PDF(1578 KB)
On the New Structural Transformation of the Digital Public Sphere
WU Fei, YANGLONG Mengjue
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5) : 49-74.
PDF(1578 KB)
PDF(1578 KB)
On the New Structural Transformation of the Digital Public Sphere
Everyone lives in a world with multiple orientations of communality, and digital technology has opened up a new field of public deliberation. This paper will focus on the transformation of the public sphere caused by digital technologies and social and cultural context. In order to understand the digital public sphere, through the lens of social connection, this paper will analyze society by seeing it as a Social connectome composed of fluid, active and heterogeneous networks of actors, a field of competition where various power vie for visibility and public opinion discourse around the public interest. We are at a time when the ideal of consensus is being challenged, but the multitude of voices is visible, and the plurality of communication of difference may foster a more tolerant politics of recognition. The concept of the digital public sphere is likely to evoke rethinking of ideas such as society, publicness and social order.
public sphere / communities / platforms / actor-network-theory
| [1] |
汉娜·阿伦特(1958/2017). 《人的境况》(王寅丽译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
|
| [2] |
安德鲁·基恩(2007/2010). 《网民的狂欢:关于互联网弊端的反思》(丁德良译). 海口: 南海出版公司.
|
| [3] |
巴赫金(1996/2009). 《巴赫金全集(第六卷)》(李兆林,夏忠宪等译). 石家庄: 河北教育出版社.
|
| [4] |
查尔斯·泰勒(2004/2014). 《现代社会想象》(林曼红译). 北京: 译林出版社
|
| [5] |
翟志成(2000). 《宋明理学的公私之辨及其现代意涵》.载黄克武,张哲嘉(主编),《公与私:近代中国个体与群体之重建》(第1-58页). 台北: 中研院近史所.
|
| [6] |
冯济海(2021). “粉”“黑”之争:网络迷群极化的“日常化”转向. 《社会学研究》,(6),113-135+228-229.
|
| [7] |
弗雷德·特纳(2008/2013). 《数字乌托邦:从反主流文化到赛博文化》(张行舟译). 北京: 电子工业出版社.
|
| [8] |
沟口雄三(1995/2011). 《中国的公与私·公私》(郑静译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [9] |
尤尔根·哈贝马斯(1990/1999). 《公共领域的结构转型》(曹卫东,王晓珏,刘北城,宋伟杰译). 上海: 学林出版社.
|
| [10] |
尤尔根·哈贝马斯(1992/2003). 《在事实与规范之间》(童世骏译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [11] |
尤尔根·哈贝马斯(1984/2004). 《交往行为理论(第1卷)》(曹卫东译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
|
| [12] |
于尔根·哈贝马斯(1985/2011). 《现代性的哲学话语》(曹卫东译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [13] |
于尔根·哈贝马斯(1988/2012). 《后形而上学思想》(曹卫东,付德根译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [14] |
韩炳哲(2013/2019). 《在群中》(程巍译). 北京: 中信出版社.
|
| [15] |
赫伯特·西蒙(1983/2016). 《人类活动中的理性》(胡怀国,冯科译). 南宁: 广西师范大学出版社.
|
| [16] |
胡泳(2008). 《众声喧哗》. 南宁: 广西师范大学出版社.
|
| [17] |
黃克武(2000). 《从追求正道到认同国族——明末至清末中国公私观念的重整》.载黄克武,张哲嘉(主编),《公与私:近代中国个体与群体之重建》(第59-112页). 台北: 中研院近史所.
|
| [18] |
卡尔·马克思, 弗里德里希·恩格斯(1982/2002). 马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷). 北京: 人民出版社.
|
| [19] |
卡尔·马克思, 弗里德里希·恩格斯(1982/1995). 马克思恩格斯全集(第1卷), 北京: 人民出版社.
|
| [20] |
卡尔·马克思, 弗里德里希·恩格斯(1982/2013). 马克思恩格式全集(第14卷), 北京: 人民出版社.
|
| [21] |
劳伦斯·莱斯格(1999/2004). 《代码:塑造网络空间的法律》(李旭译). 北京: 中信出版社.
