Abstract
The relationship between media and democracy has been a subject of vast scholarship in the fields of media studies, political science, and related areas. The developments in the media landscape, the rise of the Internet, and the proliferation of models of democracy have changed how we think about and research this relationship. The Internet and Democracy in the Network Society by Jan Van Dijk and Kenneth L. Hacker, and The Media and the Public Sphere by Thomas Häussler are two works demonstrating the new directions in which scholarship is investigating the complex roles of the new and mass media, and the public sphere in various democratic and political contexts.
The Internet and Democracy in the Network Society is a comprehensive effort to evaluate whether and how the use of digital media has influenced political systems locally and globally. Applying structuration theory and network theory to analyze real-life cases in different political and cultural contexts, Van Dijk and Hacker attempt to find out “whether digital media and networks, together with political views and norms, have changed political systems in the last 25 years” (p. 193). They provide an extensive analysis of the interdisciplinary scholarship on the role of network infrastructure of communication that effects the democratic decision-making process. The authors argue that the use of the Internet has led to “more continuity than transformation of political systems” (p. 205). Despite the dichotomous views about the negative or positive nature of the new communication technologies, the authors demonstrate how the role of the digital media in democracy depends on more factors such as the political context, the properties of the networks, and the political resources of the citizens enabling them to participate in decision-making.
In contrast to the first book, which examines the role of media use for political outcomes in different democratic models, The Media and the Public Sphere focuses on the role of mass media in a deliberative democracy. Häussler develops and applies an empirical scheme to assess “from a deliberative perspective the role the media play in establishing the political public sphere” (p. 5) in the context of the United Kingdom. This work is set to test the theoretical claims regarding the deliberative quality of the discourses in public spheres initiated by the political-center or the civil society. The deliberative quality is measured through the analysis of discursive properties, the actors participating in the deliberation, their interactions and relationships with other actors within the network, and the role of deliberative coalitions. Contrary to the theoretical claims, the social network analysis and regression analysis demonstrate that the two types of public spheres are not as dichotomous as assumed. Moreover, in some dimensions, the center-initiated public sphere demonstrates better quality of deliberation due to higher discursive density, than the periphery-initiated public sphere. More importantly, the media and the political center are highly responsive to critical deliberative coalitions, highlighting the potential of conflict resolution through deliberation.
Content summaries
The Internet and Democracy in the Network Society chronicles the research on the democratizing potential of digital technologies in network societies. Van Dijk and Hacker critically analyze the negative and positive effects of the technology use on such properties of democracy as computer network infrastructures, political participation, conciliatory discourses, and public sphere in different political contexts.
A network society requires technological infrastructure that will ensure communication flows among different stakeholders. The authors examine the “strategic characteristics and operational effects of computer networks” (p. 29) on the social networks and democratic processes. Van Dijk and Hacker argue that even though digital media have allowed unprecedented potential for participation, social inequalities remain prevalent on the new online platforms. In other words, the access to the new platforms is still relevant. Access to the relevant political information is an essential prerequisite for informed political decision-making. Searching information online is based on the programmability property of the networks. Within a Googlearchic system, major corporations own software that uses algorithms to manage the data traffic and prioritize the information we see first. Due to the monopolization of the search and distribution of political content, the abundance of information is no guarantee citizens have access, ability, or motivation to use it for political decision-making. In addition, properties such as interactivity, user-generated content, connectivity, and connectedness could influence the democratization of political communication or reduce the political outcome depending on their openness. In short, the software and hardware properties of computer networks can either enable or diminish democracy.
Digital democracy requires online and offline modes of individual and collective participations. Van Dijk and Hacker suggest that computer networks are favorable for networked online political communication. However, their review of previous studies indicates that whenever the political interest is controlled, participation does not seem to be affected by the use of the Internet. Online participation imitates offline participation in substance and the only change is the form.
Participation is a behavior that does not occur in a vacuum. Whether it is mediated or not, it is largely contingent on the social and political contexts. To capture the context and the place of media in it, Van Dijk and Hacker analyze the issue using “politics-media-politics cycle” (p. 49) approach. The authors claim that the impact of media use for participation, in whatever form it manifests, depends on the political goals and the views of democracy. If the political goal is opinion making, then the digital media use is more impactful on the democratic outcomes, while if the end goal is decision-making or such a political outcome is the voter turnout, the institutional politics is not as affected by the online participation, especially on the individual level. On the individual level, participation also depends on the citizens’ political knowledge, interest in politics, and their sense of political efficiency. The authors caution against instrumentalist assumption of linearity of digital media use and positive participation outcomes. They argue that more participation does not imply more democracy.
