|
================ |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
by Dara Byrne
Sean Tierney
Wanda Brockington
Paula Briggs
La Monte Summers
A common misconception of academic research is that it takes place in a vacuum; to the average person, academic research would seem to have little or no reflection, much less effect, on reality. One of the dynamics of research that contributes to this misconception is the seeming inapplicability of research methods and results to the ‘everyday’ aspect of life. While this may on occasion be a valid criticism, in many ways research does have very tangible pertinence to non-academic reality.
Interpretive analysis is often a matter of trying to put a plausible
explanation to an existing phenomenon. Interpretive analysis seeks to
answer questions that are different than those posed in quantitative
research. Even when the question is one of definition, the answer will be
interpretive rather than denotative. This is because 'reality' is
negotiable; what seems like clear reality to one person is either unclear or
untrue to another. So interpretive analysis is a matter of placing an
explanation, a framework of reality, over a set of data in an attempt to
create a binding reason for the occurrence or existence of the data. Thus,
interpretive analysis seeks to answer not only what something is but also
why it is. Interpretive analysis is also connotative; it is a
negotiated meaning, but the analyst hopes to establish a sound, persuasive
basis for that explanation.
Washington, DC is the capitol of the United States of America. It is a city
of great wealth and great poverty, of reserved refinement and drug-fueled
violence. The reality that Washington presents is an immensely complex
one. A convincing definition of what Washington is, as a city, as a
capitol, or as a metaphor for the nation it represents would be nearly
impossible. To be more accurate, a definition that is widely acceptable
would be nearly impossible. There is a great diversity of human beings in
Washington, and their understandings of 'their' city are wildly divergent.
What is true to one group may be false to another. What one group might see
as important, if not crucial is seen by others as marginal. What exists,
therefore, is a multiplicity of truths, of realities; importance becomes
negotiated, and that negotiation is accomplished through communication. The
groups will communicate their needs within the group according to a set of
accepted methods and styles. They will articulate their needs and desires
to those outside the group through a number of outlets, and will vary the
substance of their message as well as the methods by which they transmit
them. This difference will become pivotal in the following analysis.
The task for an interpretive analyst (or analysts) is to attempt to place some structured reasoning on this overwhelmingly complex phenomenon. In order to do this, a systematic theoretical framework must be employed to ensure academic rigor. In this manner, the analyst(s) seek to avoid having their work sink to the level of opinion. If the theoretical framework can be applied to the situation, it can illuminate patterns within the behavior or situation that may not have been immediately apparent. Conversely, if the situation evades the theory, or is not adequately explained by it, flaws or shortcomings of the theory may be brought to light. This is indeed the case when a theory of public discourse is used to explain the use of public space in Washington DC. Habermas' theory of the public sphere does not adequately explain the reality of Washington DC’s use of public space nor its public discourse, of which public space is a part. By examining Habermas’ proposed method for conducting public discourse, we will see that it simply does not provide an adequate model for public discourse in a diverse community. It is inadequate because of the assumptions it makes about culture, ethnicity and objectivity. Habermas’ model is a product of his Eurocentric background. .
Habermas and the Public Sphere Jurgen Habermas is a German philosopher whose ideological roots are embedded in the German school of such thinkers as Kant and Marx. He is most often associated with the Frankfurt School, whose pioneering work helped synthesize the philosophies of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The Frankfurt School is also one of the foundations of what has become known as critical theory and scholarship, in which scholars seek to generate research and knowledge with the overt intention of having a positive impact on the living conditions of those persons about whom they write. This openly subjective approach is directly traceable to the Frankfurt Schools adoption of Marxian thought, although they later reduced their endorsement of Marx first introduced his concept of the public sphere in 1962, when his book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit) was published. He traced the development of the bourgeois public sphere as a social phenomenon in Europe. The movement towards modern day capitalism forced commodity exchange, as Habermas (1989) notes, beyond the control of the household economy and consequently forced the private man into the public sphere, to become both property owner and “human being” (p. 28). Habermas defines the public sphere as "a body of 'private persons' assembled to discuss matters of 'public concern' or 'common interest.' " (Fraser,1992, p.58) It first arose, he contended, as an alternative to simple monarchic rule. Before the rise of the bourgeois public sphere, there was no forum for the citizenry to address issues of common interest, at least not without fear of governmental reprisal. The rise in wealth among the private citizens of Europe allowed for accumulation of money and power outside of the government and/or ruling families, bringing a rudimentary redistribution of power if not influence. This redistribution of power contributed or led directly to the formation of the bourgeois public sphere. In Habermas' view, the public sphere designates a theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk. It is the space in which citizens deliberate about their common affairs, hence, an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction. This arena is conceptually distinct from the state; it is a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state. The public sphere in Habermas' sense is also conceptually distinct from the official-economy; it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling." (Fraser, 1992, p.57)
It was Habermas’ belief that public discourse could be used as a method for working through matters affecting the public. Habermas’ civil society relies on the private man’s public use of his reason as it signifies the private sphere synthesizing with the public sphere in society “to engage in a debate over the general rules of governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange in social labor” (1989, p. 27). With the head of the household “now in the context of a practice of running a business in accord with principles of profitability” (Habermas, 1989, p. 20) the private sphere of civil society “was no longer confined to the authorities but was considered by the subjects as one that was properly theirs” (p. 23). The ambivalent relationship[i] between the state and its people, one that emancipated the public’s “power of control over [their] own capitalistically functioning property” made private matters “apolitical” and out of state control (p. 28). This would be an ideal speech situation in which participants would set aside political, theological and personal differences to 'objectively' discuss issues and concerns of the public interest: Thus, at one level, the idea of the public sphere designated an institutional mechanism for 'rationalizing' political domination by rendering states accountable to (some of) the citizenry. At another level, it designated a specific kind of discursive interaction. Here the public sphere connoted an ideal of unrestricted rational discussion of public matters. The discussion was to be open and accessible to all; merely private interests were to be inadmissible; inequalities of status were to be bracketed; and discussants were to deliberate as peers. The result of such discussion would be 'public opinion' in the strong sense of consensus about a common good. (Fraser, 1992, p.59)
In this sphere, all people would be equal and all viewpoints would be welcome. The total emphasis of the public discourse would be consensus building to promote solutions and ideas that would further the 'common good'. Habermas believed that this model would be an effective means of political discussion that would lead to consequent action. He believed it was possible for people to set aside or bracket their differences and to put 'private' interest aside in the name of the 'common good'. In order for this conception to work, a number of assumptions must be entertained. These have been elucidated by Fraser as follows:
1. the
assumption that it is possible for interlocutors in a public sphere to
bracket status differentials and to deliberate 'as if' they were social
equals; the assumption, therefore, that societal equality is not a necessary
condition for political democracy;
2. the
assumption that the proliferation of a multiplicity of competing publics is
necessarily a step away from, rather than toward, greater democracy, and
that a single, comprehensive public sphere is always preferable to a nexus
of multiple publics;.
