Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Say it to the World:
The Internet as a Global Public Sphere

By Sarah Stodola

---------------------------------------

It is generally acknowledged by both supporters and opponents of globalization that this is not a phenomenon that can be stopped. That said, the issue at hand becomes how best to deal with globalization, and not how to stop or reverse it.  In order to turn globalization into a positive force, it is imperative to create a global public sphere; a means for the global community to share ideas, debate, and be generally informed.

The Internet - that miracle of technology - has the potential to provide just such a service; it has the unique ability to transfer the ideas and arguments of the little person to a widespread audience without regard to physical location. In addition, as a relatively young and undeveloped tool for communication, the Internet's nascence is the very thing that makes it so appealing; its possibilities at this point remain endless. In short, the Internet may just be the best tool we have for creating an effective global public sphere.

Before solving the current problems with globalization, it is important to understand their nature, and it is therefore important to grasp the historical relationships between globalization, capitalism, and the public sphere. Globalization most likely never would have occurred without the spread of capitalism. Capitalism is based largely on competition, after all. And as competition caused early local markets to become saturated, it was inevitable that entrepreneurs and financiers would look to expand into other markets. In this vein, it can easily be argued that globalization is a wholly capitalist trend.

The link between capitalism and the public sphere is perhaps less obvious. In 1962, the German scholar Jürgen Habermas revolutionized the concept of the public sphere in his groundbreaking work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. In it, he elucidates the intrinsic connection between the two phenomena. As advanced capitalism emerged in the 17th century, printed journals first sprang up in order to provide valuable information to those involved in financial interests. As publishers of these journals realized that their work could become more profitable if they catered to the much larger general public instead of to the specialized interests of capitalist insiders, they expanded their coverage and audience, thus creating the first modern press. As societies in Europe modernized, private citizens began to understand that their personal well being depended in large part on decisions made by the state concerning both individuals and the regulation of economic matters, and rational-critical debate became an important tool for exercising influence on state authority. The press became the most important forum for this debate, and along with public places of discussion and other forms of creative expression came to constitute the first public sphere.

In other words, the public sphere evolved in response to the emergence of capitalism, first as its tool, and finally as its watchdog. However ironic it may seem when viewed through the lens of the present, the public sphere could not have evolved without capitalism. Conversely, capitalism requires regulation and supervision in order to function on a wide scale, and the public sphere ostensibly fills this role.

As capitalism expands globally, the hope is that the public sphere will follow, just as it followed the initial advent of capitalism. However, the current status of global society is not conducive to the global public sphere. Global regulatory bodies today are severely lacking in fairness, openness, and transparency. The United States and, to a lesser extent, other developed countries essentially dictate action at the IMF and World Bank, the two organizations with the most international regulatory power. Even more specifically, capitalist interests within these countries dictate such action. One of the most extreme examples of this can be found within the framework of the IMF, where the United States has absolute veto power, which in effect means that the IMF can do nothing without US approval. In addition, the actions of these organizations are kept highly secretive, rendering criticism of anything but their secrecy exceedingly difficult.

With power concentrated in such a limited number of hands and in such a limited interest, less powerful developing countries are often left with no choice but to carry out the will of the United States - a country that is becoming increasingly infamous for not practicing what it preaches, especially with respect to free trade. If the US can demand that other countries practice (for example) free trade while itself continuing to practice protectionism, weaker countries will be permanently relegated to their current position of struggle in the global economy. Instead, international governing bodies should be organized in a manner that would give all countries a hand in their own destiny, including their roles in a global economy.

Smaller countries should clearly be given more voting power in the processes of international governing bodies. In addition, though, information and ideas should come from within the countries that are being considered in international regulation and supervision, and not solely from distant outside "experts" (usually from the United States or a select few advanced countries). For this to happen, citizens of all countries must be able to participate in global discussion and debate.

And this, finally, is where the Internet comes in. The Internet is an excitingly unique medium of communication, possessing a number of traits that could enable it to become the global public sphere’s savior. Unlike its predecessors - print, radio, and television - the Internet allows for the active participation of web surfers. One of the major drawbacks of television as a forum for critical debate is the fact that it inevitably broadcasts one-sided communication, with the viewer confined to passive consumption. The Internet, on the other hand, encourages active participation in several ways. Many websites provide discussion forums and message boards, allowing readers to directly and immediately react to online content in a public space. In addition, even if the web surfer does not post his own content, he is constantly being forced to make decisions about which content to view next, and these choices are literally endless.

In addition, by its very nature the Internet is a decentralized body of information. There is no one source from which information on the Internet originates. Any person with as little as $100 to spare can create a website, and it costs even less to start a Web log (or “blog”). While estimates suggest that just six companies now control over half of the entire world’s media production, the Internet emerges as a medium able to counter this centralized power of information by allowing any person with a computer to disseminate information to every corner of the globe. No other medium offers this capability to ordinary citizens, thus at least partly equalizing the ubiquitous voices of the media conglomerates.

Of course, there are drawbacks to the potential of the Internet as a forum for the global public sphere. Computers are obviously very expensive, and while in America it has become relatively easy to access them, in many countries this is far from being the case. In order for the Internet to really function as a tool of the global public sphere, the rest of the world must attain universal access to computers. In addition, corporations are finding ways to control access to online information. Since its merger with Time Warner, for example, AOL (the world’s largest Internet service provider) has found subtle ways to drive Internet traffic to sites controlled by its parent company, thus making it more difficult for users to access unbiased information. Finally, international regulatory bodies still must become more open and transparent in order for the global public sphere to have any influence, with or without the Internet.

But in a world that, like it or not, is becoming ever more globalized, the Internet provides the most encouraging means yet for a public sphere to hold influence on the global stage. The way in which the Internet is regulated and utilized will have vast implications for the success of the global public sphere, and we therefore need to ensure its presence in this regard now, while Internet regulation is still in its formative stages, and before the powers that be are able to turn even the Internet into a tool serving those very interests that need to be kept in check by it.

---------------------------------------

Sarah Stodola is the Managing Editor of Me Three.  She can be contacted at [email protected].

© 2003 Me Three