Relevant	
  Theory	
  and	
  Research	
  -­‐	
  Sociology	
  
	
  
	
  
2.1	
  Civil	
  Society	
  
	
  
Civil	
  society	
  refers	
  to	
  a	
  segment	
  of	
  society	
  apart	
  from	
  commerce	
  and	
  government	
  occupied	
  by	
  
individuals	
  and	
  groups	
  in	
  public	
  life	
  outside	
  the	
  home,	
  encompassing	
  their	
  cultural,	
  ethical,	
  
political,	
  and/or	
  religious	
  interests	
  (Powell	
  2007,	
  O'Connell	
  1999,	
  McDonald	
  1997,	
  Zaleski	
  
2006).	
  Individuals	
  commonly	
  pursue	
  these	
  interests	
  through	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  voluntary	
  activities	
  in	
  
conjunction	
  with	
  community	
  groups,	
  labor	
  unions,	
  indigenous	
  groups,	
  charitable	
  organizations,	
  
faith-­‐based	
  organizations,	
  professional	
  associations,	
  and	
  numerous	
  other	
  structures.	
  Individuals	
  
and	
  the	
  groups	
  that	
  comprise	
  civil	
  society	
  connect	
  through	
  their	
  public	
  and	
  private	
  networks	
  of	
  
social	
  values	
  and	
  institutions.	
  Participation	
  in	
  community	
  media	
  then,	
  can	
  be	
  understood	
  as	
  a	
  
component	
  of	
  civil	
  society,	
  and	
  thus	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  devote	
  some	
  attention	
  to	
  this	
  concept.	
  
	
  
Theoretical	
  conceptualizations	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  can	
  be	
  difficult	
  and	
  ambiguous,	
  as	
  Cohen	
  and	
  
Arato	
  (1992,	
  27)	
  contend	
  “there	
  is	
  no	
  sufficiently	
  complex	
  theory	
  that	
  is	
  available	
  today”.	
  The	
  
realm	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  is	
  a	
  concept	
  said	
  to	
  have	
  originated	
  in	
  the	
  texts	
  of	
  Aristotle	
  as	
  the	
  term	
  
“koinōnía	
  politike”,	
  which	
  describes	
  a	
  portion	
  of	
  society,	
  apart	
  from	
  government,	
  consisting	
  of	
  a	
  
community	
  of	
  citizens	
  with	
  shared	
  interests	
  (Davis	
  1996),	
  larger	
  than	
  the	
  privacy	
  of	
  family	
  and	
  
the	
  ethos	
  of	
  the	
  workplace.	
  Emmanuel	
  Kant	
  (1892)	
  positioned	
  the	
  concept	
  as	
  the	
  free	
  exercise	
  
of	
  reason	
  by	
  indviduals	
  in	
  opposition	
  to	
  the	
  monarchies	
  of	
  medieval	
  times,	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  period	
  of	
  
the	
  enlightenment,	
  John	
  Locke	
  built	
  upon	
  his	
  colleague	
  Thomas	
  Hobbes'	
  societal	
  "social	
  
contract"	
  to	
  delineate	
  civil	
  society	
  from	
  the	
  state	
  in	
  a	
  peaceful	
  coexistence	
  (O'Brien	
  1999).	
  
Upon	
  the	
  industrial	
  revolution	
  and	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  modernity,	
  the	
  romanticist	
  Wilhelm	
  Freidrick	
  
Hegel	
  (1896)	
  introduced	
  his	
  “bürgerliche	
  gesellschaft”	
  concept	
  of	
  a	
  free	
  civilian	
  society,	
  which	
  
effectively	
  launched	
  wide	
  debates	
  about	
  the	
  nature	
  and	
  role	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  in	
  the	
  modern	
  
European	
  nation-­‐state.	
  Among	
  the	
  most	
  important	
  theoretical	
  debates	
  spawned	
  by	
  Hegel	
  
centers	
  around	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  culture	
  and	
  politics	
  as	
  primary	
  and	
  legitimate	
  roles	
  for	
  civil	
  
society.	
  Following	
  Hegel	
  in	
  the	
  19th	
  century,	
  the	
  romanticist	
  Alexis	
  de	
  Tocqueville	
  emphasized	
  
the	
  primacy	
  of	
  culture	
  (Maker	
  1994),	
  whereas	
  in	
  the	
  20th	
  century,	
  Antonio	
  Gramsci	
  (1971,	
  477)	
  
took	
  a	
  strong	
  position	
  on	
  the	
  political	
  aspect	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  as	
  “the	
  site	
  of	
  hegemonic	
  struggle,	
  
resistance	
  to	
  repressive	
  regimes	
  and	
  corporate	
  power,	
  and	
  a	
  facility	
  for	
  social	
  transformation”.	
  
This	
  duality	
  of	
  purpose	
  between	
  culture	
  and	
  politics	
  forms	
  a	
  foundation	
  for	
  further	
  discussions	
  
about	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  in	
  today's	
  post-­‐modern	
  democracies,	
  and	
  the	
  communities	
  within.	
  
	
  
Many	
  current	
  scholars	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  in	
  the	
  reproduction	
  of	
  culture	
  and	
  
development	
  of	
  communities	
  (Putnam	
  et	
  al	
  1994,	
  Perlas	
  2013,	
  Kaufman	
  and	
  Dilla-­‐Alfonso	
  
1997).	
  Civil	
  society	
  for	
  these	
  theorists	
  is	
  bound	
  together	
  by	
  nature	
  and	
  social	
  connections	
  that	
  
often	
  take	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  cultural	
  representations,	
  transmitting	
  values	
  and	
  behaviors	
  among	
  
participant	
  individuals	
  and	
  groups.	
  Culture	
  as	
  a	
  concept	
  in	
  this	
  context	
  can	
  take	
  many	
  forms,	
  
reflected	
  in	
  the	
  various	
  participants	
  and	
  organizations	
  that	
  comprise	
  civil	
  society.	
  Agnes	
  Heller	
  
(2001,	
  141)	
  writes:	
  "Civil	
  society	
  consists	
  thus	
  of	
  a	
  mosaic	
  of	
  identities	
  and	
  non-­‐identities,	
  of	
  a	
  
mosaic	
  of	
  groups	
  of	
  cultural	
  memory	
  formation".	
  Beyond	
  the	
  representation	
  of	
  identities,	
  
culture	
  is	
  often	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  citizens	
  and	
  delivered	
  by	
  components	
  of	
  civil	
  society.	
  
For	
  example,	
  Bruce	
  Sievers	
  (2009)	
  argues	
  that	
  not-­‐for-­‐profit	
  arts	
  groups	
  situated	
  in	
  civil	
  society	
  
"advance	
  pluralism,	
  promote	
  voluntary	
  action,	
  accommodate	
  diversity,	
  and	
  champion	
  
individual	
  visions	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  good".	
  
	
  
The	
  primary	
  role	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  to	
  other	
  scholars	
  is	
  to	
  counter	
  the	
  political	
  power	
  and	
  
dominance	
  of	
  elites	
  in	
  government	
  and	
  commerce	
  (Godwin	
  1971,	
  Barber	
  1984,	
  Mueller	
  et	
  al	
  
2007,	
  Chomsky	
  1996).	
  Dominant	
  themes	
  in	
  this	
  view	
  include	
  the	
  marginalization	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  
in	
  the	
  political	
  sphere,	
  and	
  the	
  exclusion	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  from	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process.	
  In	
  
turn,	
  a	
  politically	
  active	
  civil	
  society	
  seeks	
  proportional	
  representation	
  in	
  politics	
  that	
  restores	
  
citizens'	
  legitimate	
  role	
  in	
  decision-­‐making,	
  and	
  a	
  transfer	
  of	
  power	
  from	
  governments	
  and	
  
commercial	
  interests.	
  Ramirez	
  (2007,	
  38)	
  argues	
  that	
  these	
  demands	
  require	
  "the	
  initiatives	
  of	
  
grassroots	
  organizations,	
  of	
  local	
  popular	
  movements	
  that	
  endeavour	
  to	
  counteract	
  extreme	
  
forms	
  of	
  social	
  exclusion	
  and	
  open	
  up	
  new	
  spaces	
  for	
  democratic	
  participation".	
  Extreme	
  forms	
  
of	
  repression	
  can	
  often	
  result	
  in	
  radical	
  forms	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  taking	
  aggressive	
  actions	
  in	
  pursuit	
  
of	
  their	
  ideological	
  agendas.	
  These	
  radical	
  forms	
  seek	
  to	
  alter	
  social	
  structures	
  and	
  change	
  
value	
  systems	
  imposed	
  by	
  perceived	
  political	
  hegemony,	
  using	
  whatever	
  tactics	
  necessary	
  to	
  
effect	
  results	
  (Markowitz	
  2003).	
  Adrian	
  Little	
  (2002,	
  103)	
  also	
  cites	
  economic	
  factors	
  as	
  an	
  
important	
  basis	
  for	
  radical	
  civil	
  society	
  activity:	
  "where	
  radical	
  democrats	
  have	
  tended	
  to	
  focus	
  
on	
  a	
  differentiated	
  space	
  for	
  political	
  engagement...we	
  should	
  do	
  the	
  same	
  for	
  economic	
  and	
  
non-­‐economic	
  activities	
  and,	
  in	
  so	
  doing,	
  construct	
  an	
  alternative	
  political	
  economy	
  to	
  the	
  
hegemony	
  of	
  market	
  discourses".	
  An	
  ideological	
  civil	
  society	
  however,	
  does	
  not	
  exist	
  solely	
  in	
  
tension	
  with	
  the	
  state	
  and/or	
  commercial	
  interests	
  and	
  can	
  actually	
  strengthen	
  citizens'	
  respect	
  
for	
  these	
  societal	
  institutions	
  through	
  its	
  watchdog	
  role,	
  promoting	
  active	
  citizenship	
  within	
  a	
  
cooperative	
  political	
  environment	
  (Diamond	
  2004).	
  