3. the
assumption that discourse in public spheres should be restricted to
deliberation about the common good, and that the appearance of 'private
interests' and 'private issues' is always undesirable;.
4. the assumption that a functioning democratic public sphere requires a sharp separation between civil society and the state. (pp. 62-3)
Several criticisms of Habermas' theory immediately come to light. As Fraser points out, it is unrealistic to believe that people can or will put aside their differences, conscious or otherwise: another problem with the public sphere is that it may indeed maintain rather than transcend the existing social order. If the public sphere treats everyone equally, and no one is allowed any specificity or extra consideration, then whatever social situation exists at the implementation of the sphere will remain. There is a Eurocentric cast to his work, which, given his background, is understandable if not inevitable. His belief in the egalitarian nature of the public sphere seems to ask much of its participants. There can be no specialized or specified communication within the sphere; if women are allowed no more or less time than men, then they cannot self-organize or intracommunicate except outside the sphere, thus negating the benefits. The public sphere, it would seem, is better suited to continuing egalitarian communication than implementing it. African Americans traditionally did not participate in private or public spheres because they were not considered citizens during the mercantilist era, the height of the development of the Western public sphere. Thus, the emergence of Jürgen Habermas’s (1996/1989) notion of the “people’s public” was truly exclusive to whites[ii] primarily because this “liberal public sphere took shape in the specific historical circumstances of a developing market economy” (p. xi). The movement towards modern day capitalism forced commodity exchange, as Habermas notes in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, beyond the control of the household economy and consequently forced the private man into the public sphere, to become both property owner and “human being” (p. 28). Black people were not only denied the right to property, they were also included in the category of property.
The public
sphere and the private sphere simply did not exist for blacks because they
did not have the ability to create an autonomous household and with that
household, gain the opportunity to move beyond this sphere into the public.
Without the integrity of a private sphere, black people could never enter
the coffee houses, salons and table societies that, according to
Habermas, became the early sites for cultural and political discussion.
With neither a public nor a private sphere, this racial exclusivity delayed
blacks in having the possibilities of entering “the sphere of public
authority” (p. 18).
Habermas
claims this civil society as the emerging “corollary of a depersonalized
state authority” (p. 19) where the increased wealth in the West (attributed
to the mercantilist trade) furnished the “development of a commercial
economy” that catapulted the common man out of the intimate household and
into the capitalist market:
It is a familiar story how the opening up and expansion of markets for foreign trade, in which the privileged companies managed to attain monopolistic control through political pressure—in a word, new colonialism—step by step began the development of a commercial economy at home. In parallel fashion the interests of capitalists engaged in manufacture prevailed over those engaged in trade. In this way one element of the early capitalist commercial system, the trade in commodities, brought about a revolution, this time in the structure of production as well. The exchange of imported raw materials for finished and semi-finished domestic goods must be viewed as a function of the process in which the old mode of production was transformed into a capitalist one…this shift was reflected in the mercantilist literature of the seventeenth century. Foreign trade no longer counted per se as the source of wealth, but only insofar as it aided the employment of the country’s population—employment created by trade. Administrative action was increasingly oriented to this goal of the capitalist mode of production. (Habermas, pp. 18-19; italics added).
Although
Habermas does not properly correlate this “employment created by trade” with
the slave industry, it becomes clear from the implicit nature of this aspect
of his theory that the “goal of the capitalist mode of production,” one that
“aided the employment of the country’s population” necessitated the omission
of slaves from the emerging public sphere. Interestingly, Habermas glosses
over this omission in order to sustain the logic of his political public
sphere: “The issues discussed became “general” not merely in their
significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able
to participate” (p. 37) in order to legitimize the restricted participation
to property owners in forming public opinion. In fact, everyone did
not participate, if they did, the public sphere based on Habermas’ notion
would theoretically collapse because it [the public sphere] emerged as a
precondition of increased employment due to the mercantilist trade.
The
exclusion of others, in particular, the act of denying them their “equal
active participation” created a false notion of “public” opinion in
democratic society “from its very inception contradict[ing the] essential
premises of its self-understanding” (p. 428). If democratic society has not
acted “democratically” by contradicting its essential premises, then the
putative inclusive practices of the present liberal public sphere only
clouds the existential exclusion from which Western self-understanding truly
was formed. As much as blacks have entered the public sphere and
established a very distinctive personal, private sphere since the
Emancipation, the notion of blacks as a sub-group within the public sphere
is still imbedded in a Western culture that formed the basis of its own
self-understanding relative to familial, administrative, and state practices
that favored explicit othering in order to unconsciously justify the
societal benefits of the mercantilist trade.
Habermas attempts to account for alternative public spheres in Further
Reflections on the Public Sphere (1992). He reticulates his previous
notion and contests the polar sense of the public sphere by finally
acknowledging “the coexistence of competing public spheres and takes account
of the dynamics of those processes of communication that are excluded from
the dominant public sphere” (p. 425). Although Habermas superficially deals
with the exclusion of women[iii]
in this article, his consideration of alternate and plural public spheres
provides evidence to suggest the structural transformation of the public
sphere demanded a certain degree of otherness in its initial conception.
According to Habermas, the “exclusion of the culturally and politically
mobilized lower strata entails a pluralization of the public sphere in the
very process of its emergence. Next to, and interlocked with, the hegemonic
public sphere, a plebeian one assumes shape” (p. 426). If this theory is to
maintain form, it must accommodate the multiple interlockings of multiple
spheres, each having their own hegemonic and plebeian sub-groups. One of
the facets of exclusion is that it “locks out and represses [and] at the
same time calls forth countereffects that cannot be neutralized[iv]”
(p. 427).
The contemporary public sphere exists under the premise that there are multiple coexisting spheres that, unlike Habermas’ notion of consensus[v], enjoy the plurality present in the public sphere. Markell illustrates that Habermas’ conception of democratic politics requires “an unending process of contestation, conducted with the critical awareness that no actually existing settlement can constitute a satisfactory embodiment of the regulative idea of agreement” (p. 379). However, the public sphere is much more oriented towards hegemonic consensus than a true democratic consensus. It would be highly unlikely for a society that, according to Habermas, formed its “self-understanding” during the colonialist upheaval and proceeded to design its modern power structures from that point forward, could easily orient itself towards consensus unless the consensus, by and large, was that of the group that benefited during the transformation of the public sphere. Locating Black Cultural Artifacts in the District The History
of Blacks in Washington, DC is as old as the city itself. On every corner
of the City, there is evidence of the contribution of Blacks if we know
where to look. The City was built with the help of black slave rented
labor. The area around the Capitol Building was filled with tents for the
blacks that had come from neighboring Maryland and Virginia plantations. On
top of the Capitol Building is the statue "Freedom" which was cast in
Bladensburg, Maryland with the efforts of slave labor. This study highlights
some prominence figures, institutions and memorials in the nation's Capital.
