Habermas’s Public Sphere theory
Habermas in his book “Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” has discussed the theory of Public Sphere .
For Habermas, the public and private spheres are not two dichotomous, mutually exclusive entities. The onset of economic modernization and capitalism in Europe impacted the relationship between the public and private spheres. Capitalist society brought with it new political institutions, particularly seen in the move away from an authoritarian to a democratic state and as a result of this, a more alert and inclusive public sphere.
Habermas‟s definition of public sphere is one in which autonomous individuals transcend the private (familial) sphere to come together as a public that engages in intersubjective discourse. Individual goals are transcended to give prominence to issues that concern the collective and thereby require response from the state. The public and the private are found in every individual in modern societies – the private individual asserts his autonomy only in relation to the public and the social being can engage in communicative discourse only in relation to others. As a result of this, Habermas‟s public sphere and private sphere are spheres that are mutually interdependent and inclusive rather than dichotomous and exclusive.
In the public sphere, individuals act in cooperation with one another. Cooperative agents alone can create a public which has common interests that transcend the sphere of the private. It is this characteristic of the public sphere that makes it the realm where social integration of autonomous individuals is possible. Habermas‟s public sphere is the intermediate sphere between the state and society. For, it is in the public sphere that the tensions between the state and society play themselves out in the hope of resolution and consensus through rational discourse.
Habermas calls his public sphere a bourgeois public sphere. The public sphere is one whose members are property-owning, literate bourgeois who come together in salons and coffee houses to discuss issues of mutual concern. To that extent, Habermas‟s public sphere is exclusive. However, public sphere of the bourgeois is in itself inclusive, i.e. all its members can equally and voluntarily participate in rational critical dialogue of the state and itself.
An important criterion for the public sphere to exist is the presence of rational communication amongst its members. The members of the public sphere are rational, i.e. they are capable of rational thought, speech and action, all of which are open to criticism within the public sphere. Habermas considers his public sphere to be emancipatory to the extent that it empowers members through their dialogue and discourse. In addition to this, members can also engage in criticism of their own communication process. This characteristic of the public sphere to allow rational, self-critical communication plays an important role in fuelling cooperation and coordinated action amongst its members.
For Habermas, the bourgeois public sphere is emblematic of the transition from ancient to modern society since its members are vocal critiques of an authoritarian state that monopolizes rights and powers and question the legitimacy of such a state to rule. At the same time, its members remain alert to incursions even by the democratic state upon the rights and liberties of its individual members. A democratic state, for the rational members of the public sphere, needs to be open to scrutiny by its citizens. This is what empowers the members of the public sphere – the fact that it can compel the state to make its operations public and therefore, under the vigilant eye of its citizens. Finally, while delineating the rights and obligations of the state, the public sphere remains watchful of its own actions; the public sphere is thus at once mutually integrating and self-reflecting.
Thus, Habermas‟s public sphere is rational-critical – rational because it is composed of members engaging in critical dialogue on the role of the state – both authoritarian and democratic – and themselves, thereby enabling coordinated action to arise out of rationally-motivated consensus. Thus, critique and self-reflective behavior form the hallmark of Habermas‟s public sphere.
However, the public sphere itself is prone to transformation as a result of certain inbuilt paradoxes. Being the public sphere of the bourgeoisie, the rational critical discourse that takes place within this sphere tends to be class-specific. As a result, such a discourse cannot transcend class interests. Therefore, the emancipatory character of the public sphere is applicable only to the particular interests of the bourgeoisie rather than to the universal interests of all members of that society.
Secondly, private, autonomous individuals being members of the public sphere, there is an inherent tension in this sphere between communicative and instrumental reasoning. In capitalist societies, the members of the public sphere are individuals capable of rational, self-critical discourse. However, they are also bourgeoisie and therefore equally prone to instrumental reasoning. This is a characteristic of modern capitalistic societies, where the private sphere comprises both the family as well as the market. However, the market is essentially a place where private individuals engage in what is necessarily a public function – exchange of commodities. As a result of this, there exists in the individual a constant tension between the public, rational aspect capable of communicative reasoning, and the private, functional aspect prone instrumental reasoning.
Finally, Habermas‟s public sphere is also a victim of the increasing bureaucratization of the state on the one hand, and the arrival of the mass media in capitalistic society, on the other. Mass media, a product of bourgeois instrumental reasoning, is interested in culturally integrating the public sphere to meet the economic and political ends of the capitalist state. This has a negative effect on the hallmark of the public sphere – the culture of critique and self-reflection. Rather, the role of the mass media contributes to the growth of a consumer culture; individuals are no longer rational beings capable of critically questioning the state and the public sphere; rather, they become consumers of capitalist commodities. This emergence of an all–powerful media results in the state stepping in to control the public sphere in order to sustain capitalist forces. The new media is not autonomous; rather it is manipulated by the state and market forces, thereby creating tension between communicative reasoning and instrumental reasoning.
To summarize, Habermas‟s bourgeois public sphere is characterized by critical reasoning. This trait of the public sphere makes it amenable for the emancipation and empowerment of private individuals through their rational, critical discourses. However, modern, market-driven, capitalistic society makes evident the paradoxes inherent in the public sphere; paradoxes which result from the tension between the instrumental logic of the bourgeois, who are at the same time engaged as members of the public in a communicative discourse meant to transcend class barriers. These factors, in the end, result in a structural transformation of the public sphere to a space, which is less political, public and governed by critical communicative discourse, to one, which is more privatized, consumer-driven and governed by the instrumentalist logic of the market.
#Habermas’s Public Sphere theory #Habermas’ public sphere definition#Public sphere theory#Public sphere examples#Public sphere definition sociology #Public sphere theory #Importance of public sphere#Local public sphere examples
Thank you…