|
| [22] |
理查德·J·伯恩斯坦(1976/2008). 《社会政治理论的重构》(黄瑞祺译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [23] |
梁启超(1999). 《梁启超全集》. 北京: 北京出版社.
|
| [24] |
林郁沁(2007/2011). 《施剑翘复仇案》(陈湘静译). 南京: 江苏人民出版社.
|
| [25] |
刘泱育(2022). 从“型构”到“互型”:媒介化理论核心概念“figuration”来龙去脉. 《新闻与传播研究》,(3),38-53+126-127.
|
| [26] |
卢梭(1954/1986). 《论人类不平等的起源和基础》(李常山译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
|
| [27] |
卢梭(1943/2003). 《社会契约论》(何兆武译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
|
| [28] |
梅利尔·D·彼得森(1984/1993). 《杰斐逊集(下)》(刘祚昌等译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [29] |
米尔斯·C·赖特(1963/1987). 《白领:美国的中产阶级》(杨小冬等译). 杭州: 浙江人民出版社
|
| [30] |
秦亚青(2021). 世界秩序的变革:从霸权到包容性多边主义. 《亚太安全与海洋研究》,(2),1-15+133.
|
| [31] |
让-皮埃尔·韦尔南(1962/1997). 《希腊思想的起源》(秦海鹰译). 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [32] |
莎伦·R·克劳斯(2008/2015). 《公民的激情》(谭安奎译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [33] |
师文, 陈昌凤(2020). 社交机器人在新闻扩散中的角色和行为模式研究——基于《纽约时报》“修例”风波报道在Twitter上扩散的分析. 《新闻与传播研究》,(5),5-20+126.
|
| [34] |
谭安奎(2015). 《公共理性与民主理想》. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [35] |
王天夫(2022). 数字时代的社会变迁与社会研究. 《社会科学文摘》,(3),94-96.
|
| [36] |
翁贝托·埃科(2016/2019). 《帕佩撒旦阿莱佩:流动社会纪事》(李婧敬,陈英译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
|
| [37] |
吴飞(2019). 共情传播的理论基础与实践路径探索. 《新闻与传播研究》,(5),59-76+127.
|
| [38] |
吴飞, 徐百灵(2020). 自媒体话语实践中的观点极化与社会流瀑——对方方日记海外出版争论的个案分析. 《新闻记者》,(6),37-46.
|
| [39] |
武沛颍, 陈昌凤(2022). 社交机器人能否操纵舆论——以Twitter平台的北京冬奥舆情为例. 《新闻与写作》,(9),79-88.
|
| [40] |
肖瑛(2021). 《公共性及其实践》. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
|
| [41] |
杨仁忠(2009). 《公共领域论》. 北京: 人民出版社
|
| [42] |
约翰·杜翰姆·彼得斯(1999/2017). 《对空言说:传播的观念史》(邓建国译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
|
| [43] |
约翰·罗尔斯(1996/2000). 《政治自由主义》(万俊人译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [44] |
章国锋(2000). 哈贝马斯访谈录. 《外国文学评论》,(1),27-32.
|
| [45] |
赵鼎新(2012). 《民主的限制》. 北京: 中信出版社.
|
| [46] |
周葆华, 钟媛(2021). “春天的花开秋天的风”:社交媒体、集体悼念与延展性情感空间——以李文亮微博评论(2020-2021)为例的计算传播分析. 《国际新闻界》,(3),79-106.
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
There is currently a diversity of understandings of digital democracy being deployed within popular commentary, research, policy making, and practical initiative. However, there is a lack of resources clearly outlining this diversity; this article undertakes such an outline. It provides a reconstruction of four digital democracy positions. These four positions are referred to here as liberal-individualist, deliberative, counter-publics, and autonomist Marxist. The delineation of each position draws from critical-interpretative research and has been developed with respect to three elements: the democratic subject assumed, the related conception of democracy promoted, and the associated democratic affordances of digital media technology. The aim is to draw attention to different understandings of what extending democracy through digital media means, and to provide a framework for further examination and evaluation of digital democracy rhetoric and practice.