Their roles were significant enough to change the course of the history of
the African Americans in the U.S. The African American Memorials in the
nation's capital are not in the same exposure to the average visitors as the
other memorials. Not only the physical locations of the African American
Memorials are remote away from the national mall, but also their existing in
the publishing materials that available for tourists are very limited.
Although most of the populations of Washington, DC are African Americans,
but Major tour
operations in the Nation's Capital were contacted, but none of them has
regular black heritage tours conducted daily. One of them tried for three
years, but it was discontinued since it was not profitable to operate. One
company authorized by the National Park Service conducts tours to Fredrick
Douglas National Historic Site from June15 to Labor Day. Other than that
Black heritage tours would be conducted on request for groups only. How
often? The oldest and largest Tour Company's sales and marketing director
(co-researcher) stated that black heritage tours are less than one percent
of Archie
Alexander was an African American architect, who designed the famous DC war
Memorial is located not far from Lincoln Memorial, but is hidden Benjamin
Banneker Circle is a small circle without a statue (so far) dedicated for
Benjamin Banneker across from L'enfante Plaza hotel in the southwest of
Washington. The
Minnehaha Theater (1213 U Street) was D.C.'s first silent moving picture
theater. It operated at this location and was later renamed the S.H. Dudley,
after the famous comedian. In 1958, Ben and Virginia Ali opened up Ben's
Chili Bowl in the building, promising "the Finest Hot Dogs and Chili Served
with a Touch of Class." The Ali family has operated it ever since,
celebrating the 40th anniversary with a street party in 1998. Ben's has
become a D.C. landmark, and has survived its share of ordeals, such For a period of time after the Civil War, more and more freedmen came to Washington. As their numbers increased among the black bourgeoisie in the city, racial tolerance decreased. This lack of tolerance left the U Street community, including its businesses, increasingly more segregated from white Washington. Black business people decided to go it alone as they began their own black business movement. The hub of this effort was in the U Street neighborhood. U Street gained its fame in these venues, especially at the Howard Theater, but also in its nightclubs. All jazz was performed in this culture of excitement, glitz, high fashion. U Street was a hotbed of artistic innovation and expression. (http://www.shawdc.com) As you walk
east on East Capitol Street, through the center of Capitol Hill, This
provocative, bronze statue portrays Abraham Lincoln bequeathing freedom This
memorial honors Mary McLeod Bethune, educator, scholar, activist and
Black Public Space in
Washington, DC
As a federal district, Washington, D.C. is neither a state, nor part of one. In this respect, the nation’s capital differs from every city in the country. The immense federal presence contributes to the duality of the city, with its complex layering of Monumental Washington downtown around the Mall and the numerous neighborhoods that constitute the local community (Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, p. 13). For two hundred years the threads of two distinct communities have been woven through the intricate web of federal and local interests in Washington--the traditionally dominant White population and a vibrant, thriving Black community which has attained majority status over the past three decades (Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, p. 13).
Black
neighborhoods were known as a “secret city” with their own separate social
and economic institutions. Forced to overcome the barriers imposed by
segregation and discrimination, Black Washingtonians molded a virtual social
and economic culture within their carefully delineated neighborhoods
(Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, p. 14). Like many other American cities,
Washington is undergoing dynamic changes through shifting demographics and
gentrification. There are whispers about The Plan—whether Washington is
finally succumbing to the design for returning the city to White domination
(Fisher, p. 1). Thus the question that begs to be answered---does Black
public space still exist, and if so, where is it? Public space enhances our appreciation of the connections between political principles, social and urban processes and our everyday environments. Public spaces define what kind of society we are—they reflect our values. The “street” is not only the basic structuring device of the city’s form but also the locus of its civilization. According to recent legislation to establish a process for review and approval of proposed commemorative works on public spaces in the District of Columbia, “public space” means (1) any public street, alley, circle, bridge, building, park, other public place or property owned or under the administrative control or jurisdiction of the District of Columbia (Appendix 2, p. 2). Public space does NOT include property that is both owned by the Federal government and under the administrative control or jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, or other federal agency (Appendix 2, p. 2). As Habermas posits, The
misplaced faith in the efficacy of bracketing suggests another flaw in the
bourgeois conception. This conception assumes that a public sphere is or
can be a space of zero degree culture, so utterly bereft of any specific
ethos to accommodate with perfect neutrality and equal ease interventions
expressive of any and every cultural ethos. But this assumption is
counterfactual, and not for reasons that are merely accidental. In
stratified societies, unequally empowered social groups tend to develop
unequally valued cultural styles. The result is the development of more
powerful informal pressures that marginalize the contributions of members of
subordinated groups both in everyday life contexts and in official public
spheres. Moreover, these pressures are amplified, rather than mitigated, by
the peculiar political economy of the bourgeois public sphere (1989, p. 64)
Public space, then, becomes the focal point-- the veritable heartbeat of a community. The use of public space in Black Washington takes on new dimensions, representing and preserving the past while embracing the transformations and diversification of the future.
U Street was at the heart of the secret city. According to
Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, “Often called Washington’s “Black Broadway”, U
Street was the leading commercial and business district by day and the
center of nightlife and sporting activity after dark for all of Black
Washington (p. 206). Just as U Street’s popularity arose from the
restricted life of Washington’s segregation when “Black folks just didn’t go
downtown,” it declined with desegregation after 1954. U Street simply
couldn’t compete with downtown Washington (Fitzpatrick and Goodwin, p.
207). Marion Jackson Pryde remembers growing up in the Shaw area. “We
couldn’t go to any of the big concerts downtown, the churches provided most
of the cultural activities for us. We had three theaters on U Street—The
Booker T., The Republic, and the Lincoln. The Lincoln, of course, is still
standing” (p. 2). Now U Street is the vanguard of Washington’s most
dramatic gentrification since World War II, an economic transformation that
has returned the street to its roots as an entertainment corridor and is
replacing the Shaw area’s urban decay with $400, 000 town houses and shops
selling $2,000 coffee tables (Fisher, p. 1). Fisher (2001) says that some
see this as “destruction of a piece of Black Washington” (p. 2). One of the
most compelling examples of the issue of Black Public Space is that of the
African American Civil War Memorial, located on the corner of 10th
Street and U Street, NW.
The African American Civil War Memorial is an eleven-foot-high,
bronze tribute to African American soldiers and sailors who served with
Union forces in the Civil War. Named the Spirit of Freedom, it was sculpted
by Ed Hamilton and has 185,000 names of African Americans who served
inscribed on stainless steel plaques. One side of the statue depicts three
soldiers and one sailor, while a family appears on the statue’s far side.
A perusal
of Military Monuments and Memorials of Washington, DC on the Internet will
only yield information and pictures of the Marine Corps Memorial (Iwo Jima),
the U.S. Navy Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, the Tomb of the Unknown
Soldier, the Vietnam and Vietnam’s Women Memorial---all located on the
National Mall. Not a mention of the African American Civil War Memorial.
