This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

The Democratic Ideal and Its Translation Online:
The Possibility and Potential of the Internet as Public Sphere

Elizabeth Michelle Franko
University of Colorado
Doctoral Student

1968 Dryden Road, Suite One
Houston, Texas 77030
720-201-2357
[log in to unmask]

Abstract


In both popular and scholarly publications, the Internet has been 
heralded as a new virtual public sphere, or as a tool for reviving a 
tired democratic process in established democratic states. This paper 
attempts to uncover and understand the ways in which classic and 
contemporary democratic theory elucidate the very potential of the 
Internet to become a viable public sphere. I also seek to interrogate 
the rhetoric around the Internet as a so-called democratic space.

I. Introduction


In the popular and scholarly press, much has been made of the 
Internet as a new public sphere. The Internet is heralded as a 
possible new public space, where debate and discourse takes place, in 
a context that would make Jurgen Habermas proud. The Internet is seen 
as a tool for reviving a tired democratic process for apathetic 
citizens in established democratic states. Moreover, the tools of 
network technology are being exported abroad in an attempt to unite 
the disparate citizens of former totalitarian regimes, and move them 
towards participatory democracy. The Internet is seen as a perfect 
counterpart to the democratic process, encouraging conversation 
amongst diverse citizens and their representative groups, and 
building bottom-up support for or dissent against higher-level 
governing bodies. Much of this theory is rooted in the classic 
democratic theses outlined by such modern giants in contemporary 
political theory as Jurgen Habermas and Seyla Benhabib.[1] Because 
"democracy is a project concerned with the political potentialities 
of ordinary citizens, that is, with their possibilities for becoming 
political beings through the self-discovery of common concerns and 
modes of action for realizing them" (Wolin 31), political 
socialization and means for the realization and resolution of 'common 
concerns' become of central significance. Thus, the Internet is held 
out as a place where the ordinary citizen can have access to the 
means of mass communication as never before. At its most ideal then, 
the Internet is seen as a space where the conflicts of massification 
and modernity can be overcome.
	Peter Ferdinand makes this point explicit by stating that the 
Internet, "(a)s a means of communication…has the potential to 
revolutionize political activity far more profoundly than the 
telephone or television ever did, for unlike them it offers the 
possibility of direct two-way interaction between citizens and 
politicians. This has lead to predictions that it will completely 
revolutionize government and democracy, even that the outcome will be 
a new wave of democratization world-wide, as authoritarian regimes 
find it difficult to survive and as established democracies are 
transformed" (2). In the study of International Communication, the 
Internet has been profiled, and set forth as ideal and transformative 
in both the developing and developed world. As the United States 
actively sells democracy abroad, programs to enhance Internet 
connectivity have been framed as overtly political projects meant to 
encourage and promote democratic citizenship. Because, "the 
Internet…provide(s) citizens with enhanced possibilities for gaining 
information and communicating with politicians, which altogether 
might potentially lead to a revitalization of the public sphere," 
(Jensen 349) implementation of programs for greater Internet access 
and government sponsorship of online political forums is seen as 
overwhelmingly positive.
	However, the Internet is seen, especially in popular literature as 
far more than a political tool. "(T)he Net, we are told, will 
dramatically change how we work, play, shop,
learn, live, and even love" (Rodman 11). The contemporary imagination 
stands in awe of the "role of the computer as a prosthetic device 
that catapults one into cyber spatial interaction" (Papacharissi 
348). The Internet is a means to transform more than just the 
political landscape, but to transform the Self.  Scholars such as 
Donna Haraway make much of the role of technology in freeing the 
individuals from the bounds of the physical body, and allowing them 
free play and self re-creation in the online space. The work of 
Esther Dyson, et. al. details this so-called "central event of the 
20th century (a)s the overthrow of matter" (31). As Dyson tells us, 
"cyberspace is a bio-electronic environment that is literally 
universal: It exists everywhere there are telephone wires, coaxial 
cables, fiber-optic lines or electromagnetic waves. This environment 
is inhabited by knowledge" (32). This language about cyberspace leads 
to mystification about the honest potential and realities of the 
Networked environment. Because the Internet is marked off as a 
bodiless space, made up of thought and penetrating all physical 
spaces, it seemingly escapes the control and hierarchy of other 
institutions. However, I would urge great skepticism in viewing the 
Internet as universally accessibly, easy to penetrate, and welcoming 
to the average citizen. Dyson and his colleagues proclaim that 
"cyberspace is a land of knowledge, and the exploration of that land 
can be a civilizations truest, highest calling. The opportunity is 
now before us to empower every person to pursue that calling in his 
or her own way" (33). However, this praise and discourages serious 
analysis of the character of the Internet, and its actual interaction 
with citizen population. Thus, I admonish unfounded appeals to 
network technology as savior, and instead encourage measured analysis 
of the promise and potential of the Internet to enhance political 
participation.
	Technology is regulated, controlled, and in many cases implemented 
in contemporary nation states, as thus,  "modern state power is 
inseparable from modern science and technologies" (Wolin 36). One 
must view the history of technology, and its future potential within 
the context of a historical, social, political and physical 
environment. Our modern technological landscape is marked by 
governmental deregulation, as well as consolidation of media 
companies in the private sphere. As the means of communication around 
the world conglomerate in multi-national corporations, "one of the 
primary appeals of the Net for many observers is that it bypasses the 
media monopoly altogether" (Rodman 28). Arguably the most sacred 
notion about the Internet space is the idea that online people can 
both create and respond to media outside of dominant communications 
channels. Thus, the Internet is seen by many as a possible 
counter-balance to the massive media conglomeration and information 
consolidation movements in the contemporary marketplace. The access 
to diverse and divergent information is critical to classic 
democratic theory. Moreover, for a truly democratic decision, the 
access to information must be made equal for all concerned citizens. 
Garnham tells us that, "citizens require, if their equal access to 
the vote is to have any
substantive meaning, equal access to sources of information" (357).
	In this quest for multiple, substantive and equalized access to 
information, the Internet is often referenced by scholars as the 
potential vehicle for assuring and reclaiming democracy. The two 
highest tenets of ideal democracy are equalized access to both 
information and decision-making, or inclusion,[2] and the existence 
of forums for citizen participation in the making of governmental 
policy. The Internet has been cited as a place where both 
requirements might be fulfilled. As stated by Gilbert Rodman, "a 
healthy democracy is the ability of ordinary people to participate 
actively in the public sphere as both "speakers" and "listeners", 
then the Net may be the only form of mass media that has the 
potential to be genuinely democratic" (28). This sort of rhetoric 
engulfs any discussion about the Internet or networked technology.
	Contemporary scholars, exemplified by Habermas, have lamented, 
scorned and searched for the new public space, that might rival the 
idealized public sphere of the developing democracies in 
eighteenth-century Europe and the United States. Habermas famously 
described the archetypical coffee house of early London, and the 
asserted its demise, and the refeudalization of this space by of both 
the economy and the State. Scholars are searching for "the coffee 
house, town-level meeting, and literary circle, in which early modern 
public spheres developed" (Keane 367). Following both Keane and 
Benhabib, a re-emphasis has been placed on the development of 
micro-sites for democratic participation, where citizens might 
embrace and engage with their democratic rights. Thus, the Internet 
again emerges in contemporary discourse as a representation of what a 
micro-public sphere might look like.
	New media technology is tightly coupled in both scholarly and 
popular talk with ideas about enhanced communication, new 
cyber-realities, identity play, and distance-transcendent 
relationships. More significantly, I believe, the Internet has 
emerged in the minds of scholars as an often little understood, but 
potentially redemptive space of emancipation, democratic engagement, 
and political enhancement. "The utopian rhetoric that surrounds new 
media technologies promises further democratization of postindustrial 
society. Specifically, the Internet and related technologies (is 
purported to) augment avenues for personal expression and promote 
citizen activity" (Papacharissi 379). The contemporary trend seems to 
regard the Internet as the magic solution, and potential escape route 
to what is considered a flailing contemporary public sphere and 
massive media consolidation movements. Zizi Papacharissi, in her work 
on political participation online, goes so far as to say that,  "the 
Internet will open the door to a cultural and political renaissance" 
(387). With such grandiose and empirically unsound praise by 
academics, we must make additional efforts to look critically at the 
Internet, with a special focus on access, actual content, and the 
viability of political movements online.  I urge caution around the 
idea of a digital utopia, least analysis of the current social and 
political world fall into misguided and invalid technological determinism.





