When the anticipated democratic outcome is opinion making, there has to be a vibrant public sphere. Van Dijk and Hacker define the networked public sphere as “an infrastructure of online and offline public spaces linked to each other” (p. 87). As a spatial concept, it encompasses private and public spaces, regional, national, and global spaces. Network technologies allow a plurality of actors whose communications flow within the networked public sphere. Discussions have become the connecting tissue between multiple online and offline spaces. In addition, networks allow a merger of private and public contents, which can spread wide and fast. The discussions can be fragmenting as well as unifying, which is why the openness of the network is no guarantee of democracy. While such platforms are more accessible, and offer high-speed connectivity, they do not necessarily democratize the political communication. One of the challenges is that in abundant information landscape citizens have various opportunities to express themselves; nonetheless, the reception of their voice will be limited. Online discussions oriented toward opinion making require organization and facilitation, even more so than the offline discussions. Computer networks proliferate online public spaces; however, without the enabling properties, favorable political and social contexts, and collective action, they do not ensure effectiveness of multiplied voices in institutional political decision-making.
The Media and the Public Sphere examines the role of the mass media, in two types of public spheres. Thomas Häussler first addresses the theoretical discussion about the deliberative model of democracy and addresses the major criticisms against this model. Häussler develops an empirical model to measure the impact of mass media on the quality of the discussions in different public spheres. What is more, he demonstrates the effectiveness of deliberative coalitions in the public sphere.
The discursive principle of democracy rests on the premise that “political institutions are embedded in networks of communicative flows and their decisions can only claim legitimacy to the extent that they maintain their connection and remain responsive to the impulses from the informal sphere” (p. 4). The communicative flows are the public spheres, which can be initiated by the political center or the civil society. Since the mass media “connect civil society to the political center” (p. 32), it becomes an imperative to empirically assess their impact on the deliberative quality in different public spheres.
Häussler measures the quality of the mass mediated deliberation by analyzing speech acts of different actors in the given public sphere. The speech acts are analyzed based on validity of the actors’ demands, criticism, support, and statements. He operationalizes five discursive dimensions of deliberation, including “rationality/reflexivity, reciprocity, inclusiveness of the actors, role change between speakers and hearers and the range of justification” (p. 61). The model would be simplistic if it only analyzed the content of the utterances of different actors. What strengthens Häussler’s model are the measurement of the relationships, level of interactions, and the distance among the actors within the network. Focusing on the coverage of six political issues by four major newspapers in the United Kingdom, the author assesses the “discursive density” and the role of “deliberative coalitions” (p. 65) in the political decision-making process.
Comparing the two types of public spheres, Häussler finds that challenger-initiated debates are more inclusive. Contrary to the center-initiated public spheres, they integrate more actors from diverse backgrounds. Moreover, challenger-initiated public spheres are less hierarchical, allowing counterarguments from various actors and higher level of reflexivity. These public spheres demonstrate high quality on both democratic and argumentative dimensions of the deliberation. However, Häussler cautions that “greater inclusiveness of challenger public spheres and their higher degree of porousness with regard to actors’ role change does not automatically translate into a greater amount of two-way communication between them” (p. 122). Meanwhile, political-administrative public sphere is more one-sided and mainly showcases the power dominance to the citizens rather than engaging them in a process of deliberation. Interestingly, on some dimensions, the center-initiated public sphere has higher discursive density than the challenger-initiated type. As observed, counter to the theoretical explanations, the results are not binary.
When it comes to the central question of the book, Häussler finds that the mass media are mostly oriented toward the political center and do not enable reciprocity or two-way communication. While there have been some positive changes in the conditions to increase legitimacy of decisions, the media are subject to the established power relations. They do not challenge the power structures, and sometimes, they even reproduce them through their discourses. Similar to the political center, the media are more responsive to the cues coming from deliberative coalitions.
Deliberative coalitions consist of political actors, civil society actors, and economic actors. Häussler classifies four categories of coalitions: those that express agreement, demand, criticism, and make common statements. For all types of coalitions, the addressee is mostly the political center, since all the decision-making happens through the political-administrative institutions. The support coalitions do not challenge the status quo; neither do they transform the deliberation. The demand coalitions are greater in number and have some positive effects such as mobilization of different actors. According to Häussler, the criticism coalitions are the strongest and the most effective when it comes to the quality of the deliberative debate. These coalitions provide the widest range of perspectives; they mobilize more actors and they have a common addressee; hence, they positively affect both the argumentative and democratic dimensions of the deliberation process.
Synthesis
Network societies are connected through horizontal communication infrastructures. We experience more connectivity, fast and horizontal communication. However, as the two books demonstrate, advanced technology has not led to revolutionary democratic outcomes. The two works highlight the prerequisites or the three elements that democracy is contingent upon: technological infrastructures with pro-democratic properties, participatory political processes aimed at opinion making and decision-making, critical social institutions, and responsive political institutions.