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
Algorithms play a critical role in steering online attention on social media. Many have alleged that algorithms can perpetuate bias. This study audited shadowbanning, where a user or their content is temporarily hidden on Twitter. We repeatedly tested whether a stratified random sample of American Twitter accounts (n ≈ 25,000) had been subject to various forms of shadowbans. We then identified the type of user and tweet characteristics that predict a shadowban. In general, shadowbans are rare. We found that accounts with bot-like behavior were more likely to face shadowbans, while verified accounts were less likely to be shadowbanned. The replies by Twitter accounts that posted offensive tweets and tweets about politics (from both the left and the right) were more likely to be downtiered. The findings have implications for algorithmic accountability and the design of future audit studies of social media platforms.
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
With right-wing populist movements gaining ever more traction worldwide, great attention is paid to addressing their exclusionary rhetoric. In this article, I focus on the question how to deal with these radical-right sentiments in our public debates. Believing that both exclusion and inclusion of right-wing populist voices wield counter-productive effects, I juxtapose Habermas’s public sphere theory to Mouffe’s model of agonistic pluralism and posit that both are ultimately insufficient to tackle the populist danger, albeit for different reasons. However, by synthesizing Mouffe’s model with the ideas of Zygmunt Bauman and Iris Marion Young, I introduce the concept of an empathetic public sphere as a model for creating minimal common grounds between right-wing populist “selves” and the “others” they oppose. Finally, I then move this normative model into the realm of media and communication studies and assess how empathetic storytelling might be given shape in today’s fragmented media ecology.
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
There is growing interest in diffusion models to represent the cognitive and neural processes of speeded decision making. Sequential-sampling models like the diffusion model have a long history in psychology. They view decision making as a process of noisy accumulation of evidence from a stimulus. The standard model assumes that evidence accumulates at a constant rate during the second or two it takes to make a decision. This process can be linked to the behaviors of populations of neurons and to theories of optimality. Diffusion models have been used successfully in a range of cognitive tasks and as psychometric tools in clinical research to examine individual differences. In this review, we relate the models to both earlier and more recent research in psychology. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
|
| [81] |
|
| [82] |
Contemporary Hong Kong is riven by serious political and social polarization. Hong Kong's problem does not lie in ideological differences among citizens; rather, the major issue is that people of different political stripes view each other as enemies. In this study, we conducted two experiments to compare the impacts of deliberation and discussion on political depolarization. In study 1, we invited participants of opposing views toward the Article 23 legislation and conducted a 90-min discussion session. The participants were divided into two groups: deliberation and causal discussion. The deliberation group received an information booklet on the issue and had to strictly follow rules of deliberation whereas the causal discussion group had no such stimuli. In study 2, we used video recordings from study 1 and presented the videos to two groups of participants. One group of participants watched the deliberation video and the other group watched the causal discussion video. The main finding of the study is both deliberation and causal discussion had mixed effects on reducing political polarization. After discussion, issue attitude and issue polarization remained largely the same, but people's attitude toward others with opposing views became more favorable and affective polarization was reduced. No systematic differences were found between deliberation and discussion. And watching discussion and deliberation will deliver similar effects but to a lesser extent.
|
| [83] |
|
| [84] |
Large‐scale e‐mail campaigns are a staple in the modern environmental movement. Interest groups increasingly use online mobilizations as a way to raise awareness, money, and membership. There are legitimate political, economic, and organizational reasons for doing so, but these gains may come at the expense of a more substantial and efficacious role for citizens who wish to use e‐mail to engage in public participation. This paper situates a close examination of the 1000 longest modified MoveOn. Org‐generated e‐mails sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about its 2004 mercury rulemaking, in the broader context of online grassroots lobbying. The findings indicate that only a tiny portion of these public comments constitute potentially relevant new information for the EPA to consider. The vast majority of Move On comments are either exact duplicates of a two‐sentence form letter, or they are variants of a small number of broad claims about the inadequacy of the proposed rule. This paper argues that norms, rules, and tools will emerge to deal with the burden imposed by these communications. More broadly, it raises doubts about the notion that online public participation is a harbinger of a more deliberative and democratic era.