II. The Internet Space as a Possible Public Sphere


	The importance of the public sphere to democratic theory and 
democratic movements cannot be underestimated. For a functioning and 
purposeful citizenry to develop, it is argued that they must have a 
space in which to engage, debate and make decisions. This space is 
thought to exist outside of both the economic, the governmental and 
the private realm, and work with the tension of those three spheres 
in order to develop solutions to social problems. Citizens in the 
public sphere are meant to leave their personal concerns behind, and 
transcend their limited subjectivities in pursuit of 'the common 
good'.  Engagement in the public sphere defines the public[3], and it 
is best to envision the public sphere not necessarily as a public 
space, but as a purposeful interaction towards discussion and 
democratic decision-making. Habermas tells us that, "a public sphere 
comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals 
assemble to form a public body" (350). Conversation and action 
oriented around discussion define what the public sphere should be, 
according to classic theorists. John Keane describes the public 
sphere as "a particular type of spatial relationship between two or 
more people, usually connected by a certain means of communication…in 
which nonviolent controversies erupt, for a brief or more extended 
period of time, concerning the power relations operating within their 
given milieu of interaction and/or with the wider milieus of social 
and political structures within which the disputants are situated" 
(366). The linkage between people via means of communication is 
critical here, whether this communication exists via conversation, 
the press or the mass media. Communication is essential for the 
public sphere, and in many ways, the only constitutive element of that space.
	Historically, the public sphere has been associated with revolution. 
The public gathering of individuals, to make decisions and garner 
support is critical to most reform movements. Thus, Habermas defines 
the public sphere as "the scene of a psychological emancipation that 
corresponded to a political economic one" (46). The Internet is 
widely understood to be a potential new public sphere, devoid of 
physical space, but allowing for widely diverse citizens to converge, 
interact and converse. The Internet is even seen as a force against 
massification, that modern ill described best by Emile Durkheim. If 
citizens can once again engage and be heard, so the logic goes, 
anomie will once and forever be slayed in favor of enlarged citizen 
participation and empowerment. As Dyson, et. al. lay out, the 
"accelerating demassification creates the potential for vastly increased
human freedom" (33).
	The Internet here become bound not only to ideals of democracy, but 
to that more sacred but associated aim of human freedom. Papacharissi 
details the way that "cyberspace is promoted as a 'new public space' 
made by people and 'conjoining traditional mythic narratives of 
progress with strong modern impulses toward self-fulfillment and 
personal development'…It should be clarified that a new public space 
is not synonymous with a new public sphere. As a public space, the 
Internet provides yet another forum for political deliberation. As 
public sphere, the Internet could facilitate
discussions that promotes democratic exchange of ideas and opinions" 
(380). I disagree with Papacharissi's division between public space 
and public sphere, for I believe in popular rhetoric both terms have 
been used synonymously to glorify the Internet as a place where 
citizens are able to correspond with one another towards the aim of 
fulfilling their needs as citizens.
	Much of the valuation and glorification of the online space is 
motivated by what many scholars have seen as a disheartening and 
ever-progressive decline of the contemporary public sphere. Like 
Richard Sennett, who in his text The Fall of Public Man describes the 
ends of citizen participation and public activity, scholars have 
lamented the development of mass media, the suburbs, and increasing 
colonization by the corporate world into the private space as the end 
of public life, and a public citizenry. Thus, before nailing the 
coffin lid shut on the public sphere, scholars have begun, in a most 
uncritical way to turn to the Internet as a way to maintain, grow and 
develop a new public sphere that overcomes many of the barriers of 
access and distance of the classical public space. "Perspectives for 
a strengthening of the public sphere via the Internet have been 
discussed for years, but there is no deep agreement on how to reach 
the goal" (Jensen 349). To that end, academics have begun to develop 
ways of testing out the benefits and the effects of online 
participation. Despite much inconclusive data, most scholars maintain 
that "the Internet does provide numerous avenues for political 
expression and several ways to influence politics and become 
politically active" (Papacharissi 382).









