:: netwoman's blog ::

The Internet as (Gendered) Coffee House

Interesting article in the Economist here....

"WHERE do you go when you want to know the latest business news, follow commodity prices, keep up with political gossip, find out what others think of a new book, or stay abreast of the latest scientific and technological developments? Today, the answer is obvious: you log on to the internet. Three centuries ago, the answer was just as easy: you went to a coffee-house. There, for the price of a cup of coffee, you could read the latest pamphlets, catch up on news and gossip, attend scientific lectures, strike business deals, or chat with like-minded people about literature or politics."

This is much of what Habermas wrote in "the structural transformation of the public sphere" - and my comments about it are much the same.

"Coffee-houses were centres of scientific education, literary and philosophical speculation, commercial innovation and, sometimes, political fermentation. Collectively, Europe's interconnected web of coffee-houses formed the internet of the Enlightenment era."

I think we cannot ignore that the elite had access to these coffee houses. In "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere", Jurgen Habermas proposes a public sphere rooted in the development of salons, coffee houses and table societies that allowed 'rational-critical' discussions between people who visited these sites. Habermas argues that "Transcending the barriers of social hierarchy, the bourgeois met here with the socially prestigious but politically uninfluential nobles as 'common' human beings" (p35). However, I would argue that this might not be the case.

My essential inquiry is one of exclusion and access to the public sphere. Who is excluded or isolated by this construction of public space? Can it be an adequate representation of individuals. If not, what are the implications of this exclusion on Habermas' notion of 'public'?

In terms of exclusion, I would question the critical discussion between 'rational individuals'. I think there is a certain expectation of communicative abilities. If people are to argue their points, then they truly must be educated and able to participate in the discourse. There is an implicit expectation of capability to logically and rationally engage in a discussion or debate in these locations. This seems to relate back to debates concerning who is (and can be) a rational being. What other types of communication or dialogue does this exclude? Does communication have to be face to face and does critical discussion as verbal presentation dismiss other forums or means for debate?

Habermas notes that the coffee houses only admitted men (p33). This certainly indicates exclusion based upon gender. Again, I would argue that his notion of public 'open to all space' does not apply in this instance if women are not allowed to participate. However, he further indicates that the salon was 'shaped by women'. It is evident that women did participate actively in critical discussions in some element, yet their discussions were limited by gender segregation. I wonder how much influence these gendered forums had on formulating 'public opinion'.

As well, I would also question what kind of women were able to actively participate in the salon debates? Presumably women who frequented the salons were representative of a particular social location. As women are responsible for the family, many women are restricted to child care and other domestic work. Women who had the social capital for 'nannies' could surely attend the salons for critical-rational exchanges. The women with social capital also have more leisure opportunity than women who are engrossed in domestic labour.

Furthermore, the location of the salon, coffee houses and table societies are primarily located in an urban setting. This raises issues of accessibility to the salons, coffee houses and table societies as troublesome because only people within the city or town would have easy access and be able to frequent the sites. Where does this leave agricultural workers? Habermas states that the coffee house "public was recruited from private people engaged in productive work" (p34). I question what Habermas deems as productive work as there were obviously so many people excluded from his public sphere.

Therefore, I am persuaded to believe that the 'public' sphere that Habermas purports (and the Economist article) was created in the discussions at the salons, coffee houses and table societies are problematic."Their intent was that in such a manner an equality and association among personas of unequal social status might be brought about" (p34). The public sphere as a site for inclusion and 'equal footing' is not what it appears to be. It is also somewhat unrealistic to think that this utopian public space could adequately represent 'public' opinion, as it seems to represent a public within a certain group of people. Therefore, Habermas' notion of 'public' as 'open to all' becomes the very site that he defines public against - one of exclusion.

The same can be argued about the Internet - an arena of exclusion based on race, class, gender, sexuality, ableism and age. The Economist article does nothing to address this at all. We can't forget that certain voices are deemed 'worthy' of being heard and recognized, others are ignored, undervalued and unheard on the Internet.

posted by Netwoman @ 9:46 AM