CIIND.docx

8/20/2019 CIIND.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ciinddocx 1/5

DAHLGREN, Peter – Media and the public sphere, p. 290!29"".

In schematic terms, a functioning public sphere is understood as a

constellation of communicative spaces in society that permit the circulation

of information, ideas, debates and also the formation of political will, i.e.,

public opinion.

These spaces, in which the mass media and now, more recently, the newer

interactive media figure prominently, serve to permit the development and

expression of political views among citizens. These spaces also facilitate

communicative links between citizens and the power holders of society.

We must recall that it is the face to face interaction, the ongoing talk

between citizens, where the public sphere comes alive, so to speak, and

where we find the actual bedrock of democracy.

Public phere ! three constitutive dimensions" the structural, the

representational, and the interactional.

The structural dimension has to do with the formal institutional features of

the public sphere ! rests upon the idea of universality, the norm that it must

be accessible to all citizens of society. If the media are a dominant feature

of the public sphere, they must be technically, economically, culturally, and

linguistically within reach of society#s members.

The representational dimension refers to the forms and contents of mass

media output. Today, the media have become the language of our public

culture, and the grammars of this language impact on the way we

experience and think about the world and about ourselves.

The dimension of interaction reminds us that democracy resides, ultimately,

with citizens who engage in talk with each other.

The public sphere as a process does not $$end## with the publication of a

newspaper or the transmission of a radio or T% program& these media

phenomena are but one step in a larger communication chain which

includes how the media output is received, made sense of, and utilized by

citizens in their interaction with each other.

' public, according to (abermas and )ewey, exists as discursive

interactional processes& atomized individuals, consuming media in their

homes, do not comprise a public.



Interaction has its sites and spaces, its discursive practices, its contextual

aspects& politics, in a sense, emerges through talk.

The arguments that see the public sphere in essentially plural terms base

their claims in part on the complex and heterogeneous socioculturalrealities of late modern society, including its increasingly globalized

character.

The ma*or mass media of a society can be seen as creating the dominant

public sphere, while smaller media outlets can generate a cluster of smaller

spheres defined by interests, gender, ethnicity, and so on.

+ne of the central uandaries of public sphere theory is that social and

cultural evolution continues to scramble the distinction between public and

private. The idea of $$public## is implacably associated with reason,

rationality, ob*ectivity, argument, work, text, information, and knowledge

whereas the private resonates with the personal, with emotion, intimacy,

sub*ectivity, aesthetics, style, image, and pleasure.

In the media context, the private is also closely related to consumption,

entertainment, and popular culture.

'ccess to the -et has helped promote the growth of massive, coordinated

digital networks of citizens engaged in a vast array of issues, not least inglobal contexts.

ingle issue campaigns against specific corporations, movements for alter

globalization, women#s groups, environmental activists, human rights

organizations, and many others including, unfortunately, even neo nazi,

racists, and various hate groups can be found on the Internet.

E#R$N, N%ah – &echn%l%'(, science, and culture, p. )9*!)9+.

It is difficult to characterize the relationships between science and culture

because neither $$science## nor $$culture## is easily defined.

$$cience## typically refers to a set of practices aiming to uncover and

formalize regularities in nature, and to the bodies of knowledge these

practices produce.

$$set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional features of

society or a social group,## and that it $$encompasses, in addition to art and

literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions, and beliefs.##



till, the notion that science and culture are fundamentally independent

realms has a long history, and remains influential to this day.

The impact of science and technology was greater still in newer culturalmedia like film and television. These media would not exist at all without

technological advances produced by modern science. cience and

technology have in turn been constant themes in movies and television.

It is impossible to tease apart the mutual influences of science and culture,

because the two are so tightly and diversely intertwined as to be

inseparable.

The identity of each element of the network is constituted, in varying

degrees, by all other elements in the network.

L$N, Da-id – n/%rati%n techn%l%'(, p. 2**"!2**.

Information technology /IT0 is generally taken to be a technical system for

storing, transmitting, or processing information.

IT is now central to many systems that are increasingly integrated,

producing a fusion of what was once referred to separately as electronic

media and information and communication technologies.

Today, for the vast ma*ority in the global -orth, everyday life is

unimaginable without a range of IT based systems, tools, and gadgets.

+ne crucial change was the convergence of telecommunications with

computing power ! instant remote interactions with computers, credit and

debit cards, computer controlled machine tools, cell phones, and iPods.

IT is an enabling technology that experienced and is still experiencing exponential growth *ust because it is basic to so many ma*or processes of

production and consumption.

' sociological understanding of IT cannot but notice the role of cultural

factors in IT development.

IT is today wrapped with the packaging of global consumerism, although it

is also basic to the military systems that ultimately back up what appears to

be a world of $$free choices.##



That efficiency and productivity may be enhanced using IT is not

uestioned, but what might be worth uestioning is whether these represent

primary goals of social, economic, and political life.

RYAN, Michael T. – Hyper reality, p. 2194-2196.

(yper reality $$is the generation by models of a real without origin or

reality.##.

1LEN, 3aes – nternet, p. 2*+)!2*++.

The Internet is a global network of interconnected computer hardware and

software systems, making possible the storage, retrieval, circulation, and

processing of information and communication across time and space.' sociological account encompasses the constituent Internet technologies

and attends to these as social phenomena. It also includes the information

and other content which is produced, transmitted, and received by

individuals and organizations using the Internet.

It involves us in a complexity of new forms of action and interaction that

stretch across the world.

The Internet facilitates a reorganization of information and social

relationships across time and space. 's such, its development and use have

intended and unintended conseuences for human social life, groups, and

societies that need to be studied and understood.

The Internet is an important tool for collecting data and for accessing

information relevant to such an endeavor.

's a global communication network, the Internet is transforming the

complex relationships between local activities and interaction across

distance.The Internet places $$horizontal## forms of communications center stage, by

allowing the uestioning and blurring over of authority, and by allowing

the reordering and expansion of the built environment.

's a technology of communication, the Internet transforms our information

environments by facilitating global attentiveness, visibility, and

uestioning.

+n the one hand, we find the Internet radicals who claim that we are at the

dawn of a new era of opportunity in which we can live our lives on the



screen. +n the other, we find the Internet skeptics, who warn of the onset of

a terrible nightmare in which many people will find themselves

disconnected and irrelevant to the important things that go on in their

world.

There is now a growing realization that the Internet is not incidental to our

lives but fundamental to the way we live now.

'll Internet related innovations are fundamentally social and their meaning,

together with their meaningful use, is grounded in social contexts.

Who we are, what we do, and how we do things together is increasingly

mediated and fed by information and communication technologies.

+nline communication opens up vast opportunities for human interaction

and association across time and space. 1ommunities facilitated by the

Internet often consist of individuals related to each other in terms of

practice rather than proximity

There are worries, however, that new forms of human association using the

Internet are undermining solidarity still further with individuals becoming

increasingly disengaged from meaningful face to face relationships.

The civil rights movements, the feminist movements, the ecological andanti!nuclear movements, and the gay and lesbian movements, to name but a

few, are all reinvigorating civil society, empowered by the Internet.

We increasingly live in one world where globalized communication is

relevant to all our lives.

The Internet is set to play a key role in facilitating the building and

rebuilding of knowledge and skills, at any time and in any place, and is

already contributing to the refashioning of education, its institutions, and

the way we learn.

The Internet only works because most of the world#s population is excluded

from using it.

Documents

CIIND.docx