The Dichotomy of Public/Private in the New Media Space
Today we exist in a situation in which the new media environment has resulted in paradigm shift in our conception of reality, altering public spaces and communities, as well as functional modes and mechanisms of the private sphere, through the creation of new digitally-intermediated methods of communication. In a mediatised culture, the boundaries between public and private have been fundamentally transformed. Multi-screening has created a new mode of visibility for social cultures and subcultures, which, if it does not exactly abolish the boundary between private and public, at least allows us to rethink this dichotomy. Having thus established a new mode of visibility, the advent of new media has led to the sphere of private life being absorbed by the public sphere, in the process not only of facilitating discussion, but also in becoming a means by which control is exerted by the state, the market and advertising. In turn, in coming under the domination of specific private or group interests, the public sphere itself has been transformed. While, in coinciding with the interests of other groups, these interests may achieve temporary commonality, they cannot be truly public in the original universal sense. The use of multiple Internet portals in living reality creates a distinct or alternative level of virtual publicity. No longer requiring the usual physical spaces to regulate his or her inclusion in both virtual and traditional public spheres, a user of contemporary gadgets creates a remote and individually-tailored model of public interaction. This process of virtual individualisation indicates the ambivalent nature of the networked public sphere. While, on the one hand, in engaging in collective interaction and concern for common affairs, politically-active people need the presence of others, on the other, the fact of being rooted in their own experience results in the creation of burgeoning personalised and fragmented hierarchies.
- Barthes, R. (1980). La chambre claire. Note sur la photographie [Camera Lucida. Note on the Photograph]. Paris: Gallimard.
- Bauman, Z. (2007). Living in Utopia. In D. Held, H. L. Moore, & K. Young (Eds.), Cultural Politics in a Global Age (pp. 316–323). Oxford, UK: Oneworld.
- Bennett, L. (2012). Grounding the European Public Sphere. Looking Beyond the Mass Media to Digitally Mediated Issue Publics (KFG Working Paper No. 43). Berlin: Freie Universität. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/199433571.pdf
- Bolz, N. (1989). Your inside is out and your outside is in — die mythische Welt der elektronischen Medien [Your Inside Is Out and Your Outside Is In: a Mythic World of Electronic Media]. In P. Klier & J.-L. Evard (Eds.), Mediendämmerung. Zur Archäologie der Medien [Media Twilight. On the Archaeology of the Media] (pp. 81–89). Berlin: Tiamat.
- Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Chernykh, A. I. (2013). Media i ritualy [Media and Rituals]. Moscow: Universitetskaya kniga.
- Dobrynin, S. (2016, December 9). My ne zametim, kak mir zakhvatit iskusstvennyi intellekt [We Would Not Notice How Artificial Intelligence Conquer Our World]. Interview with Michal Kosinski. Radio Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.svoboda.org/a/28166040.html
- Eco, U. (2007). Turning Back the Clock. Hot Wars and Media Populism. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
- Fanailova, E. (2013, August 29). Sotsial'nye seti i novosti [Social Networks and News]. Radio Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.svoboda.org/a/25084384.html
- Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In C. J. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping our Lives. London: Profile Books.
- Golynko-Volfson, D. (2009). Sotsial'nye seti v nesetovom sotsiume (O biopolitike, istorizme i mifologii russkikh sotsial'nykh setei) [Social Networks in a Non-Networking Socium (On Bio-Politics, Historicism and Mythology of Russian Social Networks)]. Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media, 1(2), 101–113. Retrieved from https://www.digitalicons.org/wp-content/uploads/issue02/files/2009/12/Dmitry-Golynko-DI-2.7.pdf
- Gurevich, A. Ya. (2005). Individ i sotsium na srednevekovom Zapade [The Individual and Society in the Medieval West]. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
- Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft [The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
- Kushnaryova, I. (2012). Ko vsemu pridelat' laiki [Label Everything with Likes]. Logos, 2(86), 3–9. Retrieved from http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/logos/2012_2/01.pdf
- Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
- Lavrenchuk, E. A. (2010). Sotsial'nye seti kak epistemicheskie ob"ekty [Social Network as an Epistemic Object]. The RGGU Bulletin, 13(56), 63–70. Retrieved from https://www.rsuh.ru/binary/object_46.1329383398.57711.pdf
- Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Marshall, P. D. (2010). The Promotion and Presentation of the Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media. Celebrity Studies, 1(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392390903519057
- Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
- Sal’nikova, E. V. (2015). Fenomen mobil'nykh ekranov. «Intimnaya» kommunikatsiya [The Phenomenon of Mobile Phone. Intimate Communication]. Art & Culture Studies, 1(14), 116–135. Retrieved from http://artculturestudies.sias.ru/upload/iblock/c58/hk_2013_09_116_135_salnikova.pdf
- Shirky, C. (2003). Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality. Retrieved from: http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html (currently unavailable)
- Usmanova, A. (2009). Utrachennaya privatnost: “tekhnologii” deprivatsii v sovetskom i postsovetskom kontekstakh [The Lost Privacy: “Technologies” of Deprivation in Soviet and Post-Soviet Contexts]. Perekrestki. Zhurnal issledovanij vostochnoevropejskogo Pogranich'ya, No. 3–4, 88–105. Retrieved from https://en.ehu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CrossRoad_3_4_2009.pdf
- van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Virno, P. (2001). Grammatica della moltitudine: per una analisi delle forme di vita contemporanee [A Grammar of the Multitude. For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life]. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore.
- Warren, M. E. (1995). The Self in Discursive Democracy. In S. White (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas (pp. 167–200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052144120X
- Zolo, D. (1992). Democracy and Complexity. A Realistic Approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
- Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York, NY: Public Affairs.