Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
activism
Frances Shaw
University of New South Wales, Australia
“[Politics] makes visible what had no business being seen, and makes heard a
discourse where once there was only place for noise; it makes understood as
discourse what was once only heard as noise.”
- Jacques Rancière, Disagreement
Abstract
1
Introduction
2
Mouffe (2005) refers to as “the political” as opposed to “politics” and
what Rancière (1999) refers to as “politics” as opposed to the “police”.
For Mouffe (2005), the political is defined by the agonistic struggle of
actors for discursive hegemony, and with the definition of ‘us’ and
‘them’. She uses the concept of the “constitutive outside” to show that
political positions are defined in terms of their opposition to other
political positions, that every order is based on some form of
exclusion, and that “the political” is thus necessarily an oppositional
struggle (Mouffe 2005). Her notion of democracy is one in which the
agonistic struggle of political positions is allowed to take place, rather
than simply a representative, aggregative or dialogic consensus being
reached. An understanding of the political as agonistic rather than
deliberative will lead to new ways of conceptualising online discursive
politics.
3
(White 1991, 18). Discourses are both enabling and limiting, in that
they enable certain statements and truth claims but preclude others
(Flax 1993, 138). My research concerns the uses of the internet for
those who are in some way excluded from the traditional public
sphere: those whose discourses are marked as separate from the
mainstream. This paper questions the use of a public sphere
understanding of internet discourse, and proposes that a different
conception would be more productive for a study of this nature. As
Burgess (2006, 203) argues “The question that we must ask about
‘democratic’ media participation can no longer be limited to ‘who gets
to speak?’ We must also ask ‘who is heard, and to what end?’”.
4
transgender rights and discrimination, queer politics, and many other
issues relating (in particular) to difference and exclusion, but also
engage with mainstream political issues. On the whole, this blog
network functions to critique the ideology of mainstream discourses at
least partly in order to change them. In this way, among other things,
these blogs can be understood as discursive activism.
The emphasis here is on how the internet will enhance the existing
political system by altering and easing communication, creating the
ideal criteria of the public sphere, or creating the perfect conditions for
deliberative democracy (Albrecht 2006; Gimmler 2001). Common in
these accounts is an understanding of “voice-as-democratic-
participation” (Crawford 2009, 527). These approaches have as their
assumption the possibility of rational-critical deliberation based on
perfect or at least improved access to information, and emphasise the
potential of the internet to make the Habermasian public sphere “come
true” (Albrecht 2006, 64).
5
A minority of researchers into online politics have brought the concepts
of radical or agonistic democracy, neodemocratic politics,
nonrepresentative democracy, new discourse theory, and other related
concepts, into understandings of politics online (Dean 2003; Kahn &
Kellner 2004; Kellner 1999; Marchart 2007; Rossiter 2001; Rossiter
2006). Kahn (1999) first proposed the use of radical democracy in the
study of “technopolitics” in the late nineties, and Kahn and Kellner
(2004) later deployed the concept of oppositional politics as an
alternative to deliberative democracy. Rossiter (2001; 2006) discusses
Mouffe’s (2005) concept of agonistic democracy and also develops the
idea of nonrepresentative democracy, also explored by Lovink (2008,
245). Dean (2003) discussed a model of online discursive politics
based around issue networks called “neodemocratic politics”. Marchart
(2007, 10) sees the public media as antipolitical, and uses new
discourse theory/agonistic democracy to show the necessity of conflict
and antagonism to create a political public space online.
6
to those involved in discursive politics (Fraser 1995; White 1991, 24).
Discourse is understood as political and therefore those who speak in
the public sphere are political actors.
So, the first problem with Habermas’s theory of publics is that it lacks
an understanding or acceptance of power relations and other factors
that determine the possibility of participation. The second problem is
that it lacks an understanding of the politically determined nature of its
own norms, such as the division of the public sphere from the private
sphere, and the concepts of “the good life” and of “justice” (Flax
1993). According to Mouffe (2005, 56), the norms of a political order
are justified in a way that constructs those who don’t meet the norms
as outside “the political”, which means that those norms are no longer
“open to political contestation”. Both of these problems undermine the
usefulness of the theory to understand speech as political action. The
use of language to act politically is understood by Habermas as
legitimate, but only under particular circumstances.