	
  
Whether	
  representing	
  culture	
  or	
  political	
  ideology,	
  active	
  citizenship	
  and	
  democratic	
  
participation	
  are	
  basic	
  requirements	
  of	
  all	
  functioning	
  democracies.	
  The	
  construction	
  of	
  civil	
  
society,	
  comprised	
  of	
  individuals,	
  groups	
  and	
  communities,	
  is	
  also	
  an	
  important	
  frame	
  through	
  
which	
  to	
  examine	
  the	
  concept.	
  The	
  integration	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  with	
  civil	
  society	
  was	
  initially	
  
portrayed	
  in	
  Husserl’s	
  “life	
  world”,	
  made	
  up	
  of	
  systems	
  which	
  grow	
  out	
  of	
  relationships	
  among	
  
individuals	
  (1970,	
  108).	
  The	
  concept	
  of	
  life	
  world	
  was	
  adapted	
  by	
  Jürgen	
  Habermas	
  to	
  
emphasize	
  the	
  social	
  environment	
  comprised	
  of	
  competencies	
  and	
  practices.	
  In	
  his	
  theory	
  of	
  
communicative	
  action,	
  Habermas	
  (1987)	
  positioned	
  civil	
  society	
  as	
  a	
  central	
  component	
  of	
  his	
  
non-­‐economic	
  public	
  sphere	
  where	
  citizens	
  could	
  freely	
  assemble,	
  establish	
  connections	
  among	
  
communities,	
  and	
  have	
  their	
  voices	
  heard.	
  He	
  states:	
  “In	
  communicative	
  action	
  participants	
  are	
  
not	
  primarily	
  oriented	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  success;	
  they	
  pursue	
  their	
  goals	
  under	
  the	
  condition	
  that	
  
they	
  can	
  harmonize	
  their	
  plans	
  of	
  action	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  common	
  situation	
  definitions”	
  (118).	
  
Within	
  civil	
  society,	
  Habermas	
  (ibid,	
  86)	
  identifies	
  avenues	
  for	
  development	
  called	
  “possibility	
  
spaces”	
  that	
  provide	
  the	
  fertile	
  soil	
  for	
  development	
  and	
  advancement	
  of	
  the	
  actors'	
  utility.	
  
Here	
  he	
  seems	
  to	
  integrate	
  the	
  micro	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  with	
  the	
  macro	
  of	
  the	
  societal	
  structured	
  
norm,	
  to	
  find	
  a	
  balance	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  the	
  social	
  structures	
  and	
  processes	
  that	
  define	
  civil	
  
society.	
  	
  
	
  
Scholars	
  such	
  as	
  Bourdieu	
  (1984),	
  Giddens	
  (1998)	
  and	
  Carey	
  (1989)	
  identified	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  mass	
  
communication	
  in	
  the	
  reproduction	
  of	
  culture	
  within	
  civil	
  society	
  as	
  a	
  functioning	
  component	
  of	
  
democratic	
  pluralism.	
  Charles	
  Husband	
  (1998,	
  136)	
  writes	
  that	
  media	
  is	
  "a	
  core	
  element	
  in	
  civil	
  
society	
  and	
  a	
  fundamental	
  prerequisite	
  for	
  the	
  promotion	
  of	
  civic	
  trust	
  in	
  multi-­‐ethnic	
  
societies".	
  Mainstream	
  media	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  commercial	
  and	
  public	
  service	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  a	
  
primary	
  driver	
  of	
  cultural	
  reproduction,	
  but	
  when	
  individuals	
  and	
  groups	
  are	
  misrepresented	
  or	
  
denied	
  access,	
  they	
  can	
  look	
  to	
  alternative	
  media	
  forms	
  situated	
  in	
  civil	
  society	
  for	
  the	
  
representation	
  and	
  transmission	
  of	
  their	
  culture.	
  Kevin	
  Howley	
  (2010,	
  5)	
  writes:	
  "through	
  the	
  
production	
  and	
  dissemination	
  of	
  media	
  texts	
  that	
  assert	
  and	
  affirm	
  cultural	
  identities,	
  
community	
  media	
  make	
  visible	
  cultural	
  differences	
  in	
  discursive	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  social	
  space".	
  	
  
	
  
Communities	
  of	
  identity,	
  such	
  as	
  ethnic	
  minorities	
  and	
  marginalized	
  groups,	
  comprise	
  an	
  
important	
  segment	
  of	
  civil	
  society,	
  and	
  in	
  turn	
  a	
  significant	
  subset	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  
participants.	
  Positive	
  representations	
  of	
  their	
  culture	
  facilitated	
  by	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  can	
  
lead	
  to	
  social	
  inclusion	
  and	
  opportunities	
  for	
  positive	
  participation	
  in	
  society	
  for	
  themselves	
  and	
  
their	
  communities	
  (Perkins,	
  2010).	
  The	
  Alliance	
  des	
  Radios	
  Communautaires	
  du	
  Canada	
  (ARC)	
  
(2015)	
  says	
  about	
  community	
  radio	
  "Its	
  airwaves	
  reflect	
  the	
  cultural	
  reality:	
  songs,	
  music,	
  
writing	
  of	
  the	
  French-­‐speaking	
  population	
  it	
  serves.	
  Community	
  radio	
  stations	
  are	
  the	
  best	
  
standard-­‐bearers	
  of	
  our	
  culture".	
  In	
  this	
  context	
  of	
  participatory	
  democracy,	
  community	
  
broadcasting	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  to	
  reconnect	
  local	
  populations	
  with	
  the	
  civic	
  and	
  cultural	
  life	
  of	
  their	
  
communities	
  (Howley	
  2000).	
  
	
  
When	
  examining	
  broadcast	
  mass	
  media	
  for	
  political	
  discourse	
  in	
  democratic	
  societies,	
  scholars	
  
commonly	
  focus	
  primarily	
  on	
  public	
  service	
  and	
  commercial	
  broadcasters	
  (Zaller	
  1999).	
  While	
  
civil	
  society	
  is	
  regularly	
  seen	
  as	
  included	
  in	
  this	
  discourse,	
  other	
  scholars	
  argue	
  that	
  civil	
  society	
  
is	
  actually	
  misrepresented	
  and	
  often	
  marginalized	
  by	
  these	
  forums	
  (McChesney	
  and	
  Nichols	
  
2002,	
  Coyer	
  et	
  al	
  2007).	
  In	
  addition,	
  mainstream	
  media	
  is	
  often	
  seen	
  as	
  unduly	
  influenced	
  by	
  
commercial	
  and	
  political	
  interests;	
  compromising	
  their	
  legitimacy	
  as	
  a	
  true	
  pluralistic	
  forum	
  
(Stetka	
  2012b).	
  Civil	
  society-­‐based	
  indviduals,	
  groups	
  and	
  organizations	
  then	
  turn	
  to	
  alternative	
  
media	
  forms	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  voice	
  in	
  democratic	
  discourse,	
  and	
  as	
  a	
  counterbalance	
  to	
  the	
  
dominant	
  media	
  power	
  of	
  government	
  and	
  commercial	
  elites.	
  Social,	
  environmental,	
  economic	
  
and	
  political	
  justice	
  for	
  all	
  citizens	
  are	
  among	
  the	
  many	
  political	
  issues	
  addressed	
  by	
  alternative	
  
media	
  (Atton	
  2002).	
  As	
  a	
  subset	
  of	
  alternative	
  media,	
  transmission	
  of	
  political	
  representations	
  
is	
  a	
  common	
  component	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting,	
  where	
  members	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  promote	
  
their	
  agendas	
  and	
  advocate	
  for	
  various	
  social	
  movements.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
  political	
  orientation	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  commonly	
  combined	
  with	
  cultural	
  
pursuits	
  to	
  form	
  a	
  "mixed	
  model"	
  which	
  is	
  ubiquitous	
  throughout	
  the	
  world.	
  A	
  more	
  strident	
  
political	
  version	
  of	
  this	
  model	
  can	
  often	
  be	
  found	
  where	
  ideological	
  opposition	
  to	
  government	
  
is	
  more	
  prevalent,	
  and	
  participants'	
  basis	
  for	
  civil	
  society	
  takes	
  a	
  more	
  oppositional	
  political	
  
form.	
  That	
  dynamic	
  is	
  reflected	
  in	
  community	
  broadcasters	
  with	
  a	
  strong	
  ideological	
  approach,	
  
such	
  as	
  Radio	
  Vallekas	
  (2015)	
  in	
  Madrid,	
  founded	
  on	
  a	
  commitment	
  to:	
  "Garantizar	
  el	
  ejercicio	
  
directo	
  del	
  derecho	
  a	
  la	
  comunicación	
  a	
  toda	
  la	
  ciudadanía."	
  ("Guarantee	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  
communicate	
  for	
  all	
  citizens").	
  The	
  extreme	
  version	
  of	
  politically-­‐oriented	
  community	
  
broadcasting	
  arose	
  from	
  this	
  oppositional	
  model	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  radical	
  media	
  movement.	
  The	
  
scholar	
  John	
  Downing	
  (2001,	
  v)	
  describes	
  radical	
  media	
  as:	
  "generally	
  small-­‐scale	
  and	
  in	
  many	
  
different	
  forms,	
  that	
  express	
  an	
  alternative	
  vision	
  to	
  hegemonic	
  policies,	
  and	
  perspectives".	
  
Radical	
  media	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  context	
  transmits	
  political	
  representations	
  
through	
  radio	
  and	
  television	
  programs	
  produced	
  locally	
  by	
  participants,	
  and/or	
  distributed	
  
internationally	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  transnational	
  networks	
  for	
  journalism	
  and	
  political	
  activism.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
References	
  
	
  
Alliance	
  des	
  Radios	
  Communautaires	
  du	
  Canada	
  (ARC).	
  What	
  is	
  Community	
  Radio?	
  
http://www.amarc.org/?q=node/47	
  Accessed	
  29.11.2015	
  
	
  
Atton,	
  C.	
  (2002).	
  Alternative	
  Media.	
  London:	
  Sage.	
  
	
  
Barber,	
  B.	
  (1984).	
  Strong	
  Democracy:	
  Participatory	
  Politics	
  for	
  a	
  New	
  Age.	
  Berkeley:	
  University	
  
of	
  California	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Bourdieu,	
  P.	
  (1984).	
  Distinction:	
  A	
  Social	
  Critique	
  of	
  the	
  Judgment	
  of	
  Taste.	
  translated	
  by	
  
Richard	
  Nice,	
  Cambridge,	
  MA.:	
  Harvard	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Carey,	
  J.	
  (1989).	
  Communication	
  as	
  Culture:	
  Essays	
  on	
  Media	
  and	
  Society.	
  New	
  York:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
Chomsky,	
  N.	
  (1996).	
  Powers	
  and	
  Prospects:	
  Reflections	
  on	
  Human	
  Nature	
  and	
  the	
  Social	
  Order.	
  