Nor is it mentioned in guidebooks or tourist literature.
To some extent, an answer may be found in the legislation, which
deals specifically with commemorative works and public space. In
considering a proposed commemorative work on public space, the Mayor, the
Council and the Committee will be guided by the following two criteria:
(1)
To the maximum extent possible, a commemorative
work shall be located in surroundings that are relevant to and compatible
with the subject of the commemorative work.
(2)
A commemorative work shall be situated in a
manner that prevents interference with or encroachment upon any existing
commemorative work, and that protects and enhances, to the maximum extent
practicable, open space, existing public and private uses, and cultural and
natural resources (Appendix 2, p. 4).
A
beautiful photograph of the Memorial is included in “365 Days of Black
History: 2001 Engagement Book. The text beside the picture says (in part),
“the commemorative sculpture is located in an area of Washington, DC
celebrated for its cultural significance” (Appendix #1). What inference
should be drawn from that statement in particular and from the omission of
the Memorial from all tourist literature and its “fellow” war memorials
located on the Mall?
Current legislation submitted by Councilman Jim Graham is
entitled “Sense of the Council African American Civil War Memorial Grimke
Museum and Institute Support Resolution of 2001,” PR 14-42. The following
findings of the Council have relevance: (2) The African American Civil War Memorial Freedom Foundation has successfully completed the construction of the long overdue first National Monument honoring the 209,145 Black soldiers and their 7,000 White officers whose courage and sacrifice helped to end slavery and keep America united under one flag.
(3)
Having completed the monument in Shaw, the
African American Civil War Memorial Board of Directors is now seeking a
suitable, permanent home for an African American Civil War Legacy Institute
and Museum to add to the attraction of the monument and increase tourism in
the U Street corridor.
(4)
The Grimke Building on Vermont Avenue, NW is
located adjacent to the
Monument
and would make an ideal location for the Museum and Institute.
(5)
It is both District and Federal Government Policy
to assist in locating national
monuments
and museums such as the Civil War Memorial, away from the
downtown
Mall area into neighborhoods throughout the Nations Capitol, to
enhance
economic development.
(11)
The African-American Civil War Memorial Legacy
Institute and Museum will
add
greatly to the tourist appeal of the monument and encourage many of the 20
million tourists who visit Washington each year to leave the Mall area and
explore the rich culture and heritage of our neighborhoods (Appendix 4, pp.
2-3).
According to Padro (2001), “the city government regularly
proclaims that the District’s rich African American heritage is a great draw
for tourists. But it is selling off or neglecting the very buildings that
tourists would want to visit” (p. B08). Moreover, the very areas of the
city that are home to the Black memorials, monuments and historic landmarks
are themselves being gentrified. Carter G. Woodson’s home, the Howard
Theatre and the home of Frederick Douglass are all located in parts of the
city where the majority will soon be the minority. Some of these sites are
not even listed in the brochures and guides most consumed by the touring
public. Given that the District’s population is overwhelmingly African
American, there is a devastating under-representation of and lack of
appreciation for the Black voice in the public sphere.
Consensus and the Public Sphere in the District
In order
to have influence in the public sphere consensus must be reached. Consensus
is defined herein as private persons with public concerns that lead to
common interests. Habermas would assert that African American concerns are
a “private interest” even though the majority of residents in the District
are African American. In order to explore how African American concerns are
reflected in public discourse, data collected from interviews with African
American Washingtonians were compared with concerns expressed in the
editorial/opinion sections of the District’s on-line newspapers, what
Habermas purports, as a forum (editorials) where public ideas are
discussed. The four co-researchers, who are African American
Washingtonians, have resided in the city for over 30 years. Two of the
co-researchers are male and two are female. They were interviewed regarding
their concerns about the city and several themes emerged.
Five issues emerged from Sam’s interview. He is concerned about
the phlegmatic state of the African American community in Washington, drugs
in the community, the youth, statehood, and public schools. Sam, a
42-year-old disc jockey, views the Washington African American community as
stagnant. He posits that “We [African Americans] need to be more aware and
not content with the way things are. We can’t go to politicians and ask for
whatever” (personal communication, April 21, 2001). Sam stresses a need
for self-sufficiency within the community.
According
to Sam, the African American community needs to clean up itself before they
can think about monuments. Sam believes the community needs to reconnect
with the youth, and educate them about their culture. There is a need, Sam
contends, to teach the youth about their history and their lineage. He sees
the lack of self-esteem as a major problem among the youth in the Washington
African American community. Drugs in the African American community also
concern Sam. Sam also considers statehood as an issue worth pursuing.
Lastly, he is concerned about the public school system. In his words, “DC
public schools suck” (personal communication, April 21, 2001). He maintains
that students are never challenged.
Wayne has resided in the district since the 1970s. Taxation is
the first of his concerns. He feels the federal government should not tax
DC residents. He also contends that there is a move to rid the city of
African Americans. Wayne notes the shortage of rental properties as an
example. Other co-researchers feel the same and further substantiate this
claim. Like Sam, Wayne sees a need to re-educate the youth. Wayne would
also like to see more African American policemen on the street. He says,
“the neighborhoods are patrolled by too many other ethnicity's” (personal
communication, April 22, 2001). Unemployment among African Americans also
concerns Wayne. Wayne also feels that there should be areas in the city
that reflect the dominant DC culture.
Audrey’s first concern evolves around affordable housing for
African American Washingtonians. She notes that a lot of housing is going
up, but it is out of the range of certain people. Affordable housing,
according to Audrey, is around $80,000. She observes that African Americans
started to be relocated in the 1960s. Audrey says, “they fled to the
suburbs and the counties. Many couldn’t afford to leave and they wound up
in public housing”(personal communication, April 23, 2001).
Public schools also concern Audrey. She sees no improvement in
public education, particularly as it pertains to African Americans.
Employment, taxation, and statehood also concern Audrey. African American
representation in the downtown area is not a major concern for Audrey.
However, she feels that African Americans should be represented in some
fashion downtown. The researcher posed this question to Audrey: “What
three changes would you make as mayor?” Audrey says she would try to produce
literature inclusive of the entire city and make it available to tourists.
When it was pointed out that her effort would duplicate one of the functions
of the tourism board, she replied “they’re all White” (personal
communication, April 23, 2001). Essentially, she is saying that the tourism
board does not reflect or relate to the interests of African Americans.
Audrey’s second change would be to enforce the laws already on the books
regarding truancy. She would also fight for affordable housing. Audrey is
concerned about the elderly in the city who cannot keep up their homes. She
said she would try to identify these people and provide assistance to repair
homes where needed and provide a housekeeping service for the elderly.
