1887
image of Informing the government or fostering public debate?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article focuses on a popular form of civic practice in China: casual political talk that occurs in online spaces that are not ostensibly political. We investigate how Chinese citizens engage in politics through a comparative analysis of everyday talk on health issues across three popular online discussion forums: a government-orientated forum (), a commercial-lifestyle forum (), and a commercial-topical forum focused on parental advice (). Our findings show that conventional deliberation directly involving conflictual and resistant attitude against state authorities is not prominently embraced by Chinese citizens in everyday online settings. However, communal and less confrontational forms of discourse are important for the proto-political talk to turn political, thus serving as prerequisite conditions for the emergence of an online public sphere. We argue that to explain how the public sphere emerges in everyday (non-political) spaces in China, it is essential to take communal discursive forms into account.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19104.sun
2020-06-16
2020-07-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Balla, Steven J.
    2014 “Health System Reform and Political Participation on the Chinese Internet.” China Information28(2): 214–236. doi:  10.1177/0920203X14525915
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X14525915 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg
    2012 “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics.” Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768. doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661 [Google Scholar]
  3. CNNIC
    CNNIC 2017 “The 40th Statistical Report on Internet Development in China.” AccessedDecember 28, 2017. www.cnnic.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/
  4. Coleman, Stephen
    2007 “Mediated Politics and Everyday Life.” International Journal of Communication1(1): 49–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coleman, Stephen, and Giles Moss
    2012 “Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics9(1):1–15. doi:  10.1080/19331681.2011.635957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2011.635957 [Google Scholar]
  6. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Donald D. Searing
    2005 “Studying ‘Everyday Political Talk’ in the Deliberative System.” Acta Politica40(3): 269–283. 10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113
    https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500113 [Google Scholar]
  7. Damm, Jens
    2007 “The Internet and the Fragmentation of Chinese Society.” Critical Asian Studies39(2): 273–294. doi:  10.1080/14672710701339485
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14672710701339485 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahlberg, Lincoln
    2004a “Net-public sphere research: Beyond the ‘first phase’.” Javnost – The Public11(1): 27–43. doi:  10.1080/13183222.2004.11008845
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2004.11008845 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2004b “The Habermasian Public Sphere: A Specification of the Idealized Conditions of Democratic Communication.” Studies in Social and Political Thought10(10): 2–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Friess, Dennis, and Christiane Eilders
    2015 “A Systematic Review of Online Deliberation Research.” Policy & Internet7(3): 319–339. doi:  10.1002/poi3.95
    https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gleiss, Marielle Stigum
    2015 “Speaking Up for the Suffering (Br)other: Weibo Activism, Discursive Struggles, and Minimal Politics in China.” Media, Culture & Society37(4): 513–529. doi:  10.1177/0163443714566897
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714566897 [Google Scholar]
  12. Graham, Todd
    2008 “Needles in a haystack: A New Approach for Identifying and Assessing Political Talk in Nonpolitical Discussion Forums.” Javnost-the Public15(2): 17–36. doi:  10.1080/13183222.2008.11008968
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2008.11008968 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2009 What’s Wife Swap Got to Do with It?: Talking Politics in the Net-Based Public Sphere. PhD diss., Universiteit Amsterdam.
  14. Graham, Todd, and Scott Wright
    2014 “Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: The Impact of “Superparticipants”.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19 (3): 625–642. doi:  10.1111/jcc4.12016
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12016 [Google Scholar]
  15. Graham, Todd
    2015 “Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere.” InHandbook of digital politics, edited byStephen Coleman and Deen Freelon, 247–263. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Graham, Todd, Daniel Jackson, and Scott Wright
    2015 “From Everyday Conversation to Political Action: Talking Austerity in Online ‘Third Spaces’.” European Journal of Communication30 (6): 648–665. doi:  10.1177/0267323115595529
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115595529 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2016 “‘We Need to Get Together and Make Ourselves Heard’: Everyday Online Spaces as Incubators of Political Action.” Information, Communication & Society19 (10): 1373–1389. doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2015.1094113
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1094113 [Google Scholar]
  18. Habermas, Jürgen
    1984The Theory of Communicative Action (trans. Thomas McCarthy). Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1987Theory of Communicative Action (trans. Thomas McCarthy). Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1989The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (trans. Thomas Burger). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1996Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (trans. William Rehg). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Han, Rongbin
    2015a “Defending the Authoritarian Regime Online: China’s “Voluntary Fifty-Cent Army”.” The China Quarterly224: 1006–1025. doi:  10.1017/S0305741015001216
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741015001216 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2015b “Manufacturing Consent in Cyberspace: China’s’ Fifty-Cent Army’.” Journal of Current Chinese Affairs44(2): 105–134. doi:  10.1177/186810261504400205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/186810261504400205 [Google Scholar]
  24. He, Baogang
    2014 “Deliberative Culture and Politics: The Persistence of Authoritarian Deliberation in China.” Political Theory42(1): 58–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24571382
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jiang, Min
    2010 “Authoritarian Deliberation on Chinese Internet.” Electronic Journal of Communication20(3&4): 7–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kornreich, Yoel, Ilan Vertinsky, and Pitman B. Potter
    2012 “Consultation and Deliberation in China: The Making of China’s Health-Care Reform.” China Journal68(2): 176–203. doi:  10.1086/666583
    https://doi.org/10.1086/666583 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kalathil, Shanthi, and Taylor C. Boas
    2003Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. King, Gary, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts
    2013 “How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression.” American Political Science Review107(2): 326–343. doi:  10.1017/S0003055413000014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000014 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim, Joohan, and Eun Joo Kim
    2008 “Theorizing Dialogic Deliberation: Everyday Political Talk as Communicative Action and Dialogue.” Communication Theory18(1): 51–70. doi:  10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2007.00313.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00313.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Kligler-Vilenchik, Neta
    2015 “From wizards and house-elves to real-world issues: Political talk in fan spaces.” International Journal of Communication9: 2027–2046.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lewis, Orion A.
