Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance
Author(s): Manuel Castells
Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 616, Public
Diplomacy in a Changing World (Mar., 2008), pp. 78-93
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and
Social Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097995
Accessed: 13-04-2015 18:56 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
is the space
public
sphere
and projects
that emerge
to the decision makers
addressed
The
ideas
between
from
and
are
of
expres
relation
organized
of society. The
and civil society and
government
of
society
in the institutions
is the
of communication
their
debate
The New
Public Sphere:
Global Civil
Society,
Communication
Networks,
and
Keywords:
domain
to the
global
debate,
governance;
networks
Governance
By
the national
of ad hoc forms of
the
global governance.
Accordingly,
as the
on
affairs
space of debate
sphere
public
public
to the
and is
has also shifted from the national
global
constructed
around global communication
increasingly
as the
of the
networks.
Public
diplomacy,
diplomacy
in this
not of the government,
intervenes
global
public,
the
for traditional forms of
public
sphere, laying
ground
to act
the strict negotiation
of power
diplomacy
beyond
on shared cultural
meaning,
by building
relationships
the essence
of communication.
Global
MANUEL CASTELLS
from
Constitution
of Society
DOI:
10.1177/0002716207311877
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
79
Manuel
Castells
is the Wallis
Chair
Annenberg
Southern
of
California,
at the
Society
University
itus
University
of sociology,
and
Professor
of Communication
Technology
emer
Los
since 2003. He is
professor
Angeles,
where
he taught for
Berkeley,
twenty-four years,
of California,
doctorates
and
university
medals.
He
is a
fellow
of the European
Academy,
fellow
of
the Panel
of
He
has
served
on
a number
of
international
advisory
committees,
including
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Globalization
81
We
live in a world marked by globalization
(Held et al. 1999; Giddens and
is the process that consti
Hutton 2000; Held and McGrew 2007). Globalization
tutes a social systemwith the capacity towork as a unit on a
planetary scale in real
or chosen time.
to
refers
Capacity
technological capacity, institutional capacity,
and organizational capacity. New information and communication
technologies,
including rapid long-distance transportation and computer networks, allow global
networks to selectively connect anyone and anything throughout the world.
Institutional capacity refers to deregulation, liberalization, and privatization of
the rules and procedures used by a nation-state to keep control over the activi
ties within its territory.
capacity refers to the ability to use net
Organizational
as the flexible, interactive, borderless form of structuration of whatever
working
or everyone is
activity inwhatever domain. Not everything
globalized, but the
structure the
networks
that
affect
planet
global
everything and everyone. This is
because all the core economic, communicative, and cultural activities are global
ized. That is, they are dependent on strategic nodes connected around theworld.
These
include global financial markets; global production and distribution of
and
services; international trade; global networks of science and technol
goods
a
ogy; global skilled labor force; selective global integration of labor markets by
migration of labor and direct foreign investment; global media; global interactive
networks of communication, primarily the Internet, but also dedicated computer
networks; and global cultures associated with the growth of diverse global cul
tural industries. Not everyone is globalized: networks connect and disconnect at
the same time. They connect everything that is valuable, or that which could
in the networks.
become valuable, according to the values programmed
They
or anyone that does not add value to the network
exclude
and
bypass
anything
and/or disorganizes
the efficient processing of the network's programs. The
social, economic, and cultural geography of our world follows the variable geom
etry of the global networks that embody the logic of multidimensional
globaliza
tion (Beck 2000; Price 2002).
and everyone.
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82
What
defined
by
the national/international
Global politics have turned intoglobal domestic politics,which rob national politics of
their boundaries
and
foundations,
(p. 249)
The growing gap between the space where the issues arise (global) and the space
where the issues are managed
(the nation-state) is at the source of four distinct,
but interrelated, political crises that affect the institutions of governance:
environmen
cannot be
managed
adequately
(e.g., major
of efficiency: Problems
or counterterrorism
of financial markets,
tal issues, such as global warming,
regulation
1. Crisis
2.
on
in the nation-state
based
Political
of legitimacy:
representation
democracy
on the
a vote of confidence
to manage
nation-state
the
of
the
ability
simply
to office no
in the
interests of the nation
Election
web
of
longer
global
policy making.
a
and the unpre
the variable
denotes
geometry of policy making
given
specific mandate,
Crisis
becomes
dictabilityof the issues thatmust be dealt with. Thus, increasingdistance and opacity
between
citizens
and
their representatives
follows
(Dalton
2005,
2006).
