Presentation at the conference 'The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas in Sociological Research', 8-9 November 2912, EU House, Bratislava, Slovakia

1. THE CRITICAL THEORY OF JURGEN HABERMAS IN SOCIOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
EU House, Bratislava, Slovakia
8-9 November 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say "Yes", I say "No“: Applying Habermas’ notion of
basic validity claims to capture, disaggregate and
measure the “opinion” of Internet discussions
(on the Russian-language LiveJornal blogging platform)
YURI MISNIKOV, PHD
Independent scholar
yuri.misnikov@gmail.com

2. - 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

3. Contents
1 - Theoretical framework
2 - Analytical framework
3 - Empirical framework
4 - Conclusions

4. Theoretical Framework - from
New media, Computer- Deliberative, discourse-
mediated centred concept of
Communications, online democracy, emancipatory
deliberations (public potential of the
discussions on the pluraliustic public sphere
Internet)

5. Theoretical Framework - to
New media, Computer-
Deliberative, discourse-
mediated
centred concept of
Communications, online
democracy, emancipatory
deliberations (public
potential of the pluralistic
discussions on the
public sphere
Internet)

6. Theoretical Framework
• Similarities between the emergence of the
Habermasian public sphere and the virtual public
space
– Audience-oriented privateness ‘...when bourgeois
private people formed themselves into a public and
therewith became the carriers of a new type of public
sphere’ with a ‘emancipatory potential’ (Habermas
and the Public Sphere, p. 426-7)
– Pluralization of the public sphere as a condition of its
very emergence (plebeian, proletarian, counter public
spheres) due to the ‘exclusion of the culturally and
politically mobilized lower strata’

7. Theoretical Framework
‘I must confess, however, that only after reading
Mikhail Bakhtin’s great book Rabelais and His World
have my eyes become open to the inner dynamics
of a plebeian culture . The culture of the common
people apparently was by no means only a
backdrop, that is, a passive echo of the dominant
culture; it was also the periodically recurring violent
revolt of a counterpproject to the hierarchical world
of domination, with its official celebration and
everyday disciplines’ (Habermas and the Public
Sphere, p.427).

8. Theoretical Framework
‘The public sphere can best be described as a
network for communicating information and
points of view (i.e., opinions expressing
affirmative or negative attitudes); the streams of
communication are, in the process, filtered and
synthesized in such a way that they coalesce into
bundles of topically specified public opinions. Like
the lifeworld as a whole, so, too, the public
sphere is reproduced through communicative
action; it is tailored to the general
comprehensibility of everyday communicative
practice’ (Between Facts and Norms/BFN, 360).

9. Theoretical Framework
Public sphere as linguistically constituted space
of communication actors who generate
intersubjective solidarities as a result of their
‘cooperatively negotiated interpretations’ by
‘taking positions on mutual speech act offers
and assuming illocutionary obligations’ (BFN,
pp. 361-2), i.e. through issuing affirmative or
negative statements.
Discourse participants mutually grant each
other communicative freedom to say “Yes”
and “No”, i.e. to claim certain “truths”.

10. Analytical Framework
What are Validity Claims?
• Reciprocal and discursive instruments to
realise (a rational) communicative act
• Carriers of indirect, intended meaning beyond
language
• Aimed at reaching understanding with
‘someone with regard to something’

11. Analytical Framework
What is the act of claim making
• Demonstration of certain reason
• Transmission of intentional meaning
• Articulation of a position

12. Analytical Framework
What is the act of claim validation
• Subsequent communicative action
• Linguistic, logical exercise and also moral and
ethical act
• Representation of a certain worldview
• Not all claims are recognised and validated

13. Analytical Framework: Types of
validity claims
Background knowledge
Claims to
Objective
propositional
Claims to truth Claims to
Subjective Shared
personal normative
truthfulness rightness
Sincerity /Civility Social solidarity
Aesthetic harmony

15. Empirical Framework
Research objectives
• To test the hypotheses that
– Validity claims to normative rightness can be used
to assess the quality of public debate online
– Validity claims to normative rightness can be used
to measure the prevailing opinion of discussants
and thus disclose issue-based solidarities formed
by them
– Articulation of disagreements is the main content
of the validation act

16. Empirical Framework
Demonstration case:
• http://nytimesinmoscow.livejournal.com/224
5.html
• Analysis method: content analysis
• Sample for analyzing deliberative quality: 189
posts
• Sample for analyzing the scope of public
opinion: 100 posts