London:	
  Pluto	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Cohen,	
  J.	
  and	
  A.	
  Arato.	
  (1994).	
  Civil	
  Society	
  and	
  Political	
  Theory.	
  Cambridge,	
  MA.:	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Coyer,	
  K.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2008).	
  The	
  Alternative	
  Media	
  Handbook.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
Diamond,	
  L.	
  (2004).	
  What	
  Civil	
  Society	
  Can	
  Do	
  to	
  Develop	
  Democracy.	
  Stanford	
  University.	
  
https://web.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/Develop_Democracy021002.htm	
  Accessed	
  15.1.2016	
  
	
  
Downing,	
  J.,	
  G.	
  Gil,	
  and	
  L.	
  Stein	
  (2001).	
  Radical	
  Media:	
  Rebellious	
  Communication	
  and	
  Social	
  
Movements	
  (New	
  ed.).	
  Thousand	
  Oaks,	
  Calif.:	
  Sage	
  Publications.	
  
	
  
Fischer,	
  C.	
  (1992).	
  America	
  Calling:	
  A	
  Social	
  History	
  of	
  the	
  Telephone	
  to	
  1940.	
  University	
  of	
  
California	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Giddens,	
  A.	
  (1998)	
  The	
  Third	
  Way.	
  The	
  Renewal	
  of	
  Social	
  Democracy.	
  Cambridge:	
  Polity.	
  
	
  
Godwin,	
  W.	
  (1971).	
  Enquiry	
  Concerning	
  Political	
  Justice.	
  Oxford:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Habermas,	
  J.	
  (1987).	
  “Lifeworld	
  and	
  System:	
  A	
  Critique	
  of	
  Functionalist	
  Reason”,	
  Volume	
  2	
  of	
  
The	
  Theory	
  of	
  Communicative	
  Action,	
  English	
  translation	
  by	
  T.	
  McCarthy.	
  	
  Boston:	
  Beacon	
  Press	
  
(originally	
  published	
  in	
  German	
  in	
  1981).	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Hegel,	
  G.	
  (1896).	
  The	
  Philosophy	
  of	
  Right.	
  English	
  translation	
  by	
  S.	
  Hyde.	
  London:	
  George	
  Bell	
  
and	
  Sons.	
  (originally	
  published	
  in	
  German	
  in	
  1820).	
  
	
  
Heller,	
  A.	
  (2001)	
  Cultural	
  memory,	
  Identity	
  and	
  Society.	
  Thousand	
  Oaks,	
  CA.:	
  Sage	
  Publications.	
  
	
  
Howley,	
  K.	
  (ed.).	
  (2010).	
  Understanding	
  Community	
  Media.	
  London:	
  Sage.	
  
	
  
Howley,	
  K.	
  	
  (2000).	
  “Radiocracy	
  Rulz!	
  Microradio	
  as	
  Electronic	
  Activism”.	
  International	
  Journal	
  
of	
  Cultural	
  Studies.	
  Volume	
  3(2):	
  256–267.	
  London:	
  Sage.	
  
	
  
Husband.	
  (1998).	
  "Differentiated	
  Citizenship	
  and	
  the	
  Multi-­‐Ethnic	
  Public	
  Sphere."	
  The	
  Journal	
  of	
  
International	
  Communication,	
  5(1&2).	
  
	
  
Kant,	
  E.	
  (1892).	
  The	
  Critique	
  of	
  Judgment.	
  English	
  translation	
  by	
  J.	
  Bernard.	
  London:	
  MacMillan.	
  
(originally	
  published	
  in	
  German	
  in	
  1790).	
  
	
  
Kaufman,	
  M.	
  and	
  H.	
  Della	
  Alfonso.	
  (eds.).	
  (1997).	
  Community	
  Power	
  and	
  Grassroots	
  
Democracy:	
  the	
  transformation	
  of	
  social	
  life.	
  London:	
  Zed	
  Books/IDRC.	
  
	
  
Kippen,	
  C.	
  (2013).	
  “Brief	
  History	
  of	
  the	
  Pirate	
  Radio	
  Stations	
  (UK)”.	
  
http://www.zani.co.uk/culture/687-­‐brief-­‐history-­‐of-­‐the-­‐pirate-­‐radio-­‐stations-­‐uk	
  Accessed	
  
6.1.2016	
  
	
  
Little,	
  A.	
  (2002).	
  “Rethinking	
  Civil	
  Society:	
  Radical	
  Politics	
  and	
  the	
  Legitimization	
  of	
  Unpaid	
  
Activities”.	
  Contemporary	
  Politics.	
  Vol	
  8,	
  Issue	
  2.	
  Pp.	
  103-­‐115.	
  
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13569770220150660?redirect=1	
  Accessed	
  
15.1.2016	
  
	
  
MacDonald,	
  L.	
  (1997).	
  Supporting	
  Civil	
  Society:	
  The	
  Political	
  Role	
  of	
  Non-­‐Government	
  
Organisations	
  in	
  Central	
  America.	
  Basingstoke:	
  Macmillan.	
  
	
  
Maker,	
  W.	
  (1994).	
  Philosophy	
  Without	
  Foundations:	
  Rethinking	
  Hegel.	
  State	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  
York	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Markowitz,	
  N.	
  (2003).	
  "Radicals	
  and	
  Radicalism."	
  Dictionary	
  of	
  American	
  History.	
  	
  
Encyclopedia.com.	
  http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-­‐3401803495.html	
  
Accessed	
  10.1.2016	
  
	
  
McChesney	
  R.	
  and	
  J.	
  Nichols	
  (2002).	
  Our	
  Media,	
  Not	
  Theirs:	
  The	
  Democratic	
  Struggle	
  Against	
  
Corporate	
  Media.	
  New	
  York:	
  Seven	
  Stories	
  Press	
  
	
  
	
  
Mueller,	
  M.	
  et	
  al.	
  (2007).	
  "Democratizing	
  Global	
  Communication?	
  Global	
  Civil	
  Society	
  and	
  the	
  
Campaign	
  for	
  Communication	
  Rights	
  in	
  the	
  Information	
  Society"	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  
Communication,	
  1	
  p.	
  267-­‐296.	
  
	
  
O'Brien,	
  R.	
  (1999).	
  “Philosophical	
  History	
  of	
  the	
  Idea	
  of	
  Civil	
  Society”.	
  	
  
http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/civhist.html	
  Accessed	
  5.1.2016	
  
	
  
O'Connell,	
  Brian.	
  (1999).	
  Civil	
  Society:	
  The	
  Underpinnings	
  of	
  American	
  Democracy.	
  Medford,	
  
Mass:	
  Tufts	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Perkins,	
  J.	
  	
  (2010).	
  "Social	
  and	
  Community	
  Media	
  in	
  Poor	
  and	
  Marginalized	
  Urban	
  Communities:	
  
A	
  Study	
  of	
  Collective	
  Action	
  in	
  Kiber"	
  (2010).	
  Independent	
  Study	
  Project	
  (ISP)	
  Collection.	
  
http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/819/	
  Accessed	
  6.1.2016	
  
	
  
Perlas,	
  N.	
  (2003).	
  Shaping	
  Globalization:	
  Civil	
  Society,	
  Cultural	
  Power	
  and	
  Threefolding.	
  
Vancouver:	
  New	
  Society.	
  
	
  
Putnam,	
  R.	
  and	
  R.	
  Leonardi,	
  R.	
  Nanetti,	
  R.	
  Leonardi,	
  R.Y.	
  Nanetti.	
  (1994).	
  Making	
  Democracy	
  
Work:	
  Civic	
  Traditions	
  in	
  Modern	
  Italy.	
  Princeton	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Radio	
  FRO.	
  (2015).	
  “Programm	
  für	
  Sonntag,	
  03.01.2016”.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
http://www.fro.at/programm.php?d=03&m=01&y=2016	
  Accessed	
  6.1.2016	
  
	
  
Radio	
  Orange.	
  (2015).	
  “About	
  Radio	
  Orange”.	
  http://o94.at/submenu/ueber-­‐orange-­‐94-­‐
0/?lang=en	
  Accessed	
  6.1.2016	
  
	
  
Radio	
  Vallekas	
  (2007).	
  “Objetivos”.	
  http://www.radiovallekas.org/spip/spip.php?article16	
  
Accessed	
  7.1.2016	
  
	
  
Ramirez,	
  M.	
  (2007).	
  The	
  Politics	
  of	
  Recognition	
  and	
  Citizenship	
  in	
  Putumayo	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  Baja	
  Bota	
  
of	
  Cauca:	
  The	
  Case	
  of	
  the	
  1996	
  Cocalero	
  Movement.	
  Centro	
  de	
  Estudos	
  Sociais	
  (CES)	
  da	
  
Universidade	
  de	
  Coimbra.	
  	
  http://www.ces.uc.pt/emancipa/research/en/ft/marchas.html	
  
Accessed	
  10.1.2016	
  
	
  
Sievers,	
  B.	
  (2009).	
  What	
  is	
  Civil	
  Society?	
  Grantmakers	
  in	
  the	
  Arts.	
  
http://www.giarts.org/article/what-­‐civil-­‐society	
  Accessed	
  10.1.2016	
  
	
  
Štětka,	
  V.	
  (2012).	
  “From	
  Multinationals	
  to	
  Business	
  Tycoons:	
  Media	
  Ownership	
  and	
  Journalistic	
  
Autonomy	
  in	
  Central	
  and	
  Eastern	
  Europe”.	
  The	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  Press/Politics,	
  Vol.	
  17	
  
(4),	
  pp.	
  433-­‐456.	
  
	
  
Zaleski,	
  P.	
  (2006).	
  "Global	
  Non-­‐Governmental	
  Administrative	
  System:	
  Geosociology	
  of	
  the	
  Third	
  
Sector".	
  in	
  Gawin,	
  D.	
  and	
  P.	
  Glinski.	
  (eds.).	
  Civil	
  Society	
  in	
  the	
  Making.	
  Warsaw:	
  IFiS	
  Publishers.	
  
