Public Sphere

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Discourse on the public sphere derives from the work of the German social theorist Jürgen Habermas, particularly with his first major work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, which first appeared in Germany in 1962, and in what some consider to be his magnum opus, The Theory of Communicative Action (1981). In these and other works, Habermas has been concerned with explicating the historical and social structural factors that have served to inhibit or advance democracy. Given the centrality of free and open dialogue for the functioning of democracy, of particular concern to Habermas is identifying where such discussions take place and under what conditions. His guiding question has been: Where is the space in which democracy is nurtured? Habermas refers to this space as the public sphere, a term related to civil society, which refers to a realm of social life distinct from both the state and the market, where participation in public life occurs with a spirit of cooperation and a norm of reciprocity. Seen in this light, Habermas construes the public sphere as a space within civil society. By claiming that a prerequisite of a democratic polity is an autonomous public sphere, Habermas can be seen as building on the work of Max Weber (1864–1920) and Seymour Martin Lipset (1922–2006) in attempting to identify the most important social structural conditions underpinning democratic societies.

What Habermas refers to as the “bourgeois public sphere” came into its own in the nineteenth century, most fully in Britain, as a result of the triumph of capitalism and the establishment of a laissez-faire state. In contrast to the feudal era, in which the economy and polity were intimately linked, in the earliest phase of the capitalist industrial era this linkage was uncoupled. The public sphere can be visualized as being carved out between the economy and the state, being separate and distinct from them. It is an arena that is accessible to all citizens on the basis of equality and thus is not dominated or controlled by powerful economic actors or by state officials. His perspective on this sphere has been depicted as a theater where political discourse occurs.

The public sphere requires the existence of independent voluntary associations of citizens and an institutionalized apparatus that permits the unrestricted dissemination of information and ideas. Thus the panoply of organizations—ranging from local parent-teacher associations and neighborhood clubs to labor unions, human rights organizations, environmental organizations, and so on—is part and parcel of this arena. In addition, so are media committed to ensuring that citizens are informed about the vital issues of the day and to providing outlets for articulating an array of stances on issues and forums for debate and dissent.

Critics of Habermas contend that he tends to romanticize the public sphere during its earlier years, confusing his ideal vision about how it should have functioned with the reality of the historical situation, which involved from its inception persistent intrusions of powerful economic interests and the repressive tactics of the state. The result was that the public sphere never managed to be as autonomous as he seems to think. This may be a somewhat unfair characterization of Habermas’s position because he provides ample evidence of being aware of the limitations of actual existing public spheres in the past. He does think, however, that public spheres in the past exhibited greater autonomy than their contemporary versions.

At the same time Habermas leaves himself open to charges of utopian thinking, especially when he develops the ideal of a state of undistorted communication, free from coercion and restraint. In his view, democratic decisions arise dialogically. In an ideal speech situation, people talk to others to come to an understanding of which ideas and values are best, not to manipulate others to get one’s way. In other words, he assumes a willingness on the part of citizens to freely embrace the better argument. There are examples of situations in which this ideal seems to have been more or less realized, such as old New England town meetings and Quaker meetings. The participants in these examples can be fairly depicted as being cooperative, tolerant, critical, self-reflective, and rational, whereas the differences among them in terms of both economic status and levels of human capital are not great.

Two other criticisms have been leveled at Habermas’s portrait of the public sphere. First, some feminists contend that he is insufficiently attentive to the relationship between the private and public spheres and its implication for gender relations. Second, he has been accused of operating with an overly rationalistic and overly civilized view of human nature.

Habermas has expressed concern that the public sphere in what he describes as “late capitalism” is threatened by what he calls “refeudalization.” What he refers to is the tendency to link or integrate the economy and the polity in a way quite at odds with their separation in the earlier period of capitalist development. Given his focus on communication, it is not surprising that he is particularly apprehensive about the concentration of media power in the hands of political and economic elites. Large media conglomerates have arisen to choke dissident voices out of the market, and these corporations, far from being independent of political power, serve as apologists for it. The result is that genuine public debate has given way to propaganda and increasingly sophisticated public relations.

Although the portrait he paints might lead to despair regarding the future of democracy, Habermas presents a cautious optimism. In particular he sees in the new social movements—environmental, antinuclear, peace, feminist, and so forth—potential for change. These movements have abandoned any belief in the possibility of revolutionary change, opting instead for radical reforms and a commitment to nonviolent change. Underlying his tempered hope for the future is a particular understanding of human nature. It presupposes that people are by nature political and thus concerned about and willing to participate in issues related to the well-being of society as a whole.

SEE ALSO Associations, Voluntary; Civil Society; Feminism; Government; Habermas, Jürgen; Persuasion; Public Sector; Rationality; Utopianism; Volunteerism; Weber, Max

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calhoun, Craig, ed. 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1962] 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1984–1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. 2 vols. Trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zaret, David. 2000. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Peter Kivisto

public sphere versus private sphere distinction The public versus private distinction in Greek philosophy was based on a public world of politics and a private world of family and economic relations. In modern sociology, the distinction is normally used in reference to a separation of home and employment, a juxtaposition which has been seen as the basis for a traditional gendered division of labour.