This
crisis
of
as the
to access
mechanism
for issue deliberation
substitutes
privileged
the
around
In the past decade,
attitudes
2000).
surveys of political
(Thompson
and growing distrust of citizens vis-?-vis political
have revealed widespread
par
of representative
the institutions
and
2004;
ties, politicians,
democracy
(Caputo
International
Arsenault
and Moreno
2006).
2007;
2005;
Gallup
Catterberg
see their nation and their culture
from
Crisis of identity: As people
increasingly disjointed
in a
their
of
decision
the mechanisms
network,
global, multinational
making
political
as
takes the form of resistance
claim of autonomy
identity politics
identity and cultural
image-making
power
world
3.
as
opposed to theirpolitical identity citizens (Barber 1995; Castells 2004b; Lull 2007).
4. Crisis of equity:The process of globalization led bymarket forces in the frameworkof
countries
and
between
often increases
inequality
deregulation
In the absence
of a
within countries
(Held and Kaya 2006).
global
between
regulatory
social
groups
environment
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
83
the demands
that compensates
for growing
inequality,
states. The
existing welfare
shrinking of welfare
mine
the decreased
(Gilbert2002).
governments
capacity
of economic
under
competition
it
diffi
increasingly
induced
because
inequality
as corrective
mechanisms
states makes
to
for
compensate
structurally
institutions
to act
of national
tomanage
political systems
on a
problems
global scale has
the world's
induced
the rise
In every country, there are local civil society actors who defend local or sec
toral interests, as well as specific values against or beyond the formal political
process. Examples of this subset of civil society include grassroots organizations,
community groups, labor unions, interest groups, religious groups, and civic asso
ciations. This is a very old social practice in all societies, and some
analysts, par
even argue that this form of civic
on the
engagement is
ticularly Putnam (2000),
as
our
In
individualism
becomes
the
culture
of
societies.
decline,
predominant
varies
to
the
health
of
these
and
fact,
groups
country
widely according
region.
For instance, in almost every country of Latin America, community organizations
have become a very important part of the social landscape (Calder?n 2003). The
difference between these groups in varying nations is that the sources of social
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84
a
are
organization
increasingly diversified: religion, for instance, plays major role
in Latin America, particularly non-Catholic Christian religious groups. Student
movements
remain an influential source of social change in East Asia, particu
in
South
Korea. In some cases, criminal organizations build their networks
larly
of support in the poor communities in exchange for patronage and forced pro
tection. Elsewhere, people in the community, women's groups, ecologists, or eth
nic groups, organize themselves to make their voices heard and to assert their
sources of volun
identity. However, traditional forms of politics and ideological
on
seem
to
associations
be
the
decline
almost
tary
everywhere, although the
to
exist
continues
around
each
major political party. Overall,
patronage system
this variegated process amounts to a shift from the institutional political system
to informal and formal associations of interests and values as the source of col
lective action and sociopolitical influence. This empowers local civil society to
face the social problems resulting from unfettered globalization. Properly speak
a milieu of
organi
ing, this is not the global civil society, although it constitutes
zation, projects, and practices that nurtures the growth of the global civil society.
A second trend is represented by the rise of nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) with a global or international frame of reference in their action and
to as "global civil society" (Kaldor 2003).
goals. This iswhat most analysts refer
or
are
These
private organizations (albeit often supported
partly financed by pub
to
act
outside government channels
address global problems.
lic institutions) that
Often they affirm values that are universally recognized but politically manipu
lated in their own interest by political agencies, including governments. In other
claim to be the enforcers of unenforced human
words, international NGOs
A case in point isAmnesty International, whose influence comes from the
rights.
fact that it is an equal-opportunity critic of all cases of political, ideological, or
the political interests at stake. These organiza
religious repression, regardless of
values. For
tions typically espouse basic principles and/or uncompromising
means
even
as
a
is
of
torture
decried
instance,
combating greater
universally
"evils." The affirmation of human rights on a comprehensive, global scale gives
birth to tens of thousands of NGOs that cover the entire span of the human expe
rience, from poverty to illnesses, from hunger to epidemics, fromwomen's rights
to the defense of children, and from banning land mines to saving the whales.
Sans Frontieres,
of global civil society groups include M?decins
Examples
and thousands of others. The Global Civil Society Yearbook
Oxfam, Greenpeace,
series, an annual report produced by the London School of Economics Centre
and under the direction of Mary Kaldor, provides ample
for Global Governance
evidence of the quantitative importance and qualitative relevance of these global
civil society actors and illustrates how they have already altered the social and
of global and local issues around the world (e.g., Anheier,
political management
Glasius, and Kaldor 2004; Glasius, Kaldor, and Anheier 2005; Kaldor, Anheier,
and Glasius 2006).