	
  
Zaller,	
  J.	
  (1999).	
  A	
  Theory	
  of	
  Media	
  Politics.	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago.	
  
http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/ZallerTheoryofMediaPolitics%2810-­‐99%29.pdf	
  
Accessed	
  10.1.2016	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
2.2	
  The	
  Public	
  Sphere	
  
	
  
In	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  the	
  20th	
  century,	
  new	
  technologies	
  such	
  as	
  radio	
  and	
  film	
  were	
  gaining	
  mass	
  
audiences,	
  extending	
  the	
  ubiquitous	
  reach	
  of	
  newspapers,	
  to	
  form	
  what	
  Horkheimer	
  and	
  
Adorno	
  (1992)	
  named	
  the	
  “culture	
  industries”.	
  They	
  theorized	
  that	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  large	
  cultural	
  
industry	
  players	
  had	
  created	
  a	
  structured,	
  supply-­‐driven	
  system	
  that:	
  “integrates	
  its	
  consumers	
  
from	
  above”	
  and	
  was	
  negating	
  the	
  opportunities	
  for	
  individuals	
  and	
  small	
  groups	
  of	
  producers	
  
to	
  comprise	
  “a	
  more	
  diverse	
  and	
  pluralistic	
  platform	
  for	
  societal	
  understanding"	
  (Adorno	
  1991,	
  
99).	
  The	
  phenomenon	
  of	
  “media”	
  evolved	
  to	
  gain	
  acceptance	
  in	
  the	
  collective	
  consciousness	
  of	
  
western	
  societies,	
  but	
  also	
  retained	
  the	
  components	
  of	
  social	
  and	
  cultural	
  activities	
  (Briggs	
  and	
  
Burke	
  2009).	
  Horkheimer	
  and	
  Adorno	
  also	
  recommended	
  that	
  sociology	
  needed	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  
deeper	
  look	
  at	
  how	
  individuals	
  and	
  structures	
  interact,	
  and	
  that	
  researching	
  the	
  development	
  
of	
  public	
  policy	
  should	
  include	
  not	
  just	
  an	
  examination	
  of	
  the	
  actors'	
  behavior,	
  but	
  also	
  an	
  
exploration	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  systems	
  upon	
  which	
  the	
  actions	
  were	
  based.	
  Jürgen	
  Habermas	
  was	
  a	
  
student	
  and	
  protege	
  of	
  Horkheimer	
  and	
  Adorno	
  at	
  the	
  Frankfurt	
  School.	
  He	
  published	
  his	
  1961	
  
habilitation	
  thesis	
  The	
  Structural	
  Transformation	
  of	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere,	
  a	
  landmark	
  work	
  that	
  
explores	
  themes	
  of	
  democracy,	
  social	
  developments,	
  civil	
  society	
  and	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  media.	
  It	
  also	
  
generated	
  numerous	
  critiques	
  and	
  further	
  discussions	
  on	
  these	
  subjects	
  that	
  still	
  resonate	
  
today	
  and	
  form	
  a	
  theoretical	
  foundation	
  for	
  this	
  research	
  project.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  Structural	
  Transformation	
  of	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere	
  argues	
  that	
  a	
  participatory	
  bourgeois	
  public	
  
sphere	
  of	
  real	
  discourse	
  among	
  equals,	
  was	
  eventually	
  transformed	
  into	
  a	
  site	
  of	
  spectator	
  
politics	
  manipulated	
  by	
  elites	
  who	
  took	
  control	
  of	
  the	
  medium	
  (Habermas	
  1989,	
  159).	
  For	
  
Habermas,	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  initially	
  merged	
  the	
  private	
  concerns	
  of	
  literate	
  individuals	
  
regarding	
  family	
  and	
  social	
  integration	
  with	
  the	
  larger	
  public	
  concerns	
  of	
  society.	
  These	
  
concerns	
  were	
  presented	
  in	
  spaces	
  reserved	
  for	
  open	
  discourse	
  among	
  citizens	
  intended	
  to	
  
identify	
  and	
  prioritize	
  interests	
  for	
  the	
  common	
  good.	
  Individuals	
  could	
  inform	
  and	
  influence	
  
public	
  opinion,	
  even	
  if	
  it	
  was	
  in	
  opposition	
  to	
  the	
  current	
  political	
  status	
  quo.	
  Habermas	
  stated:	
  
"The	
  public	
  sphere	
  as	
  a	
  functional	
  element	
  in	
  the	
  political	
  realm	
  was	
  given	
  the	
  normative	
  status	
  
of	
  an	
  organ	
  for	
  the	
  self-­‐articulation	
  of	
  civil	
  society	
  with	
  a	
  state	
  authority	
  corresponding	
  to	
  its	
  
needs"	
  (74).	
  	
  
	
  
Populating	
  this	
  public	
  sphere	
  were	
  the	
  citizens	
  who,	
  through	
  their	
  participation,	
  seek	
  
communication,	
  representation,	
  and	
  association.	
  They	
  participate	
  as	
  individuals	
  initially,	
  but	
  
also	
  constituting	
  groups	
  that,	
  aggregating	
  around	
  shared	
  issues	
  and/or	
  interests,	
  become	
  
“publics”	
  (Newman	
  and	
  Clarke	
  2009).	
  Enabled	
  by	
  the	
  democratic	
  revolutions	
  of	
  the	
  late	
  18th	
  
century,	
  participation	
  in	
  these	
  public	
  meetings	
  became	
  protected	
  by	
  law,	
  representing	
  early	
  
examples	
  of	
  free	
  speech,	
  freedom	
  of	
  assembly,	
  and	
  freedom	
  of	
  the	
  press	
  (Antonio	
  and	
  Keller	
  
1992).	
  These	
  protections	
  facilitated	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  as	
  a	
  secure	
  place	
  for	
  
individuals	
  and	
  groups	
  to	
  discuss	
  issues	
  of	
  common	
  interest	
  and	
  organize	
  against	
  what	
  they	
  
viewed	
  as	
  the	
  sources	
  of	
  social	
  and	
  political	
  oppression.	
  	
  
	
  
According	
  to	
  Habermas,	
  the	
  degradation	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  began	
  in	
  the	
  late	
  19th	
  century	
  
concurrent	
  with	
  the	
  societal	
  transition	
  to	
  a	
  system	
  marked	
  by	
  merging	
  economic	
  and	
  political	
  
forces,	
  the	
  decline	
  of	
  the	
  individual,	
  and	
  the	
  manipulation	
  of	
  the	
  culture	
  industries.	
  In	
  this	
  new	
  
environment,	
  public	
  opinion	
  became	
  the	
  province	
  of	
  newspapers	
  with	
  large	
  circulations	
  
controlled	
  by	
  powerful	
  corporations	
  seeking	
  to	
  direct	
  the	
  masses	
  away	
  from	
  participatory	
  
discourse,	
  and	
  towards	
  a	
  passive	
  consumption	
  of	
  information,	
  opinion	
  and	
  culture.	
  In	
  this	
  new	
  
20th	
  century	
  dynamic	
  of	
  mass	
  media	
  as	
  the	
  public	
  sphere,	
  citizens	
  become	
  mere	
  spectators,	
  
reverting	
  from	
  participants	
  in	
  discursive	
  activity	
  into	
  commodities	
  of	
  a	
  consumption	
  society,	
  
reminiscent	
  of	
  their	
  original	
  feudal	
  status	
  in	
  the	
  Middle	
  Ages.	
  He	
  also	
  noted	
  the	
  problem	
  was	
  
exacerbated	
  with	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  newly	
  powerful	
  broadcast	
  media:	
  
	
  
	
  "With	
  the	
  arrival	
  of	
  new	
  media	
  [radio	
  and	
  television]	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  communication	
  
as	
  such	
  has	
  changed;	
  they	
  have	
  had	
  an	
  impact,	
  therefore,	
  more	
  penetrating	
  (in	
  
the	
  strict	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  word)	
  than	
  was	
  ever	
  possible	
  for	
  the	
  press...They	
  draw	
  the	
  
eyes	
  and	
  ears	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  under	
  their	
  spell	
  but	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  by	
  taking	
  away	
  
its	
   distance,	
   place	
   it	
   under	
   tutelage,	
   which	
   is	
   to	
   say	
   they	
   deprive	
   it	
   of	
   the	
  
opportunity	
  to	
  say	
  something	
  and	
  to	
  disagree"	
  (Habermas	
  1989,	
  170).	
  
	
  
Despite	
  his	
  somewhat	
  dire	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  post-­‐modern	
  society	
  and	
  the	
  re-­‐feudalization	
  of	
  
its	
  public	
  sphere,	
  Habermas	
  did	
  not	
  end	
  the	
  volume	
  in	
  a	
  defeatist	
  manner.	
  He	
  instead	
  
responded	
  by	
  postulating	
  on	
  some	
  tentative	
  solutions	
  to	
  the	
  revitalization	
  of	
  the	
  degraded	
  
public	
  sphere.	
  Early	
  in	
  his	
  text,	
  he	
  described	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  and	
  
participatory	
  democracy	
  as	
  existing	
  first	
  in	
  the	
  exchange	
  of	
  texts	
  and	
  discussions	
  of	
  culture,	
  
then	
  later	
  including	
  political	
  content,	
  distributed	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  via	
  pamphlets	
  and	
  newsletters.	
  
He	
  wrote:	
  "The	
  public	
  sphere	
  in	
  the	
  political	
  realm	
  evolved	
  from	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  in	
  the	
  world	
  
of	
  letters;	
  through	
  the	
  vehicle	
  of	
  public	
  opinion	
  it	
  put	
  the	
  state	
  in	
  touch	
  with	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  
society"	
  (Habermas	
  1989,	
  31).	
  Proposing	
  a	
  solution	
  to	
  the	
  degradation	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  sphere,	
  he	
  
suggests	
  a	
  return	
  to	
  that	
  original	
  form,	
  ostensibly	
  after	
  the	
  reform	
  of	
  current	
  mass	
  media	
  
structures	
  and	
  environments.	
  He	
  hoped	
  it	
  would	
  enable	
  true	
  discourse	
  in	
  a	
  "critical	
  process	
  of	
  
public	
  communication	
  through	
  the	
  very	
  organizations	
  that	
  mediatize	
  it"	
  and	
  foster	
  "a	
  critical	
  
publicity	
  brought	
  to	
  life	
  within	
  intraorganizational	
  public	
  spheres"	
  (232).	
  
