Suchergebnisse

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.

Cyber-libertarian discourse has recently made a "come-back" in popular technology and academic discussions about the democratic potential of "Web 2.0." here, becoming a digital citizen means becoming an autonomous and creative "do-it-yourself citizen-consumer." This paper identifies some of the limits of this "cyber-libertarian 2.0" discourse. It does so first by drawing upon post-Marxist discourse theory to outline the central elements of the discourse, and second by contrasting the cyber-libertarian understanding of "the situation" with a critical political economy reading that draws upon Debord's theory of "the spectacle." The comparative analysis is structured by way of the normative categories "liberty," "equality," and "the demos," which both discourses embrace in different ways when speaking of digitally enabled democracy. The critical political economy reading identifies a range of factors limiting the extension of democracy through Web 2.0, factors that are not taken into account by the cyber-libertarian discourse. Identifying such factors provides a starting point for a critical exploration of how democracy can be extended through the Internet. In conclusion, lines for such exploration are suggested, specifically in relation to a radical conception of democracy.

Recently there has been some debate between deliberative democrats about whether the internet is leading to the fragmentation of communication into `like-minded' groups.This article is concerned with what is held in common by both sides of the debate: a public sphere model that aims for all-inclusive, consensus seeking rational deliberation that eliminates inter-group `polarizing' politics. It argues that this understanding of deliberative democracy fails to adequately consider the asymmetries of power through which deliberation and consensus are achieved, the inter-subjective basis of meaning, the centrality of respect for difference in democracy, and the democratic role of `like-minded' deliberative groups.The deliberative public sphere must be rethought to account more fully for these four aspects. The article draws on post-Marxist discourse theory and reconceptualizes the public sphere as a space constituted through discursive contestation.Taking this radicalized norm, it considers what research is needed to understand the democratic implications of the formation of `like-minded' groups online.

Deliberative democratic public sphere theory has become increasingly popular in Internet-democracy research and commentary. In terms of informal civic practices, advocates of this theory see the Internet as a means for the expansion of citizen deliberation leading to the formation of
rational public opinion through which official decision makers can be held accountable. In this paper I question this public sphere conception as a democratic norm of Internet practice given that there have been sustained critiques of the deliberative conception for failing to account fully
for power, and thus for supporting status quo social and political systems. I examine these claims and argue that while the deliberative conception actually pays more attention to power than some critics argue, it fails to adequately theorize the power relations involved in defining what counts
as legitimate deliberation. Drawing upon post-Marxist discourse theory, I highlight two inter-related factors that are largely ignored in this boundary setting: discursive radicalism and inter-discursive conflict. I argue that to fully account for these two factors we can refer to an agonistic
public sphere position that is also being drawn upon in Internet-democracy research and commentary. In particular, the concept counter-publics, which is deployed in such work, helps us take into account the democratic role of radical exclusion and associated counter-discursive struggles over
the limits of legitimate deliberation. The result is the radicalization of the public sphere conception.

The vision of communication systems supporting public sphere(s) of discursive contestation has in recent times been embraced by many critical theorists as the ideal democratic role for the media. However, there has also been much pessimism about the realization of this vision. This
pessimism extends from 'big brother' fears to hyperrealist scenarios - from the development of a global surveillance society to the implosion of reality in an electronically generated and sustained system of pure fabrication.

Much communications research is in agreement about the failure of mass media to adequately facilitate a public sphere of open and reflexive debate necessary for strong democratic culture. In contrast , the internet's decentralised, two-way communication is seen by many commentators to be extending such debate. However, there is some ambivalence among critical theorists as to the future role of the internet in advancing the public sphere. On the one hand, the internet is providing the means fot the voicing of positions and identities excluded from the mass media. On the other hand, a number of problem are limiting the extensiveness and effetivness of this voicing. One of the most significant problems is the corporate colonisation of cyberspace, and subsequent marginalisation rational-critical communication. It is this problem that i will focus on in this article, with reference to examples from what I refer to as the 'New Zealand online public sphere'. I show how online corporate portals and media sites are gaining the most attention orientated to public communication, including news, information, and discussion. These sites generally support conservative discourse and consumer practices. The result is a marginalisation online of the very voices marginalised offline, and also of the critical-reflexive form of communication that makes for a strong public sphere. I conclude by noting that corporate colonisation is as yet only partial, and control of attention and media is highly contested by multiple 'alternative' discursive spaces online.

Electronic democracy rhetoric has proliferated with the growth of the internet as a popular communications medium. This rhetoric is largely dominated by liberal individualist assumptions. Communitarianism has provided a resource for an alternative vision of electronic democracy. A third model, deliberative democracy, has recently been employed by electronic democrats who want to move beyond the individualism/communitarianism opposition. In this article, I outline each of these visions, describing the democratic assumptions and electronic democracy practices that each embraces. In particular, I explore the ways in which each vision sees the internet as aiding its cause. I conclude by pointing to the relative lack of research into the possibility of the deliberative position being realized through cyberspace. I suggest that a more regorous analysis of the intersection between the internet and deliberative democracy would not only be sociologically fruitful but may provide interesting possibilities for enhancing contemporary democratic forms.

'I came to this collection as a discourse theory sceptic. I still have doubts, but the editors' lucid and helpful introduction, and the excellent chapters, have opened my eyes and ears to the potential value of this approach. This is a major contribution to theorising the contemporary media.' - David Hesmondhalgh, University of Leeds, UK 'Lincoln Dahlberg and Sean Phelan have compiled an excellent collection of studies on Discourse Theory and Critical Media Politics that clarify how discourse theory can work to enrich media/communication studies. The introduction provides a succinct overview of contemporary discussions and positions concerning discourse theory and the succeeding articles provide articulation of the concept with studies of media, democracy, and contemporary politics.' - Douglas Kellner, UCLA, USA 'This is a most welcome volume. It presents a long overdue engagement between media politics and discourse theory. Combining theoretical discussion and empirical illustration, this important volume takes Discourse Theory forward in this crucial field.' - Lasse Thomassen, Queen Mary, University of London, UK