III. The Network as a Place for Politics and Community Building

Manuel Castells asserts with equal vigor and pessimism that "the 
media have become the essential space of politics" (144). Thus, any 
analysis of the contemporary political climate must take into account 
the interaction between the media and political candidates, issues 
and citizens.  Political participation, citizenship and the media 
cannot be uncoupled. As Castells points out, "to an overwhelming 
extent people receive their information, on the basis of which they 
form their political opinion…through the media" (ibid). Thus the 
media space is the space of information, and the sphere citizens 
depend on to direct them towards relevant issues.
In this sense, the Internet stands alone as one of the only two-way 
communication technologies available in our current social sphere. We 
depend on the media not only for information about issues termed 
political, but also as a place to perform our citizenship. The 
closing off of media to more and more of the public makes the ability 
to enact our citizen rights more difficult. Thus, citizenship is left 
with only the crude mechanism of mass voting to express common 
concerns. The Internet is presented as a way to reclaim spaces for 
discussion, and increased involvement, beyond the purview of the 
voting machine. Because, "online technologies render participation in 
the political sphere more convenient" (Papacharissi 384), they are 
seen as the ideal outlet for citizen participation.
	Unlike a spatially bound public sphere, the Internet allows its 
users to define or leave behind their identities. And Internet 
populists claim that "anonymity online assists one to overcome 
identity boundaries and communicate more freely and openly, thus 
promoting a more enlightened exchange of ideas" (384). However, one 
could counter-assert that anonymity veils users and undercuts the 
responsibility of individual members to the group dialogue. In the 
online space, users can freely end their engagement with the click of 
a mouse button, jeopardizing and perhaps prohibiting any difficult or 
potentially transformative dialogue[4]. I will discuss this issue at 
greater length in the forthcoming section on Netiquette and exclusion.
	The quality and context of discourse online is not the only factor 
which casts doubts over the current potential of the Internet as a 
political public sphere. As detailed at length by Benhabib and Marion 
Young, democracy depends on inclusion, and a guarantee of access to 
all affected citizens.  And, "while the(r)e are indisputable 
advantages to online communication, they do not instantaneously 
guarantee a fair, representative and egalitarian public sphere" 
(383). Obvious issues around the digital divide and unequal access to 
the technologies themselves must be addressed in order for the system 
to be even moderately representative.  Moreover, even, "greater 
participation in political discussion is not the sole determinant of 
democracy. The content, diversity and impact of political discussion 
need to be considered carefully before we conclude whether online 
discussion enhances democracy" (386). The judgment about what and if 
a discussion is properly democratic is subjective and susceptible to 
the motives of each analyst. To judge access, equality, content and 
impact outside of the online realm, is a mammoth task, and thus, I 
believe most discussion about the Internet as political public sphere 
remains nebulous and superficial.
One of the most frequent metaphors associated with the Internet is 
the idea of the network as a community. This analogy reinforces what 
political idealists deem as necessary for purposeful political 
engagement, which is investment and responsibility to a community of 
other citizens. The development of the Internet has been colored by 
attempts to recreate the online space as one big neighborhood of 
interacting individuals. Companies, like AOL and Yahoo! which have 
attempted to develop mass online groupings "frequently use real-life 
metaphors, such as "neighborhoods", "streets", "blocks" and "suburbs" 
to create a virtual space that resembles real-life communities and 
helps members feel at home" (351). The Internet is seen as an 
alternate mode of socialization, and frequently, the most engage 
Internet users proclaim that "hours spent online are not necessarily 
hours spent in isolation away from other social beings" (365). 
Internet users can join virtual families, developing personal 
homepages as a vehicle to express their individuality within the 
Internet space. Papacharissi, in her lengthy study of personal home 
pages and their makers tells us that "the uses of personal home pages 
could also be understood as part of an effort to sustain a mode of 
social existence" (362). Participants in the online sphere are 
perhaps looking to this space as a supplement or an alternate to 
their physical communities and relationships.
	The Internet, then, becomes invested with ideas of not only 
political participation and communication, but also of sociability. 
Beginning with the industrial revolution and the development of the 
mass society, thinkers have lamented the destruction of community. 
The sentiment can be summarized as,  "the modern world has lost some 
sense of community and commitment to others and has become alienated 
and fragmented…social cohesion – not to say democracy—is in crisis. 
And technology, as it has so many times in the past, comes to the 
rescue. The Internet, a noncentralized, nonhierarchical, anarchic 
network of computer networks, would allow us to reconnect with one 
another, to open a forum for public discourse, to allow each and 
every one of us a voice in the grand debate that is society" 
(MacGregor Wise 112). The linkage between community and the Internet 
is defined in the very language used to define the online space; a 
network or a web that connects individuals.
	Community, communication and political participation are three 
strongly associates terms. An essential part of any so-called 
successful public sphere is communication, and citizens invested with 
a responsibility to their community are supposed to carry this 
emphasis on 'the common good' or group needs over individual wants 
into their decisions. The Internet is not the sole channel for one 
individual or party, and "participatory design has been the hallmark 
of the most successful cyber communities" (113). Therefore, the 
Internet is associated with highly idealized and charged ideas about 
community, connection and engagement.
