7
Habermas's conception of the public sphere also opposes
communicative action to instrumental activity, which, applied to
activism, means that both discursive forms and protest activity are
understood as "acts", but that the rational-critical, communicative
speech act is divested of passion - that is properly aligned with the
actions of the street protestor (Habermas 1996, 337; Žižek 2008, 122;
324). Such a conception of the speech act as emotionally disinvested
also fails to mesh with people's understandings of common online
communicative forms, including (especially) in spaces where political
conversations are taking place, in which the "stoush" becomes
"personal", and the use of sarcasm, satire, and hyperbole (among
other such affective devices) is commonplace.
8
of power and processes of exclusion and inequality (Baym 1995, 141;
Mallapragada 2006, 200).
This is not to say that inequality and power imbalances are irrelevant
to the study of online political discourse, but rather that they can’t be
relied on to disappear in online social life. The norms that Habermasian
public sphere theory includes are of course desirable: in particular the
requirements of personal reflexivity, empathy for the other, sincerity,
equality, and so forth (Dahlberg 2004). The problem is that the
literature on the possibility for deliberative democracy online seems to
express a utopian expectation for this to occur (or to be made to
occur) in online spaces for debate. A double bind based on this
assumption is evident in Albrecht’s (2006) research into online political
deliberation, in which he determines that because access and
participation is likely to be unequal, the potential for creating spaces
for deliberative democracy online has not yet been realised, which
leads to the devaluation of online political debate as something with
significance, as a result of its not meeting the criteria for the rational-
critical debate of the public sphere.
This leads to both a utopian vision for the political potential of the net
based on the concept of the public sphere which believes the internet
to be (or to potentially be) an entirely inclusive space, as well as a
more sceptical view of politics online due to the identification of
exclusivity and inequality, that is also anchored in that same ideal
(Dean 2003, 98). Such an emphasis on the public sphere-ness (or lack
thereof) of the internet provides a very limited model for discursive
politics online. In addition, the use of the public sphere model can lead
to the conclusion that the internet is too inclusive because of the
inevitability of disagreement that such a multiplicity of positions make
possible, and the desirability of consensus that the public sphere
model supposes (Dean 2003, 100).
9
Benhabib (1993, 95) as well as Fraser (1993; 1995) argue for the
“feminisation” of Habermasian deliberative democratic theory, and
Fraser (1993; 1995, 291) and Warner (2002) oblige by arguing for the
inclusion of multiple and competing discourses within the model of the
public, as well as the negotiability of the terms of the debate, and
these solutions go some way to solving the problems of public sphere
theory. However, I would argue along with Iris Marion Young (1985,
396), Norval (1997, 38), and Flax (1993, 88-89) that the assumptions
behind public sphere theory are at least partially incompatible with
feminism and other emancipatory or counterhegemonic projects. As
Stacey Young (1997, 5) explains, “a definition of equality that pays
only passing notice to individuals’ embeddedness in social structures of
inequality can never be used to bring about actual – not just nominal –
equality”.
Maddison and Scalmer (2006, 101) point out that the concept of
democracy can sometimes be wielded against “those who threaten the
existing order” by dubbing them “undemocratic” and thereby robbing
their actions of legitimacy. The use of the theory of publics as the basis
for understanding discursive politics in blogging communities carries
this risk. The development of activist counterhegemonic communities
will necessarily involve the development of exclusive or semi-exclusive
communities defined by or complicated by the identity of the
participants, and therefore the norms of equality, transparency,
inclusivity and rationality (Dean 2003, 96) are unlikely to be met.
10
deliberative process whose structure grounds an expectation of
rationally acceptable results”. According to Mouffe (1995, 87), this
conclusion “reveals the anti-political nature of Habermas’s approach”
because it fails to acknowledge that the criteria for what will be
“rationally acceptable” is always going to be politically determined. In
addition Habermas here denies the possibility of antagonism/agonism
or conflict – consensus is the legitimate outcome of discourse (Dean
2003, 103) and the productive uses of conflict are not explored (Flax
1993, 89). Although Fraser (1995, 291) and Warner (2002) modified
the concept of the public sphere to include the possibility of multiple
publics and productive conflict, in an agonistic understanding of politics
disagreement and struggles for hegemony are the basis of the political
(Dean 2003, 110; Mouffe 2005; Norval 2007, 41-42).
There is a need to use a model for online discursive politics that takes
into consideration the intent and capacities of online activists, and of
social collectivities and networks that seek to transform the social.
