Page 96 - Democracy and the Public Sphere

Mediations: From the Coffee House to the Internet Café 91

diffuse, for the classical model of democracy to be of signifi cant value
in the contemporary world, even as a counterfactual ideal.

There are, of course, many areas of social life in which individuals could
assume a greater role in decision-making processes, and it may be the case
that increased participation in these processes would facilitate the formation
of what Habermas calls ‘public opinion’. But at the level of national and
international politics, and at the upper levels in which power is exercised in
large-scale civil and commercial organizations, it is difficult to see how the
idea of participatory opinion formation could be implemented in any significant
way. What we may hope for at best is a greater diffusion of information
concerning the activities of powerful individuals and organizations, a greater
diversity in channels of diffusion and a greater emphasis on the establishment
of mechanisms through which these activities can be rendered accountable
and controlled. 6

As a simple rejection of participatory models of democracy, there is
scarcely anything controversial in this. From hard-nosed technocratic
elitism through to reluctant realism, democratic theory has long
concerned itself with the limits of democratic participation in modern,
complex societies. Debates have emphasised time constraints, the

imperatives of efficiency and expertise, the specialisation of expert
knowledge, and the rights of citizens to a private life protected from
the tyranny of an over-politicised society. What’s interesting about
Thompson’s arguments, however – and what concerns us here – is the
way in which he draws upon the prevalence of communications media
to criticise Habermas and to reinforce the case against participatory
models of democracy. The arguments Thompson advances suggest
at least five related ways in which the Habermasian account of the

public sphere abstracts itself from the realities of the contemporary
world. Thompson is concerned to show that Habermas’s dialogical
model fails to account for (1) the precise nature of mass-mediated
communication and (2) the role it plays in contemporary social life.
He suggests further that the dialogical model fails to account for
the way the mass media constitute interaction (3) between citizens
and decision makers and (4) amongst citizens themselves, as co-
participants in processes of public-opinion formation. Thompson
then suggests (5) that Habermas’s model of public space provides a
skewed understanding of the prospects for more democratic forms of
social organisation and demonstrates, at best, a limited understanding

23/8/05 09:36:09
Goode 02 chap04 91 23/8/05 09:36:09
Goode 02 chap04 91