IV. The Fall of the Ideal: Access, Community and Control


	Gilbert Rodman tells us that  "many commentators discuss the 
Internet as if it were a single, relatively uncomplicated medium" 
(13) and that this view of a diverse, complex and developing 
technology is a gross misinterpretation. Their seems to be an urge by 
scholars to open a window in their grave and desperate totalizations 
of the modern condition – and beckon us towards the Internet as 
possible solution. However, this impulse popularizes a general 
misunderstanding, technologically determined and retreatist view of 
both the technology and the potential of the Internet. Especially as 
the Internet becomes coupled with ideas about political governance 
and citizen sovereignty, it is of the utmost importance that we 
actually engage with and perform critical research about what the 
Internet is and what it has the potential to do. We must always keep 
in mind that there is a man behind the machine of all technologies, 
and with a web-like and interconnected technology such as the 
Internet, this is especially so.
	A careful look at the Internet as public sphere has yielded some 
negative interpretations, which undercuts the celebratory dialogue of 
those scholars looking to the web as salvation. Empirical research, 
focused on the Internet as a communicative tool tells us that in our 
contemporary times, "despite the explosion of outlets for 
communication, there is in fact no noticeable improvement in the 
democratic quality of political institutions" (Noveck 18). In fact, 
it is possible that "the Internet seems to be creating a hyper-speed 
cacophony of dissonant shouting voices. Instead of widespread virtual 
democracy, founded on interpersonal electronic interaction, it is 
more common to find intrusive personal messaging, cantankerous 
e-mails, cross-posted to dozens of listservs and inundating millions 
of in-boxes" (19). This assessment downgrades and perhaps even 
destroys the idea that the Internet can and will save community and 
democracy. Both the ideal and the critique carry ideological messages 
and are driven by the motivations of the scholars who espouse them. 
Thus, I believe each position must be addressed within a sort of 
dialectical tension, which allows the ideal to speak and the critique 
to refine and strengthen our understandings.
	As addressed in the previous section, the Internet is often 
described as a community, and this aspect of connection and 
relationship-building is seen as a fundamental strength. This idea of 
the Internet as relationally bound web has been reinterpreted by 
critics as more truly a loosely bound "foraging community". Instead 
of meaningful connection, the Internet consists more of "temporary 
aggregations of
individuals. There is often little sense of (in) online groups, 
(with) the easy ability to leave the group" (MacGregor Wise 117). The 
anonymity possible with an online persona negatively affects conduct 
and responsibility towards online group members. Participants 
literally forage the Net looking for information and products to 
serve their individualistic needs, and the non-space of cyberspace 
makes interactions with others all the more fleeting and unsubstantial.
	Moreover, contemporary moves on the Internet towards customization, 
and the personalization trend allow Net users to literally see only 
what they want to say, making the online experience a private 
pursuit. One of the major benefits of an actual physical public 
sphere is the serendipity of chance encounters and unexpected 
confrontations with the new. However, the virtual public sphere can 
be one in which "I only see what I want to, and become an information 
consumer, rather than a participant" (Noveck 29). The Internet can 
further heighten isolation, unlike a library where one might 
encounter books of people outside their direct purview, the Internet 
can serve to winnow and eliminate all but the known from information searches.
	Language around the Internet mistakenly veils the roles of both 
individual users and consumers, who define what the space actually 
is. Following the logic of Giles Deleuze and Paul Virilio, much 
web-speak makes the point that, "we are moving toward…a control of 
society, in which power has dispersed. There is no center to 
society…Speed is the key as the society moves ever faster on the 
backs on new communication and information technologies" (MacGregor 
Wise 122). While this emphasis on speed in communication might be 
true, the rhetoric is ripe with a technological determinism, which 
hides the man behind the machine in favor of a logic of inevitability.
	Moreover, the talk about the Internet as a community often overlooks 
the failures and drawbacks inevitable in-group interactions. One of 
the most striking feature of community life is not only inclusion, 
but subsequent exclusion. "Communities consist of not only what they 
include but also what they exclude, what is seen as unassailable. The 
left our form excess, an excess that both defines the community…and 
constitutes it. The excess is not just people, but things, even 
technologies" (129). While exclusion is a normal part of defining 
group boundaries, democratic theory makes the case for inclusion as 
the marker of legitimacy in a democratic engagement. Thus, the online 
community spaces, those places of supposed ultimate inclusion and 
engagement harbor their own dynamics of exclusion. Because, "the 
virtual public is (only) a shadow public, the realm of potential and 
possible paths immanent to the actual public" (Deleuze 130), we must 
always keep in mind that people use, control and create the 
technologies and the virtual space of the Internet, and these people 
carry with them conventions from the physical world.
	Doubts are also cast over the potential and reality of the Internet 
as public sphere because of the content of information online. 
Because of the ease of self-publishing, educated net users can easily 
create and link to sources of information, adding to the web of 
online knowledge. Thus, multiple voices can create and contribute to 
the body of information on the Net. This dynamic contribution of 
multiple users would seem to strengthen the public sphere, allowing 
for divergent points of view to have an outlet for debate and 