|
| [85] |
|
| [86] |
|
| [87] |
This article discusses the importance of emotions to China’s public life and the way in which the Internet and news media channels have publicized emotional outbursts by the public in China in recent years. An agonistic public sphere is being formed, the basis of which is the expression of emotions, especially hatred, resentment, anger and compassion, both on the Internet and in the news media. As a result, conflicting interests are contested and paradoxes in society are exposed. This development is close to what radical democracy theories conceptualize as an agonistic public sphere. This emotional dimension in public life is a crucial means for China’s subordinated citizens to strive to utilize resources to change the current hierarchy in society. The formation of an agonistic public sphere democratizes communication processes, opens a space for public participation and gives voice to the public who are otherwise silent. The expression of emotions has the potential to break down the Chinese Communist Party’s hegemony.
|
| [88] |
|
| [89] |
|
1. 如成都的袍哥组织广泛使用“公口”一词是指“所有成员进出的地方”。其中的“公”指“全体同意”，“口”是指出入口的地方。参见：王笛（2018）。《袍哥：1940年代川西乡村的暴力与秩序》。北京：北京大学出版社。第104页。
2. “理性的胡闹”的主要表现是，一些人发现利用他人的错误情感、情绪和偏见，能够给自己带来比尊重事实、追求真理更多的心理和实际利益的回报，因此他们便主动选择拥抱错误，不讲真相，不求真理的非理性的状态。参见：Caplan, B. (2001). Rational irrationality and the microfoundations of political failur. Public Choice, 107(3-4), pp.311-331.
3. 在罗尔斯的正义论学说中，平等是一个很重要的条件，因为“只有在他们都是自由而平等的人，他们的相互关系是公正的情况下，他们才能就他们的合作条件取得一致意见”。参见：罗尔斯（1971/1991)。《正义论》（谢延光译）。上海：上海译文出版社。第10页。哈贝马斯接受了米尔斯关于“公众”（public）与“大众”（mass）区别的观点。米尔斯在《权力精英》中从四个方面区分了大众与公众的不同：（1）公众既表达意见也接受意见；大众表达意见的少，接受者多；（2）公众有立即的反应，大众反应困难；（3）公众有组织起反对主流意见的能力，而大众的行动被官方操控；（4）公众的自主和自治程度高，权力机构较难进入，而大众自治程度低。参见：C.赖特.米尔斯（2019）。《权力精英》（李子雯译）。北京：北京时代华文书局。第342页。
4. “系统性扭曲”是一种结构性暴力，它以一种不为人知的方式阻挡了那些形成和传播有效的合法化信念的交流，参见：Habermas, J. (970). On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry, 13(1-4), pp.205-218；“至少有一方在欺骗自己，他是以成功为导向的态度行事的，只是在维持沟通行动的表象”（Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp.332）。如第三帝国就通过现实的和结构性的暴力，并通过其语言表现形式，系统地扭曲交流来进行统治。（Habermas, J. (1983). Philosophical-Political Profiles. (Lawrence, F. G. Trans.). Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press. p.176.）这一扭曲现象在哈贝马斯的职业生涯的后期被忽略了是“令人吃惊和失望的”。爱丽丝·马里恩·杨（2003/2009）。《激进分子对协商民主的挑战》。载詹姆斯·菲什金、彼得·拉斯莱特（主编），《协商民主论争》（张晓敏译）（第123页）。北京：中央编译出版社。Gross, A. G. (2010). Systematically distorted communication: An impediment to social and political change. Informal Logic, 30 (4), pp.335-360.
5. 哈贝马斯（1992/2014）。《在事实与规范之间：关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论》（章世骏译）。北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店。第462页。哈贝马斯在另一篇文章中列举了传统公共领域的五类参与者：（a）代表特殊利益集团的游说者；（b）要么代表一般利益集团，要么代替无法有效代表其利益的边缘化群体的倡导者；（c)在某个专业领域拥有专业或科学知识并被邀请提供建议的专家；（d）道德企业家；（e）在某个领域获得了可感知的个人声誉的知识分子（例如作家和学者），他们自发地参与公共讨论，并宣称要促进普遍利益。参见Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16 (4), pp.411-426.
6. 当被问及为什么选择与他人分享表情包、GIF动图和迷因视频时（无论是公开还是私下分享），大部分人认为幽默是最常见的驱动因素。其中有61%的用户认为“分享行为”加强了和他人的联系感。2022：互联网文化解读报告（2022）。腾讯媒体研究院。检索于：
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