Digital technologies have made communication faster, more accessible, and cheaper. Nevertheless, they have not completely replaced mass media; rather, we witness a cross-media landscape. In such an environment, people use new and mass media to augment their communicative experiences. Van Dijk and Hacker assert that the proliferation of networks and communication technologies have not significantly impacted the institutional political systems. For example, digital media use has not led to more voter turnouts, which supports the argument that social media platforms do not in themselves guarantee more participation or inclusion in discussions and decision-making. Digital media help to stay connected, they foster individual actions such as clicking, liking, and sharing, yet, the fast pace of communication and fragmentation do not allow sustainable collective action online. For this reason, we observe more substantive collective action offline.
Any model of democracy gains its legitimacy from a certain level of participation. The digital media have not changed the patterns of participation, but they have enabled online and offline forms of engagement. Van Dijk and Hacker argue that more participation does not mean better democracy. Nevertheless, Häussler’s empirical analysis demonstrates that if the political goal is opinion-making, which is at the core of deliberative democratic model, the legitimacy of the outcome stems from the wide range of participants. This model also requires a vibrant public sphere. Both books characterize public sphere as a networked sphere, comprised of public, private, online, and offline spaces. The main distinction is that Van Dijk and Hacker view it from a spatial perspective, while Häussler offers a more expensive conceptualization, considering the normative and argumentative dimensions of the public sphere.
Public spheres have different actors and participants who take rotational roles as speakers and hearers. The influence of actors on the political decisions depends on their positions toward the other actors. The effectiveness of the public sphere is also affected by the discursive density within the network. As Häussler argues, in the context of the United Kingdom, the mass media seem to be reproducing the status quo; rather than turning diverse discourses into communicative power. In the context of China, analyzed by Van Dijk and Hacker, the government-controlled mass media do not have even the minimal distance from the political center. However, due to the cross-media landscape, the digital media have opened a potential for at least minimal political deliberation online. As observed, the political center is more responsive to the critical deliberative coalitions in the United Kingdom. If one were to speculate, in the context of China, the mobilization of actors into a constellation would be more challenging. Even if a deliberative coalition were formed, the political responsiveness by the government would be minimal, since a one-party system is not as tolerant of criticism.
One of the promises of the Web 2.0 was that communication would be more interactive. From a political communication perspective, it entailed that the governments would use digital media to cultivate citizen feedback and would interact with constituents directly. Nevertheless, studies indicate that such behaviors have not been actualized in reality. First, not all the network properties allow interactivity. Second, the politicians mostly utilize digital media for their individual political goals. It is an effective communication strategy; nonetheless, they miss the opportunity to mobilize support for collective actions directed toward the common good.
Overall evaluation
The Internet and Democracy in the Network Society departs from the instrumentalist and deterministic views about the digital media use and democracy. It carefully chronicles the scholarship examining different aspects of the relationship between digital media and the political system. The authors criticize overly positive or pessimistic views on the role of media and democracy. They emphasize the importance of political and social contexts, the resources available for participation individually and in long-term collective action. While the authors discuss some material factors, they do not spend much time to elaborate on the economic logic behind the digital media. This might help to strengthen the discussion about the dissemination of political information and content. Despite this, the book offers a multi-dimensional and comprehensive analysis of recent developments and changes effecting democracy. One of its advantages is the examination of the cases of China and the Arab Spring. The analysis of the non-Western contexts supports their conclusion that the Internet is not inherently more or less democratic; rather, its potential depends on many factors, including the model of democracy and the overarching political goals. Overall, the book is a substantial contribution to the scholarship in political science, communication and media studies, as well as related fields.
The Media and the Public Sphere is a worthwhile contribution to the growing field of empirical scholarship on deliberative democracy. It recognizes the normative rigor of the deliberative model of democracy and integrates it into pragmatic, sophisticated analytical model appropriate for the contemporary network society. The study was limited in its scope, examining only four major newspapers, which means we still know very little about the role of other mass media outlets in different public spheres. On the other hand, it provides an in-depth picture of the dynamics of a communicative mode of decision making. It extends the boundaries of research, introducing a comparative approach within empirical analysis of deliberation. Overall, this book demonstrates the complexity of a communicative democratic model with different actors.
Together, the two works push the boundaries of research and thinking about the social, political and technological changes that shape our daily lives for the years to come. These books present novice, yet, critical perspectives in analyzing the intersections of media and democracy. They challenge theoretical assumptions, and the deterministic views of the existing studies. Despite the academic rigor, these books can also benefit media practitioners, social media managers, campaign strategists, and politicians.