	
  
	
  
Because	
  of	
  its	
  iconic	
  stature,	
  Habermas'	
  Structural	
  Transformation	
  of	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere	
  has	
  
come	
  under	
  considerable	
  scrutiny	
  by	
  media	
  scholars.	
  Critics	
  argue	
  that	
  the	
  theory	
  has	
  flaws,	
  
chiefly	
  concerning	
  the	
  questions	
  of	
  how	
  his	
  idea	
  can	
  be	
  applied	
  universally	
  in	
  democratic	
  
societies	
  (Burnett	
  and	
  Jaeger	
  2008).	
  They	
  contend,	
  for	
  example,	
  that	
  even	
  the	
  idealized	
  version	
  
of	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  described	
  by	
  Habermas	
  excludes	
  large	
  portions	
  of	
  society,	
  such	
  as	
  women	
  
and	
  marginalized	
  groups	
  (Fraser	
  1992).	
  Others	
  argue	
  that	
  he	
  mistakenly	
  limits	
  public	
  discourse	
  
to	
  a	
  single	
  sphere	
  when	
  in	
  fact	
  many	
  spheres	
  (and	
  counter	
  publics)	
  of	
  discourse	
  can	
  be	
  
identified	
  (Thompson	
  1995,	
  Hauser	
  1999).	
  Michael	
  Edwards	
  (2004)	
  asserts	
  that	
  public	
  spheres	
  
are	
  present	
  at	
  different	
  levels	
  in	
  most	
  societies,	
  varying	
  according	
  to	
  societal	
  and	
  political	
  
influences.	
  He	
  says	
  “a	
  single,	
  unified	
  public	
  sphere	
  would	
  be	
  impossible	
  at	
  any	
  significant	
  scale”	
  
(57).	
  Habermas	
  himself	
  questioned	
  the	
  overarching	
  primacy	
  of	
  the	
  concept,	
  suggesting	
  a	
  more	
  
fragmented	
  form	
  for	
  discussions	
  of	
  social	
  cultural	
  and	
  political	
  representations	
  not	
  effectively	
  
propagated	
  in	
  society	
  by	
  the	
  mainstream	
  media,	
  conceding	
  that	
  he	
  presents	
  a	
  "stylized	
  picture	
  
of	
  the	
  liberal	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  bourgeois	
  public	
  sphere"	
  (1992,	
  xix).	
  
	
  
Another	
  important	
  societal	
  dynamic	
  that	
  critics	
  contend	
  Habermas'	
  original	
  work	
  generally	
  
ignores	
  is	
  the	
  division	
  of	
  class,	
  and	
  the	
  resulting	
  divisions	
  in	
  spaces	
  for	
  discussion	
  represented	
  
by	
  alternative	
  public	
  spheres	
  (Garnham	
  1986).	
  Habermas'	
  original	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  the	
  
bourgeois	
  public	
  sphere	
  afforded	
  access	
  to	
  citizens	
  as	
  equal	
  parties.	
  However,	
  he	
  acknowledged	
  
in	
  his	
  preface	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  an	
  alternative	
  sphere	
  -­‐	
  the	
  plebian	
  public	
  sphere	
  -­‐	
  that	
  arose	
  as	
  a	
  
counter	
  public	
  to	
  the	
  literary	
  public	
  sphere	
  in	
  the	
  late	
  19th	
  century	
  period	
  of	
  the	
  French	
  
revolution.	
  While	
  holding	
  similar	
  philosophies	
  of	
  access	
  and	
  participation	
  as	
  their	
  literary	
  
contemporaries,	
  the	
  plebian	
  public	
  sphere	
  was	
  the	
  product	
  of	
  an	
  underclass	
  of	
  workers	
  and	
  
peasants.	
  Habermas	
  wrote	
  in	
  his	
  later	
  critique	
  that	
  "from	
  the	
  beginning	
  a	
  dominant	
  bourgeois	
  
public	
  collides	
  with	
  a	
  plebeian	
  one"	
  (1992,	
  430),	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  original	
  work	
  "underestimated	
  the	
  
significance	
  of	
  oppositional	
  and	
  non-­‐bourgeois	
  public	
  spheres".	
  
	
  
That	
  class	
  division	
  is	
  further	
  exemplified	
  by	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  the	
  "proletariat	
  public	
  sphere".	
  
Following	
  the	
  19th	
  century	
  transformation	
  of	
  Europe	
  into	
  a	
  more	
  consumer-­‐centric	
  society,	
  the	
  
upward	
  mobility	
  of	
  participants	
  from	
  business	
  and	
  government	
  created	
  a	
  new	
  more	
  exclusive	
  
bourgeois	
  class.	
  These	
  new	
  more	
  powerful	
  individuals	
  then	
  proceeded	
  to	
  co-­‐opt	
  the	
  
phenomenon	
  for	
  their	
  commercial	
  and	
  political	
  interests.	
  That	
  led	
  to	
  the	
  development	
  in	
  the	
  
20th	
  century	
  industrial	
  age	
  of	
  another	
  alternative	
  counter	
  public,	
  labeled	
  in	
  the	
  Marxist	
  context	
  
as	
  the	
  "proletariat	
  public	
  sphere"	
  (Knodler-­‐Bunte	
  1975).	
  This	
  form	
  arose	
  among	
  groups	
  of	
  
workers,	
  anarchists	
  and	
  Marxists	
  in	
  the	
  political	
  spectrum,	
  and	
  progressed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  formidable	
  
site	
  for	
  discourse	
  counter	
  to	
  the	
  dominant	
  narrative	
  of	
  wealthy	
  oligarchs	
  and	
  the	
  corporations	
  
they	
  controlled.	
  Scholars	
  have	
  identified	
  a	
  similar	
  dynamic	
  in	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  alternative	
  public	
  
spheres	
  by	
  other	
  societal	
  groups	
  seeking	
  sites	
  for	
  discourse	
  and	
  inclusion.	
  Nancy	
  Fraser	
  (1992,	
  
123)	
  argues	
  that	
  minority	
  groups:	
  "have	
  repeatedly	
  found	
  it	
  advantageous	
  to	
  constitute	
  
alternative	
  publics	
  or	
  subaltern	
  counterpublics	
  engaging	
  in	
  parallel	
  discursive	
  arenas	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  
invent	
  and	
  circulate	
  counterdiscourses	
  to	
  formulate	
  oppositional	
  interpretations	
  of	
  their	
  
identities,	
  interests,	
  and	
  needs".	
  However,	
  this	
  dynamic	
  has	
  created	
  publics	
  that	
  are:	
  
"differentially	
  empowered	
  or	
  segmented"	
  leading	
  to:	
  "the	
  weak	
  character	
  of	
  some	
  public	
  
spheres	
  in	
  late	
  capitalist	
  societies	
  that	
  denudes	
  public	
  opinion	
  of	
  practical	
  force"	
  (ibid,	
  137).	
  	
  
	
  
Alternative	
  media	
  often	
  provide	
  the	
  frameworks	
  for	
  citizens'	
  participation	
  in	
  a	
  public	
  sphere	
  of	
  
democratic	
  processes,	
  not	
  just	
  as	
  a	
  receiver	
  of	
  media	
  outputs,	
  but	
  through	
  the	
  production	
  and	
  
delivery	
  of	
  their	
  own	
  opinions	
  (Langlois	
  and	
  DuBois	
  2005).	
  In	
  alternative	
  media,	
  citizens	
  can	
  
actualize	
  their	
  political	
  power	
  and	
  protect	
  themselves	
  from	
  dominant	
  powerful	
  political	
  forces	
  
by	
  mitigating	
  the	
  inherent	
  imbalance	
  of	
  societal	
  power	
  relations	
  (Held	
  1996).	
  The	
  critical	
  
theorist	
  Foucault	
  (1980)	
  recognized	
  the	
  significance	
  of	
  discursive	
  activities	
  in	
  developing	
  and	
  
producing	
  ideas	
  in	
  a	
  political	
  sphere	
  where	
  power	
  could	
  be	
  generated	
  in	
  a	
  multidirectional	
  
fashion,	
  countering	
  the	
  hegemonic	
  stature	
  and	
  top-­‐down	
  structure	
  of	
  mainstream	
  media.	
  
Indeed,	
  this	
  meaning	
  also	
  applies	
  to	
  media	
  organizations	
  and	
  their	
  philosophy	
  of	
  external	
  
interrelation	
  in	
  the	
  democratic	
  media	
  and	
  political	
  environments,	
  as	
  this	
  interrelatedness	
  
contributes	
  to	
  the	
  dialogue	
  necessary	
  for	
  an	
  open	
  and	
  functional	
  democracy	
  (Dahl	
  2001).	
  The	
  
interactive	
  approach	
  to	
  political	
  action	
  is	
  also	
  noted	
  by	
  Sandoval	
  and	
  Fuchs	
  (2009,	
  4),	
  who	
  
assert	
  “rooted	
  in	
  social	
  political	
  and	
  historical	
  contexts,	
  the	
  interrelations	
  between	
  individual	
  
media	
  actors	
  and	
  media	
  structures	
  constitute	
  the	
  societal	
  impacts	
  of	
  the	
  media	
  system”.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  concept	
  of	
  media	
  power	
  is	
  also	
  illustrated	
  in	
  the	
  debate	
  over	
  media	
  ownership.	
  When	
  
communities	
  are	
  mere	
  users,	
  but	
  not	
  owners	
  of	
  the	
  platform,	
  they	
  have	
  limited	
  control	
  over	
  
the	
  ultimate	
  role	
  the	
  medium	
  plays	
  in	
  society.	
  For	
  many	
  alternative	
  media	
  advocates,	
  this	
  
system	
  is	
  merely	
  an	
  endorsement	
  of	
  Habermas'	
  contention	
  that	
  the	
  public	
  sphere,	
  while	
  
initially	
  providing	
  a	
  real	
  opportunity	
  for	
  citizens'	
  participation,	
  is	
  subsequently	
  co-­‐opted	
  by	
  the	
  
acquisition	
  and	
  concentration	
  of	
  ownership	
  by	
  power	
  elites.	
  In	
  addition,	
  negative	
  stereotypical	
  
misrepresentations	
  by	
  dominant	
  mainstream	
  media	
  can	
  be	
  especially	
  damaging	
  to	
  many	
  
marginalized	
  segments	
  of	
  society,	
  causing	
  deep	
  feelings	
  of	
  resentment	
  towards	
  otherwise	
  
recognized	
  and	
  respected	
  societal	
  institutions.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  American	
  civil	
  rights	
  activist	
  
Malcolm	
  X	
  (1963)	
  “The	
  media	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  powerful	
  entity	
  on	
  earth.	
  They	
  have	
  the	
  power	
  to	
  
make	
  the	
  innocent	
  guilty	
  and	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  guilty	
  innocent,	
  because	
  they	
  control	
  the	
  minds	
  of	
  
the	
  masses".	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  function	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  as	
  an	
  independent	
  site	
  for	
  political	
  engagement	
  and	
  
action	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  one	
  for	
  the	
  organizational	
  development	
  behind	
  ideology.	
  These	
  
alternative	
  broadcasters	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  as	
  “discursive	
  spaces”,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  political	
  scientist	
  
Susan	
  Herbst	
  (1994,	
  4).	
  She	
  writes:	
  “Within	
  marginal	
  publics,	
  community	
  building	
  is	
  critical.	
  