    2013 “Net Inclusion: New Media’s Impact on Deliberative Politics in China.” Journal of Contemporary Asia43(4): 678–708. doi:  10.1080/00472336.2013.769387
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.769387 [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, Yuanli
    2009 “Reforming China’s Health Care: for the People, by the People?” The Lancet373(9660): 281–283. doi:  10.1016/S0140‑6736(09)60080‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60080-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, Jun
    2017 “From ‘Moments of Madness’ to ‘the Politics of Mundanity’-Researching Digital Media and Contentious Collective Actions in China.” Social Movement Studies16(4): 418–432. doi:  10.1080/14742837.2016.1192027
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1192027 [Google Scholar]
  34. MacKinnon, Rebecca
    2011 “China’s” Networked Authoritarianism”.” Journal of Democracy22(2): 32–46. Project MUSE.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mansbridge, Jane
    1999 “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System.” InDeliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed.Stephen Macedo, 211–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mayring, Philipp
    2000 “Qualitative Content Analysis.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research1(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Marques, Ângela CS, and Rousiley CM Maia
    2010 “Everyday Conversation in the Deliberative Process: An Analysis of Communicative Exchanges in Discussion Groups and Their Contributions to Civic and Political Socialization.” Journal of Communication60(4): 611–635. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01506.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01506.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Medaglia, Rony, & Yang, Yang
    2017 Online Public Deliberation in China: Evolution of Interaction Patterns and Network Homophily in the Tianya Discussion Forum. Information, Communication & Society20(5): 733–753. doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203974
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203974 [Google Scholar]
  39. Papacharissi, Zizi
    2010A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ramesh, M., Xun Wu, and Alex Jingwei He
    2013 “Health Governance and Healthcare Reforms in China.” Health policy and planning29(6): 663–672. doi:  10.1093/heapol/czs109
    https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czs109 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schlæger, Jesper, and Min Jiang
    2014 “Official Microblogging and Social Management by Local Governments in China.” China Information28(2): 189–213. doi:  10.1177/0920203X14533901
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X14533901 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stromer-Galley, Jennifer
    2007 “Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme.” Journal of public deliberation3(1): 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sun, Yu, Todd Graham, and Marcel Broersma
    2018 “Environmental Talk in the Chinese Green Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of Daily Green-Speak across Three Chinese Online Forums.” InManaging Democracy in the Digital Age, edited byJulia Schwanholz, Todd Graham and Peter-Tobias Stoll, 243–263. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑61708‑4_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61708-4_13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tai, Zixue
    2006The Internet in China: Cyberspace and Civil Society. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Teets, Jessica C.
    2014Civil Society under Authoritarianism. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139839396
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139839396 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wyatt, Robert O., Elihu Katz, and Joohan Kim
    2000 “Bridging the Spheres: Political and Personal Conversation in Public and Private Spaces.” Journal of Communication50(1):71–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2000.tb02834
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02834 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wright, Scott
    2012 “From “Third Place” to “Third Space”: Everyday Political Talk in Non-Political Online Spaces.” Javnost-The public, 19(3): 5–20. doi:  10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2018 “The Impact of ‘Super-Participants’ on Everyday Political Talk.” Journal of Language and Politics17(2): 155–172. doi:  10.1075/jlp.17033.wri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17033.wri [Google Scholar]
  49. Wright, Scott, Todd Graham, and Dan Jackson
    2015 “Third Space, Social Media, and Everyday Political Talk.” InThe Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, edited byAxel Bruns, Gunn Enli, Eli Skogerbo, Anders Olof Larsson, and Christian Christensen, 74–88. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315716299‑6
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716299-6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, Guobin
    2009The power of the Internet in China: Citizen activism online. Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2003 “The Co-Evolution of the Internet and Civil Society in China.” Asian Survey43(3): 405–422. doi:  10.1525/as.2003.43.3.405
    https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2003.43.3.405 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2007 “How Do Chinese Civic Associations Respond to the Internet?” The China Quarterly189(1): 122–143. doi:  10.1017/S030574100600083X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S030574100600083X [Google Scholar]
  53. Zheng, Yongnian, and Guoguang Wu
    2005 “Information Technology, Public Sphere, and Collective Action in China.” Comparative Political Studies38(5): 507–536. doi:  10.1177/0010414004273505
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414004273505 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, Weiyu
    2010 “Technical Capital and Participatory Inequality in eDeliberation” Information, Communication & Society13(7): 1019–1039. doi:  10.1080/1369118X.2010.495988
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.495988 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19104.sun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19104.sun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error