dissent. The technology of the Internet allows those with a small 
investment and technological skills to create web pages, and 
potentially compete with mainstream media for bandwidth and exposure. 
However, when we return to the classic theorists, particularly 
Habermas, we are reminded that "debate in the public sphere presumes 
not only an educated public sphere but an honest debate…in 
cyberspace…. the blurring between truth and fiction raises grave 
political questions" (Noveck 32). The very ease that allows my site 
to be as easily accessed as CNN.com raises doubts about the validity 
of online sources. As addressed in the work of Lynn 
Schofield-Clark[5], even most youthful Internet users understand that 
not all sites are equally as valid, and that there might be false 
information online.
	Moreover, despite the hopefulness of academics and community members 
that the Internet represents a whole new world of political 
interaction, it can be assumed that "new technologies will adapt to 
the current political culture, instead of making a new one" 
(Papacharissi 388). Thus the online public sphere might most 
accurately represent simply an extension of the existing traditional 
political space. Manuel Castells has even asserted that the 
interaction between the media and politics might sully the potential 
of politics to address true social needs. Because, "media politics 
needs to simplify the message/proposals" (Castells 144), the media 
takes away any depth from the political field, making politics as 
much entertainment as any other media product. Even the Internet, 
which tends to be dominated by e-commerce, as an additional channel 
for corporate outlets tends to reflect the marketing of politics as 
yet another product for consumption.[6]
	While spaces designated as message boards or community forums online 
might be able to address and include more voices than traditional 
media sources, researchers in this area have determined that "despite 
the fact the all online participants have the same access to 
information and opinion expression, the discourse is still dominated by a
few. Moreover, not all information available on the Internet is 
democratic or promotes democracy" (Papacharissi 383). As in the 
traditional public sphere, the most vocal dominate discourse, and 
often determine the course of conversation. For example, in Jakob 
Linaa Jensen's study of political websites in Scandinavia, he 
determined that a select few users dominate almost 80% of online 
messaging and posts. While more users have access, not all users 
participate in an equal fashion. Thus the assumption that just 
because someone has Internet access they are an engaged online 
citizen is fallacious.
As Papacharissi also notes, not all websites promote democracy. The 
Internet is ripe with information on fringe groups and exclusionary 
movements.  An online user could potentially use the Internet to find 
and create divisive information.
	Moreover, at least most of the popular history of recent social and 
revolutionary movements has focused on the loyalty and solidarity of 
participants. Papacharissi points out that "social and physical 
solidarity is what spawned political and social change over the 
course of the century and then Internet's anonymity and lack of 
spatiality and density may actually be counterproductive to 
solidarity" (Papacharissi 389).  The very character of the Net as 
dispersed and virtual might actually inhibit the development of any 
tangible action or engagement. Without the existence of a physical 
space to converse, become informed and move towards action, political 
movements might stall in endless conversation and bickering.
	Despite the assertion that the Internet is ultimately a fluid and 
accessible space, "the Net is almost entirely comprised of 
hierarchical networks and virtual environments such as this: 
environments where access to (and thus control of) the heart of the 
system is severely restricted" (Rodman 31). Even straightforward 
online access requires the use of technology and basic computer 
skills. To be a contributor to the online space, and create your own 
webpage implies the investments of time, technology and 
training.  Moreover, as Rodman points out, access to knowledge and 
networks is not free and universal. Most information is protected and 
maintained by an elite group of technologically savvy webmasters, who 
determine content and control access. As Cas Wouters, an expert on 
etiquette manuals points out, "one way of formalizing a social 
institution is to use specialized personnel to carry out its 
functions" (68). This seems especially so for the Internet, where 
understanding and creating new media is a highly specialized skill 
not available to the general population.
	However, the language of access and dialogue persists. In my work on 
Blogs[7], both creators and users often point out that Blogs are the 
ultimate sphere of conversation. As one key creator notes, "they 
almost seem to be ideologically opposed to hostility, including 
essayish commentary and observations. Because the site creator limits and
approves membership, they don't need to be defended as intensely 
bigger sites, nor do they attract – or permit – posters who abuse 
other. One obvious payoff is that the flow of ideas is strong, 
uninterrupted, and impressive" (Katz 20). While Katz talks about the 
Blog as the ultimate forum for meaningful discussion, he also points 
out that the site's creator limits membership. Thus, not all voices 
are heard or encouraged. Membership is limited to the so-called 
deserving few, and thus, is not truly inclusive. Certain Blogs then 
become isolated and self-referentially, serving only to reinforce the 
viewpoints of the user group, without confronting difference. 
Moreover, the site's creator is given ultimate power over access, 
limiting the decision-making about who fits and who speaks to one or 
a limited select few. Rodman asserts that "even in online communities 
where "the public" is deliberatively given a voice in how systems are 
configured and governed, such "democracies" still depend on the 
willingness of the SysAdmin to follow through on publicly expressed 
mandates" (31). Thus, despite the flexibility of the Internet, a few 
still hold the keys to meaningful access.








