Civic culture and public sphere

comparative study on the conversation in the VotenaWeb and ISideWith portals

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21878/compolitica.2019.9.2.227

Keywords:

citizenship, public sphere, online conversation

Abstract

The research presented in this article was carried out with the goal of investigating, from a comparative perspective, the quality of the online conversation in two deliberative digital environments, in different countries: the web portals Votenaweb.com.br (Brazil) and ISideWith.com (United States), which have the potential of encouraging relations of proximity between the general public and formal political institutions, allowing the expression of opinions on bills and legislative matters in general through symbolic votes. In total, 30.192 comments were collected and analyzed. Content analysis was performed in five categories, based on literature, namely: justification; reciprocity; reflexivity; respect; and information. The results indicate remarkable similarities between the two environments studied, but also important differences, which might be anchored in cultural characteristics.

Author Biographies

Danilo Rothberg, São Paulo State University

Doutor em sociologia pela Unesp (Universidade Estadual Paulista) e coordenador do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação da Faac (Faculdade de Arquitetura, Artes e Comunicação) da Unesp.

Pedro Luis Bueno Berti, São Paulo State University

Mestre e Doutorando em Comunicação pela FAAC na Unesp (Universidade Estadual Paulista).

References

ADLER, R. P.; GOGGIN, J. What Do We Mean By “Civic Engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, v. 3 n. 3, p. 236-253, 2005.
ALMOND, G. A.; VERBA, S. The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.
AVRITZER, L. Instituições participativas e desenho institucional: algumas considerações sobre a variação da participação no Brasil democrático. Opinião pública, v. 14, n. 1, p. 43-64, 2008.
AYERBE, L. F. Estados Unidos e América Latina: a construção da hegemonia. São Paulo: Unesp, 2002.
BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2010.
BOHMAN, J. The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of political philosophy, v. 6, n. 4, p. 400-425, 1998.
BOYLE, H. C. The pragmatic ends of popular politics. In: CALHOUN, C. J. (ed.) Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
CALHOUN, C. Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In: CALHOUN, C. J. Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
CAMPBELL, A. et al. The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
CARVALHO, J. M. O motivo edênico no imaginário social brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 13, n. 38, 1998.
COHEN, J. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: BOHMAN, J.; REHG, W. (eds.). Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
DAHLBERG, L. Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New media & society, v. 13, n. 6, p. 855-872, 2011.
DAHLGREN, P. The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, v. 22, n. 2, p. 147-162, 2005.
DRYZEK, J. Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative political studies, v. 42, n. 11, p. 1379-1402, 2008.
FONSECA JÚNIOR, W. Análise de conteúdo. In: DUARTE, J.; BARROS, A. (orgs). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa em comunicação. São Paulo: Atlas, 2009.
FRIEDLAND, L. et al. Capital, consumption, communication, and citizenship: the social positioning of taste and civic culture in the United States. The annals of the American Academy, n. 611, p. 31-50, 2007.
FUNG, A. Receitas para esferas públicas: oito desenhos institucionais e suas consequências. In: COELHO, V. S. P.; NOBRE, M. Participação e deliberação: teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004.
GOMES, W. Esfera pública política e media II. In: RUBIM, A.; BENTZ, I.; PINTO, M. (orgs.). Práticas discursivas na cultura contemporânea. Porto Alegre: Unisinos, 1999. p. 203-231.
HABERMAS, J.: Consciência moral e agir comunicativo. Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro, 1989.
HABERMAS, J. Direito e democracia: entre facticidade e validade. v. 2 Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 1997.
ISIDEWITH. About. Disponível em: https://www.isidewith.com/about. Acesso em: 15 jul. 2016.
JANSSEN, D. KIES, R. Online forums and deliberative democracy: hypotheses, variables and methodologies. In: Conference Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics. Florence: European University Institute, 2004.
JENSEN, J. L. Public spheres on the internet: anarchic or government-sponsored – a comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies, v. 26, n. 4, p. 349-374 2003.