As a native African American Washingtonian, 30-year-old Wendy
has quite a few concerns. Wendy resides in the Southeast quadrant of the
city and, in accordance with Audrey and Wayne; she is primarily concerned
with the exodus of African Americans from the city and the influx of
Europeans. She feels the mayor makes it easy for this to occur by
abolishing rent control. Wendy states, “They’re [the city] tearing down
projects and building townhouses and renovating the apartments. So, they
will probably raise the rent and the people that were there won’t be able to
come back” (personal communication, April 21, 2001). Like Audrey, Wendy
states that African Americans will not be able to afford the new townhouse
and renovated apartments. Therefore, Whites are free to come back to the
city. Regarding Black flight, the 2000 U.S. Census shows a 5.7 percent
decrease in the District population since 1990. Since there is an influx of
Whites into the District, one could reason that this decrease represents
Black flight.
Wendy
wants to open a recreation center. She believes Whites will probably
frequent the new Southeast Tennis and Learning Center that opened on April
22, 2001. Wendy points out that there are other recreation centers in the
city, but they have summer hours and are not conducive to the needs of
African American youths. She feels that the city will start building more
recreation centers, but African Americans will not benefit from that
effort. Wendy, like Sam, insists that African Americans need to be more
involved in their community. She says, “People don’t want to get involved.
They’re not a lot of people willing to give of themselves” (personal
communication, April 21, 2001). Wendy notes that everyone, Black and White
alike, must get involved in the community.
Schools
are another cause for concern for Wendy. She says, “they don’t address
college, they don’t have proper school supplies, they don’t have this or
that and our kids are getting the short end of the stick” (personal
communication, April 21, 2001). Giving businesses that support enterprise
schools a tax break will help the schools with funding that the city cannot
provide. Wendy expressed concern about the lack of African American
monuments in the Mall area downtown. She is interested in the monuments and
attractions that celebrate African Americans. For example, the Anacostia
Museum, a part of the Smithsonian, focuses on Black history. Wendy asserts
that tourists are not familiar with the Anacostia Museum. Furthermore, they
would not be encouraged to visit the museum because it is in the southwest
quadrant of the city. Wendy believes that every quadrant has a section that
one would not want to frequent. She notes that there are $300,000 homes in
the Southeast quadrant of the city.
The
gentrification of U Street in the name of multiculturalism also troubles
Wendy. She says, “when you merge cultures, you lose some of your own”
(personal communication, April 21, 2001). The plight of DC General hospital
concerns Wendy as well. She states that it has the number one trauma center
in the city and the city wants to move the trauma center to Greater
Southeast Community hospital. Wendy is not very concerned about statehood
because she tries to stay out of the political arena. She admits that she
detests the proposed new name—the state of New Columbia.
Again,
according to Habermas, consensus mandates that private persons with public
concerns lead to common interests. The individual interests of the
co-researchers were reviewed to determine their common interests. An
interest had to be cited by at least three co-researchers to be recognized
as a theme. Consequently, four themes emerged: schools, Black flight, the
youth, and statehood or taxation. Although only four Washingtonians were
interviewed, the themes generated also reflect the views expressed by
African Americans in the District’s black press.
The
newspaper editorials found in the city’s newspapers on-line, for the most
part, are divergent from the interests of the co-researchers. Some of the
editorials focused on veterans making a financial sacrifice when they
retire, the China incident, and complaints about the racist, sexist, and
homophobic slurs police made over squad car computers. Specifically, there
were spin-offs of the China dilemma in several papers. One editorial touted
lobbying against Beijing hosting the 2008 Olympics. Other editorials either
applauded Bush’s handling of the incident or accused China of being
corrupt. Out of the ten newspapers surveyed, the Georgetowner was
the only paper with editorials that addressed concerns of the
co-researchers. The paper ran editorials on schools and DC voting rights,
which leads to the issue of statehood. The editorial on schools addressed
funding. While funding is a major consideration, the co-researchers
disclosed deeper educational issues. They are concerned about truancy,
students encountering educational challenges, and encouraging students to
attend college.
According
to the 2000 U.S. Census, 30.8 percent of the 572,059 Washingtonians are
White, 2.7 percent are Asian, and 60 percent are African Americans. African
Americans constitute the dominant group in the District. Interestingly,
while Habermas suggests that in the political public sphere: “The issues
discussed became “general” not merely in their significance, but also in
their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate” (p. 37)
there is no question that everyone does not participate in the
determination of which social issues are firstly addressed within the
District. Additionally, policies in the public sphere do not operate “to
the advantage of dominant groups” as Fraser notes (1992, p. 66). If,
indeed, this were the case, African American concerns would be addressed.
Consider the case of District historian Louise Hutchinson. She feels that it
is important to have African American representation among the downtown
attractions. Milloy (2001) points out “In 1971, after several years of
lobbying, Hutchinson persuaded government officials to change the name of
the 10th Street Overlook, a circle near L’Enfant Plaza, to
Benjamin Banneker Overlook Park” (p. C1). For the past 30 years, she has
tried to erect a memorial of Benjamin Banneker and a visitor’s center in
L’Enfant Plaza. To date, she has not raised enough money to start the
project. Coincidentally, the idea a placing a statute of Ronald Reagan in
L’Enfant Plaza surfaced. So far, over 40 million dollars has been raised (Milloy,
2001, p. C1). Milloy (2001) also notes “The National Capital Planning
Commission’s memorials and museums master plan, released in December, now
refers to Banneker Park by its old name, the 10th Street
Overlook. And it includes an artist’s rendering of a Banneker statue on the
promenade—not inside the circle overlook (p. C4). Dominance in the Western
world does not reflect numbers it reflects power.
This notion of dominance by power and not by numbers has been articulated by Karim (1993) whose article focuses on competing discourses and how the dominant discourses, with the help of social structures, are more likely to be held in place: The ideological bases of terminology networks and meanings proposed by dominant discourses may, however, be challenged more seriously by alternative discourses. New words expressing alternative ideas or new meanings of existing terms may appear through deconstructive processes and may even be enshrined in legislation. But ultimately, and often with the collusion of conservative populist discourses manifested in daily conversations, dominant discourses reconstruct the previous meanings of the older terms or place the newer ones proposed by alternative discourses into ideological frameworks of the status quo. (p. 201)
Karim’s argument illustrates the difficulty alternative discourses have in truly challenging the dominant discourses. By the same logic, the public sphere then, could not likely be “transformed [by] these [alternative] discourses,” contrary to what Habermas tends to suggest in Further Reflections on the Public Sphere (p. 429). In fact, contact with these alternative discourses rather enables the reconstruction of the dominant’s previous meanings and their adaptation of any newer ones. Habermas’ view of the “self-transforma[tive]” potential of these universalistic discourses again romanticizes the public sphere because it assumes that all participants are not only members but are operating “within”[vi] the forum of public opinion. Markell suggests that Habermas’ universalizing concept benefits a particular public and thus, in an extension of this argument, must also legitimate the exclusionary principles on which Western society was formed.