V. Means of Exclusion: Origins of Etiquette and the New Netiquette


	Just as in the actual physical public sphere, the virtual space is 
governed by rules of etiquette and norms of control that maintain 
boundaries, create hierarchies and determine interactions. These 
rules of engagement can be termed civility, and in the online space, 
these norms are often called netiquette. Civility is considered an 
important pre-requisite for constructive conversation and productive 
interactions. And thus, civility is often seen as fundamental to 
rational-critical debate, the kind of talk essential to the 
democratic process. The conventional democratic engagement, say the 
kind exemplified in a town school board meeting is regulated by rules 
of turn taking, voting procedures and speaking volume.  When this 
behavior is translated online, the rules of engagement involve 
spam-emails, flaming, length of post, and language used. Civility 
refers to many of the normative assumptions we make about the 
ordering of the social world, in fact, civility is seen by some as 
the glue that holds a divergent society together. And no process 
depends more on norms of civility than the process of deliberation 
associated with democratic procedure. However, civility has a dark 
underbelly which excludes, veils and denies deviant voices. Those who 
fall outside of conventional norms can and are excluded, and as we 
have seen the access to the Internet is definitely maintained by 
select gatekeepers.
	Thus, understanding the rules of civility, and where mechanisms of 
communicative exclusion are enacted can help us to overcome some of 
the ways civility is used as a defense mechanism and a veil for those 
in control. The norms and procedures of netiquette are still being 
developed, and fluctuate according to function. However, the rules of 
netiquette are rooted in a long history of Western etiquette. As best 
described by Cas Wouters, in her study of etiquette manuals, 
"etiquette is a weapon of defense as well as a weapon of attack. 
Rules of etiquette function to define the boundaries between those 
who belong and those who do not belong to the group" (52). Etiquette 
can often be used as a more conventional and accepted way to exclude 
undesirables. Groups are as much defined by who fits, as by who does 
not, and thus etiquette can often serve a "paradoxical function…as an 
instrument of exclusion or rejection, on the one hand, and on the 
other, as an instrument of inclusion or group charisma" (ibid). 
However, when the group being defined is also supposedly democratic, 
etiquette can serve to undermine and invalidate the democratic 
process. If inclusion is key for democratic validity, any mechanism 
of exclusion compromises legitimacy.
	In the online space, netiquette supposedly serves to regulate the 
Internet and promote productive dialogue and polite engagement. It is 
thought that if more web users conducted themselves with rules of 
netiquette, the Internet would be less hostile, crowded and obscene. 
The Internet itself is often seen as vast and nebulous, and thus in 
need of some sort of regulation. Jorge Arditi describes the function 
of netiquette as "creat(ing) "order" out of "chaos"" (84). The online 
space is often described as the ultimate free space of social 
interaction. Some scholars and users alike have lamented the abuse 
and inconsideration of certain web users, and urged the understanding 
and incorporation of norms of netiquette into online behavior. 
""Netiquette," or "network etiquette,"…on the World Wide Web is a 
means of exploring the implications of two major aspects of the order 
of things that seems to be emerging in cyberspace: the very 
redefinition of space implied in the term "cyberspace" and the almost 
complete detachments of bodies that
it entails" (85). The theory goes that if people are detached from 
their physical subjectivities, and allowed to run free they might 
also abandon responsibility towards one another. The virtual space 
opens up new means of communication, and the regulation of this order 
is seen as essential for the development of a productive social 
space. Netiquette, thus, "instructs about how to navigate an 
order…(and) charts the specific
configurations of social relations inherent in that order" (89). 
Rules of netiquette, while varied, tend to encourage users to act 
with respect, not to send spam email, and to avoid overly lengthy 
posts. Users are also supposed to respect the environment in which 
they communicate, and avoid language that might offend certain users.
	The Internet seems to occupy a strange liminal space in the public 
imagination, as a place of wish fulfillment. One might have 
conversations that reinvigorate the democratic process, or leave the 
body behind and explore new identities with compassion and courage. 
Net users have access to seemingly unlimited information, and objects 
of desire, such a goods, services and pornography. However, this 
supposedly limitless and uncensored space of the Internet is also a 
source of fear for the public who seeks limits and protections. The 
Internet has been seen as a place of immorality, where men seduce 
young girls in chat rooms, and bored husbands access pornography. In 
this way, "the Net (is seen) as an insidious threat to both home and 
family" (Rodman 16). Thus, netiquette seeks also to regulate the 
content of the Internet, keeping unwanted information away. Unlike 
the 'real' life, the virtual world seems to be teeming with the type 
of knowledge, the kind that got Eve into trouble in the Garden of 
Eden. "Part of what makes cyberspace seem to be radically different 
from "real life" – and thus part of what makes it the subject of 
hyperbolic fears – is that, to many people, it appears to be an 
environment that is both out of control and uncontrollable in ways 
that "real" space isn't" (27). Thus, certain groups call for closer 
monitoring and tighter regulation of the form and content of the 
Internet, keeping some voices out and denying access to undesirables. 
Therefore, despite the rhetoric of freedom, both users and creators 
are regulated by norms that define their content and their access to 
information online.
	 The very nature of cyberspace seems to cause some scholars great 
apprehension, and they argue for norms of netiquette to harness and 
make the Web more useful. For example, Arditi notes that "the order 
of things that manifests itself in cyberspace is one marked by 
dispersion and randomness, one is which anything can be directly associated
with anything else" (91). The web like nature of cyberspace thus 
causes Arditi to question its social and intellectual significance. 
Instead of uniting a diverse citizenry, Arditi argues that the Net 
only reflects,  "randomness and chronic dispersion… (and the) 
suspicion of being lost" (92). He thus undermines the social 
significance of the Internet as a unifier, and argues for rules of 
civility to create order and give the Web meaning and function. In a 
space where "bodies have become fully detached from one another" 
(91), social relationships are reshaped and thus must be redefined. 
Otherwise, Arditi prophesizes, we Net users will develop a 
"schizophrenic subjectivity or the erasure and transgression of the 
boundaries of one's self" (93). Scholars such as Donna Haraway might 
view this transgression of the self as positive, and the ultimate 
move towards post-modern freedom. However, Arditi begs to differ and 
argues instead for norms to overcome the "constant violati(on) (of) 
the boundaries of civility as we have come to experience them" (94) online.
	Civility, and its offspring netiquette both seek to define, control 
and create the online space. Whether it is restricting pornography, 
or ejecting a rude commentator from an online chat, netiquette 
excludes certain users for the supposed 'common good'. Research on 
online democracy even suggests that rules of engagement and 
boundaries aid the deliberative process. As Jensen asserts in his 
work on Denmark, "debating on the Internet seems to be more qualified 
when certain rules and paths for the conversation are set up, i.e. 
when major topics are defined in advance" (371). However, any system 
of gatekeepers or regulations excludes, thus not representing a truly 
inclusionary forum. We are accustomed to rules of civility in the 
physical public sphere, and often see them as necessary for the 
safety and productivity of all. However, the Net is often described 
as the one last frontier of social interaction, and is thought of by 
many as a truly inclusionary and accessible space. In many ways, this 
rhetoric is why the Internet is often associated with appeals to 
democratic participation. Thus, if we see the Net as governed by 
norms and civility, we are once again replicating the contradictions 
of the physical public sphere, which is never truly inclusive and 
thus never really democratically valid.

















