Many discussions of discursive politics online take a deliberative democracy, or public sphere, approach. Public sphere theory has had value for the discussion of discursive politics online, but I argue that the problems of public sphere theory have led to the neglect of counter-hegemonic political projects in understandings of online deliberative democracy. Agonistic democracy should be explored further as an alternative framework for the study of online political communities. In addition, I propose that this conception be modified with greater analysis of the affective dimensions of online politics, the productive uses of conflict, the role of political listening and an understanding of discursive activism informed by feminist philosophy. The Australian feminist blogging community, a network comprising group and individual blogs, provides a case study for my research into discursive activism in online contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrechtS.2006, ‘Whose Voice is Heard in Online Deliberation? A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet’, Information, Communication and Society, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 62–82.
2.
AyresJ.M.1999, ‘From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion of Contention’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, no. 566, pp. 132–43.
3.
BaymN.K.1995, ‘The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication’, in JonesSteven G. (ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
4.
BellB.2007, ‘Private Writing in Public Spaces: Girls' Blogs and Shifting Boundaries’, in WeberS.DixonS. (eds), Growing Up Online: Young People and Digital Technologies, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 95–111.
5.
BestS.J.KruegerB.S.2005, ‘Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet Political Participation’, Political Behavior, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 183–216.
6.
BickfordS.1996, The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship, Cornell University Press, New York.
7.
BohmanJ.2004, ‘Expanding Dialogue: The Internet, the Public Sphere and Prospects for Transnational Democracy’, in CrossleyN.RobertsJ.M. (eds), After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, Blackwell, Oxford.
8.
BurgessJ.2006, ‘Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling’, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201–14.
9.
ChambersS.A.2005, ‘Democracy and (the) Public(s): Spatializing Politics in the Internet Agency’, Political Theory, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 125–36.
10.
CrawfordK.2009, ‘Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media’, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 525–35.
11.
DahlbergL.2001, ‘Computer-Mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 7, no. 1, www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html.
12.
DahlbergL.2005, ‘The Corporate Colonization of Online Attention and the Marginalization of Critical Communication?’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 160–80.
13.
DahlbergL.2007a, ‘Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: From Consensus to Contestation’, New Media and Society, vol. 4, pp. 827–47.
14.
DahlbergL.2007b, ‘The Internet, Deliberative Democracy, and Power: Radicalizing the Public Sphere’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 47–64.
15.
DahlgrenP.2005, ‘The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation’, Political Communication, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 147–62.
16.
DeanJ.2003, ‘Why the Net is Not a Public Sphere’, Constellations, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 95–112.
17.
DreherT.2009, ‘Listening Across Difference: Media and Multiculturalism Beyond the Politics of Voice’, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 445–58.
18.
EdelmanM.2001, ‘Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics’, Annual Review of Anthropology. vol. 30, pp. 285–317.
19.
FineM.1992, ‘Passions, Politics, and Power: Feminist Research Possibilities’, in FineM. (ed.), Disruptive Voices: The Possibilities of Feminist Research, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
20.
FischerF.2003, Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Oxford University Press, New York.
21.
FraserN.1995, ‘The Uses and Abuses of French Discourse Theories for Feminist Politics’, in BenhabibS. (ed.), Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange, Routledge, New York.
22.
GimmlerA.2001, ‘Deliberative Democracy, the Public Sphere and the Internet’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 21–39.
23.
GreggM.2006, ‘Posting with Passion: Blogs and the Politics of Gender’, in BrunsA.JacobsJ. (eds), Uses of Blogs, Peter Lang, New York.
24.
HabermasJ.1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
25.
HarpD.TremayneM.2006, ‘The Gendered Blogosphere: Examining Inequality Using Network and Feminist Theory’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 247–64.
26.
JasperJ.M.2003, ‘The Emotions of Protest’, in GoodwinJ.JasperJ.M. (eds), The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 153–62.
27.
KahnR.KellnerD.2004, ‘New Media and Internet Activism: From the “Battle of Seattle” to Blogging’, New Media and Society, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 87–95.
28.
KatzensteinM.F.1995, ‘Discursive Politics and Feminist Activism in the Catholic Church’, in FerreeM. MarxMartinP. Yancey (eds), Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women's Movement, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
29.
KellnerD.1999, ‘Globalisation from Below? Toward a Radical Democratic Technopolitics’, Angelaki, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 101–13.
30.
LaclauE.MouffeC.1985, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Verso, London.
LovinkG.2008, Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, Routledge, New York.
33.
MallapragadaM.2006, ‘An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Cybercultures’, in SilverD.MassanariA. (eds), Critical Cyberculture Studies, New York University Press, New York, pp. 194–204.
34.
MarchartO.2007, ‘The People and the Public: Radical Democracy and the Role of the Public Media’, Open, vol. 13, pp. 7–16.
35.
MouffeC.2000, The Democratic Paradox, Verso, London.
36.
MouffeC.2005, On the Political, Routledge, London.
37.
MowlesJ.M.2008, ‘Framing Issues, Fomenting Change, “Feministing”: A Contemporary Feminist Blog in the Landscape of Online Political Activism’, International Reports on Socio-informatics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 29–49.
38.
NorvalA.J.2007, Aversive Democracy: Inheritance and Originality in the Democratic Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
39.
PapacharissiZ.2002, ‘The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere’, New Media and Society, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 19–27.
40.
PollettaF.2006, It was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
PosterM.2001, ‘CyberDemocracy: The Internet and the Public Sphere’, in TrendD. (ed.), Reading Digital Culture, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
43.
RancièreJ.1999, Disagreement: Politics And Philosophy, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
44.
RossiterN.2006, ‘Organized Networks and Nonrepresentative Democracy’, in DeanJ.AndersonJ.W.LovinkG. (eds), Reformatting Politics: Information Technology and Global Civil Society, Routledge, New York.
45.
RossiterN.2001, ‘Networks, Postnationalism and Agonistic Democracy’, in BrownH. (eds), Politics of a Digital Present, Fibreculture, Melbourne.
46.
WarnerM.2002, Publics and Counterpublics, Zone Books, New York.
47.
YoungI.M.1985, ‘Impartiality and the Civic Public: Some Implications of Feminist Critiques of Moral and Political Theory’, Praxis International, vol. 4, pp. 381–401.
48.
YoungS.1997, Changing the Wor(l)d: Discourse, Politics, and the Feminist Movement, Routledge, New York.
