Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer-Mediated Communication: Political Discussion about Abortion in a Usenet Newsgroup by Steven Michael Schneider B.A., Political Communication (1981) George Washington University M.A., Communications (1988) University of Pennsylvania Submitted to the Department of Political Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 1997 c 1997 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Signature of Author: Department of Political Science May 2, 1997 Certified by: Joshua Cohen Professor of Political Science and Philosophy Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: Barry R. Posen Professor of Political Science Chair, Graduate Program Committee Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer-Mediated Communication: Political Discussion about Abortion in a Usenet Newsgroup by Steven M. Schneider Submitted to the Department of Political Science on May 2, 1997 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science ABSTRACT This thesis examines a conversation about abortion that occurred within the Usenet news- group “talk.abortion” between April 1, 1994 and March 31, 1995. It tests the hypothesis that the form of discourse fostered by computer mediated discussion provides opportuni- ties to expand the informal zone of the public sphere. Specific criteria by which a public sphere can be evaluated for its goodness of fit with the idealized public sphere described by Habermas are proposed and applied to the ongoing conversation. The conversation analyzed consisted of nearly 46,000 messages written by almost three thousand authors in nearly 8,500 different threads. The public sphere created by the par- ticipants in the newsgroup was found to be diverse and reciprocal, but lacking in equality and quality. Equality, achieved with equal distribution of voice among the speakers, was not found in the newsgroup conversation, as participation was highly concentrated among a few participants. Quality, measured by the tendency of participants in the newsgroup to stay “on-topic,” was also lacking in the group. On the other hand, the conversation was found to be highly diverse, as its size contracted and expanded considerably over time, and the participants included both a consistent, regular group as well as a subset of constantly changing contributors. Finally, the authors in the newsgroup were reciprocal with many others, and groups of participants were not systematically excluded from interaction by other groups. Newsgroups are unquestionably a component of the informal zone of the public sphere. Thus, it is suggested that the definition of the public sphere be expanded to include all forms of “associational space,” providing the opportunity for citizens to converse with each other. Even those forms of associational space with no clearly identified political activity resulting from the discussions contribute to the opinion- and will-formation exer- cise that is the function of the public sphere in a democratic society. Usenet newsgroups provide extensive opportunities for individuals to comment freely and autonomously on topics of public concern, and more importantly to engage in public discourse with other citizens about these issues. Thesis Supervisor: Joshua Cohen Title: Professor of Political Science and Philosophy Contents Acknowledgements 7 1 Computers, Conversation and Democracy 8 1.1 talk.abortion – August 9, 1994 . 10 1.2 Democracy and Discussion . 11 2 The Public Sphere 14 2.1 Discourse and the Public Sphere . 15 2.2 The Idealized Public Sphere . 17 2.3 The Liberal Public Sphere . 26 2.4 Dimensions of the Public Sphere . 31 2.5 The Informal Public Sphere . 40 3 Technology & the Public Sphere 43 3.1 Technology and the Shape of the Public Sphere . 43 3.2 Computer mediated Discussion . 47 3.3 Usenet: An Arena Of Computer Mediated Discussion . 51 3.4 The Social and Political Structure of Usenet . 54 4 Abortion Discourse in the Public Sphere 57 4.1 Historic Overview of Abortion Policy in the United States . 58 4.2 Abortion Discourse in the Public Sphere . 63 5 Measuring the Public Sphere 69 5.1 Study Design . 69 5.2 Dimensions of the Public Sphere . 72 6 Analyzing the talk.abortion Newsgroup 76 3 CONTENTS 4 6.1 Authors, Threads and Messages in talk.abortion . 76 6.2 Message and Author Reciprocity.................. 90 6.3 Abortion Density and Metacommunication Density . 95 7 The Expanding Public Sphere 101 A talk.abortion: August 9, 1994 107 B Density Scores 163 C Supplemental Analysis 167 List of Figures 3.1 Structure of a Newsgroup Post . 53 4.1 Articles in Popular Press Related to Abortion, 1930-1996 . 65 6.1 Comparison of Newspaper and Newsgroup Activity . 78 6.2 Authors, Messages and Threads Available Day . 79 6.3 Authors Entering, Exiting and Continuing by Day . 81 6.4 Threads Starting, Ending and Continuing by Day . 82 6.5 Concentration of Authorship . 