To understand the characteristics of the international NGOS,
In contrast to political parties, these NGOs
be emphasized:
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
85
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86
of people's will and interests in the process of global governance. In spite of its
extreme internal diversity, there is indeed a shared critique of the management
of the world by international institutions made up exclusively of national govern
ments. It is an expression of the crisis of legitimacy, transformed into oppositional
action.
political
There is a fourth type of expression of global civil society. This is themovement
a
of public opinion, made up of turbulences of information in diversified media
ad
and
of
the
of
hoc
mobilizations
emergence
system,
spontaneous,
using hori
autonomous
communication.
of
The
networks
of
this phe
zontal,
implications
were first
nomenon at the
the
simultaneous
level?that
global
exemplified by
peace demonstrations around theworld on February 15, 2003, against the immi
nent Iraq war?are
full of political meaning. Internet and wireless communica
a
an
tion, by enacting
global, horizontal network of communication, provide both
a means for debate,
tool
and
and
collective
decision
organizing
dialogue,
making.
means of the
Case
studies of local sociopolitical mobilizations
organized by
in South Korea,
Internet and mobile communication
the Philippines,
Spain,
other
and
countries, illustrate
Ukraine, Ecuador, Nepal,
Thailand, among many
the new capacity of movements to organize and mobilize citizens in their coun
trywhile calling for solidarity in the world at large (Castells et al. 2006). The
mobilization against the military junta inMyanmar in October 2007 is a case in
were rel
point (Mydans 2007). The firstdemonstrations, mainly led by students,
were filmed with video cell
and
but
small,
phones
immediately
atively
they
on YouTube. The vision of the determination of the demonstrators and
uploaded
It became a
of the brutality of the military regime amplified the movement.
movement of themajority of society when the Buddhist monks took to the streets
to express their moral outrage. The violent repression that followed was also
filmed and distributed over the Internet because the ability to record and con
in the hands of hundreds
nect
through wireless communication by simple devices
to record
it
Burmese
of people made
people connected
everything.
possible
to
service
short
the
world
themselves
and
message
among
relentlessly, using
on
on
notices
and
videos
and
Facebook,
(SMS)
e-mails, posting daily blogs,
YouTube. The mainstream media rebroadcast and repackaged these citizen jour
nalists' reports, made from the front line, around the world. By the time the dic
cut offmobile
and
tatorship closed down all Internet providers,
phone operators,
confiscated video-recording devices found on the streets, the brutality of the
their
Myanmar regime had been globally exposed. This exposure embarrassed
to
States
Union
the
United
and
the
Chinese
and
induced
sponsors
European
on
sus
increase
from
the
refrained
junta (although they
diplomatic pressure
and
pending the lucrative oil and gas deals between the junta and European
In sum, the global civil society now has the technological
American companies).
means to exist
institutions and from themass media.
independently from political
to change the public mind still
the capacity of social movements
However,
to a large extent, on their ability to shape the debate in the public
depends,
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
87
artic
means
to exist
independently
mass
institutions
and
from political
from the
the capacity of social
media. However,
movements
depends,
to
Global
Governance
State
associate
with each other,
of states. Some of these net
forming networks
and
such as the
Union;
defined,
multipurpose
constitutionally
European
or NAFTA);
to trade
others focus on a set of issues,
related
Mercosur
generally
(e.g.,
are
while
still others
of coordination
and debate
the Asia-Pacific
spaces
(e.g.,
or APEC
Economic
and
the
Association
Asian
of
Southern
Nations
Cooperation
In the strongest networks,
states
known as ASEAN).
share sov
participating
explicitly
or de facto
states
In weaker
via
networks,
cooperate
ereignty.
sovereignty
implicit
works
2.
are
mechanisms.
sharing
States may build an
dense
increasingly
to deal with
national
organizations
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88
3.
in an effort to increase
and resources
power
legitimacy
or
other
forms
the devolu
of
cultural
attempt
tap
political
through
allegiance
to local or
tion of power
and to NGOs
that extend
the decision
regional governments
in
civil
process
society.
making
States
and/or
may
also
decentralize
to
89
There
is a process
of the emergence
global
government.
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90
public
sphere.
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
91
References
Anheier, Helmut, Marlies Glasius, and Mary Kaldor, eds. 2004. Global civil society 2004/5. London: Sage.
Arsenault, Amelia. 2007. The international crisis of legitimacy. Unpublished working paper.
Structure and dynamics of global multimedia
Castells. Forthcoming.
Arsenault, Amelia, and Manuel
business networks. International Journal of Communication.
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92
-.