Political	
  groups	
  create	
  parallel	
  public	
  spaces	
  where	
  they	
  develop	
  political	
  community	
  and	
  
mobilize	
  political	
  resources”.	
  Both	
  internal	
  and	
  external	
  development	
  of	
  communication	
  and	
  
collaboration	
  in	
  the	
  organizational	
  context	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  are	
  seen	
  as	
  effective	
  
platforms	
  to	
  build	
  media	
  power.	
  Indeed,	
  the	
  media	
  power	
  of	
  community	
  broadcasting	
  is	
  
generated	
  by	
  individuals	
  and	
  communities	
  with	
  strong	
  ideological	
  agendas	
  constructing	
  and	
  
elaborating	
  narratives	
  in	
  a	
  genuine	
  public	
  sphere	
  of	
  democratic	
  discourse	
  (Price	
  2007).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
References	
  
	
  
Adorno,	
  T.	
  (1991).	
  "Culture	
  Industry	
  Reconsidered".	
  The	
  Culture	
  Industry:	
  Selected	
  Essays	
  on	
  
Mass	
  Culture.	
  Pp.	
  98-­‐106,	
  J.	
  Bernstein	
  (ed.).	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  	
  
	
  
Antonio,	
  R.	
  	
  and	
  D.	
  Kellner	
  (1992)	
  "Communication,	
  Democratization,	
  and	
  Modernity:	
  Critical	
  
Reflections	
  on	
  Habermas	
  	
  and	
  	
  Dewey”.	
  	
  Symbolic	
  Interaction,	
  Vol.	
  15,	
  Nr.	
  3,	
  p.	
  277-­‐298.	
  
	
  
Briggs,	
  A.,	
  and	
  P.	
  Burke.	
  (2009).	
  A	
  Social	
  History	
  of	
  the	
  Media;	
  From	
  Gutenberg	
  to	
  the	
  Internet.	
  
Cambridge,	
  UK:	
  Polity	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Burnett,	
  G.	
  and	
  P.	
  Jaeger.	
  (2008).	
  “Small	
  Worlds,	
  Lifeworlds,	
  and	
  Information:	
  The	
  Ramifications	
  
of	
  the	
  Information	
  Behaviour	
  of	
  Social	
  Groups	
  in	
  Public	
  Policy	
  and	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere”.	
  
Information	
  Research.	
  Vol	
  13,	
  No.	
  2.	
  
	
  
Dahlgren,	
  P.	
  (1991).	
  "Introduction."	
  In	
  P.	
  Dahlgren	
  and	
  C.	
  Sparks	
  (Eds.),	
  Communication	
  and	
  
Citizenship:	
  Journalism	
  and	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere	
  in	
  the	
  New	
  Media	
  Age.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
Edwards,	
  M.	
  (2004),	
  Civil	
  Society.	
  Malden	
  MA:	
  Polity	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Fairchild,	
  C.	
  (2001)	
  Community	
  Radio	
  and	
  Public	
  Culture:	
  Being	
  an	
  Examination	
  of	
  Media	
  Access	
  
and	
  Equity	
  in	
  the	
  Nations	
  of	
  North	
  America.	
  Creskill,	
  NJ:	
  Hampton	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Foucault,	
  M.	
  (1980).	
  Power/Knowledge:	
  Selected	
  Interviews	
  and	
  Other	
  Writings,	
  1972-­‐1977.	
  C.	
  
Gordon.	
  (ed.).	
  New	
  York:	
  Pantheon.	
  
	
  
Fraser,	
  N.	
  (1992).	
  "Rethinking	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere:	
  A	
  Contribution	
  to	
  the	
  Critique	
  of	
  Actually	
  
Existing	
  Democracy"	
  in	
  C.	
  Calhoun	
  (ed.).	
  Habermas	
  and	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere.	
  Cambridge,	
  
Massachusetts:	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Garnham,	
  N.	
  (1997).	
  "The	
  Media	
  and	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere."	
  In	
  C.	
  Calhoun	
  (Ed.),	
  Habermas	
  and	
  the	
  
Public	
  Sphere.	
  (5th	
  printing).	
  Cambridge,	
  Massachusetts:	
  The	
  Massachusetts	
  Institute	
  of	
  
Technology.	
  
	
  
Habermas,	
  J.	
  (1989).	
  Structural	
  Transformation	
  of	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere.	
  Cambridge,	
  Mass:	
  MIT	
  
Press.	
  
	
  
Habermas,	
  J.	
  (1992).	
  "Further	
  Reflections	
  on	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere",	
  in	
  C.	
  Calhoun	
  (ed.)	
  Habermas	
  
and	
  the	
  Public	
  Sphere.	
  Cambridge,	
  MA:	
  MIT	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Hardt,	
  H.	
  (2001).	
  Social	
  Theories	
  of	
  the	
  Press:	
  Constituents	
  of	
  Communication	
  Research,	
  1840s	
  
to	
  1920s.	
  Lanham,	
  MD,	
  USA:	
  Rowman	
  &	
  Littlefield	
  Publishing.	
  
	
  
Hauser,	
  G.	
  (1999).	
  Vernacular	
  Voices:	
  The	
  Rhetoric	
  of	
  Publics	
  and	
  Public	
  Spheres.	
  Columbia:	
  
University	
  of	
  South	
  Carolina.	
  
	
  
Hollander,	
  E.	
  and	
  J.	
  Stappers.	
  (1992)	
  "Community	
  Media	
  and	
  Community	
  Communication"	
  in	
  N.	
  
Jankowski,	
  O.	
  Prehn	
  and	
  J.	
  Stappers	
  (eds.).	
  The	
  People's	
  Voice:	
  Local	
  Radio	
  and	
  Television	
  in	
  
Europe.	
  London:	
  John	
  Libbey.	
  
	
  
Horkheimer,	
  M.	
  and	
  T.	
  Adorno.	
  (2002).	
  Dialectic	
  of	
  Enlightenment.	
  English	
  translation	
  by	
  E.	
  
Jephcott.	
  Stanford	
  University	
  Press.	
  (Translated	
  from	
  original	
  German	
  version	
  Dialektik	
  Der	
  
Afklarung	
  1947).	
  
	
  
Herbst,	
  S.	
  (1994).	
  Politics	
  at	
  the	
  Margin:	
  Historical	
  Studies	
  of	
  Public	
  Expression	
  Outside	
  the	
  
Mainstream.	
  Cambridge,	
  UK:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Knodler-­‐Bunte,	
  E.	
  (1975).	
  “The	
  Proletarian	
  Public	
  Sphere	
  and	
  Political	
  Organization:	
  An	
  Analysis	
  
of	
  Oskar	
  Negt	
  and	
  Alexander	
  Kluge's	
  The	
  Public	
  Sphere	
  and	
  Experience”.	
  New	
  German	
  Critique.	
  
No.4,	
  1975	
  pp.	
  51-­‐75.	
  Durham,	
  NC.:	
  Duke	
  University	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Langlois,	
  A.,	
  and	
  F.	
  DuBois.	
  (eds.)	
  (2005).	
  Autonomous	
  Media:	
  Activating	
  Resistance	
  and	
  Dissent.	
  
Oakland,	
  CA.	
  USA:	
  AK	
  Press.	
  
	
  
Lewis,	
  P.M.	
  and	
  Booth,	
  J.	
  (1989).	
  The	
  Invisible	
  Medium:	
  Public,	
  Commercial	
  and	
  Community	
  
Radio.	
  Basingstoke:	
  Macmillan	
  Education.	
  	
  
	
  
Newman,	
  J.	
  and	
  J.	
  Clarke.	
  (2009).	
  Publics,	
  Politics	
  and	
  Power:	
  Remaking	
  the	
  Public	
  in	
  Public	
  
Services.	
  London:	
  Sage.	
  
	
  
Price,	
  S.	
  (2007).	
  Discourse	
  Power	
  Address:	
  The	
  Politics	
  of	
  Public	
  Communication.	
  London:	
  
Ashgate.	
  
	
  
Thompson,	
  J.	
  (1995)	
  The	
  Media	
  and	
  the	
  Modernity:	
  A	
  Social	
  Theory	
  of	
  the	
  Media.	
  Cambridge:	
  
Polity	
  Press.	
  