83 C.1 Number of Messages Posted by Authors . 168 C.2 Number of Threads Posted To by Authors . 169 C.3 Spread of Days Between First and Last Message Posted by Authors 170 C.4 Number of Days with Messages Posted by Authors . 171 C.5 Number of Messages Posted To Thread . 172 C.6 Number of Authors Posting To Thread...............173 C.7 Spread of Days Between First and Last Message Posted To Thread 174 C.8 Number of Days With Messages Posted To Thread . 175 5 List of Tables 6.1 Summary of Activity in Usenet Newsgroup talk.abortion, April 1994 – March 1995 . 77 6.2 Categorization of Authors by Number of Messages . 85 6.3 Messages, Threads, Spread and Days of Author Groups . 86 6.4 Comparison of Messages to Threads and Days by Author Groups . 87 6.5 Categorization of Threads by Number of Messages . 89 6.6 Messages, Authors, Days and Spread of Threads by Decile . 90 6.7 Message Reciprocity By Author Groups . 92 6.8 Author Reciprocity By Author Groups............... 94 6.9 Number and Percent of Reciprocated Authors By Author Groups . 95 6.10 Correlation between Density Scores and Characteristics of Au- thors and Threads . 98 6.11 Abortion Density and Metacommunication Density By Author Groups . 99 6.12 Abortion Density and Metacommunication Density By Thread Deciles . 100 A.1 Articles available on talk.abortion newsgroup, August 9, 1994 . 107 A.2 Authors Posting articles available on talk.abortion newsgroup, Au- gust 9, 1994 . 117 A.3 Pro-life gunman kills two in FL: First 50 Articles from Sample Thread on talk.abortion newsgroup, August 9, 1994 . 122 B.1 Words Used to Calculate Abortion Density Scores . 163 B.1 Words Used to Calculate Abortion Density Scores . 164 B.1 Words Used to Calculate Abortion Density Scores . 165 B.2 Words Used to Calculate Metacommunication Density Scores . 166 6 Acknowledgements When one takes eight years to complete a dissertation, the list of those who have substantively and spiritually participated grows quite long. At the risk of being incomplete, I’d like to acknowledge the help of many mentors, friends, colleagues and family members. Professors Joshua Cohen, W. Russell Neuman, Stephen Ansolabehere, Hayward Alker, Michael Lipsky and Richard Valelly were all gen- erous with their time, guidance and willingness to serve on various incarnations of my thesis committee. In addition, David Coker, Marion Just, David Hakken, Bill Harrell, Marteen Heyboer, Michael Hochberg, Lee McKnight, Shawn O’Donnell, Nancy Roob, Patricia Seybolt, Michael Spitzer, Bill Thisleton and Linda Weber provided valued assistance and guidance. My family – most especially my wife, Laura Horvath – exhibited patience beyond what anyone could have expected, and for that I am forever grateful. To Addy, thanks for letting Mom put you to bed all those nights I had to work late, and for being willing to talk to me on the phone all those mornings I had to leave early. I only wish our friend, Andy Peik, could have celebrated with us. It is to his memory, and to his spirit as a scholar and a teacher, that this thesis is dedicated. 7 Chapter 1 Computers, Conversation and Democracy “Can we talk?” Comedian Joan Rivers got a lot a laughs with this line in the 1980s. But the answer we get when applying this question to citizens in our democracy is no laughing matter. Increasingly, it seems, the answer is “no.” And therein lies a se- rious problem for democracy. For a society composed of individuals who lack the skills and opportunities to engage others in discussions about public issues cannot long sustain itself as a democracy. The will of the community in a democracy is always created through a running discussion between majority and minority, through free consideration of arguments for and against a policy or idea. This discussion takes place not only in the formal institutions of government, but also in the informal settings of public life: political meetings, newspapers, books and other vehicles of public opinion. A democracy without public opinion is a contra- diction in terms (Kelsen 1961, 287). “Democracy begins in conversation,” wrote John Dewey (Post 1993, 171). “There can be no strong democratic legitimacy without ongoing talk,” argues Benjamin Barber (1984, 174) . Bruce Agre (1989, 6) agrees: “Dialogue as the first obligation of citizenship”. “Much of modern, democratic politics consists of talk” (Huspek & Kendall 1991, 1). 8 CHAPTER 1. COMPUTERS, CONVERSATION AND DEMOCRACY 9 This thesis is an analysis of an emerging kind of political talk or discourse: that which takes place over a computer network. More specifically, it is a case study of the conversation about abortion that took place within a Usenet newsgroup over the course of one year. It tests the hypothesis that the newly emergent form of discourse fostered by computer mediated discussion provides an opportunity to revitalize the public sphere in a manner consistent with the goals of participatory democracy.