Social Medias and Politics

What possibilities and limitations are involved in the idea of ‘digital democracy’ or the fulfilment of Habermas’ ‘public sphere’? What factors does the reading by Kruse et al. point to?

Written by      : Fernando Savero Suhendra

Published by: Fernando Savero Suhendra and Jocelyn Kurniawan

Date             : Friday, 17 April 2020

Caption: Social Medias' Influences on Political Zones
Image by @socialautomotive (CC BY 2.0)
(https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/7bb39a5c-1721-47b4-900e-149a8ae5dc1e)

CC BY 2.

          Undoubtedly, social medias, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, have impacted not only social sphere, but also other spheres, including political sphere. This is due to ‘digital democracy’ and ‘public sphere’, a term defined by Habermas as “a place where private people come together as a public.” (Kruse et al. 2018 p. 62) As social medias alternates the way people engaged in those varieties of spheres, it brought advantages as well as disadvantages to societies. In their journal entitling ‘Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, Lisa M. Kruse and associates further discussed those effects, both positive and negative.

            One of those benefits is that social medias act as a more accessible, open platforms for citizens to further discussions in regard to political issues. Whereas previously, censorships are conducted, upon interests of corporations and governments, to mass medias, such as newspapers and televisions, through social medias, publics are more eager “to challenge discourse, share alternative perspectives and publish their own opinions” (Loader and Mercea 2011:760 as cited in Kruse et al. 2018 p. 63) Individuals are more adequate to express freely their own opinions, thoughts, and feelings, whether likes or dislikes, relating to aspects such as electoral progress, political parties, and other concerning issues. An example of this is Donald Trump, who employed Twitter, to post his rather-controversial remarks, which sometimes “change the entire news cycle for that day.” [Foreign Press Centers] (2020)

In return, they are also able to gain wider varieties of perspectives from other sources, enhancing their views on related subjects. As social medias are costless to be downloaded and utilised, requiring only internet connections, they are capable to be grasped by a larger scope of users. One example is during the Arab Spring, which occurred in 2011. During a time, where national mass medias are under the tyrants’ control and foreign newspapers and televisions faced obstacles as they entered the critical zone, citizens turn to their in-hands social medias to expressed and reported updated conditions and situations that they faced. In fact, many referred that year as ‘the year of public spheres’ or even ‘the year of Twitter and Facebook revolutions’ (Fuchs 2014 p. 86). Manuel Castells asserted that “networked movements of our time are largely based on the internet” (Fuchs 2014 p. 86).

Despite those positive features, there are also downsides of social medias as a public sphere. One of them is the reality that surveillances restrained the active online political participation. According to Cambridge dictionary, ‘surveillance’ is interpreted as “the careful watching of a person or place, especially by the police or army, because of a crime that has happened or expected” (2020). Surveillances derive from different sources, whether nationally, institutionally, and personally and result in a diverse range of outcomes. Staples and Trottier state that “these sites are likely spaces where behaviour is constrained due to the monitoring by others: friends, families, employers, police, and government entities” (cited in Kruse et al 2018 p. 65). There is a borderline between those ‘accepted’ and those considered taboos. Algorithms play a crucial role in ensuring those guidelines are met and maintained. Hannah Arendt reflected that “the distinction between the private and the public sphere is relevant for the privacy concept because it entails “the distinction between things that should be shown and things that should be hidden” (Arendt 1958 p. 72 as cited in Fuchs 2014 p. 74). A study conducted to Generation X and Millennials pointed that active political discussions are hindered due to fear of unemployment. During recruitments and throughout employees’ careers, firms are actively on the lookout for profiles on the internet. As Tom, ‘a 41-year-old former journalist’, shared, “I know some colleagues of mine who have gotten in trouble for posting things on their personal accounts that have haunted them on their jobs.” (Kruse et al. 2018 p. 72)

            On the personal level, intolerances, judgements, and harassments based on one’s political view contribute to reasons of limitations of fulfilment of ‘public sphere’. From ‘nasty verbal exchanges’ to ‘broken friends-relationship’ are consequences of political debates online, whether high politics or low politics’ which can turn nasty, particularly on contrary matters. For Eamon, a high school graduate, political views are better to be kept out on Facebook, rather than a broken relationship (Kruse et al. 2018, p. 71). To overcome, social medias’ users are applying the ‘huge box’, a term to denotate “restricted connections led people to simply preach to the choir rather than encounter differences of opinion” (Kruse et al. 2018 p. 73). For one participant, the ‘huge box’ give warmth, safety, and comforts. (Kruse et al. 2018 p. 73)

            To conclude, although social medias advance political flow of information, it lacks in encompass the original meaning of Habermas’ public sphere. As Kruse states, “Social media are not revitalizing a public sphere because the requisites for a public sphere are absent from social medias.”

References:

1. Fuchs, C 2014, Social Media and the Public Sphere, Triple C, pp. 57-101, retrieved 17 April 2020, <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287535655_Social_Media_and_the_Public_Sphere> 
2. Kruse, M. L, Norris R. D, & Flinchum, R. J 2018 'Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 62-84, retrieved 17 April 2020, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
3. Foreign Press Centers 2020, Elections 101: The Role of Social Media in U.S. Elections, U.S. Department of State, retrieved 17 April 2020, <https://www.state.gov/elections-101-the-role-of-social-media-in-us-elections>