The public sphere concept was born out of the idea proposed by Habermas that the political power is genuine if it is enforced in harmony with the shared and best interests of the people (Szabó, 2007, p. 6). These interests must be strengthened when the members of the society engage in lengthy debates. The existing national public spheres do not represent the real interests of the people. The digital media, for example, the Internet presents an opportunity to improve the condition of the public spheres. The term “public sphere” is defined as the ideal sphere of social interaction, where free private individuals exchange information through rational debates to give a voice to a particular opinion on significant issues. The initial concept of the public sphere has received considerable criticism although the critics accept that the public sphere is a form of a nonphysical space which consists of virtual and physical places, and different types of technology, for instance, telephone wires, where individuals interchange information regarding questions about the citizens of a nation. The public sphere becomes significant in a profane world because it legitimizes the rule of the minority people in a whole country. Consequently, it is a requirement of a guaranteed, legitimate, and meaningful democracy. However, the current national public spheres are incomplete and do not represent the original objectives that Habermas had in mind because they have been undermined by the elite business interests of the wealthy minority. Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere theory and theory communicative action explain how the concept of public sphere started. As compared to the Habermas period, the growth of the digital media has boosted the subtleties of the public sphere.
Habermas developed two theories regarding public sphere. The first one is the bourgeois public sphere which was published the Habermas’ 1962 publication. This work comments that the idea of the public sphere must involve the public participants who must utilize their purpose for public use to develop a shared public opinion, and mirror on as well as evaluate the legitimate operations of the government (Habermas, 1989). Further, it says the public sphere ‘happens’ and does not ‘exist.’ This means that it happens in all places where there is a substantive discussion happening regarding the matters of affecting the public, for example, in studying rooms, coffee houses, and public or private libraries, in listening or studying the speech prepared by a government representative. According to this theory, the real and meaningful public sphere started in the eighteenth century and could not have happened in the middle ages. This is because, in the Middle Ages, the ruling class legitimized their private interests and disregarded democratic rule. Also, the private and public notions of privacy overlapped because, under the feudalism regime, they had no clear distinction (Habermas, 1989, p. 25).
The public sphere changed in the eighteenth century with the advancement of capitalism, solidification of the bourgeoisie, waning of the purpose of the church, and development of technologies such as transportation and mass printing (Szabó, 2007, p. 13). The solidification of the bourgeoisie happened because all the persons of the public were allowed to gain wealth due to profession and trade and not because they came from aristocratic homes. The members of the bourgeoisie now owned properties and received an education. Thus, they developed self-awareness and began acting as a public. For the maiden time in chronicle, this public served as the political and social power that could formulate mutual political hassles against the traditional estates and nations (Nieminen, 2000, p. 111) (Szabó, 2007, p. 14). The political public spheres joined forces for the general political need. The members of the public assembled in various places, for instance, the British coffee houses, German reading societies, or French salons, to talk about public matters and preferred ways of organizing and running state affairs. They organized their thoughts and published them in newspapers and letters. The members of the public assembled in various places, for instance, the British coffee houses, German reading societies, or French salons, to talk about public matters and preferred ways of organizing and running state affairs. They organized their thoughts and published them in the written media such as letters and newspapers. Due to their brainy activities, blended with the increasing financial ability of the middle class, the idea of the present democratic countries was born. It is imperative to observe that the members of the public included a minuscule group of wealthy and educated individuals of the bourgeoisie. At this point, it is vital to grasp that the link between the public sphere and democracy is significant because they must function together and simultaneously. If egalitarianism refers to utilizing the power vested in the nation by the motivation of the inhabitants, then there must be specific form of a civic opinion that represents the people’s “general interest” and guides the decision makers to make resolutions that best serve the state. The “general interest” is solidified through the public sphere’s discussions and debates. Thus, the public sphere could wisely validate the political dominance of a few individuals over a whole nation. The bourgeoisie championed the general interests of the citizens because it encouraged the aspects of the Enlightenment, for example, impartiality, solidarity, freedom, wellbeing, and equality (Szabó, 2007, p. 15). According to Habermas, democracy is more important than using state power in complete disregard of the motivation of the members of the public. Also, the link between democracy and the public sphere implies that an egalitarian public is a conversational public meaning it consists of a united nation that discusses the interests if the public through continuous interaction, and not just a small group of individuals.