17. Empirical Framework: Thread example

18. Empirical Framework:
Logic of claim development
STEP 4:
Formulate
claim to
normative
rightness
STEP 2:
Problematize STEP 5:
an issue Validate
STEP 3: Qualify a others' claims
problem, express via
an attitude agreement/
disagreement
STEP 1: Select
theme/topic

19. Empirical Framework: Coding example
• Coding format: «VC-55//3-3-1=The article is untruthful
(Статья неправдивая); VC-56//3-3-1=America should
better deal with its democracy (Америке лучше
заниматься своей демократией)»
– VC-55 – validity claim number 55; there can be more than one
claim in the same post
– 3-3-1 – 1st post (last digit) of author number 3 (middle digit),
which was the 3rd post in a row among all participants
– “America should better deal with its democracy” –
problematised issue which belongs to a broader topic of Russia-
America relations; its intended meaning is to dismiss the paper’s
opinion of the state of democracy in Russia as unimportant, a
ground for further agreement or disagreement with this
statement, expressed in the form of For and Against, in
the spirit of Habermasian positive and negative attitudes

20. Empirical Framework: Stats
• 189 posts made by 59 participants
• 10% of posts were uncivil
• 70% of all posts contained claims to normative
rightness
• 179 claims were made (unique and repeated)
• 147 claims were validated – discussion was
dialogic
• 76% (112) were unique validation acts (the same
claim can be validated more than once by a
number of participants)
• 2/3 claims validated via disagreement

21. Empirical Framework: Example of
Yes/No claim making & validation
Claim making
Claim making
(justification,
Claim validation (of (justification,
correction of Claim validation (of
Claim making (VC- VC-38) correction of
previous claims & VC-39, VC-41, VC-42)
38) previous claims &
via articulation of new via
articulation of new
claims VC-39, VC-41,
claims VC-40, VC-43)
VC-42)
VC-41: Putin did not commit
major mistakes
agreement
VC-42: Beslan and Kursk are VC-43: Beslan and Kursk are
insignificant disagreement not insignificant
VC-38: There will be no Black
Tuesday again
VC-39: There wil be a new VC-40: Putin is leading Russia
disagreement Black Tuesday agreement to catastrophe

22. Empirical Framework: The atom of collective position
formation via For/Yes and Against/No

23. Empirical Framework: Distribution of discursively
articulated positions “Yes/For” by discussion themes
Positions FOR (validated claims, sample size 100 post, NYT-LJ discussion
Russia's military
policy
20%
Putin's policy 26%
America's Russian
democracy & government's
policies 24% policy
18%
The NYT paper- Russian democrats
6% 6%

24. Empirical Framework: Distribution of discursively
articulated positions “No/Against” by discussion themes
Positons AGAINST (validated claims; sample size 100 posts, NYT-LJ discussion) Putin's policies
Russia's military 7%
policy
21% Russian
government's
policy
19%
Russian democratc/
human rights
defenders
9%
America's
democracy &
policies The NYT paper
39% 5%

25. Empirical Framework: Distribution of holders of of
discursively articulated “Yes/For” positions by discussion
themes
Participants with "For" position (validated claims; sample size 100 posts, NYT-LJ discussion)
Russia's military
policy Putin's policies
13% 37%
America's
democracy &
policies
17%
The NYT paper
10%
Russian
democrats/ human Russian
rights defenders government policy
10% 13%

26. Empirical Framework: Distribution of holders of discursively
articulated “No/Against” positions by discussion themes
Participants with "Against" position (validated claims; sample size 100 posts, NYT-LJ discussion)
Russia's military
policy Putin's policy 11%
15% Russian
government's
policy
19%
America's Russian democrats
democracy & human rights
policies The NYT paper defenders
37% 7% 11%

27. Conclusions
• Validity claims to normative rightness are useful to
– (a) capture an intended meaning of utterances
– (b) assess how deliberative are online debates
– (c) measure the scope of public opinion discursively
– (d) reveal issue-based intersubjective solidarities
– (e) disagreements are the discourse drivers (not new finding)
• Questions:
– Can the conversational form of online discussions be (a)
recognized and (b) mainstreamed both into formal politics?
– What can be learned by studying such discussions? Can it be
used, not abused, for agenda setting and policy making? (We
know from history that mass participation can be controversial).
How to move from political mobilization toward democratic
socialization and collaboration across communities and civic
cultures? Can that would help to overcome the “majoritarian
tyranny”?