The tools and resources of the Internet have given rise to “networked counterpublics”, spaces mediated by networked tools where individuals of common interests can engage in discourse and action internally and externally with other (perhaps more dominant) public spheres. What it means to be “counterpublic”, I believe, has not departed much from what Nancy Fraser defined it – as “subaltern” or coalitions of marginal groups combating oppression from more dominant public spheres. However, as Yochai Benkler argues, the Internet has dramatically changed how individuals can participate in the public sphere. With the lower costs of publishing and interaction, the roles individuals can take on have shifted from being readers and listeners to writers and watchdogs of their own domains. They do not need to rely on mass media to deliver information nor do they need to rely on others to act on their behalf.
To understand more deeply what networked counterpublic might mean, I found it useful to think through the characteristics that Catherine Squires developed (see table below) looking at the Spaces and Discourses, Resources, Goals, Performances in Wider Publics, and Sanctions. The technical infrastructure of the Internet enable spaces and discourses across a variety of medium like blogs, content sharing sites like YouTube, and collaborative content production systems like reddit. These spaces have encouraged practices and discourse towards a “see for yourself” culture, where individuals no longer rely on a few sources for information but can look up and investigate the primary sources themselves. They also encourage individuals to publish, share, and interact in the spaces by engaging in conversations around user-created content. In addition to these tools, the resources of networked counterpublic include the entire crowd that participates online. For example, the WikiLeaks organization enable individuals to release documents anonymously online. Others can then sift through the released materials and analyze information for themselves. WikiLeaks also highlights how the “crowd” is a potential resource for counterpublic. Networked counterpublics can use the Internet as a platform to mobilize individuals to act and contribute to their causes. For example, MoveOn provides individuals ways to start their own campaigns or join other user-created campaigns. These platforms can also be a means to collect individuals of various expertise that they may not have easy access to such as those with legal backgrounds, as Benkler illustrated with The Electronic Freedom Frontier provided the legal support to support the students being sued by the Diebold Foundation.
Image from Catherine Squires, “Rethinking the Black Public Sphere: An Alternative Vocabulary for Multiple Public Spheres,” Communication Theory 12, no. 4 (November 1, 2002): 446-468.
The spaces, discourses, and resources of the networked sphere enable counterpublics to further pursue their goals at a speed comparable to what Benkler calls “journalism time”: hourly, daily, and weekly. Counterpublics can foster and mobilize resistance through low cost mediums like text messages and tweets. The performances of networked counterpublics of protest can also take on new forms. For example, I saw a video (from Ethan Zuckerman’s blog post) of Manal Al-Sharif driving to protest a public order in Saudi Arabia that does not allow women to drive. Her protest had both a real-life and virtual interaction. By driving herself, she was physically disobeying the order but she also shared her protest with the wider world through a video that later motivated others to video record their own drives in Saudi streets.
Networked counterpublics may also use the medium to avoid authoritative reactions and controls. The Internet provides a means for anonymous identity, allowing individuals to safely discuss and act against more dominant publics. The distributed nature of interaction online also makes it difficult for authoritative figures to target a central point of failure. For example, in the Mexican drug violence, mass media has come under attack by drug cartels, making it difficult for journalists and news outlets to perform their watchdog role. Instead, individuals on the ground have been using Twitter and other social media tools to raise awareness of violence in the area. Networked counterpublics are still not free from danger however as the use of public identities in this same example from Mexico can also be used to more easily find dissidents.
I believe ‘networked counterpublic’ is a useful concept in including alternative and marginal voices as Fraser points out. However, reflecting back on our discussion of the digital inequality, particularly the perpetuation of inequalities, we must consider both the new potential and dangers of networked counterpublics. As discourse and action occurs through networked spaces, what marginal voices are being left out and what voices are dominating the networked spheres? How does not participating through the networked medium disadvantage underprivileged groups in how they are governed, how they are represented?