Jurgen Habermas’s deploring of the demise of the public sphere, as he saw it, is one we see echoed in, well, the public sphere. How often have we heard the cries of despair and exasperation: technology has ruined communication and human connections! no-one cares anymore, all they do is click to sign petitions and share on Facebook!
The public screen of DeLuca and Peeples is fantastic for showcasing online and alternative media activism. Fat acceptance, while not a new phenomenon (its roots are in the new social movements of the 60's and 70's - the National (American) Association to Advance Fat Acceptance being founded in 1969) it is largely organised and disseminated online, particularly via tumblr, personal blogs, and even the online Fat Studies Journal . Face to face participation, such as fat clothing swaps, academic conventions, and activities focused on public embodiment (Aquaporko, fat synchronised swimming; fat dance flash mobs; and Chunky Dunks, group beach- or pool- going) are mediated through the Internet or other forms of the public screen eg. Flyers, fat zines, films (side note: Aquaporko the documentary has been doing to rounds of queer short film festivals and cleaning up the awards section).
The difference between the public sphere of Habermas and the public sphere of Hannah Arendt provides frisson and a way of articulating the dissemination (as opposed to dialogue) of Derrida and the public screen of DeLuca and Peeples. The rational, deliberative public sphere of Habermas requires the bracketing of social inequalities, a focus on consensus and civility become normative in a way that Arendt's sphere does not, with its appreciation of social location and partial perspectives. I think this is important in the concept of the public screen: that dialogue is really dissemination; that 'appropriate political activity' is bollocks and inaccessible; that anger and privileging of marginalised voices is valid. Recent examples include the 'controversy' of projects and hashtags like thisisthinpriviledge and fuckcispeople. A lot of backlash occurred, arguing that anger and antagonism (of the systems that are oppressive and supposed allies) is counter-productive and outside the bounds of acceptable political activity and rationality and civility. To that end, I leave you with a poem:
I once told a joke about a straight person.
They came after me in droves.
Each one singing the same:
Don’t fight fire with fire.
*
What they mean is: Don’t fight fire with anything.
Do not fight fire with water.
Do not fight fire with foam.
Do not evacuate the people.
Do not sound the alarms.
Do not crawl coughing and choking and spluttering to safety.
Do not barricade the door with damp towels.
Do not wave a white flag out of the window.
Do not take the plunge from several storeys up.
Do not shed a tear for your lover trapped behind a wall of flame.
Do not curse the combination of fuel, heat, and oxygen.
Do not ask why the fire fighters are not coming.
*
When they say: Don’t fight fire with fire.
What they mean is: Stand and burn.
Sources:
K. M. DeLuca and J. Peeples, “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the ‘Violence’ of Seattle” in Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2002, pp. 123-151.
H. Arendt, ‘The Public Realm” from the Human condition in B. R. Barber and R. M. Battistoni (eds) Education for Democracy: A Sourcebook for Students and Teachers, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2007, pp. 67-73.
