CODE PINK Alert, 5
this area of study. This study proposes that an application of public sphere theory provides an apt
framework for studying the role of the Internet within the broader context, as Agre (2002) recommends.
Thus, it is necessary to explain how this theoretical perspective forms the study’s methodology.
Plurality in the public sphere
By many accounts (see Calhoun, 1992), a critical conception of the public sphere begins with a
review of Habermas who describes the public sphere as “a domain of social life in which such a thing as
public opinion can be formed” (1989, p. 231). In this domain, discourse is as much a part of participation as
voting. Deliberation in the form of rational-critical debate is a necessary component of the public sphere
(Habermas, 1989/1962). This domain must be accessible to citizens, and should be kept separate from
business and state interests. Furthermore, Habermas distinguishes a political public sphere as one in which
discussions revolve around the activities of the state. Another component that has been widely criticized is
the drive toward consensus. Habermas decries the structural transformation which has resulted in a shift
from individual to organizational representation, thereby making consensus difficult, if not impossible.
This very notion of consensus has caused others to radically revise Habermas’ theory. Notable
among these critics is Nancy Fraser (1992), who believes a new conception of publics and the public sphere
is necessary. This conception would recognize that individuals are fragmented in groups, but that this is not
necessarily a negative development. In fact, these groups can actually provide a space for marginal voices
to develop clarity and strength.
For Fraser (1992), the public sphere consists of multiple publics, some of which are subaltern
counterpublics, which she defines “as parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social
groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate interpretations of their identities, interests and
needs” (p. 123). Subaltern spaces allow members to develop and “test” interpublic discourse before
entering into critical debate with other publics. Fraser (1992) contends that subaltern counterpublics, in
their attempt to circumvent the dominant public sphere, can challenge the inherent inequalities of a
stratified society. These groups expand public space, increasing access and diversity (p. 123-124).
Convention