However, the unique era of the bourgeoisie the public sphere did not survive for a long time because it was only realistic to assume that its self-development could compromise itself. As capitalism blossomed and became more aggressive daily, it affected more aspects of the everyday lives of the citizens. The nations interfered with the private lives of their citizens to curb the detrimental effects of capitalism and provide the public services, such as social security insurance and education. Also, the purpose of the bodies of employment matured and began representing somewhat a little mixture of both the public and private scopes. Hence, the crucial isolating mark between the public and private sphere disappeared. The first meaning of the bourgeoisie public sphere disappeared because now that the democracies were reputable and the impression of the hereditary ruling and monarchies were a thing of the past, and there was no motive to fight them further. Once something becomes integrated and accepted in the society, can no longer initiate change in that society. Additionally, as democracy increasingly became allowed in the state, the bourgeoisie became fragmented and differed in opinions and, thus, lost its elite function (Szabó, 2007, p. 16). Since democracy allowed public participation in the political supremacy, the working class and other groups of the society, including women, wanted to get involved too (Szabó, 2007, p. 16). First, the public became more and more fragmented as more citizens acquired voting rights (McKee, 2005, p. 145). Later, as more citizens joined the new social movements and gained self-consciousness, they pressed for recognition beyond the mere voting rights (McKee, 2005, p. 147; Dahlgren, 1995, p.8).
Due to this fragmentation, and disappearance of the crucial distinction between the public and private, the public sphere turned, once again, and re-feudalized, implying it epitomized nothing. This re-feudalization encouraged closed door politics where individuals sought popularity and assumed power only to make critical resolutions behind closed doors without consulting the public sphere or considering the general interests of the citizens. The power holders misuse their power while hiding under the formalities and procedures of democracy. Unlike in the bourgeoisie public sphere where the reading literature was appreciated, the new public sphere disregards the works of art due to the commercialization of the culture. Habermas later revised this theory to accommodate the opinions of the critics. However, despite its revision by Habermas himself and criticisms, this theory is significant because of its underlying premise that public sphere is an intangible space where individuals exchange ideas to form a public opinion that is inclusive of voice and general interests of all citizens of a nation (Szabó, 2007, p. 16).
The second theory regarding the public sphere is the model of communicative action. Habermas developed it in response to the bourgeois public sphere which he admitted it focused only on the individuals of the bourgeoisie and was too restrictive and idealized (Habermas, 1992). This theory seeks to establish how the secular, non-sacred domination can be legitimated. Also, it aims to uncover why people accept others as real leaders or rulers whereas these rulers cannot authenticate their power with mystic theories, for example, being a straight progeny of God, or holding God-imparted power. It concludes that people adhere to the laws because they are forced by the state to do so (Habermas, 1987, p. 80). However, Habermas chooses to use Emile Durkheim’s idea which proposes that profane law can be acknowledged as genuine due to an unsaid covenant among the individuals of the public which says the leader will adhere to the best interests of the nation. Habermas states that the common interest is well demarcated in the public sphere. It functions as evidence of the legality of political supremacy. The speech acts of the leaders are implicitly rational. Thus, anyone who can communicate can represent the best interest of the citizens (Szabó, 2007, p. 17). Each deed of purposeful social collaboration in an exact circumstance should be explained as stages of open action aiming to create a shared comprehension between the contributors, with sensible entitlements regarding their individual shared interests. The most basic aspect of democracy is the fairness that is presented by the unanimously human, collectively equal capability of language. The deeds of speech are rarely carried out in strained situation although, in other instances, the likely rationality of communication can reveal itself in social variations of significant degree (Nieminen, 2000, pp. 112-113).
