute to deliberation beyond traditional ideals. To better understand the impact of less focused and scattered engagement, we propose to conceptualize social media as arenas for everyday talk (Brooker et al, 2018;Graham, 2015;Lyons, 2020).…”

“…While everyday talk is more informal and less structured than traditional deliberation, scholars have argued that its deliberative quality, nevertheless, depends to a certain degree on "public sphere ideals" (Graham, 2015;Mansbridge, 1999). Hence, to develop a normative framework for everyday talk in social media, we draw on research dedicated to the examination of online deliberation, which mainly has been applied to formalized digital platforms, such as online forums, comment sections of newspapers, and collaborative platforms like Wikipedia (Friess & Eilders, 2015).…”

“…Everyday talk refers to "ongoing participation in informal political talk whereby citizens become aware of other opinions, discover the important issues of the day, test new ideas, and develop and clarify their preferences" (Graham, 2015, p. 3). In contrast to traditional deliberation, everyday talk is much less formalized and structured (Graham, 2015;Wright et al, 2015), and "tends to be fragmented, anecdotal, messy, incomplete, and less formally deliberative" (Wright et al, 2015). Thus, instead of narrow expectations of reciprocal interactions, the lens of everyday talk allows embracing other forms of interactions on social media, such as retweeting and propagating opinions (Albu & Etter, 2016) and interactions with broader discussions or networks rather than directly with other participants (Arvidsson & Caliandro, 2015;Illia et al, 2022;Mascheroni & Murru, 2017).…”

“…Thus, instead of narrow expectations of reciprocal interactions, the lens of everyday talk allows embracing other forms of interactions on social media, such as retweeting and propagating opinions (Albu & Etter, 2016) and interactions with broader discussions or networks rather than directly with other participants (Arvidsson & Caliandro, 2015;Illia et al, 2022;Mascheroni & Murru, 2017). As such, everyday talk acknowledges that participants express opinions, contribute to ongoing discussions, and become informed without the requirement of an aspired outcome, like consensus or decision finding (Graham, 2015;Mansbridge, 1999).…”

“…Participation in everyday talk, then, is understood as the sheer decision to voice a concern or opinion (Brooker et al, 2018), reflecting the idea that "any voluntary, nonprofessional activity concerning government, politics or the state is a specimen of political participation" (Van Deth, 2016, p. 3). Through everyday talk, citizens can participate in emerging discussions, become informed, develop opinions (Graham, 2015;Graham & Wright, 2014;Mansbridge, 1999), and eventually become motivated to further engage in the democratic process (Schmitt-Beck & Grill, 2020). Consequently, everyday talk is considered "a crucial part of the full deliberative system" and equally important to formal deliberation (Esau et al, 2021;Mansbridge, 1999).…”