Barber, Benjamin R. 1995. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1999. In search of politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Beck, Ulrich. 2000. What is globalization? Maiden, MA: Polity.
Econ?mica
de Cultura
communication
en Am?rica
Latina?
PNUD-Bolivia.
Santiago,
Chile:
en America Latina.
ed. 2004. La democracia
Unidas para el
Pograma de Naciones
Caputo, Dante,
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Aguilar, Altea, Alfaguara.
Desarrollo.
in the network society. Lisbon, Portugal: Center for Research
and
Cardoso, Gustavo. 2006. The media
Studies in Sociology.
-,
-.
-.
1:238-66.
communication
and social movements. Los
Sasha. 2006. Analytical note: Horizontal
Annenberg School of Communication.
communication: Dispersion
and delib
Dahlgren, Peter. 2005. The Internet, public spheres, and political
22:147-62.
eration. Political Communication
International Review of
Russell J. 2005. The social transformation of trust in government.
Dalton,
Costanza-Chock,
Angeles:
-.
industrial democracies.
Information
technology
Dewey,
Forsythe, David
P. 2000. Human
International.
Gallup
Economic Forum,
2006.
The
rights
voice
http://www.gallup-international.com/.
1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social
Press.
analysis. Berkeley: University of California
Giddens, Anthony, and Will Hutton. 2000. On the edge: Living with global capitalism. London: Jonathan
Giddens,
Anthony.
Cape.
Gilbert, Neil. 2002. Transformation
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
of the welfare
state: The
silent surrender
of public
responsibility.
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
93
Educational
Books.
J?rgen. 1976. Legitimation crisis. London: Heinemann
1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
to a discourse
1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions
theory of law and democracy.
MA:
MIT
Press.
Cambridge,
Habermas,
-.
-.
-.
1998. Die postnationale konstellation: Politische essays. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
consensus.
covenant: The social democratic alternative to the
2004. Global
Washington
Maiden, MA: Polity.
Held, David, and Ayse Kaya. 2006. Global inequality: Patterns and explanations. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
eds. 2007. Globalization
and controversies.
Held, David, and Anthony G. McGrew,
theory: Approaches
London: Polity.
Held,
David.
Held, David, Anthony G. McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton, eds. 1999. Global transfor
mations: Politics, economics and culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
eds. 2002. Gouvernance
Paris:
mondiale.
Tubiana,
Jacquet, Pierre, Jean Pisani-Ferry, and Laurence
-.
Documentation
Fran?aise.
Juris, Jeffrey.2004. Networked social movements: The movement against corporate globalization. In The net
work society: A cross-cultural perspective, ed. Manuel Castells, 341-62. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Durham,
against corporate globalization.
Forthcoming. Networking futures: The movements
NC: Duke University Press.
Kaldor, Mary. 2003. Global civil society: An answer to war. Maiden, MA: Polity.
Kaldor, Mary, Helmut Anheier, and Marlies Glasius, eds. 2006. Global civil society 2006/7. London: Sage.
Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy
tional politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
networks
in interna
Keohane, Robert O. 2002. Power and governance in a partially globalized world. London: Routledge.
Low, Setha M., and Neil Smith, eds. 2006. The politics of public space. New York: Routledge.
in a crisis world. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Communication
Lull, James. 2007. Culture-on-demand:
-.
1986. The sources of social power, vol. I, A history of power from the
to A.D.
Mann, Michael.
beginning
1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1993. The sources of social power, vol. II, The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760-1914.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2007. Communication
Robert Waterman.
McChesney,
media. New York: New Press.
revolution:
Critical junctures
and
the future
of
eds.
2000. Governance
Sreberny. 2004.
International
in a
globalizing
world. Washington,
UK:
Price, Monroe
E. 2002. Media and sovereignty: The global information revolution and its
to state
challenge
power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
to
Saskia. 2006. Territory, authority, rights: From medieval
Princeton,
global assemblages.
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Soros, George. 2006. The age offallibility: The consequences of the war on terror. New York: Public Affairs.
Stewart, Angus. 2001. Theories of power and domination: The politics of empowerment in late modernity.
London: Sage.
Sassen,
John B. 2000. Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Tremayne, Mark, ed. 2007. Blogging, citizenship, and thefuture ofmedia. London: Routledge.
Volkmer, Ingrid. 1999. News in the global sphere: A study of CNN and its impact on global communica
tion. Eastleigh, UK:
University of Luton Press.
2003. The global network society and the
global public sphere. Journal ofDevelopment 46 (4): 9-16.
Thompson,
-.
This content downloaded from 143.107.236.249 on Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions