In 1962, the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas devoted his first book to what he termed the public sphere. This term refers to the space for deliberation and communication in which citizens can actively participate in political and social life by expressing their opinions and discussing issues that concern them in a rational and informed manner. Historians see the public sphere emerging in the ancient agoras and forums, then evolving into more modern forms in pubs and cafés from the 17th century onwards. Fuelled by caffeine, acquaintances and strangers alike could exchange ideas and discuss what we would today call business opportunities. Newspapers gradually began to fuel these debates. Public life took centre stage in these discussions, to the extent that some rulers simply chose to close down such establishments. Thus, the Turkish Sultan Murad IV banned coffee houses in 1633, fearing that plots might be hatched against him there. At the same time, in England, Oliver Cromwell closed drinking establishments or public houses (pubs) to prevent loose tongues from leading regulars into behaviour that might prove troublesome for his regency. In Europe, the public sphere emerged from the coffeehouse with the advent of the printing press and the end of the Ancien Régime. Citizens discuss the government proposals put forward by politicians through publications or speeches, first on the radio and later on television. These discussions help them decide how to vote and, consequently, the direction taken by the actions of elected governments. Over time, media platforms have succeeded one another, but have not replaced one another entirely. The internet seemed naturally destined to enhance the functioning of our deliberative democracies by facilitating access to information and, consequently, by improving the quality of public debate.
However, everything changed with the rise of social media. Yet the principle seemed to be moving in much the same direction: platforms for exchanging information and discussion on a global scale. Could one imagine a better vehicle for deliberative democracy?
Building on the line of thought begun 60 years ago, Jürgen Habermas examines digital fragmentation in his 2022 book, A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics (Ein neuer Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit und die deliberative Politik, Berlin: Suhrkamp 2022). In it, the philosopher explains that “there must be a recognisable link between the results of government action and the votes of the electorate, such that citizens can recognise in this the confirmation of the rationalising power of their own opinions and democratic choices. Citizens must be able to perceive their conflicts of opinion both as having consequences and as a disagreement over the best rational choices”*. For Habermas, social media in their current form destroy these links of correspondence between the data of public debate and the perception of public action. Indeed, the emergence of social media has gone hand in hand with the disintegration of institutional journalism.
However, without a professional mediator whose job it is to verify sources, sift through information and prioritise it according to its significance, all news appears in the public sphere in an undifferentiated manner, amidst a stream of private opinions and information. The information landscape of social media is, by its very nature, semi-private. Driven by individuals, what is shared there expresses their point of view rather than an attempt to establish a truth or construct a coherent narrative. A piece on complotisse.org, written by an enthusiastic amateur in 15 minutes in their kitchen, sits comfortably alongside an article from so-called mainstream media that will have mobilised a team of professionals for three months, and a photo of Fido the dog. Social media is therefore ambivalent. Whilst the democratisation of access to an audience is undeniable, the lack of quality control over content undermines the seriousness of the debate. The real problem runs even deeper. Without blaming the kittens, Habermas highlights the blurring of the lines between the private sphere—previously reserved for correspondence—and the public sphere. Influencers readily capitalise on this confusion by talking to us about their diets or their choice of bedding – topics previously reserved for a close circle of friends. Indeed, public discussion was, until now, reserved for so-called matters of general interest precisely because the decisions they involve affect a significant number of citizens (at local, regional or national level). This is no longer the case on social media. Left to their own devices, these platforms have created an ambiguous environment that is clearly corrosive to democracy, rather than fostering informed debate on a large scale. These observations lead Habermas to speak of democratic regression.
But does that mean we should despair? Not necessarily. Every new medium has left its audiences perplexed and contributed in its own way to the ills of the age. Consider the exploitation of radio by the German National Socialists in the 1920s and 1930s. That same radio helped establish the prestige of jazz as a legitimate form of musical expression in the US. The speeches of Churchill and de Gaulle were broadcast over those same airwaves. The media is a tool. Like any technology, the exploratory phase allows us to discover its potential uses and abuses. So far, sensible regulatory mechanisms have always followed, sometimes preceded by phases of over-regulation (did you say ORTF?). The need to create a form of digital coexistence that fosters learning, creativity and the exchange of ideas seems to be recognised (do you remember the promises of Web 1.0?). The conceptual, legal and technical tools will follow.
A nos mots contributes to this effort by creating opportunities for people to speak out, to be heard, and to have a tangible impact on the discourse and actions of brands, companies and public figures. Our company began with the realisation that there was an unprecedented opportunity to listen to our contemporaries without extrapolating from the words of a few or pigeonholing them, and certainly not by eavesdropping at the door of the network of networks. Our raison d’être is indeed to contribute to the emergence of large-scale discussions that allow every voice to be heard. By limiting the use of AI to an initial processing stage, by creating tailored questionnaires that allow us to include all of an organisation’s stakeholders, and by discerning the complexity of the responses gathered through professional, human processing, our aim is to foster informed discussions around brands, companies and citizen initiatives.
NB: translation and adaptation by us