Mass
Media and the Black Public Sphere in the District
Because of its legal status as the capitol of the United States
of America, Washington, D.C. is home to our nation's three highest branches
of government: Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, along with
numerous specialized federal departments, agencies, commissions, and boards.
At another level, this city, which has at least a 60% Black population, is
home to a locally elected Black Mayor, City Council President, and School
Board Superintendent, and a White majority City Council, and a racially
integrated, yet White-controlled court system, along with many other local
government departments and agencies that are headed and staffed by a
racially integrated workforce.
Collectively, both levels of government institutions in Washington, D.C.
represent what Habermas has described as a "political public sphere," one in
which the state obtains its public character through its responsibilities in
providing for the public (p. 398). And in noting how the political public
sphere becomes transformed into a public sphere, Habermas argues: Only when the exercise of public authority has actually been subordinated to the requirement of democratic publicness" [does such a change occur, and that it is only through 'public opinion'] or a public that is engage[d] in rational discussion [that such publicness] exists" (p. 399).
Furthermore, Habermas posits a single public sphere where all people
regardless of their individual differences i.e., race, class, gender or
other identities, would shed such identities, at least momentarily, to focus
on public issues of concern to all.
A public
sphere defined in this manner is problematic because it constructs such a
concept within a framework of White male Eurocentric discourse, wherein
conflict, emotion, and personal or relational experiences are all
marginalized as the means by which such a public sphere can be formed and
the people within it can become engaged. Secondly, because of this view of a
single public sphere, many of the issues that are likely to emerge are ones
that have broad, universal appeal, since they are the ones that reach across
the widest possible cross section of the public. What this means, then, is
that issues that reflect local problems and thus demand local solutions,
which may resonate with different publics, will not receive the attention
they deserve within a framework of a single public sphere. Finally, Habermas'
single public sphere concept implies that cultural differences among the
public can, like educational or income
disparities, be subordinated to issues of commonality. But in America, given
its history of racism and continued racial discrimination against African
Americans, for example, cultural differences are a critical component
concerning the particular issues that many African American view as
important e.g., racial profiling or the differences in the criminalization
of crack cocaine versus powdered cocaine.
Thus, for
the reasons stated above, we believe that Habermas' concept of a single
public sphere does not accurately reflect the many publics that exists here
in our Nation's Capitol, as well as in other places in this country and
abroad. And because of the District's majority African American population
and government, along with the historical significance of Blacks who have
lived here in the past and contributed greatly to this area and the nation,
we believe it is important to undergo an investigation of the Black public
sphere in D.C.; specifically, focusing our attention on the role that the
local D.C. mass media perform in its formation and engagement.
Habermas
states that "when the public is large, this kind of communication requires
certain means of dissemination and influence; today, newspapers and
periodicals, radio and television are the media of the public (p. 398). But
not all mass media possess the same characteristics, nor do all media
practitioners produce identical messages that reflect the same underlying
assumptions or values of their profession.
For
example, Rosen (1999) describes the often-contentious battles among many
editors and journalists of mainstream American newspaper concerning
reactions to the public journalism movement in the United States, a reform
movement he helped to create in 1993. Advocates of this movement urge
newspapers to connect their reading publics to the communities in which they
resided in order to promote civic
involvement in issues of common concerns (p. 74). Such a call was being made
because it has been shown that many people, including most newspaper
readers, feel disconnected from their communities and government, and that a
steady diet of newspapers coverage focusing on social problems and conflicts
as well as newspapers' reliance on experts and other "insiders" (e.g.,
pollsters, policy and opinion leaders, media pundits), has contributed to
this view (see generally, pp. 19-55). However, many American newspapers,
including the elite dailies, the New York Times and the Washington
Post, strongly oppose such calls, arguing that this movement violates
newspapers' time-honored principles of objectivity, or detached reporting of
events, and that it simply turns them into civic boosters or community
promoters (see generally, pp. 206-248).
On the
other hand, the Black Press, through its historic practice of advocacy
journalism, presents a distinctively alternative view of the relationship
between their newspapers, the Black reading public and its connection to the
Black community -- both locally and diasporically -- as well as such
newspapers' connection of Blacks to their local, state and national
governments (Pride and Wilson II, 1997; Wolseley, 1990). Indeed, the Black
Press was created to provide African Americans with their own public forum
-- that is, to represent the interests of Blacks ('We wish to plead our own
cause') -- as well as to educate Black people, to improve Black life, and to
fight for Black civil rights, including urging Black citizens to vote and to
participate in the struggle for freedom and equality on behalf of all
African Americans (Pride and Wilson II, p.13; Wolseley, pp. 9-14).
Today,
however, while the Black Press is no longer the type of protest medium is
once was, it, nonetheless, continues to be an outlet for African American
life, issues and concerns. This sentiment was echoed at a recent panel
discussion on the "The Future of the Black Press," held at Howard University
in March 2001, in which a distinguished panel of Black press scholars, a
Black newspaper publisher and a Black Press Association director, all agreed
that the Black Press remains a significant institution today because of its
connection to the Black community, its control over how issues affecting
Blacks will be presented, and its continued need to preserve Black life and
freedoms (HU Panel, 2001).
Within the
District of Columbia today, there exists a wide range of diverse print,
electronic, cable, and telecommunications media. However, for this study, we
chose to examine textually certain selected D.C. media; namely, selected
editions of four different local Black weekly newspapers in an attempt to
identify possible relationships between these news media and the Black
public sphere in the District.
Specifically, we investigated the following newspapers: The
Capital Spotlight (April 12, and 19, 2001 editions), The
Washington Afro-American (March 24, and 31, 2001 editions), The
Washington Informer (January 25, April 12, and 19, 2001 editions), and
The Washington Sun (April 19, 2001 edition). The content of these
newspapers and were analyzed to identify how public issues as well as Black
voices from the community were presented, to assess what identities and
relationships were constructed between the writer and reader, and how the
order of discourse might have been structured, shifted or related to other
discursive orders
Additionally, a personal interview was conducted with Denise Rolark-Barnes,
an African American publisher of the Informer and a native
Washingtonian, at the publication's offices located in the Anacostia section
of the city. A second personal interview was conducted with Kojo Nnamdi, a
Black Caribbean American journalist and a longtime District resident, and
host of WAMU's "Public Interest" radio show, as well as WHUT-TV's
"Evening Exchange" program, at his home in the District, as well as by
telephone.
According
to Fairclough (1995), a critical discourse analysis of the media entails an
analysis of "communicative events" as well as "the order of discourse" (p.
56). Fairclough describes the "communicative event" as the relationship
between the "text, discourse practice, and the sociocultural practice" (p.
