The proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the road for a democratic utopia. This article explores the potential for civil discourse in cyberspace by examining the level of civility in 287 discussion threads in political newsgroups. While scholars often use civility and politeness interchangeably, this study argues that this conflation ignores the democratic merit of robust and heated discussion. Therefore, civility was defined in a broader sense, by identifying as civil behaviors that enhance democratic conversation. In support of this distinction, the study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and further suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard’s vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy (Lyotard, 1984). Thus, this study supported the internet’s potential to revive the public sphere, provided that greater diversity and volume of discussion is present.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, J.B., F.C. Arterton and G.R. Orren (1988) The Electronic Commonwealth: the Impact of New Media Technologies on Democratic Politics. New York: Basic Books .
2.
Baym, N. (1997) ‘Interpreting Soap Operas and Creating Community: Inside an Electronic Fan Culture’, in S. Kiesler (ed.) Culture of the Internet, pp. 103–120. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
3.
Benson, T.W. (1996) ‘ Rhetoric, Civility, and Community: Political Debate on Computer Bulletin Boards ’, Communication Quarterly44(3): 359–378 .
4.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
5.
Calhoun, C. (1992) ‘Introduction: Habermas and the Public Sphere’, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp.1–47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
6.
Carter, S.L. (1998) Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. New York: Basic Books .
7.
Connery, B.A. (1997) ‘MHO: Authority and Egalitarian Rhetoric in the Virtual Coffeehouse’, in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture, pp. 161–180. New York: Routledge .
8.
Dillard, J.P., S.R. Wilson, K.J. Tusing and T.A. Kinney (1997) ‘ Politeness Judgments in Personal Relationships ’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology16(3): 297–325 .
9.
Downing, J.D.H. (1989) ‘ Computers for Political Change: PeaceNet and Public Data Access ’, Journal of Communication39(3): 154–162 .
10.
Fraser, B. (1990) ‘ Perspectives on Politeness ’, Journal of Pragmatics14(2): 219–236 .
11.
Fraser, B. and W. Nolen (1981) ‘ The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form ’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language27(2): 93–109 .
12.
Fraser, N. (1992) ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: a Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 109–142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
13.
Garnham, N. (1992) ‘The Media and the Public Sphere’, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 359–375. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
14.
Goffman, E. (1971) Interaction Ritual. New York: Doubleday .
15.
Grice, P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
16.
Gurstein, R. (1998) ‘ Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy ’, New Republic219(14): 40–46 .
17.
Habermas, J. (1962/1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of a Bourgeois Society’ (trans. T. Burger and F. Lawrence). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
18.
Habermas, J. (1991) ‘The Public Sphere’, in C. Mukerji and M. Schudson (eds) Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies, pp. 398–404. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
19.
Hacker, K.L. and J. van Dijk (2000) ‘What is Digital Democracy?’, in K.L. Hacker and J. van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, pp. 1–9. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
20.
Hacker, K.L., L. Howl, M. Scott and R. Steiner (1996) ‘ Uses of Computer-mediated Political Communication in the 1992 Presidential Campaign: a Content Analysis of the Bush, Clinton and Perot Computer Lists ’, Communication Research Reports13: 138–146 .
21.
Hill, K.A. and J.E. Hughes (1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet. New York: Rowman & Littlefield .
22.
Holtgraves, T. (1997) ‘ Yes, But... Positive Politeness in Conversation Arguments ’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology16(2): 222–239 .
23.
Jamieson, K.H. (1997) ‘Civility in the House of Representatives. APPC Report 10’, URL (consulted March 1997): http://appcpenn.org/pubs.htm.
24.
Jamieson, K.H. and E. Falk (1998) ‘Civility in the House of Representatives: An update/ APPC Report 20’, URL (consulted November 1998): http://appcpenn.org/pubs.htm.
25.
Jankowski, N.W. and M. van Selm (2000) ‘The Promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace’, in K. Hacker and J. van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, pp. 149–165. London: Sage .
26.
Keane, J. (2000) ‘Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere’, in K.L. Hacker and J. van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, pp. 70–89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
27.
Kennedy, R. (1998) ‘ Civility in the House of Representatives ’, American Prospect41: 84–91 .
28.
Kesler, C.R. (1992) ‘Civility and Citizenship in the American Founding’, in E.C. Banfield (ed.) Civility and Citizenship, pp. 57–74. New York: PWPA (Professors World Peace Academy) .
29.
Knapp, J.A. (1997) ‘Essayistic Messages: Internet Newsgroups as an Electronic Public Sphere’, in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture, pp. 181–200. New York: Routledge .
30.
Lyotard, J.F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press .
31.
Millard, W.B. (1997) ‘I Flamed Freud: a Case Study in Teletextual Incendiarism’, in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture, pp. 145–160. New York: Routledge .
32.
Mitra, A. (1997) ‘Virtual Community: Looking for India on the Internet’, in S.G. Jones (ed.) Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety, pp. 55–79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
33.
Pavlik, J.V. (1994) ‘Citizen Access, Involvement, and Freedom of Expression in an Electronic Environment’, in F. Williams and J.V. Pavlik (eds) The People’s Right to Know: Media, Democracy, and the Information Highway, pp. 139–162. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
34.
Perreault, W.D. and L.E. Leigh (1989) ‘ Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments ’, Journal of Marketing Research26(2): 135–148 .
35.
Poster, M. (1997) ‘Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere’, in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture, pp. 201–218. New York: Routledge .
36.
Rogers, E.M. and S. Malhotra (2000) ‘Computers as Communication: the Rise of Digital Democracy’, in K.L. Hacker and J. van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, pp. 10–29. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
37.
Sachs, H. (1995) ‘ Computer Networks and the Formation of Public Opinion: an Ethnographic Study ’, Media, Culture & Society, 17(1): 81–99 .
38.
Sassi, S. (2000) ‘The Controversies of the Internet and the Revitalization of Local Political Life’, in K.L. Hacker and J. van Dijk (eds) Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, pp. 90–104. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
39.
Schmidt, J. (1998) ‘ Civility, Enlightenment, and Society: Conceptual Confusions and Kantian Remedies ’, American Political Science Review92: 419–448 .
40.
Schudson, M. (1997) ‘ Why Conversation is Not the Soul of Democracy ’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication14(4): 1–13 .
41.
Shils, E. (1992) ‘Civility and Civil Society’, in E. C. Banfield (ed.) Civility and Citizenship, pp. 1–16. New York: PWPA (Professors World Peace Academy) .
42.
Stivale, C.J. (1997) ‘Spam: Heteroglossia and Harassment in Cyberspace’, in D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture, pp. 133–144. New York: Routledge .
