Angela Kitzan
Comm 405
10/15/09
Jenkins vs Habermas: Round 1. Fight.
In rereading both Habermas and Jenkins, I struggle to find any agreement between the two since Habermas’ article talks about the history, liberal mode of the public sphere and the public sphere in the social welfare state of mass democracy while Jenkins dives into things I can relate too, such as reality television and Star Wars. Granted, if Habermas had more articles that I could compare to Jenkins rather than just one, I might not struggle so much in finding an agreement or common ground between the two.
However, I did find one thing that stands out to me and what I think is an agreement between the two is the idea on how there is still alienation in the media today, whether it be politics or a reality television show that everyone seems to be watching but you; no matter what, someone is going to be left out.
With all this technology readily available, it would be safe to assume that everyone can participate in media freely. Take the 2008 presidential election for example. The media was all there, ready and waiting to be used, and while the participation for this election was way better than most elections, not everyone participated. Why?
You could say that just because one has internet access that doesn’t mean there are limits as well as regulation. Yes, America is free but chances are if you post a video on youtube.com saying that you are going to assassinate President Obama, chances are you are going to get arrested and do jail time.
We talked about how Habermas said that the public sphere was accessible to all as the years go on and almost anyone can share and divulge in public opinion, yet Jenkins goes against Habermas and states that there is limits of participation. 400 years ago, the idea of copywriting something down wasn’t thought of yet; even 100 years ago it wasn’t thought of, which is why the Copyright Act of 1998 was put into play, so that things like Walt Disney ripping off the Brothers Grimm don’t happen again. The act prevents and limits our participation; we can’t rip off Harry Potter or Twilight; even if Harry Potter or Twilight do inspire us to write our own wizard or vampire series, we have to be very careful in what we include, who we show it to and where we post it at, what was just something fun and entertaining (fan fiction) now turns into a major lawsuit.
In class, we stated that one of Habermas’ points was that in order to gain access to the public sphere one must be educated. However if you jump, in this day and age, the internet gives anyone with an opinion access to the public sphere and even the most unintelligent people can put their thoughts and opinions on displace. Just because you own a computer and can type, do not mean you are an automatic political analysis, you need some training and education.
Jenkins is able to take his stance on participatory media with the help of fan fiction websites. According to Jenkins (177): “The value proposition for fans is a free venue where than can pursue their passion by creating, showcasing, reading, reviewing, sharing, archiving, discovering stories and by participating in fun events in a community with similar interests…The value proposition for media companies and publishers is to connect, engage, and entertain fans to their media properties in a new online storytelling environment.” That there says it all. The fans have needs and the companies and publishers have needs, which are met through participatory media.
The role of the newspaper helped Habermas take his stance on the public sphere. He quotes Karl Bucher (53): “Newspapers changed from mere institutions for the publication of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion—weapons if part politics. This transformed the newspaper business. A new element emerged between the gathering and the publication of news: the editorial staff. But for the newspaper publisher it meant that he changed from a vendor or recent news to a dealer of public opinion”. Since the internet wasn’t yet invented and public access cable still hadn’t happened yet, the only way people were able to participate in media was by writing letters to the editor, expressing their thoughts and opinions on a hot topic of the time.
Habermas gave us a view on how even then there were “social implications”. Newspapers, especially during revolutions, were the only way small political groups and organizations could get their name known and out there. Yet, the political newspaper meant joining the struggle for freedom and public opinion. What once was thought to be private suddenly became public for the whole world to see. I never even thought that 50, 60 years ago there were implications-just because the internet wasn’t invented yet, doesn’t mean there weren’t any road blocks.
One thing I realized while writing this paper is that some of the things we said about Habermas contradict themselves. For instance, we said that in order to gain access to the public sphere, you must gain access through education. Yet we all stated that the public sphere is accessible to all, which doesn’t make any sense if you can only gain access by getting educated. We need to come to a clear consensus on whether or not Habermas said you need to be educated to gain access to the public sphere or whether it is accessible to all before we dive in any further with his theory.
Things have definitely changed when Habermas wrote his essay, so we can use Jenkins to critique Habermas as well as compliment him. With all the technology we have, there are still limitations in the participation in media; now we have to be worry about copyrighting someone’s idea even when we are doing something simple, such as fan fiction.
In conclusion, doing a synthesis of the authors we have read gives us a better understanding on where they are coming from and where we can go from here.
Works Cited
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).
No comments:
Post a Comment