57). And with respect to the text, Fairclough views it as having three
different functions: one, ideational i.e., as "particular representations
and recontextualizations of social practice"; two, interpersonal i.e.,
"particular constructions of writer and reader identities"; and three,
textual i.e., as "particular construction of the relationship between writer
and reader" (p. 58). Finally, Fairclough describes the "order of discourse"
as referring to how its constituent elements -- genres (language that is
structured according to "a particular social practice," and discourses
(language that is used to represent a "particular social practice from a
particular point of view") -- are structured, shifted and related to "other
socially adjacent orders of discourse (p, 56).
Applying
the above approach, we now turn our attention to an analysis of the
aforementioned media, specifically beginning with The Capital Spotlight,
a newspaper which describes itself as the District's oldest Black weekly
(April 12, 19, 2001 editions). Printed directly under the masthead of this
paper is the phrase 'Information is Power," which appears to reflect the
publisher's attitude regarding the importance of the paper's content to its
readers: that such content is empowering. Information in the paper seems to
be defined by articles that inform readers about people, events and
activities involving or affecting other Black people or Black groups.
For
example, there were several Black "firsts" stories where prominent Blacks
had received certain awards for the first time or had been appointed to a
new position. For example, when former civil rights leader, Andrew Young, is
the first to be named to a visiting professorship in human rights at a
Virginia college, or when a Black female Ph.D. president of a White
engineering college is the first Black female to receive the Black Engineer
of the Year Award by a Black
engineering organization.
There were
also several "opinion" articles, which presented the views of prominent
Blacks or well-known Black journalists. These included former Emerge
magazine editor, George Curry, who argued on behalf of Black reparations;
political conservative and TV talk show host, Armstrong Williams, who
offered a response to Urban League President, Hugh Price, regarding his
previous comments in another issue on the new U. S. Census figures that
showed Hispanic being the largest minority group; and progressive journalist
and author, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, commenting on why he believed the federal
government would not investigate allegations of police brutality preceding
the Cincinnati disturbances
The
Black "firsts" types of articles represent Blacks within a context of
individual achievement and success, which ideologically promotes a message
that individual persistence and hard work will eventually result in rewards.
Implicit in this message is the idea that one who does not adopt a Puritan
ethic of hard work will not reap (or continue to reap) certain benefits or
rewards available within the system, because one has made poor individual
decisions. These types of stories construct a world that is shaped and
influenced not primarily by material or other systemic forces, but because
of individual decision-making. And the opinion articles represent knowledge
as contested, yet still the product of reasoned debate supported by factual
evidence.
In both
types of articles, writers' identities were constructed around status and
role; namely, that these writers' seemed to identify prominent Black
individuals as worthy of awards and recognition, which suggested continued
efforts by Black newspapers to counter society's historic negative portrayal
of Black life and its absence in recognizing Black achievement. Wherein,
readers' identities were constructed around individual identities and the
need to feel good about themselves.
For the
opinion articles, these writers' identities were constructed around their
status as prominent journalists or media critics, which placed them in a
privileged position to discuss anything they chose to, thus making them
"experts" on practically any topic. The identities of readers were also
constructed around status and role, which meant that they should simply
listen and learn from these "experts," since they probably knew little, if
anything, about the subject because of their subordinate identity position
to the writers.
What type
of relationship is constructed between the writers and readers above? It is
one that is formal, because of the formality of language used, in which
rational discourse is presented, and it is distant, since it presents the
writers as "speaking to" the readers rather than "speaking about" them.
What,
then, is the discourse practice regarding the production and consumption of
these articles? Black "firsts" stories can be produced with little or no
effort because the subject or sources for such articles are generally not
difficult to acquire or reach. Such stories also reflect the paper's
"publicity" function, that is, these types of stories are produced as news
items when in fact they are primarily providing public relations for the
individuals or organizations who are named. These "subjects" are always
interested in getting "free" publicity that is presented as news, since
readers are likely to attach greater acceptability and credibility to it as
a news items than as a promotional item. As for the production of opinion
articles, such items are usually obtained through the process of
syndication, a practice that offers papers a variety of materials, such as
opinion items, comics, advice columns, among others, at a flat, bulk rate.
It is far less inexpensive to obtain these articles through such a method,
than to contract individually with each writer. Finally, readers are likely
to consume these articles in private spaces, such as at home around other
family members who are able to share in its content, as well as in public
spaces, such as libraries where readers who are indigent may have to go to
access it.
What is
the sociocultural context in which these articles appear? These types of
articles and the newspaper they appear in are the products of a
sociocultural environment that has historically marginalized Black people,
Black achievement, and Black opinions. And despite the integration of Black
people into the pages of mainstream White papers, Black newspapers like the
Capital Spotlight continue to define themselves within this context,
i.e., in reaction to this legacy of oppression and discrimination by the
dominant majority culture in America.
What is
the order of discourse of these articles? The Black "firsts" articles are
presented as soft news (or not serious) stories, but are given the attention
that is normally reserved for hard news (or serious) stories. Furthermore,
such items are presented as "news" rather than as "community announcements,"
and as such their placement and construction as a news item helps to blur
the line between what might be consider news or publicity, or a combination
of both.
What
absences did we observe in the Capital Spotlight? First, readers were
not provided with any outlet for expressing their views in the newspaper,
such as in a "Letters to the Editor," or "Person on the Street" section.
Second, readers' views were not published in the form of opinion items.
Indeed, throughout the newspaper, there was an absence of voices that simply
represented Black citizens. Because of these absences along with the
aforementioned analysis, this newspaper's construction of the Black Public
Sphere was limited to professionals and other prominent voices, and appears
to ignore or exclude ordinary Black folks.
At this
time we should note that our analysis of The Washington Informer, and
The Washington Sun both revealed the same patterns presented
by our review of The Capital Spotlight. Thus, rather than replicate
such information again, we simply incorporate our views from the above
newspaper to the Informer and Sun.
However,
in our analysis of The Washington Afro- American (March 24 and 31,
2001 editions), while we observed certain notable differences among this
newspaper when compared to the others, we will, where applicable,
incorporate relevant comments made in reference to the Capital Spotlight.
This paper
describes itself as a "Proud Paper for a Proud People," which suggests to
its readers that the publisher is very conscious about projecting a positive
image of Blacks that we (Blacks) can feel good about. As noted in our
earlier analysis, this suggests a reactive position in response to Blacks'
historic marginalization, and the struggle to offer a counter-narrative.
This self-description is initially apparent in the physical layout of the
paper, with regard to how similar its physical appearance resembles a
mainstream national White newspaper, such as USA Today.
Its
physical layout consists of 36 pages of bright, colorful photographs,
banners, bold headlines, and two different sections (i.e., "A" and "B").
Additionally, it includes a variety of content, ranging from hard news,
sports, editorials and opinion items, to entertainment, church, and society
news. And its stories are reported from a variety of sources: including
national news wire services (i.e., ones that are Black-owned as well as and
White-owned), as well reports from staff journalists whose bylines appeared
in their stories. Thus, this paper appeared to generally represent itself
and text as a highly professional news organization, much like its White
counterpart, which we all would want to read and share with others.
