Habermas, and his piece regarding the public sphere made me think about what society considers "public." In class, we argued whether the class itself was public. While we attend and work in a public, government funded University, the small rhetorics class does not fall under a public designation. Aside from the small class size, the content and discussion of the class will rarely leave the classroom.
Sadie brought up an important point regarding how we define public. The example of the blind artist handing out his work on a public street corner comes to mind. Yes, he is in "public" and interacting with its members, but is he engaging in a public discourse? I think not. The public, in the context of this class, refers to a larger audience. The audience can vary in size, but it is always active in its attention. The artist may have a large audience, but many of its members are passive in their interaction. The defining feature of a public, is engagement.
Now that a public is defined, what is considered public in our society? The example that fits my definition the most is politics. The activity of its audience is higher than most in the public sphere. Not only are its members active listeners, but participants as well. The audience engages in the same discourse as the rhetors.
A similar trend develops now with the many forums of the internet. Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or the comment section of Youtube, active discussion occurs frequently. Opinion is strong theme of the Habermas article, and the private opinions of society are entered into the public sphere through these forums.
My opinion of what the public sphere encapsulates will surely shift. Its constraints shift from setting to setting. By the end of this semester I hopefully be able to have a better understanding of what I consider Public.
Sadie brought up an important point regarding how we define public. The example of the blind artist handing out his work on a public street corner comes to mind. Yes, he is in "public" and interacting with its members, but is he engaging in a public discourse? I think not. The public, in the context of this class, refers to a larger audience. The audience can vary in size, but it is always active in its attention. The artist may have a large audience, but many of its members are passive in their interaction. The defining feature of a public, is engagement.
Now that a public is defined, what is considered public in our society? The example that fits my definition the most is politics. The activity of its audience is higher than most in the public sphere. Not only are its members active listeners, but participants as well. The audience engages in the same discourse as the rhetors.
A similar trend develops now with the many forums of the internet. Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or the comment section of Youtube, active discussion occurs frequently. Opinion is strong theme of the Habermas article, and the private opinions of society are entered into the public sphere through these forums.
My opinion of what the public sphere encapsulates will surely shift. Its constraints shift from setting to setting. By the end of this semester I hopefully be able to have a better understanding of what I consider Public.
The blind musician you're referring to, Moondog, was very much part of several publics - and because of those tangential relationships, I am on the fence about whether or not he stood alone as a public. He internalized several schools of thought: he had exposure to both Native American music education and to more 'formal' music practices, and he was a well-known autodidact.
ReplyDeleteHe then externalized much of that into handing out his work (both music and poetry), those hard copies cementing his engagement in finding a voice and a public to belong to - and if you can't find a public that already exists, you might have to create one by first building a forum.
I do agree with the "active" ideology of a public, in that one who always takes and does not give is pretty much a passive moocher. Have any thoughts about benefitting from versus contributing to a public?
In response both to the point of the blind musician and Cat's comment, in this kind of situation (in which one disperses their work/opinion individually) I would say that he is actively engaging with a public but not a public himself. To me, his work can be considered public discourse, but he himself wouldn't be a "public".
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, an individual isn't a public, but engages in public discourse when delivering his/her opinions to a public. To me , one belongs to several publics and interacts among them on an individual level when voicing opinions. That is to say, one person can't speak for an entire public, so unless the opinions are the result of collective decision/debate, they are simply the ideologies of a single person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew's point about what doesn't leave the classroom is really cool. This makes me think all of what we say is secret! But when really it's just a quality discussion about what public rhetoric is. I just thought, what about all of the groups on Facebook that are places where people can chat. Is that private public? As in a group where people can post and see others posts but you need access to get into the group? Or is it just a public place inside the public.
ReplyDelete