	
  
X,	
  M.	
  (1963).	
  “Redefining	
  Black	
  Power:	
  Reflections	
  on	
  the	
  State	
  of	
  Black	
  America”.	
  
http://izquotes.com/quote/202665	
  Accessed	
  16.1.2016.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
2.3	
  Community	
  
	
  
Understanding	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  communities	
  and	
  their	
  corresponding	
  media	
  structures	
  is	
  an	
  
important	
  subject	
  for	
  scholars	
  who	
  explore	
  the	
  concepts	
  of	
  access,	
  participation,	
  identity,	
  and	
  
community	
  development.	
  Early	
  theoretical	
  examination	
  of	
  the	
  term	
  ‘community’	
  is	
  most	
  
associated	
  with	
  Ferdinand	
  Tönnies	
  (1887),	
  the	
  German	
  sociologist	
  who	
  authored	
  the	
  iconic	
  text	
  
Gemeinschaft	
  und	
  Gesellschaft,	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  compared	
  the	
  meaning	
  of	
  community	
  in	
  the	
  
description	
  of	
  a	
  small	
  village	
  ‘Gemeinschaft’,	
  versus	
  a	
  worldwide	
  organizational	
  network	
  or	
  
‘Gesellschaft’.	
  The	
  Chicago	
  School	
  of	
  sociologists	
  in	
  the	
  20th	
  century	
  is	
  generally	
  credited	
  with	
  
initially	
  investigating	
  the	
  phenomenon	
  of	
  community	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  urban	
  studies.	
  Louis	
  
Wirth	
  (1964)	
  identified	
  communities'	
  contributions	
  to	
  culture	
  and	
  inclusiveness	
  in	
  his	
  book	
  On	
  
Cities	
  and	
  Social	
  Life,	
  and	
  later	
  William	
  Foote	
  Whyte	
  (1993)	
  explored	
  the	
  concept	
  in	
  his	
  book	
  
Street	
  Corner	
  Society,	
  describing	
  the	
  social	
  structure	
  of	
  an	
  Italian	
  slum.	
  Other	
  sociologists	
  to	
  
examine	
  the	
  concept	
  include	
  (Williams	
  1973,	
  Putnam	
  2000,	
  and	
  Bartle	
  2003),	
  while	
  other	
  
scholars	
  seek	
  to	
  explain	
  the	
  subject	
  through	
  various	
  frames	
  including	
  organizational	
  
communication	
  (MacMillan	
  and	
  Chavis	
  1986),	
  community	
  development	
  (McKnight	
  1989	
  and	
  
Bhattacharyya	
  2004),	
  and	
  mass	
  media	
  (Lewis	
  1993,	
  Carpentier	
  et	
  al	
  2003,	
  Howley	
  2005).	
  
	
  
The	
  idea	
  of	
  community	
  as	
  an	
  ambiguous	
  and	
  multi-­‐faceted	
  concept	
  presents	
  a	
  challenge	
  in	
  
identifying	
  and	
  defining	
  the	
  term	
  clearly	
  (Cohen	
  1985).	
  Morris	
  and	
  Morten	
  echo	
  Tönnies	
  when	
  
they	
  compare	
  community	
  to	
  the	
  larger	
  frame	
  of	
  society,	
  which	
  is	
  “a	
  colder,	
  unattached	
  and	
  
more	
  fragmented	
  way	
  of	
  living	
  devoid	
  of	
  cooperation	
  and	
  social	
  cohesion”	
  (1998:23).	
  The	
  
phenomenon	
  of	
  community	
  is	
  often	
  described	
  as	
  a	
  subset	
  of	
  society	
  defined	
  by	
  geography,	
  
identity,	
  interest,	
  social	
  class,	
  economic	
  status,	
  and/or	
  by	
  completely	
  external	
  forces	
  and	
  
events.	
  Indeed,	
  community	
  is	
  not	
  necessarily	
  a	
  static	
  or	
  easily	
  identifiable	
  entity,	
  but	
  more	
  of	
  an	
  
aggregation	
  of	
  its	
  component	
  parts	
  (Gordon	
  2009).	
  The	
  term	
  “knowable	
  communities”	
  was	
  
coined	
  by	
  Raymond	
  Williams	
  (1973,163)	
  in	
  his	
  work	
  discussing	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  more	
  
complex	
  societies	
  of	
  modernity,	
  where	
  he	
  described	
  community	
  as	
  a	
  collection	
  of	
  connections	
  
and	
  relationships	
  that	
  further	
  define	
  social	
  divisions	
  and	
  identities.	
  	
  
	
  
Those	
  connections	
  Williams	
  refers	
  to	
  are	
  described	
  by	
  sociologists	
  when	
  explaining	
  the	
  
elements	
  and	
  patterns	
  of	
  social	
  interaction	
  and	
  social	
  networks.	
  Social	
  interaction	
  requires	
  a	
  
process	
  and	
  nodes	
  of	
  connections,	
  described	
  by	
  Deleuze	
  and	
  Guattari	
  (1987)	
  as	
  the	
  rhizomatic	
  
effect	
  that	
  forms	
  "connections	
  between	
  semiotic	
  chains,	
  organizations	
  of	
  power,	
  and	
  
circumstances	
  relative	
  to	
  the	
  arts,	
  sciences,	
  and	
  social	
  struggles"	
  (7).	
  The	
  term	
  ‘social	
  network’	
  
is	
  a	
  theoretical	
  construct	
  used	
  to	
  describe	
  relationships	
  among	
  individuals,	
  groups,	
  and	
  
communities	
  in	
  relatively	
  small	
  scale	
  adaptions,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  large-­‐scale	
  applications	
  such	
  as	
  
online	
  communities	
  or	
  even	
  entire	
  societies.	
  Actor-­‐network	
  theory	
  is	
  used	
  by	
  Bruno	
  LaTour	
  
(2005)	
  and	
  his	
  colleagues	
  to	
  explore	
  how	
  rhizomes	
  that	
  form	
  communities	
  grow	
  through	
  
activities	
  leveraging	
  both	
  material	
  and	
  semiotic	
  networks	
  to	
  create	
  meaning.	
  Building	
  upon	
  the	
  
works	
  of	
  Talcott	
  Parsons	
  (2007)	
  and	
  Peter	
  Blau	
  (1960),	
  Charles	
  Tilly	
  (1973)	
  described	
  
communities	
  as	
  aggregations	
  of	
  social	
  networks	
  formed	
  around	
  themes	
  such	
  as	
  culture	
  and	
  
politics.	
  Intentionally-­‐built	
  communities	
  access	
  networks	
  to	
  assemble	
  members	
  with	
  shared	
  
interests,	
  identities	
  or	
  concerns	
  including	
  social,	
  environmental,	
  economic	
  and	
  political	
  issues.	
  
These	
  practices	
  and	
  dynamics	
  are	
  important	
  for	
  understanding	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  community	
  
development	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  communicative	
  action	
  (Markova	
  1997).	
  
	
  
Location	
  is	
  a	
  frame	
  by	
  which	
  communities	
  are	
  often	
  identified.	
  Originating	
  in	
  anthropological	
  
studies,	
  a	
  community	
  of	
  location	
  typically	
  requires	
  physical	
  boundaries	
  to	
  delineate	
  the	
  
community	
  identity,	
  for	
  example	
  a	
  settlement,	
  village,	
  or	
  city.	
  Milioni	
  (2009)	
  describes	
  
community	
  as	
  “social	
  integration	
  defined	
  by	
  geographical	
  proximity”	
  (411).	
  Communities	
  of	
  
location	
  are	
  readily	
  identified	
  and	
  comprehended	
  by	
  typical	
  citizens,	
  who	
  can	
  physically	
  seek	
  
out	
  cooperation	
  and	
  collaboration	
  with	
  their	
  neighbors	
  without	
  extensive	
  need	
  for	
  external	
  
tools.	
  These	
  spatial	
  situations	
  are	
  fertile	
  environments	
  for	
  social	
  interaction,	
  and	
  the	
  
subsequent	
  construction	
  of	
  multiple	
  social	
  groupings	
  as	
  communities	
  through	
  cooperative	
  
efforts	
  develop	
  a	
  synergy	
  and	
  the	
  resulting	
  social	
  capital	
  for	
  their	
  common	
  good.	
  This	
  can	
  be	
  
seen	
  in	
  Oldenburg's	
  (1989,16)	
  "third	
  place"	
  that	
  is	
  "a	
  generic	
  designation	
  for	
  a	
  great	
  variety	
  of	
  
public	
  places	
  that	
  host	
  the	
  regular,	
  voluntary,	
  informal,	
  and	
  happily	
  anticipated	
  gatherings	
  of	
  
individuals	
  beyond	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  home	
  and	
  work”.	
  
	
  
Cohen	
  (1985)	
  suggests	
  that	
  culture,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  location,	
  forms	
  the	
  basis	
  and	
  boundaries	
  for	
  
many	
  communities,	
  noting	
  that	
  residents	
  establish	
  their	
  membership	
  in	
  a	
  community	
  through	
  
self-­‐identification.	
  Compared	
  to	
  location,	
  intricate	
  relationships	
  of	
  interest	
  or	
  identity	
  are	
  more	
  
difficult	
  to	
  recognize	
  across	
  the	
  barriers	
  and	
  obstructions	
  of	
  modern	
  day	
  society	
  (Williams	
  
1973).	
  This	
  constructivist	
  approach,	
  relating	
  social	
  representations	
  to	
  community	
  building,	
  is	
  
grounded	
  in	
  social	
  practices	
  and	
  group	
  dynamics.	
  Hernando	
  Rojas	
  writes	
  in	
  his	
  examination	
  of	
  
community	
  engagement	
  "Communication	
  mediates	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  community	
  
integration	
  and	
  civic	
  participation...in	
  an	
  intervening	
  process	
  between	
  structural	
  location	
  and	
  
belonging"	
  (4).	
  Jankowski	
  (2002)	
  identifies	
  communities	
  of	
  interest:	
  “whereby	
  members	
  share	
  
some	
  cultural,	
  social	
  or	
  political	
  interests	
  independent	
  of	
  geographical	
  proximity”	
  (6).	
  	
