Publics and Counterpublics

Coleman and Ross (2010) define the public as both social actor made up of people, and as a stage – a zone of social openness and transparency. While crowds are based on congregating, publics are defined by their social presence, which is not reliant on congregating. The public

as a social space is “a set of spatial relations within which social action takes place”, and it should not be merely thought of “in a narrowly topological sense, as a physically dimensional place, but as a social configuration comprising practiced and experienced relationships of interaction” (Coleman and Ross 2010, 21-22). According to these authors, the public as a social space is characterised by three things. One is accessibility, that is, freedom for all to enter (and this refers to both physical spaces such as parks, as well as civic processes such as voting). The second is universality, which refers to dealing with collective priorities agreed-upon in the minds of people who constitute that public. This universality is however fluid, as the boundaries between public and private matters are constantly negotiated. Third is visibility, which refers to availability for observation and scrutiny, such as televised parliamentary proceedings, such that power no longer operates in seclusion.

Based on these definitions of the public, Coleman and Ross (2010) conceptualise public spheres as “spaces of publicness” (Coleman and Ross 2010, 29), which could take three forms, with each form favourable to certain media philosophies. One is a homogenous public sphere as conceptualised by Habermas, open to bourgeoisie all thinking in one way, but also closed to all who don’t fit the characteristics of “well-governed citizens” (Coleman and Ross 2010, 29).

In this space the media are free of private interests, and thus not run for profit. However, the exclusion of some from the public sphere and running of media for business challenges the sustainability of this type of public sphere. Another form of the public sphere is as a listening audience under tutelage, as exemplified by BBC’s early programming which had the aim of improving rather than reflecting public tastes. In this kind of public sphere the media adopts a paternalistic mode of address. It is a space dedicated to “cultural management” (Coleman and Ross 2010, 38) rather than autonomous expression. The third form of public sphere is a democratic space where active citizenship is practiced. It is a space “based upon the principles of participation and reciprocity” (Coleman and Ross 2010, 43). Here the media act as a space through which “the public – or publics – can shape their own culture, without state power or economic inequality constraining their capacity to act” (Coleman and Ross 2010, 39). This kind of public sphere aims to transcend the division between the production and the consumption of public knowledge. Concepts such as active audience and alternative media fit into this conception of the public sphere. However in all three types of public sphere, the public’s voice in the media is managed, that is, not just anyone can say anything in the media.

Rather, access is controlled through filtering for instance through journalistic values, source selection, and creating specific spaces for the audience voice, such as letters to the editor.

These traits of the public and control of who can say what is evident in the Kenyan media scene.

According to Fraser (1990), however, the concept of a public presupposes a plurality of perspectives (and therefore internal differences rather than reified blocs). Because publics are unbounded, they allow for people to participate in more than one public, and memberships in different publics may partially overlap. She posits that public spheres are not only arenas for the formation of discursive opinion; they are also arenas for the formation and enactment of social identities and of participation, which she defines as “being able to speak "in one's own voice" (Fraser 1990, 69), constructing and expressing one’s cultural identity. Self-expression is therefore vital to the concept of the public sphere(s). However, as Fraser points out, Habermas' conception of the public sphere assumed that social inequality could be bracketed to achieve participatory parity in public spheres. Such participatory parity is not possible

“when…discursive arenas are situated in a larger societal context that is pervaded by structural relations of dominance and subordination" (Fraser 1990, 65). Having a single public sphere results in subordinated groups having no arena to deliberate among themselves about what they need and how to get it, and consequently makes them less able "to articulate and defend their interests in the comprehensive public sphere" (Fraser 1990, 66).

It is within the above context of a dominant public that counterpublics spring up, as a means of giving voice to other perspectives. Fraser (1990) defines counterpublics as “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests and needs" (Fraser 1990, 67). She stresses the dual character of subaltern counterpublics: “On the one hand, they function as spaces of withdrawal and regroupment; on the other hand, they also function as bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics. It is precisely in the dialectic between these two functions that their emancipatory potential resides" (Fraser 1990, 68). As per Coleman and Ross (2010), counterpublics do not exist independently of the public sphere, but rather, within it, and therefore are simultaneously insiders and outsiders. Similar to Fraser’s argument, Coleman and Ross conceptualise counterpublics as having a dialectical relationship with the ‘general’

public: on one hand they have their own characteristics and therefore stand apart, but on the other hand, they seek to infiltrate, influence and reconfigure the wider public. Coleman and Ross argue that since it is difficult to get these alternative perspectives into mainstream media,

alternative media are a way to air the voice of counterpublics. And not only should alternative media function as a space for counterpublics to be created and reflected as audiences, producers and consumers; it should also seek to expand the norms and practices of the public sphere, in order to prevent “peripheral mainstreaming….in which counterpublics accept a sidelined status within the general public sphere” (Coleman & Ross, 92). These authors therefore view alternative media as existing chiefly to serve the interests of counterpublics. Kenyan community broadcasters are tasked with airing issues not covered by the mainstream media, which are relevant to the local areas in which the stations exist. Whether these function as counterpublic spheres for the circulation of counterdiscourses, or whether they function more to draw the people at the local level into the broader national, public discourses, is of interest when considering community broadcasters’ functioning. These discourses give an indication of the kinds of public and counterpublics that are created in the context of community broadcasting, and which forms of participation are available to whom.

In view of the above authors’ observations about audiences, communities and publics, this research aims to tease out the ways in which the people engaged with the radio stations take on various roles as audiences, publics and communities, not only in what they listen to, but also in how they listen to community radio and interact with radio content. As well, there is an acknowledgement that they are not exclusively community radio audiences, but rather, are simultaneously accessing other radio channels and other media. As such, engaging with the practices of the communities around community broadcast stations offers an entry point into understanding the ways in which they are constituted as communities, publics, and audiences in relation to radio. In the next section, I focus on radio and the multiplicity of functions that it has been found to have the potential to play.