Mahlouhly applied the theory developed by Habermas to the connective and digital philosophy of the twenty-first century and established that intellectual leadership is one the major indispensable differences between the liberalization of the online discourses and the emergence of the bourgeoisie public sphere (Mahlouly, 2013, p. 18). In the period that followed the French Revolution, the public opinion and publicity were controlled by the members of the bourgeoisie elite. However, today, every citizen of any nation has access to the public scene due to the digital media. Perhaps, this is the main reason why digital technologies seem to be conspicuous in democratizing countries, for example, Egypt and Tunisia. The Egyptian and Tunisian revolutionary movements emerged to be led by the young and elite educated activists. Therefore, the historical changes happening in democratizing countries today might be specifically a suitable likeness of the democratizing culture that prevailed in the eighteenth century (Mahlouly, 2013, p. 19).
The public sphere, as put forward by Gerhards and Schäfer (2009, p. 2), is crucially significant to the contemporary societies. It acts as a medium where people exchange information about pertinent problems and enables the people to educate themselves concerning the communal changes and to control and observe the economic, governmental, and other elites. The prescriptive philosophers of the public sphere, for instance, Jurgen Habermas, have exhaustively criticized the “old” mass media and stated it was unable to support plural and free societal communication. The invention of the digital media, and especially the Internet, brought high hopes that it would assist in making the previously marginalized arguments and activists more noticeable to the broader public Gerhard and Schäfer (2009, p. 1). Its rise of the Internet posed several prospects about a possible reconfiguration of the public debates and, more so, the change toward the flawless participatory model about the public sphere. Considering the digital media, for example, the Internet is a definitely reachable channel with limited entry barriers, most of the participants desired that the Internet communication would convey participatory effects, for example, giving the players with limited resources, resembling the ones in the civil societies, easier entry and admittance to the public sphere than the ancient media, for example, magazines and newspapers. Also, they anticipated that Internet communiqué would promote more comprehensive public discussions with numerous and broad arguments and evaluations.
In their study, Gerhard and Schäfer (2009, p. 13) uncovered only a little substantiation to back the impression that the Internet is a superior mode of transmitting information than print media. In both the print and Internet media, communication is significantly controlled by natural or bio-scientific actors and does not promote widespread inclusion. They established that appraisals are mostly prejudiced and favourable toward the human ordination research in both the Internet and print media. Also, they uncovered that the Internet communication appeared less inclusive and even more prejudiced than the print media channels regarding its issue evaluations and actor structure. However, they established zero difference between the two media. Their discovery was supported by the U.S. and Germany where the Internet transmission of information in the U.S. is more prejudiced than in Germany. The Internet is perhaps the single most vital communication discovery in the late twentieth century. It has revolutionized the way people access information, for instance through mass media coverage, communicate, and even react or respond to and remark on political and social matters. Ubayasiri (2006, p. 4) notes that the Internet has promoted the Habermas’ public sphere phenomenon where public opinion is moulded.
References
Dahlgren, P., 1995. Television and The Public Sphere – Citizenship, Democracy and The Media. London: Sage.
Gerhards, J. & Schäfer, M. S., 2009. Is the Internet a Better Public Sphere? Comparing Old and New Media in the U.S. and Germany. New Media & Society, 20(10), pp. 1-18.
Habermas, J., 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J., 1989. Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J., 1992. Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. In: Habermas and the Public Sphere. London: MIT Press.
Mahlouly, D., 2013. Rethinking the Public Sphere in a Digital Environment: Similarities Between the Eighteenth and the Twenty-First Centuries. New Horizons, Issue 20, pp. 1-21.
McKee, A., 2005. The Public Sphere: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nieminen, H., 2000. Hegemony and the Public Sphere. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Szabó, A., 2007. The Impact of The Internet On The Public Sphere and on The Culture Industry: A Study of Blogs, Social News Sites and Discussion Forums, s.l.: s.n.
Ubayasiri, K., 2006. Internet and the Public Sphere: A Glimpse of YouTube. [Online]
Available at: https://ejournalist.com.au/v6n2/ubayasiri622.pdf
[Accessed 10 June 2017].
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download