  
	
  
Intentional	
  communities	
  are	
  also	
  a	
  subject	
  of	
  Robert	
  Putnam's	
  Bowling	
  Alone	
  (1995),	
  in	
  which	
  
he	
  emphasizes	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  communities	
  as	
  represented	
  in	
  traditional	
  civic,	
  social	
  and	
  
fraternal	
  organizations.	
  He	
  argues	
  that	
  participation	
  in	
  community-­‐based	
  organizations	
  and	
  
activities	
  can	
  facilitate	
  building	
  of	
  social	
  capital	
  through	
  interactions	
  both	
  among	
  neighbors	
  and	
  
friends	
  ("bonding	
  capital"),	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  other	
  citizens	
  outside	
  an	
  actor's	
  immediate	
  sphere	
  
("bridging	
  capital").	
  However,	
  just	
  as	
  networks	
  can	
  connect	
  and	
  construct	
  communities,	
  the	
  
failure	
  of	
  connections	
  and	
  networks	
  can	
  inhibit	
  the	
  establishment	
  and	
  sustainability	
  of	
  
communities,	
  and	
  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  social	
  disconnection	
  that	
  many	
  communities	
  experience	
  in	
  
the	
  context	
  of	
  modern	
  society.	
  In	
  many	
  cases,	
  individuals	
  encounter	
  challenges	
  in	
  developing	
  
relationships	
  into	
  stronger	
  community	
  groups,	
  and	
  entire	
  community	
  groups	
  then	
  struggle	
  for	
  
networking	
  success	
  as	
  they	
  seek	
  to	
  connect	
  in	
  this	
  complex	
  environment.	
  	
  
	
  
Putnam	
  describes	
  the	
  decline	
  of	
  physical	
  intentional	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
  1970s	
  United	
  States	
  
caused	
  in	
  part	
  by	
  the	
  proliferation	
  of	
  highly-­‐centralized	
  mass	
  media	
  that	
  reduce	
  local	
  
interactions	
  and	
  discourse,	
  noting	
  that	
  "Watching	
  commercial	
  entertainment	
  TV	
  is	
  the	
  only	
  
leisure	
  activity	
  where	
  doing	
  more	
  of	
  it	
  is	
  associated	
  with	
  lower	
  social	
  capital"	
  (Putnam	
  2015).	
  In	
  
Bowling	
  Alone:	
  The	
  Collapse	
  and	
  Revival	
  of	
  American	
  Community	
  (2000),	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  Harvard	
  
University	
  Saguaro	
  Seminar	
  on	
  Civic	
  Engagement,	
  Putnam	
  and	
  his	
  colleagues	
  explore	
  potential	
  
remedies	
  for	
  the	
  downward	
  spiral	
  of	
  civic	
  engagement,	
  suggesting	
  that	
  more	
  local	
  interaction	
  is	
  
key:	
  "We	
  need	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  front	
  porches	
  as	
  crime	
  fighting	
  tools,	
  treat	
  picnics	
  as	
  public	
  health	
  
efforts	
  and	
  see	
  choral	
  groups	
  as	
  occasions	
  of	
  democracy"	
  (Feldstein	
  2000).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
References	
  
	
  
Bhattacharyya,	
  J.	
  (2004).	
  "Theorizing	
  Community	
  Development".	
  In	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  Community	
  
Development	
  Society.	
  Vol	
  34	
  No.	
  2.	
  
	
  
Bartle,	
  P.	
  (2010).	
  What	
  is	
  Community?	
  A	
  Sociological	
  Perspective.	
  New	
  York:	
  Hyperion.	
  	
  
	
  
Blau,	
  Peter	
  (1960).	
  "A	
  Theory	
  of	
  Social	
  Integration."	
  The	
  American	
  Journal	
  of	
  Sociology,	
  (65)6:	
  
545-­‐556.	
  
	
  
Blau,	
  P.	
  and	
  J.	
  Schwartz.	
  (1984).	
  Crosscutting	
  Social	
  Circles:	
  Testing	
  a	
  Macrostructural	
  Theory	
  of	
  
Intergroup	
  Relations.	
  Piscataway,	
  NJ.:	
  Transaction	
  Publishers.	
  
	
  
Cohen,	
  A.	
  (1985)	
  The	
  Symbolic	
  Construction	
  of	
  Community.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
Deleuze,	
  G.	
  and	
  F.	
  Guattari.	
  (1987).	
  A	
  Thousand	
  Plateaus:	
  Capitalism	
  and	
  Schizophrenia.	
  
London:	
  Continuum.	
  
	
  
Feldstein,	
  L.	
  (2000).	
  “Better	
  Together”.	
  http://www.bettertogether.org/	
  Accessed	
  16.1.2016	
  
Kollock,	
  P.	
  and	
  M.	
  Smith.	
  (1999).	
  Communities	
  in	
  Cyberspace.	
  London:	
  Routledge.	
  
	
  
LaTour,	
  B.	
  (2005).	
  Reassembling	
  the	
  Social:	
  An	
  Introduction	
  to	
  Actor-­‐Network-­‐Theory.	
  Oxford:	
  
Oxford	
  University	
  Publishing.	
  
	
  
Lewis,	
  P.	
  (1993).	
  Alternative	
  Media	
  in	
  a	
  Contemporary	
  Social	
  and	
  
Theoretical	
  Context.	
  In:	
  Lewis,	
  P.	
  (ed.),	
  Alternative	
  Media:	
  Linking	
  Global	
  and	
  Local,	
  Paris:	
  
UNESCO,	
  pp.	
  15-­‐25.	
  
	
  
LoPresti,	
  L.	
  (2013).	
  What	
  is	
  Social?	
  Healthy	
  Skepticism	
  in	
  the	
  Social	
  Economy.	
  Createspace.com.	
  
	
  
Marinov,	
  N.	
  and	
  F.	
  Schimmelfennig.	
  (2015),	
  Does	
  Social	
  Media	
  Promote	
  Civic	
  Activism?	
  Evidence	
  
from	
  a	
  Field	
  Experiment.	
  Center	
  for	
  Comparative	
  and	
  International	
  Studies,	
  ETH	
  Zürich.	
  
	
  
Matei,	
  S.	
  and	
  B.	
  Britt.	
  (2011).	
  “Virtual	
  Sociability:	
  From	
  Community	
  to	
  Communitas”.	
  Selected	
  
papers	
  from	
  the	
  Purdue	
  Online	
  Interaction	
  Theory	
  Seminar,	
  vol.	
  1.	
  Indianapolis,	
  IN.:	
  Ideagora.	
  
	
  
McKnight,	
  J.	
  (1989).	
  Beyond	
  Community	
  Services.	
  Evanston,	
  IL:	
  Northwestern	
  University.	
  
	
  
McMillan,	
  D.,	
  and	
  D.	
  Chavis.	
  (2006).	
  "Sense	
  of	
  Community:	
  A	
  Definition	
  and	
  Theory."	
  In	
  Journal	
  
of	
  Community	
  Psychology.	
  Special	
  Issue:	
  Psychological	
  Sense	
  of	
  Community,	
  I:	
  Theory	
  and	
  
Concepts.	
  Vol	
  14	
  Issue	
  1,	
  Pp.	
  6-­‐23.	
  
	
  
Milioni,	
  D.	
  (2009b).	
  “Probing	
  the	
  Online	
  Counterpublic	
  Sphere:	
  the	
  Case	
  of	
  Indymedia	
  Athens”.	
  
Media,	
  Culture	
  &	
  Society	
  31(3):	
  409-­‐43.	
  
	
  
Morris,	
  A.,	
  and	
  G.	
  Morton.	
  (1998).	
  Locality,	
  Community	
  and	
  Nation.	
  London:	
  Hodder	
  &	
  
Stoughton.	
  
O’Connor,	
  R.	
  (2008).	
  “Word	
  of	
  Mouse:	
  Credibility,	
  Journalism	
  and	
  Emerging	
  Social	
  Media”.	
  Joan	
  
Shorenstein	
  Center	
  on	
  the	
  Press,	
  Politics	
  and	
  Public	
  Policy	
  Discussion	
  Paper	
  Series	
  #D‐50,	
  
February	
  2009.	
  
Oldenburg,	
  R.	
  (1989).	
  The	
  Great	
  Good	
  Place:	
  Cafes,	
  Coffee	
  Shops,	
  Community	
  Centers,	
  Beauty	
  
Parlors,	
  General	
  Stores,	
  Bars,	
  Hangouts,	
  and	
  How	
  They	
  Get	
  You	
  Through	
  the	
  Day.	
  New	
  York:	
  
Paragon	
  House.	
  
Parsons,	
  T.	
  (2007).	
  American	
  Society:	
  Toward	
  a	
  Theory	
  of	
  Societal	
  Community.	
  Edited	
  by	
  G.	
  
Sciortino.	
  St.	
  Paul,	
  MN.:	
  Paradigm.	
  
Putnam,	
  R.	
  (1995).	
  "Bowling	
  Alone:	
  America’s	
  Declining	
  Social	
  Capital,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  Democracy,	
  
vol.	
  6,	
  no.	
  1	
  (January	
  1995),	
  pp.	
  65-­‐78.	
  
Putnam,	
  R.	
  (2000).	
  Bowling	
  Alone:	
  The	
  Collapse	
  and	
  Revival	
  of	
  American	
  Community.	
  New	
  York:	
  
Simon	
  &	
  Schuster.	
  
Putnam,	
  R.	
  (2015).	
  “Bowling	
  Alone”.	
  Essay.	
  http://bowlingalone.com/	
  Accessed	
  16.1.2016	
  
Rojas,	
  H.	
  (2005).	
  A	
  Communicative	
  Approach	
  to	
  Social	
  Capital:	
  Building	
  a	
  Theoretical	
  and	
  
Empirical	
  Model	
  of	
  Communication	
  and	
  Community	
  Engagement.	
  Madison,	
  WI.:	
  University	
  of	
  
Wisconsin.	
  
Sander,	
  T.	
  (2008).	
  Interview	
  with	
  Rory	
  O'Connor.	
  in	
  “Word	
  of	
  Mouse:	
  Credibility,	
  Journalism	
  and	
  
Emerging	
  Social	
  Media”.	
  p.	
  15.	
  Joan	
  Shorenstein	
  Center	
  on	
  the	
  Press,	
  Politics	
  and	
  Public	
  Policy	
  
Discussion	
  Paper	
  Series	
  #D‐50,	
  February	
  2009.	
  
Tilley,	
  C.	
  (1973).	
  "Do	
  Communities	
  Act?".	
  Sociological	
  Inquiry.	
  43:	
  209–40.	
  
Tönnies,	
  F.	
  (1887).	
  Gemeinschaft	
  und	
  Gesellschaft.	
  Leipzig:	
  Fues's	
  Verlag.