Other possible conceptual understandings include counterpublic theory
(Fraser 1995; Warner 2002), overcoming the requirement for full
inclusion that public sphere theory requires; and an agonistic rather
than a consensus model of politics, based on the writings of Laclau and
Mouffe (1985). The latter is the approach that I concentrate on in this
paper.
11
concerns with inclusion and representation, can actually function to
exclude people from the sphere of politics, rendering them invisible.
The threads also demonstrate the ways in which Australian feminist
bloggers engage in discursive activism and see themselves to be
engaging in discursive activism, but in particular they show how a
push for inclusion in online political communities (in line with a public
sphere ideal) can perversely lead to exclusionary practices and
thinking.
The threads that I briefly analyse in this paper are: “Where are
Australia’s female political bloggers?” by “Possum Commitatus” (2009)
on the blog Pollytics which is hosted by the Australian independent
journalism site Crikey.com; “Quickhit: Invisible Women, Invisible
Politics” by “Lauredhel” (2009) on the blog Hoyden About Town. The
blog post by “Possum Commitatus” (2009) was the post that triggered
the discussion, and was itself triggered by a twitter post by a
crikey.com editor asking why there were so few female subscribers or
regular commenters on Crikey.com. Speculating on this fact led
“Possum Commitatus” to identify “the lack of big female political
bloggers” in Australia.
The question “Where are the women bloggers?” has been a popular
refrain since the beginning of blogs, and has been problematised by
several writers (Bell 2007; Gregg 2006; Harp and Tremayne 2006;
Herring 2004). According to Gregg (2006, 151), "men's blogs are often
seen to be more engaged in political debate, especially when the
notion of what counts as political remains undefined".
12
Firstly, “Possum Commitatus” constructed the justification of his
question about the “lack” of female political bloggers around concerns
of “inclusion” or “representation”. He asks what it is about the
Australian internet “that causes a hole in female representation in the
blogosphere” (“Possum Commitatus” August 20, 2009 at 9:26 am in
“Lauredhel” 2009). In addition, “Possum Commitatus” (August 20,
2009 at 4:48 pm in “Lauredhel” 2009) defined this sphere variously as
“those same issues that affect the largest possible majority of the
population”, “what the mainstream media defines as daily politics”, and
“the same issue space as the political reporting of the mainstream
media”. He argues that “independent female voices *competing* daily
with the [mainstream media]” on these issues “would be a GOOD
THING by any yardstick” and would constitute these women “speaking
to power” (“Possum Comitatus” August 20, 2009 at 7:05 pm in
“Lauredhel” 2009).
Putting aside the fact that many Australian political blogs written by
women do engage directly and daily with issues in the mainstream
media, this question, as it is framed, consists of “Possum Comitatus”
simultaneously expressing concern about the exclusion of women from
the (internet) public sphere while defining the terms of inclusion. The
question of exclusion and equality, as well as the concept of “voices”
and “speaking to power” within the public sphere combined with a
politically delineated concept of that sphere for rational political
speech, sums up the problems with using the public sphere model for
the study of discursive politics online. Even for a critical researcher, the
traps are contained within the model.
Many commenters on the Hoyden About Town post pointed out that if
it wasn’t obvious to male political bloggers that feminist blogs like
Hoyden About Town were political, the definition of “political” must be
constructed to exclude women’s political concerns. “Oh, wait. ‘Big-p
Political.’ That means ‘about dudes.’ I forgot”, said “softestbullet”
(August 19, 2009 at 3:43 pm in “Lauredhel” 2009). “Lauredhel”
(August 19, 2009 at 4:11 pm in “Lauredhel” 2009) speculated that
Hoyden About Town wasn’t understood as a political blog because “we
also post about gardening, and food, and parenting, and life”, which is
“pretty thoroughly deprecated in some masculine-coded online
spaces”. “WildlyParenthetical” (August 20, 2009 at 8:39 am in
“Lauredhel” 2009) points out that feminist blogs are being constructed
as “apparently not ‘real politics’ according to those who consider
themselves in a position to define it” and that “this inside/outside
distinction, whereby women are considered to be ‘not doing politics’ is
key in producing this sense, for women, that they are not welcome on
13
‘big-p political’ blogs” (WildlyParenthetical August 20, 2009 at 12:21
pm in “Lauredhel” 2009).
