Journal of Academic Research for Humanities (JARH) is a double-blind peer-review, Open Free Access, online Multidisciplinary Research Journal
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 4 No. 3 (2024)
The International "Journal of Academic Research for Humanities"

Research Articles

Facebook as a Public Sphere: Rational and Emotional Political Engagement among Educated Users in Pakistan

Published 30-09-2024

  • Noman Yaser
    • ,
  • Prof. Dr. Zahid Yousaf
    • ,
  • Dr. Faiza Bajwa

Noman Yaser
University of sargodha

Prof. Dr. Zahid Yousaf


Dr. Faiza Bajwa


Abstract

This study highlights the type of political arguments by Facebook users based on the concept of the public sphere and deliberative democracy advanced by Jürgen Habermas. Besides other components of the public sphere, ‘rational and logical argumentation’ is of the primary concern set forth by Habermas. The study attempts to explore this dimension by finding out the use of type arguments by Facebook users during their political discussions on Facebook. The data was collected through in-depth interviews from 11 informants which helped get an insight into their experiences and the answers to the research question posed. The informants comprised eleven BS and PhD students (5 and 6 respectively; out of which 7 were males and 4 were females) who were registered voters and had liked the Facebook pages of any political party during the election campaign in Pakistan. The study uses the public sphere, as theoretical perspectives to guide the research questions. Thematic analysis was used and NVvivo 12 was used for the categorization of data. Findings show that users used this platform to express their opinions and viewpoints freely; as educated users, they mostly engaged themselves in rational arguments. The study’s findings are consistent with the existing literature that logical argumentation is used mostly by educated voters/users whereas most of the common users focus on emotional arguments.  The study helps to shed light on the type of political discourses used by social media users which is an under researched area.