How did
the paper's text function interpersonally? In our view, the paper
constructed the identities of its writers and readers as both middle and
upper class professionals, who were talking among themselves. Thus, the
paper's text clearly was constructed along class lines and as such gave
little, if any, attention to the problems or concerns of the Black working
or poor classes. For example, front- page news
articles
addressed such matters as a prominent television talk show host being fired;
President Bush's meeting with Black Clergy; proposed congressional
legislation; and the possible launch of a national Black television network.
What types
of relationships were constructed in the text between writers and readers?
In the editorial and opinion sections of the paper, writers and readers'
relationships were constructed along the lines of class, where both writers
and readers were members from the same highly educated and affluent segment
of the Black community.
Indeed, an
editorial cartoon poignantly expressed this construction of class. It showed
two buses, one labeled "Black Flight" and the other "White Flight," speeding
further away into the suburbs to "escape" living in the major cities, while
a well dressed older Black man and a neatly attired young boy standing
together watch as the busses speed away. The thought line above the man
reads, "Where do we go from here?" (March 24, 2001, p. A4). Interestingly,
there is no depiction of the Black working and poor classes whom these Black
and Whites people are shown "escaping" The opinions items that are included
also reflected this class bias in that they were all written by prominent
Blacks, e.g., Rev. Jesse Jackson or academic scholars like, Ronald Walters,
generally included many of the same people that appeared in the above
Capital Spotlight newspaper.
However,
unlike that paper, the Afro-American published "Letters to the
Editors," and, indeed, invited comments from all of its readers. Individuals
had submitted many of the letters published which simply identified them by
name alone. Still, at least a third of the letters published were from
prominent Black opinion leaders, such as Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., or
from individual affiliated with particular organizations.
Finally,
our description of the discourse and sociocultural practices of the
Afro-American were the same as for the previously reviewed newspaper,
The Capital Spotlight. And the order of discourse for the
Afro-American reflected the genres and discourses of a mainstream
newspaper, that is, it separated news from opinions items, and divided the
paper into different sections that reflected particular interests. Clearly,
this paper had adopted a traditional model of journalism, which it had taken
and integrated into the social practices of a professional class of Blacks.
Curiously, the paper's coverage of local D.C. was relegated to a short
section on the back pages.
Now we
turn our attention to the comments of two individuals who were interviewed
for our investigation of the mass media and its relationship to the Black
Public Sphere: Denise Rolark-Barnes, publisher of The Washington Informer,
a Black weekly newspaper; and Kojo Nnamdi, a radio-TV public affairs
programming hosts with two noncommercial broadcast stations: WHUT-TV
and WAMU-FM.
With
regard to the relationship between Black newspapers and the Black Public
Sphere, Rolark-Barnes defined it as one that was fully reflected in what her
newspaper (and other Black newspaper as well) continued to do on a daily
basis: serve the needs and interests of Black readers. Thus, she viewed the
overall content of her paper as a public forum, and, therefore, did make a
distinction between certain types of content e.g., hard or soft news,
opinion articles, among others. According to Rolark-Barnes, the Black Press'
continued struggle to exist, and in some instances thrive, despite pressing
financial difficulties, limited advertising, and lesser circulation figures,
demonstrates its continued existence as a public forum for Black people,
because of its alignment with the struggles of Black people. Moreover,
Rolark-Barnes emphasized how crucial Black ownership was to determining the
contours of any relationship of Black newspapers to the Black Public Sphere.
However, a
markedly different view of this relationship was advanced by Kojo Nnamdi,
who notes that because of the changing nature of Blacks in D.C. and America
since the Civil Rights Movement, both the Black Press and the Black Public
Sphere are no longer as clearly defined as they once were.
For
example, Nnamdi states that although there is a significantly high
percentage of educated and affluent Blacks living in this area, many no
longer view public issues or their own problems in strictly racial terms,
but are increasingly focused first on the impact that various public issues
might have on them economically i.e., as members of the middle and upper
classes, and not as Black Americans. Nnamdi cites the recent controversy
surrounding D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams' proposal to privatize D.C. General
Hospital, the District's only health facility that is open to its poor and
working class residents, and the failure or absence of a organized Black
middle and upper class effort to oppose this. Indeed, Nnamdi notes that
Black in this class will challenge law enforcement administrations on racial
profiling and corporations on the glass ceiling, because they see these
issues as racial in nature, but will ignore the D.C. Hospital controversy,
because such is characterized as a class issue that is applicable only to
poor people.
Thus,
Nnamdi argues that race and class often intersects now, and that because of
this factor, he resists trying to define the Black Public Sphere. Instead,
Nnamdi offers the following: Try to define the Black Public Sphere in such a way that there is room for intra-family disagreement. That is how I see my role as an Afro-Caribbean American trying to help redefine the Black Public Sphere as a sphere, which because of class and other differences, can have an intra-family dialogue characterized by disagreement but can come to a fair resolution where no one can corner the market of defining the Black Public Sphere (Personal Interview)
Conclusion
Exclusivity was very much an integral part of informing the
Habermas’ notion of consensus in the public sphere. The new found wealth in
Britain and France, then eventually in the United States, can largely be
attributed to the colonial initiative that enabled this emergence of the
bourgeois public sphere, one that increased the awareness of the conjugal
family, and helped foster the private man’s public use of reason. Dana
Polan (1990) discusses Habermas’ fallacy in sentimentalizing the “supposedly
pristine space of eighteenth-century bourgeois reason” without effectively
implicating “economic interests as distorting this supposedly liberal
reasoning” in his original theory: most especially, in the gap between the disinterested reason of public debate and the real economic interests that this debate depended upon. He reminds us (and himself) that bourgeois society’s reasoners were representatives of a system of exchange. But even here, economic interest seems contingent. Yes, only certain people are part of the public sphere, and, yes, the things they evaluate have a bearing on their capitalist efforts, but the sphere of reason bears nonetheless a certain degree of relative autonomy from the origins and interest of its members. (p. 263)
With this
new class of citizens emerging as the “reasoners” of society, the
maintenance of the slave trade and oppression of the subservient others
would be mandatory in order to maintain capital gains. Habermas’ theory
consequently helps to illustrate that slavery is as much a part of the
political, economic, social, public sphere, as it is part of the personal,
familial, private sphere of Western societies. “The bourgeois public sphere
was much more run through by the interests of capitalist exchange than
Habermas wants to admit” (Polan, p. 264).
However, everyone is still not participating equally within the District’s public sphere. In fact, if they were, the supposedly inclusive principles of the present liberal public sphere would clearly bring to light its exclusive practices thus enabling genuine self-reflection such that true critical analysis would ensue from the citizen’s needs. Consider how the discourses of the four co-researchers and the issues addressed in the black press had such a historical resemblance to the historically lackadaisical attitudes and legislation towards memorializing visibly black cultural artifacts in the public sphere. With the unspoken agreement that alterna |