Instituto Superior de Auditoría y Fiscalización

To measure the actual discourse occurring in the online public sphere Dahlberg’s (2004a) six normative conditions were used. Dahlberg (2004a) posits that a large amount of attention has been accorded to outline the general outlines of the public sphere. Attempts to actualise the early theory of the Habermasian public sphere has been limited to general conceptions of public sphere informed by critical communication as opposed to more specific criteria examining the actual interaction between participants. Dahlberg (2004a) adds that most researchers have refrained

29

from formulating any conditions for critical analysis of the public sphere that are grounded empirically. He notes that in cases where researchers have made any attempt to apply conceptions of deliberative action by merging works of different democratic theorists, they have ignored ‘points of disagreement fundamental to the makeup of the particular theories involved’ (2004a). Consequently, any model developing out of this is overtly general and lacks a strong empirical basis for critical analysis.

In order to fill that gap Dahlberg proposes a set of public sphere conditions to critically analyse the democratic traits of everyday communication: these are autonomy; reasoned critique of problematic validity claims; sincerity; ideal role taking; reflexivity; discursive inclusion and equality. His criteria are derived from the Habermasian ideal of communicative rationality in which Habermas is dealing with an idealised form of public reasoning.

Dahlberg (2004a) states that for any group or site purporting to be a public sphere, it should meet the primary requisite of autonomy; this means the communication occurring between the actors should be free from state and economic control. This entails discourse conducted should be independent of any sort of state or corporate interests and the flow of communication should be directed from the public sphere towards the state and economic systems instead of the other way around.

Activities of state and economic systems are ‘largely apparatuses of purposive rationality (e.g. the capitalist economy constitutes subjects as consumers rather than citizens)’. In a democratic communication setup the exertion of influence and force should be from the public sphere to these systems and not the other way around.

Hence, any interaction should be driven by concerns and issues of public and not interests or propaganda fuelled by monies or power of any of the two systems.

The second condition is reasoned critique of problematic validity claims which involves systematically and rationally engaging in a reciprocal critique of normative problematic validity claims. These should be couched in reason and not asserted forcefully whilst being open to critique. It also implies that the arguments should be oriented towards a ‘universal audience’ that is all those potentially involved or affected, albeit indirectly with the claims discussed and not just those present in the

30

conversation. The arguments in consideration should be addressed to the ‘larger’ or

‘ideal’ community of participants thus universalising the claim and setting the basic structure of argumentation and the public sphere.

The third condition is reflexivity, which entails that discussants should take into account the cultural values, assumptions, interests, and the larger social context.

Participants should be open to question their own claim and restructure it in accord with the relevant claims and reasons of other members. They should ‘transcend’ their original preference or belief in lieu of a reasoned claim from any other actor. By being reflexive the participants take the position of others and in doing so they presuppose ideal role taking, which is the fourth criteria for the public sphere. Ideal role taking involves being mindful of others’ perspective and appreciative of differing points of view. Fair and rational discourse necessitates the feeling of empathy, the discussants should be able to place themselves in the position of the other and look at the situation from their perspectives. This also includes listening both impartially and respectfully and approaching any communicative situation with an understanding and not through contentious attitude.

The fifth requirement is sincerity, which calls for an honest demeanour in the sense that participants should make their intention clear in regard to the topic being discussed. It is expected of participants to be honest and open in demeanour by trying to make a sincere effort to make known all information in terms of their intention, thoughts, and needs in any given claim under consideration.

The sixth and last criterion is discursive inclusion and equality, which means that every participating actor should get an equal opportunity to get their voices heard and to question or introduce any statement they want. There are two conditions circumscribing the inclusion operating both within inside and outside the discourse.

Participants do not automatically assume formal inclusion that is all relevant claims would be in principle included. Inclusion may also be restricted by asymmetrical relations between the participants even in a formal setting; informal restrictions resulting from social and cultural inequalities may hinder the democratic flow of discourse. Within the discourse, inclusion may be limited for some are able to dominate the discourse while others struggle to present their views. On the other hand

31

inequalities from outside of discourse like lack of possession of material wealth or education may hinder the chance to take part in the proceedings.

2.5 Role of Women in the Online Public Sphere in India: A review of the