MEDIA ECOLOGY involves the study of media environments and emphasizes the social,
cultural, and psychological impact of media and technology
In attempting to understand the role of the media in society, it is useful to use the concept of the ‘public sphere’ as an ideal, serving as a model or guide for what the media could potentially be.
The concept of the public sphere is most often associated with Jurgen Habermas, author of “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” (1962) – an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. His work took the position that the public sphere in its simplest and ideal form is a realm where opinions particularly focusing on the needs of society are freely and openly exchanged between people, unconstrained by external pressures. (Habermas 1991: 176) It can be a “virtual or imaginary community” (Soules 2001: para 2) not necessarily existing in any one space. In today’s world of ever-increasing mass global communication networks, the media in all its forms whilst far from ideal is widely regarded as the closest thing the world community has to the existence and further attainment of a public sphere. However, how comfortably does this role sit with a vehicle that is driven, fuelled and controlled by the private interests of media owners, corporate sponsors and state influence?
The public sphere has a number of interlinking functions. Through dialogue, particularly through critical discussion and debate, the public sphere generates opinions and attitudes (Soules 2001: para 2) and is a foundation for “emancipatory social thought” (Holub 1997: para 7). Ideally it is a mediator between society and state, the source of public opinion needed to affirm and guide the affairs of state (Soules 2001: para 2), and challenge and legitimize governments and authority (Rutherford 2000: 18 ).
Habermas discovered that the first reference to the public sphere, in Germany at least, emerged in the 18th century through the growth of coffee houses, literary and other societies, voluntary associations, and the growth of the press. (Soules 2001: para 4). He also acknowledges the ancient Greek origins of the public sphere where “In the discussion among citizens, issues were made topical and took on shape…citizens interacted as equals…(and) only in the light of the public sphere did that which existed become revealed, did everything become visible to all.” (Habermas 1991: 4). Habermas has been criticized for idealizing the rational discussion of the 18th century bourgeois ignoring “ ‘the extent to which its institutions were founded on sectionalism, exclusiveness and repression.’” (Eley, 1992: 321 in Crossley 2004: 11).
Habermas has stated that newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere. Today of course we can include the internet as part of this media.
The internet is perhaps the best example of a modern day bourgeois public sphere. It is a global space that gives ordinary people the opportunity to express and share opinions, news and information. Never before have people had the opportunity to gain previously unavailable information, share opinions and news so rapidly, and challenge authority so openly. However only around 10% of the world’s population have home access to the internet (BBC 2003: para 11) thus excluding 90% of the world’s population from having a voice in this so called global conversation. So far it doesn’t measure up to Habermas’s “ideal speech situation” which requires freedom and equality not always in existence in every society. It is however a step toward the direction of the ideal. Access is steadily increasing and it remains to be seen how much of humanity will eventually be included under this ‘public sphere’ umbrella. Habermas’s theory makes clear that “the public sphere is not a given for every type of society; nor does it possess a fixed status.” (Holub 1997: para 3)
Habermas believes Communicative Action is a primary part of the Public Sphere. This involves people coming together in discussion, responding to a particular crisis when society is not meeting their needs, or when institutions are manipulating individuals. (History of the Frankfurt School: para 3). This is openly happening on the internet with entire sites, message boards, chat rooms and blogs devoted to issues like public criticism over the invasion of Iraq and subsequent public suspicion over the U.S’s motives, debate concerning the legitimacy of the recent U.S elections and online activism dedicated to political, social and environmental change.