Keywords

Facebook, Arguments, Emotional, Components., Sphere

PDF

References

  1. Alodat, A. M., Al-Qora’n,. F., & Abu Hamoud, M. (2023). "Social Media Platforms and Political Participation: A Study of Jordanian Youth Engagement". Social Sciences, 12 (7), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12070402
  2. Barret, D. (2022). Political polarization and social media. Minds in digital space, 50 (2), 85- 104.
  3. Bavel, J.V., Rathje, S., Harris, E., Robertson, C., Sternisko, A. (2022). How social media shapes polarisation.Trends in cognitive science, 25 (11). DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013.
  4. Belcastro,L., Branda, F., Cantini, R., Marozzo, F., Talia, D., & Trunfio, P. (2022). Social Network Analysis and Mining, 12 (83). DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s13278-022-00913-912 (83).
  5. Buted, D.R., Gillespie, N. S., Conti, J. B., Delgado, B. A., Marasigan, R. M. P., Rubico, S. K. A., & Felicen, S. S. (2014). Effects of Social Media in the Tourism Industry of Batangas Province. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(3), 113-131.
  6. Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In: C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass MIT Press
  7. Cappella, J.N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic Dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication 19 (1),73–93. Doi:10.1080/105846002317246498
  8. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
  9. Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. Oxford University Press.
  10. Chen, G.M., & Lu. S. (2017). Online Political Discourse: Exploring Differences in Effects of Civil and Uncivil Disagreement in News Website Comments.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 61 (1), 108–125. Doi:10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922
  11. Dahlberg, L., & Siapera, E. (2001). Radical democracy and the internet: Interrogating theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
  12. Debatim, B. (2008). The internet is a new platform for expressing public opinions and a new public sphere. In Donsbach, W., &Traugott, M. W. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public opinion research. London: Sage.
  13. Elsas, E.V. (2015). Political trust as a rational attitude: A comparison of the nature of political trust across different levels of education. Political Studies, vol. 63(5), 1158-1178. Doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12148
  14. Gerwin, J. M. (2011). The Virtual Coff eehouses”? Social Networking Sites and the Public Sphere – An Empirical Analysis. Stockholm University.
  15. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103
  16. Goenaga, A. (2022). Who cares about the public sphere? European Journal of Political Research 61, 230–254. Doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12451
  17. Graham, T. (2009). What’s wife swap got to do with It? Talking politics in the net-based public sphere.” Dissertation. Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), Universiteit van Amsterdam. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=452e322e-0244- 455e-a397-856bac3f5f7e.
  18. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. (Original work published 1962).
  19. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action I: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
  20. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action II: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. London: Heinemann.
  21. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (William Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press
  22. Hussain, D. M. S., Rubab, D. I., & Ms Sheeza Tufail. (2023). Use of Social Networking Applications in English Language Teaching (ELT): Adult Learners’ Perceptions in Pakistani ESL Context. International "Journal of Academic Research for Humanities", 3(4), 13–24. Retrieved from https://jar.bwo-researches.com/index.php/jarh/article/view/336
  23. Iqbal, A. (2024). Understanding Social Media's Impact on Political Behavior in the 2024 General Elections of Pakistan. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 8 (2), 556-565.
  24. Irum Sindhu, & Shamsi, F. (2023). Adverse Use of Social Media by Higher Secondary School Students: A Case Study on Meta Social Network Platforms. International "Journal of Academic Research for Humanities", 3(4), 205–216. Retrieved from https://jar.bwo-researches.com/index.php/jarh/article/view/357
  25. Kim, Y., & Chen, H. T. (2016). Social media and online political participation: The mediating role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives. Telematics and Informatics, 33(2), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.008
  26. Kitchens, B., Johnson. S. L., & Gray, P. (2020). Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: the impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption. MIS Quarterly, 44 (4), 1619-1649.
  27. Landemore, H.E, & Mercier, H. (2012). Talking It Out with others vs. deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy.” Analise Social XLVII (205), 910–934. http://repository. upenn.edu/goldstone/18.
  28. Lee, Young-Joo. 2020. Facebooking alone? Millennials’ use of social network sites and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector. Quarterly (49), 203–17.
  29. Lu, Y. (2019). Incidental exposure to political disagreement on Facebook and corrective participation: Unraveling the effects of emotional responses and issue relevance.” International Journal of Communication, 13, 874–896.
  30. Malik, H. (1997). State and civil society in Pakistan: Politics of authority, ideology and ethnicity. Macmillan.
  31. Marzinkowski , H; & Engelmann, I. (2022). Rational-critical user discussions: How argument strength and the conditions set by news organizations are linked to (reasoned) disagreement. Digital Journalism, 10 (3), 433-45. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1957968.
  32. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (5thed.). London: Sage.
  33. Min, S. J., & Wohn, D.Y. (2020). Underneath the filter bubble: The role of weak ties and network cultural diversity in cross-cutting exposure to disagreements on social media. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 9, (1), 22-38.
  34. Mutz, D.C. (2008). Is deliberative democracy a Falsifiable theory? Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1), 521–538. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070308.
  35. Muzaffar, M., Yaseen. Z., Safdar, S. (2020). Role of Social Media in Political Campaigns in Pakistan: A Case of Study of 2018 Elections, Journal of Political Studies, 27(2), 141-151
  36. Nie, N. H., Junn, J. & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Omotayo, F, O., & Folorunso,M.B. (2020). Use of social media for political participation by youths. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 12 (1), 132–57.
  38. Rabbani, I. (1999). Pakistan affairs. Karawan Publishers.
  39. Robertson, R.E., Green, J., Ruck, D.J., Ognyanova, k., Wilson, C., & Lazer. D. (2023). Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search. Nature, 618: 342-348. Doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5.
  40. Ruiz, C; Domingo, D; Mico, J.L; Dıaz-Noci, J; Meso, K; & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16 (4), 463–487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849.
  41. Siddiqa, A. (2007). Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy Pluto Press.
  42. Smith, A., Scholzman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009, September). The Internet and Civic Engagement (Rep.). Retrieved from https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-atachments/resources__Pew_Study_on_The-Internet-and-Civic-Engagement1.pdf.
  43. Stromer-Galley, J., & Muhlberger, P. (2009). “Agreement and Disagreement in Group Deliberation: Effects on Deliberation Satisfaction, Future Engagement, and Decision Legitimacy.” Political Communication 26 (2), 173–192. Doi:10.1080/10584600902850775.
  44. Stroud, N.J., Scacco, J.M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A.L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 20 (2), 188–203. Doi:10.1111/jcc4.12104.
  45. Stevic, A. (2024). Under Pressure? Longitudinal Relationships between Different Types of Social Media Use, Digital Pressure, and Life Satisfaction. Social media + Society, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241239282
  46. Tahat, D;, Elareshi, M; Tahat,K; , A; Jwaniat, M; Habes,M; and Ziani, A. (2022). News Media and Political Participation in the Middle East: Jordan as an example. Paper presented at International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, November 22–24.
  47. Usman, A., Munawar, R., & Amjad, A. (2013). Determinants of Effective Electoral Campaign. South Asian Studies. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies 28 (1),107-126.
  48. Verba, S., Schlozman, k.L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  49. Wessler, H. (2018). Habermas and the media. Newark: Polity Press
  50. Westling, M. (2007). Expanding the public sphere: The impact of Facebook on political communication. The New Vernacular. Retrieved from http://thenewvernacular.com/projects/facebook_and_political_communication.pdf.