You Say "Yes", I Say "No": Capturing and Measuring 'Public Opinion' through Citizens' Conversation Online (on the Russian-Language LiveJornal Blogging Platform)

The paper presents the results of the empirical study devoted to mapping and measuring the aggregated political positions – viewed as a specific form of discursive public opinion – expressed by ordinary citizens on a discussion forum on the Russian internet. The study is considered as part of the broader inquiry into the field of online deliberations. New evidence is discussed in this regard by deepening the empirical side of claim making and validation through studying agreements and disagreements among online discussants using Jurgen Habermas’ notion of validity claims to normative rightness. The claim-based approach has helped reveal, firstly, how participants problematize issues of public importance and what these issues are, and, secondly, which intersubjective solidarities (groups) participants form around these issues. The paper concludes by considering both the epistemic and pragmatic aspects of such results for better understanding the participatory value of public discussions online from a perspective of discursive sociology and public trust building. You say "Yes", I say "No". You say "Stop" and I say "Go, go, go". Oh no. You say "Goodbye" and I say "Hello, hello, hello". I don't know why you say "Goodbye", I say "Hello, hello, hello". I say "High", you say "Low". You say "Why?" And I say "I don't know". Oh no. You say "Goodbye" and I say "Hello, hello, hello". THE BEATLES HELLO GOODBYE song By LENNON/ MCCARTNEY 1 Theoretical and Analytical Framework The paper continues testing the practicability of Jurgen Habermas’ notion of basic validly claims – as part of his broader theories of communicative action, discourse ethics and, of course, the public sphere –for studying online discourses from a participatory democracy You Say "Yes", I Say “No”: Capturing and Measuring ‘Public Opinion’ 135 perspective. While the Habermasian conceptualization of the public sphere has been met with grounded criticism insisting, for example, that there are many public spheres for different social strata rather than just ‘bourgeois’ one and that the very concept is excessively idealized imposing the ‘ideal speech situation’ conditions that are impossible to meet in real world [for example, 27, 9, 4], still the democratic value of the public sphere remains as strong as ever, especially in the digital age, which has markedly redrawn the boundaries of the traditional offline publicness. The research that has emerged at the crossroads of new media and the public sphere concept appears to be strong and expanding [ 2, 10, 25, 28, 29, 30]. 1.1 Reaffirming Democratic Value of the Pluralistic Public Sphere Habermas’ views on the public sphere have also evolved significantly since his original book The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society was published decades ago. In his later work, he replaced a previous – impossible to implement – requirement for the total participatory equality and inclusiveness with a more realistic condition of non-exclusion [ 16]. In other words, a condition to engage all those capable of participating in public discourses was no longer necessary. However, the condition of equal participation was still valid; that is, those citizens who are willing to participate should not be excluded from participation, which in turn must be free, non-coerced and safe from intentional selfdeception [ 3, 15]. While Habermas admits that the public sphere is pluralistic by nature, he also insists that disparate public spheres co-constitute each other and thus generate ‘emancipatory potential’ rather than simply co-exist independently. He demonstrated that using an example of ‘plebeian’ sphere, which existed in the 19th century alongside with that of the elitist bourgeois one. It was pluralistic in terms that the elitist public sphere could only exist – and distinguish itself – against the background of other public spheres attributed to the social groups excluded from the mainstream one [ 12, p. 426-7]. Thus Habermas makes a special call to recognise the importance of the public culture and its space created by the ordinary people. 1.2 The Virtual Public Sphere as a Space for Democratic Communication The Internet as a virtual public sphere [6, 25 6] has attracted the endless numbers of ordinary people to express themselves on the similarly endless number of topics including those of public interest. It is a highly pluralistic public sphere. Many online communities, as well as suband counter-cultures that could not have proper place and role in the public communication realm dominated by the corporate mass media in the offline world have emerged and expanded on the Internet ignoring state and social boundaries [ 1, 7, 8, 10, 19, 20]. This research attempts to study the political culture of the common, ordinary people, of the laymen, who are not professional politicians but nonetheless are active in civic terms online and often offline too. It is essential to know whether the causal online conversations are deliberative in the Habermasian democratic, participatory