Community Broadcasting: Publics, Participants and Policies



Henry Loeser PhD



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. Jurgen Habermas, a student and protege of Horkheimer and Adorno at the
Frankfurt School, 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 that transformed into a site of spectator politics
manipulated by elites who took control of the medium (Habermas 1989, 159). For Habermas, the public
sphere 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 and delineated through argumentative discourse 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 are 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). The resulting
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 (McChesney 2008). 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.


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.


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)


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.


Lewis, P.M. and Booth, J. (1989). The Invisible Medium: Public, Commercial and Community Radio.
Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.


Thompson, John B. (1995) The Media and the Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge:
Polity Press