RETHINKING THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE CYBER PUBLIC: FROM CONSENSUS TO CONTESTATION

Abstract

Recently there has been some debate between deliberative democrats about whether the internet is leading to the fragmentation of communication into ‘like-minded’ groups. This article is concerned with what is held in common by both sides of the debate: a public sphere model that aims for all-inclusive, consensus seeking rational deliberation that eliminates intergroup ‘polarizing’ politics. It argues that this understanding of deliberative democracy fails to adequately consider the asymmetries of power through which deliberation and consensus are achieved, the inter-subjective basis of meaning, the centrality of respect for difference in democracy, and the democratic role of ‘like-minded’ deliberative groups. The deliberative public sphere must be rethought to account more fully for these four aspects. The article draws on post-Marxist discourse theory and conceptualizes the public sphere as a space constituted through discursive contestation. Taking this radicalized norm, it considers what research is needed to understand the democratic implications of the formation of ‘like-minded’ groups online.