VII. Conclusion and Direction for Future Research: Nations, Identity 
Politics and the Net


	The Internet serves a strong case study of the language and 
aspiration of democratic theorists and towards an ideal public 
sphere. In much popular and scholarly press, the Internet serves as 
sort of the magic window, or untested but possible solution to the 
decline in political participation in modern society. In the formerly 
totalitarian world, the Internet is seen as a way to teach citizens 
about the democratic process. However, as we have seen, the Internet 
itself is a medium controlled by a certain few. Moreover, the 
Internet is a technology created and maintained by people and 
existing within a certain historical moment in society.
	Because "changes in media structure and media policy are properly political
questions" (Garnham 357), the development and control of the Internet 
is a social issue that should be widely debated and understood. The 
association of the Internet with the public sphere and with the 
ideals of democracy itself makes the virtual space a highly charged 
and contested medium. Despite the contradictions addressed in this 
paper, the Internet still offers some of the best potential for 
spreading and encouraging an more engaged citizen population.  "A 
burning issue is whether the Internet can overcome (its own) 
limitations while yet enriching democracy in ways envisioned by 
Habermas' public sphere conception" (Karvonen 347). Can the Internet 
escape overt regulation and remain a space for free access to diverse 
opinions and information? Will Internet users seek out and engage in 
rational debate directed towards the public good, despite online 
anonymity? Moreover, will the Internet be able to live up to its 
promise of creating new public spaces that strengthen political life? 
Papacharissi notes that "as a vision, (the Internet) inspires, but it 
has not yet managed to transform political and social structures" (390).
	How should we scholars and Net users shape the future of the 
Internet, and should we create structures that supposedly facilitate 
engaged interaction, or should we allow the Internet to develop with 
its own unbounded free architecture? Certain scholars have asserted 
that we take a more active hand in controlling and creating a virtual 
space that we want. For example, Beth Noveck asserts that, "we need 
'public architectures' on the Net which facilitate conversation, 
interaction, deliberation, education and engagement" (31). Thus, in 
her opinion, we should reign in and recreate an Internet that 
encourages the kind of interaction we prefer. The Internet is seen as 
a tool to overcome the "current government, even in established 
democracies, (which) is too dominated by outdated and out-of-touch 
bureaucracies" (Ferdinand 5). The Internet seems to offer a hands-on 
tool for citizens to get information and communicate with one another 
and with their representatives. However, despite the promise of the 
Internet, we must remember that "the theory of the Information 
Society, (is) both a science and ideology" (Garnham 165), and at 
every turn we confront the specific motivations of interested parties 
who seek to shape the dialogue about this new technology.
Moreover, the contemporary uses of the Internet are not 
overwhelmingly positive nor are they directed exclusively towards the 
common good. The very nature of the Net blurs the "line between abuse 
and intimacy produced by the porousness of personal
boundaries in cyberspace" (Arditi 97). The Internet has also been 
harnessed by groups proclaiming messages of dissent and violence. The 
Net has a sinister side, as we have seen in the recent wave of 
beheadings broadcast via Internet from Iraq. Groups like the 
Neo-Nazis and the Taliban use the Net as a major instrument of 
communication and community building (Chroust 104). Not all Net users 
seek rational-critical and accessible debate or access.
	However, despite its contradictions, the Internet still has a major 
role to play in the minds of Political Scientists. Across the globe, 
"there has been an increasing interest in using the Internet to 
(re)create a new sense of community, especially at the local level" 
(Ferdinand 5), and to expand participation in the Nation as a whole. 
I plan to pursue research on the promotion of democracy abroad, and 
the ways that the Internet plays into programs that sponsor 
participatory government. Because, the "general belief holds that 
representative government is the only form of democracy that is 
feasible in today's sprawling and heterogeneous nation-states… 
interactive telecommunications now make it possible for tens of 
millions of widely dispersed citizens to carry out the business of 
government themselves, gain admission to the political realm, and 
retrieve at least some of the power over their own lives and goods 
that many believe their elected leaders are squandering" (Ott and 
Rosser 137). The Internet, as both imagined, virtual, and real space 
holds the potential for greater democratic engagement. However, we 
must caution ourselves against the kind of rhetoric that sees the 
Internet as uncontrolled and free from society. The virtual space is 
both a reflection and a creation of our own social world.










VII. Works Cited


Arditi, J. (2001). Exploring Netiquette: Figurations and 
Reconfigurations in Cybernetic Space. Norbert Elias and Human 
Interdependencies. T. Salumets. Quebec City, McGill-Queens University 
Press: 84-98.
	
Ashford, K. E. W. a. S. J. (2001). Learning in Organizations. The New 
Handbook of Organizational Communication. F. J. a. L. Putnam. 
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications: 704-731.
	
Barber, B. R. (1996). Foundationalism and Democracy. Democracy and 
Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 348-360.
	
Barrett, C. (2002). More About Weblogs. Why We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. 
Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 28-33.
	
Benhabib, S., Ed. (1996). Democracy and Difference. Princeton, Princeton UP.
	
Benhabib, S. (1996). The Democratic Moment and the Problem of 
Difference. Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, 
Princeton UP: 3-18.
	
Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic 
Legitimacy. Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, 
Princeton UP: 67-94.
	
Benhabib, S. (2002). The Claims of Culture. Princeton, Princeton UP.
	
Blood, R. (2002). Introduction. We've Got Blog: How Weblogs are 
Changing Our Culutre. J. Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: ix-xiii.
	
Blood, R. (2002). Weblogs: A History and Perspective. Why We Blog. J. 
Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 7-16.
	
Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility. New York, HarperPerennial.
	
Castells, M. (2004). An Introduction to the Information Age. The 
Information Society Reader. F. Webster. New York, Routledge: 138-149.
	
Cohen, J. (1996). Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy. 
Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 95-119.
	
Cohen, J. l. (1996). Democracy:Difference, and the Right of Privacy. 
Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 187-217.
	
Dahl, R. A. (1996). Democratic Theory and Democratic Experience. 
Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 336-339.
	
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization. 
Albany, State University Press of New York.
	
Downing, J. (1984). Radical Media. London, South End Press.
	