KELLNER, D. Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy. In: BOROS, D. ; GLASS, J. M. (eds.) Re-imagining public space: the Frankfurt School in the 21st century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. p. 19-43.
KELLY, J.; FISHER, D.; SMITH, M. Friends, foes, and fringe: norms and structure in political discussion networks. In: DAVIES, T.; GANGADHARAM, S. P. (orgs.). Online deliberation: design, research, and practice. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2009. p. 83-94.
KRIPPENDORFF, K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. London, New York: Sage, 2013.
LEWIS-BECK, M. S. et al. The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008.
MAIA, R. C. M. A deliberação nos media: apontamentos conceituais. Comunicação & Sociedade, v. 30, n. 50, p. 81-101, 2008.
MAIA, R. C. M., REZENDE, T. A. S. Respect and disrespect in deliberation across the networked media environment: examining multiple paths of political talk. J Comput-Mediat Comm, n. 21, n. 2, p. 121-139, 2016.
MAIA, R. C. M.; ROSSINI, P. G. C. ; OIVEIRA, V. V. ; OLIVEIRA, A. G. Sobre a importância de se examinar diferentes ambientes online em estudos de Deliberação a partir de uma abordagem sistêmica. Opinião Pública, v. 21, p. 490-513, 2015.
MARQUES, A. C. S. Aspectos teórico-metodológicos do processo comunicativo de deliberação online. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, n. 6, p. 19-40, 2011.
McLAUGHLIN, A. A constitutional history of the United States. Safety Harbor, FL: Simon Publications, 2001, v. 1.
MENDONÇA, R.; PEREIRA, M. A. Democracia digital e deliberação online: um estudo de caso sobre o VotenaWeb. In: Congresso Latino Americano de Opinião Pública. Belo Horizonte, 2011.
MITOZO, I. B.; MASSUCHIN, M. G.; CARVALHO, F. C. Características do debate político-eleitoral no Facebook: Os comentários do público em posts jornalísticos nas eleições presidenciais de 2014. Opinião Pública, v. 23, n. 2, p. 459-484, 2017.
MOUFFE, C. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, v. 66, n. 3, p. 745-758, 1999.
MORRIS, B. Christian life and character of the civil institutions of the United States. American Vision: Powder Springs, 2007.
NORRIS, P. Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
NORRIS, P. Democratic deficit: critical citizens revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
NUNES et al. A pesquisa qualitativa apoiada por softwares de análise de dados uma investigação a partir de exemplos. Fronteiras – estudos midiáticos, v. 19, n. 2, p. 233-244, 2017.
POLAT, R. K. The Internet and political participation: Exploring the Explanatory Links. European Journal of Communication, v. 20, n. 4, p. 435-459, 2005.
PRICE, V.; CAPPELL, J.; NIR, L. Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, v. 19, n. 1, p. 95-112, 2002.
SAMPAIO, R. C.; BARROS, S. A. R. Deliberação no jornalismo online: um estudo dos comentários do Folha. com. Intexto, n. 23, p. 164-175, 2010.
SAMPAIO, R. C.; BARROS, S. A. R.; MORAIS, R. Como avaliar a deliberação online?: um mapeamento de critérios relevantes. Opinião Pública, v. 18, n. 2, p. 470-489, 2012.
SAMPAIO, R. C.; MAIA, R. C. M.; MARQUES, F. P. J. A. Participação e deliberação na internet: um estudo de caso do Orçamento Participativo Digital de Belo Horizonte. Opinião Pública, v. 16, n. 2, p. 446-477, Nov. 2010.
SARTORI, G. Politics, ideology, and belief systems. The American Political Science Review, v. 63, n. 2, p. 398-411, 1969.
SCHUDSON, M. The good citizen: a history of American civic life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
SMITH, W.; BRASSETT, J. Deliberation and global governance: liberal, cosmopolitan, and critical perspectives. Ethics & International Affairs, v. 22, n. 1, p. 69-92, 2008.
STRANDBERG. K. Designing for democracy?: an experimental study comparing the outcomes of citizen discussions in online forums with those of online discussions in a forum designed according to deliberative principles. European Political Science Review, v. 7, n. 3, p. 451-474, 2015.
VOTENAWEB. Sobre. Disponível em: http://www.votenaweb.com.br/sobre. Acesso em: 22 out. 2015.
WITSCHGE, T. (2004). Online deliberation: possibilities of the internet for deliberative democracy. In: SHANE, P. (Ed.). Democracy online: the prospects for political renewal through the internet. New York: Routledge. p. 109-122.
WRIGHT, S.; STREET, J. Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, v. 9, n. 5, p. 849-869, 2007.

Published

2019-09-15

How to Cite

Rothberg, D., & Berti, P. L. B. (2019). Civic culture and public sphere: comparative study on the conversation in the VotenaWeb and ISideWith portals. Compolítica, 9(2), 05–36. https://doi.org/10.21878/compolitica.2019.9.2.227