14
(in)effective. The possibility of affording equal respect to all parties in
a discussion is constituted by power relations and the discursive
expectations of particular groups. A self-critical and open aspect in a
discussion will go partway to overcoming these barriers to equality, but
the assumption that all people in public space will take each other
equally seriously in spite of hegemonic discourses and power relations
is false.
15
necessity of collective identity and an oppositional position in political
discourse, but the recognition of the primacy of discourse itself in “the
political”. This involves defining democracy as based on agonistic
discourse rather than simply democratic institutions and representative
bodies. These assumptions form the basis of Mouffe’s (2005) criticism
of consensus-privileging discourses. Mouffe (2000, 28) claims that
consensus-based political theory in fact expresses a desire for the
elimination of the political. This echoes Rancière’s (1999, xii)
contention that political philosophy is the attempt of philosophy to “rid
itself of politics” which is grounded upon “disagreement” by deciding
upon particular values and norms.
16
disrupting and undermining hegemonic consensus, in other words as
participating in agonistic democracy (Marchart 2007, 11). In this way
politics “makes heard a discourse where once there was only place for
noise” (Ranciere 1999, 30).
Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) new discourse theory (Torfing 1999) is also
useful for our understanding of political agency and identity. The
notion of dislocation articulated by Laclau (1996, 67) enables the
agency of individuals to be retained, by preventing the possibility of
structural determinism. Dislocation refers to events that disrupt the
discursive structure; events that resist symbolisation and
domestication (Torfing 1999, 149). This conception sheds light on
processes of identification through subject formation (Norval 2007,
15).
17
political” (Torfing 1999, 151). I propose that the Australian feminist
blogging community be understood as a counterhegemonic project
that politically rearticulates meaning at points of dislocation, at the
same time constituting the identity and agency of the participants
(Torfing 1999, 151).
Conclusion
18
Wordcount: 6747
29th August 2009
19
Reference List
Albrecht, S. (2006), 'Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of participation and
representation in political debates on the internet', Information, Communication and Society 9(1),
62-82.
Ayres, J. M. (1999), 'From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion of Contention', Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 566, 132-143.
Bahnisch, M. (2006), ‘The Political Uses of Blogs’, in Axel Bruns & Joanne Jacobs, eds., Uses of
Blogs, New York: Peter Lang.
Bell, B. (2007), ‘Private Writing in Public Spaces: Girls' Blogs and Shifting Boundaries’, in
Sandra Weber & Shanly Dixon, eds., Growing Up Online: Young People and Digital
Technologies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 95-111.
Benhabib, S. (1996), ‘Introduction: The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference’, in
Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political,
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, .
Benhabib, S. (1993), ‘Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen
Habermas’, in Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge Massachusetts:
The MIT Press.
Bickford, S. (1996), The dissonance of democracy: listening, conflict, and citizenship, New York:
Cornell University Press.
Bohman, J. (2004), ‘Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for
transnational democracy’, in Nick Crossley & John Michael Roberts, eds., After Habermas: new
perspectives on the public sphere, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, .
Boyd, D. (2009), ‘A Response to Christine Hine’, in Annette N. Markham & Nancy K. Baym,
eds., Internet Inquiry: conversations about method, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bruns, A. (2006), ‘The Practice of News Blogging’, in Axel Bruns & Joanne Jacobs, eds., Uses of
Blogs, New York: Peter Lang.
Burgess, J. (2006), 'Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital
Storytelling', Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 20(2), 201-214.
20
Butler, J. (2000), ‘Restaging the Universal: Hegemony and the Limits of Formalism’, in Judith
Butler, Ernesto Laclau & Slavoj Žižek, eds., Contingency, Hegemony, Universality:
Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, London: Verso.
Butler, R. (2005), Slavoj Žižek: Live Theory, New York: Continuum Books.
Chambers, S. A. (2005), 'Democracy and (the) Public(s): Spatializing Politics in the Internet
Agency', Political Theory 33(1), 125-136.
Dahlberg, L. (2007), 'The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public
sphere', International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 3(1), 47-64.
Dahlberg, L. (2005), 'The Corporate Colonization of Online Attention and the Marginalization of
Critical Communication?', Journal of Communication Inquiry 29(2), 160-180.
Dahlgren, P. (2005), 'The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and
Deliberation', Political Communication 22(2), 147-162.
Dean, J. (2003), 'Why the Net is not a Public Sphere', Constellations 10(1), 95-112.