Dyson, E., George Gilder, George Keyworth, Alvin Toffler (2004). 
Cyberspace and the American Dream. The Information Society Reader. F. 
Webster. New York, Routledge: 31-42.
	
Elias, N. (1994). The Civilizing Process. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
	
Ferdinand, P., Ed. (2000). The Internet, Democracy and 
Democratization. London, Portland, Frank Cass.
	
Ferdinand, P. (2000). The Internet, Democracy and Democratization. 
The Internet, Democracy and Democratization. P. Ferdinand. Portland, 
London, Frank Cass: 1-17.
	
Fleishman, G. (2002). Been "Blogging"? Web Discourse Hits Higher 
Level. We've Got Blog. J. Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, Perseus 
Publishing: 107-111.
	
Garnhan, N. (2004). The Media and the Public Sphere. The Information 
Society Reader. F. Webster. New York, Routledge: 357-365.
	
Gould, C. C. (1996). Diversity and Democracy. Democracy and 
Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 171-186.
	
Graham, B. L. (2002). Why I Weblog. Why We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. 
Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 34-40.
	
Grossman, L. (2004). Meet Joe Blog. Time: 68-70.
	
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformations of the Public 
Sphere. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
	
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. 
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
	
Habermas, J. (1996). Three Normative Models of Democracy. Democracy 
and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 21-30.
	
Habermas, J. (2004). The Public Sphere. The Information Society 
Reader. F. Webster. New York, Routledge: 350-356.
	
Haughey, M. (2002). Building an Online Community: Just Add Water. Why 
We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 201-208.
	
Jensen, L. J. (2003). "Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or 
Government Sponsored - A Comparison." Scandinavian Political Studies 26(4).
	
Karvonen, E. (2004). Introduction (Democracy). The Information 
Society Reader. F. Webster. New York, Routledge: 345-349.
	
Katz, J. (2002). Here Come the Weblogs. Why We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. 
Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 17-24.
	
Keane, J. (2004). Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere. 
The Information Society Reader. F. Webster. New York, Routledge: 366-378.
	
Kolko, B., Ed. (2003). Virtual Publics. New York, Columbia UP.
	
Landes, J. B. (1988). Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the 
French Revolution. Ithaca, Cornell UP.
	
Lasica, J. D. (2002). Weblogs: A New Source of News. Why We Blog. J. 
Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 171-182.
	
McCarthy, T. (1990). Introduction. Moral Consciousness and 
Communicative Action. J. Habermas. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press: vii-xiii.
	
Mead, R. (2002). You've Got Blog. Why We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. 
Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing: 47-56.
	
Mennell, S. (2001). The American Civilizing Process. Norbert Elias 
and Human Interdependencies. T. Salumets. Quebec City, McGill-Queens 
University Press: 226-244.
	
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). "The Self Online: The Utility of Personal 
Homepages." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 46(3): 346-368.
	
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as Public 
Sphere. The Information Society Reader. F. Webster. New York, 
Routledge: 379-392.
	
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, 
Cambridge UP.
	
Phillips, A. (1996). Dealing with Difference: A Politics of Ideas, or 
a Politics of Presence? Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. 
Princeton, Princeton UP: 136-152.
	
Powazek, D. M. (2002). What the Hell is a Weblog and Why Won't They 
Leave Me Alone? Why We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, Perseus 
Publishing: 3-6.
	
Rodman, G. B. (2003). The Net Effect: The Public's Fear and teh 
Publci Sphere. Virtual Publics. B. Kolko. New York, Columbia UP: 9-48.
	
Rushkoff, D. (2002). The Internet is Not Killing Off Conversation but 
Actively Encouraging It. Why We Blog. J. Rodzvilla. Cambridge, MA, 
Perseus Publishing: 116-118.
	
Salumets, T., Ed. (2001). Norbert Elias and Human Interdependencies. 
Quebec City, McGill-Queen's University Press.
	
Sennett, R. (1974). The Fall of Public Man. New York, WW Norton.
	
Thompson, A. G. a. D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, 
Belknap Press.
	
Weber, M. (1924/1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of 
Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, University of California Press.
	
Webster, F., Ed. (2004). The Information Society Reader. New York, Routledge.
	
Webster, F. (2004). The Network Society: Introduction. The 
Information Society Reader. F. Webster. New York, Routledge: 133-137.
	
Wise, J. M. (2003). Community, Affect and The Virtual: The Politics 
of Cyberspace. Virtual Publics. B. Kolko. New York, Columbia UP: 112-133.
	
Wolin, S. S. (1996). Fugitive Democracy. Democracy and Difference. S. 
Benhabib. Princeton, Princeton UP: 31-45.
	
Wouters, C. (2001). The Integration of Classes and Sexes in the 
Twentieth Century: Etiquette Books and Emotion Management. Norbert 
Elias and Human Interdependencies. T. Salumets. Quebec City, 
Mc-Gill-Queens University Press: 50-83.
	
Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative 
Democracy. Democracy and Difference. S. Benhabib. Princeton, 
Princeton UP: 120-136.
	
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. New York, Oxford UP.
[1]  Please refer to my work "Confronting the Democratic Ideal", 
which outlines the theses of Jurgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib, Iris 
Marion Young, and Amy Guttman. I am also preparing a subsequent work 
based in the theories of Benjamin Barber and Carole Patemen, on 
micro-practices of democracy and alternative institutional spaces for 
citizen participation.
[2]  See Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy.
[3]  As opposed to a 'mass'.
[4]  See Seyla Benhabib, and her notion the transformative quality of 
democratic discourse.
[5]  See Dr. Clark's work with Teens and New Media.
[6]  I am working on a study of the political websites of major 
candidates in the November 2004 elections in order to determine how 
much these websites added to the body of knowledge around issues and 
platforms, versus traditional and broadcast media.
[7]  Please see future work on Blogs, which is meant as a case study 
to lengthen and strengthen this paper. I was unable to include this 
information at this time, even though I have begun the research, due 
to time constraints.