Dreher, T. (2009), 'Listening across difference: Media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of
voice', Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 23(4), 445-458.
Edelman, M. (2001), 'Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics', Annual
Review of Anthropology 30, 285-317.
Fine, M. (1992), ‘Passions, Politics, and Power: Feminist Research Possibilities’, in Michelle
Fine, ed., Disruptive Voices: The Possibilities of Feminist Research, Ann Arbor: The University
of Michigan Press.
Fischer, F. (2003), Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Flax, J. (1993), Disputed Subjects: essays on psychoanalysis, politics and philosophy, New York:
Routledge.
Fraser, N. (1993), ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy’, in Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
21
Fraser, N. (1995), ‘The Uses and Abuses of French Discourse Theories for Feminist Politics’, in
Seyla Benhabib, ed., Feminist contentions: a philosophical exchange, New York: Routledge.
Gimmler, A. (2001), 'Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet', Philosophy and
Social Criticism 27(4), 21-39.
Gregg, M. (2006), ‘Posting with Passion: Blogs and the Politics of Gender’, in Axel Bruns &
Joanne Jacobs, eds., Uses of Blogs, New York: Peter Lang, .
Habermas, J. (2003), ‘The Postnational Constellation’, in David Held & Anthony McGrew, eds.,
The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Cambridge:
Polity Press, .
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law
and Democracy, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Harp, D. & Tremayne, M. (2006), 'The Gendered Blogosphere: Examining Inequality Using
Network and Feminist Theory', Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 83(2), 247-264.
Jasper, J. M. (2003), ‘The Emotions of Protest’, in Jeff Goodwin & James M. Jasper, eds., The
social movements reader: cases and concepts, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 153-162.
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2004), 'New Media and Internet Activism: From the 'Battle of Seattle' to
Blogging', New Media & Society 6(1), 87-95.
Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2003), ‘Internet subcultures and oppositional politics’, in David
Muggleton & Rupert Weinzierl, ed., The post-subcultures reader, Oxford: Berg.
Katzenstein, M. F. (1995), ‘Discursive Politics and Feminist Activism in the Catholic Church’, in
Myra Marx Ferree & Patricia Yancey Martin, eds., Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the new
women's movement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics, London: Verso.
Lovink, G. (2008), Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, New York:
Routledge.
Maddison, S. & Scalmer, S. (2006), Activist wisdom: practical knowledge and creative tension in
social movements., University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Marchart, O. (2007), 'The People and the Public: Radical Democracy and the Role of the Public
Media', Open 13, 7-16.
22
Mouffe, C. (2005), On the Political, London: Routledge.
Olsson, T. (2006), ‘Active and Calculated Media Use Among Young Citizens: Empirical
Examples From a Swedish Study’, in David Buckingham & Rebekah Willett, eds., Digital
Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, Lund and Vaxjo University, 115-130.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002), 'The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere', New Media &
Society 4(9).
Polletta, F. (2006), It was like a fever: storytelling in protest and politics, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
della Porta, D. & Diani, M. (2006), Social Movements : an introduction, Blackwell Publishing.
Poster, M. (2001), ‘CyberDemocracy: The Internet and the Public Sphere’, in David Trend, ed.,
Reading digital culture, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Putnam, R. D. (2000), Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Rossiter, N. (2006), ‘Organized Networks and Nonrepresentative Democracy’, in Jodi Dean; Jon
W. Anderson & Geert Lovink, ed., Reformatting politics: information technology and global civil
society, New York: Routledge.
Torfing, J. (1999), New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
23
Warner, M. (2002), Publics and Counterpublics, New York: Zone Books.
Young, I. M. (1985), 'Impartiality and the Civic Public: Some Implications of Feminist Critiques
of Moral and Political Theory', PRAXIS International 4, 381-401.
Young, S. (1997), Changing the Wor(l)d: Discourse, Politics, and the Feminist Movement, New
York: Routledge.
Web References
“Lauredhel” 2009. ‘Quickhit: Invisible Women, Invisible Politics’, published 19 August 2009 in
Hoyden About Town. URL: <http://viv.id.au/blog/20090819.6278/quickhit-invisible-women-
invisible-politics/>. Consulted 20 August 2009.
“Possum Commitatus” 2009. ‘Where are Australia’s female political bloggers?’, published 19
August 2009 in Pollytics. URL: <http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/08/19/where-are-
australia’s-female-political-bloggers/>. Consulted 20 August 2009.
24