Habermas Public Sphere-Market Forces or Political Forces and the Decline of the Public Sphere - Essay Example

? Habermas’ Public Sphere-Market Forces or Political Forces and the Decline of the Public Sphere Habermas’ Public Sphere-Market Forces or Political Forces and the Decline of the Public Sphere 1.0. Introduction In his publications, Habermas brings out the concept of ‘public sphere’ as well as the meanings that emanate from the term. With various analysts and researchers having diverse views on the concept of the ‘public’ and ‘public sphere’, Habermas is of the opinion that the two concepts cannot be overlooked. It is in this context that the society is on the verge of a continued study of the terms so as to come up with an inclusive understanding of the terms. In the event that ‘public’ means exposed for all, the term has a correlation to the state. A relation to the state is one that has to be linked with the governing way of a state, and whether the laws set in place are applicable and relevant to the public in question. It is obvious that the ‘public’ comprises economic and social factors that drive it. It would be fallible to regard the ‘public’ as a space that is occupied by diverse groups of people. This is to mean that the ‘public’ refers to the factors that run the society in question. The paper will highlight Habermas’ concept of public sphere and evaluate whether market or political forces play a role in the decline of the public sphere, and if so, to what extent. 2.0. Body 2.1. Habermas’ Public Sphere According to the compilation of Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock (2010, p. XIV), Habermas’ concept of ‘public sphere’ relates to the social life of humans and how well they adjust in the society. Adjustments in the society, in this case, relates to an arena whereby the members of the society can come in and discuss the problems that affect them in the society. In the words of Habermas (1989, p. 30), it is this freedom of the public to have varying opinions that the political action is shaped so as to fit the ideas of the ‘public’. The ‘public sphere’ is one that explains that persons and groupings in the society have a right to assemble and deliberate issues that impact them in the course of their livelihood. On the other hand, Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock (2010, p. XIV) indicate that the ‘public sphere’ is an avenue whereby modern day societies come together and share ideas through discussions, thus creating a channel for airing public opinions. In this instance, it is apparent that a collision between the ‘public sphere’ and the authority that governs or rules the ‘public sphere’ exists. The ‘public sphere’ in this context refers to the civil society – the beneficiaries of social labor – whilst the authority refers to the ruling class or the vehicle that drives the need of the ‘public sphere’ (Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock, 2010, p. XVII). In the words of Habermas (1991, p. 129), the ‘public sphere’ determines the manner in which the ruling class will govern the ‘public sphere’. Through the ‘public sphere’ the laws and regulations of the market are drawn, and debates on how buying and selling will take place. Habermas (1991, p. 175) indicates that the ’public sphere’ has, in one way or another, control of the state. Habermas (1989, p. 51) emphasizes that the ‘public sphere’ is a form of a regulatory mechanism that prevents the ruling class from oppressing the ‘public sphere’. Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock (2010, p. XIX) are of the opinion that the ‘public sphere’ is a form of democracy that allows for participation in the course of decision making; thus, the public opinion is turned down into a political action. This is a vivid elucidation of the fact that public opinion rules the authority of law making regulations. From another point of view, Fraser (1990, p. 59) argues that the ‘public sphere’ has been credited for its ability to come up with mechanisms that always ensure that the state remains accountable for its actions in the society. Fraser (1990, p. 59) continues to argue that the state has been made or forced to hold discussions on any matters that touch on the public sphere. In such discussions, it is obvious that the public opinion will prevail, thus being the common good of the commoners. The state can in this context be referred to as one that is polarized. Public relations are more vital and crucial in any decision that is made by the authorities. Calhoun (1992, p.111) indicates that Habermas’ welfare is one that champions for the general welfare of the state and mass democracy. The society and the state work hand in hand thanks to the public relations, the role of the media in alleviating oppressive measures on the public, and continuous focus on airing public opinion on the plight of the ‘public sphere’ (Fraser, 1990, p. 59). In his compilation (1991, p. 89), Habermas’ depiction of ‘public sphere’ can be summarized to mean a group of persons that are dedicated to discussing the welfare of the public that is of the common good of the state in general. This is traced back to Medieval Europe as stipulated in the constitution of bourgeoisie as evident in the work of Calhoun (1992, p.111). It is from this time that the state was made liable for any form of activity that took shape in the state. This called for the state making its dealings public to all. This is possible through the state allowing for a complete scrutiny of its dealings, thus allowing the public opinion to take charge of the situation and make the final decision regarding the steps taken by the authority. Calhoun (1992, p.112) indicates that the state was to later experience the freedom of the press, freedom of speech for the ‘public opinion’, and the freedom to assemble. In the latter, Calhoun (1992, p. 112) explains that representation in the government ensured that the general interest of the bourgeoisie was heard at all times. As Calhoun (1992, p. 112) puts it, the ‘public sphere’ focuses on the state, the status of the economy of the ‘public sphere’ and the avenues of public discourse. In this case, it is clear that there will be copious campaigns on the attempts by the state to regulate the ‘public sphere’. The medium of talk has, therefore, taken the center stage, controlling any political action and participation – an aspect that affects the state apparatus, the economy of the state and the democratic associations. However, numerous analysts argue that Habermas’ concept of the ‘public sphere’ is more of impractical since it does not put in place mechanisms of institutionalizing democracy in the state and therefore, the public end up championing against political domination as opposed to reducing the state to being accountable for its dealings. 3.0. The Public Sphere – Journalism, Communication and the Media Journalism, communication and the media are of major significance in the public sphere as described by Habermas (Berkowitz, 1997, p. 13). In his theory the society and the general public need a central point of communication. With communication, the public is ensured of information. To ensure communication is evenly circulated through the society, the media and journalism come into play. Boyce, Curran and Wingate (1978, p. 21) indicate that the press acts as a very important link between the public and the public opinion. The media and journalism bridge the gap between the government and the society. It brings onto the level ground the different classes of the society. In an argument by McKee (2009, p. 34), the relationship of the media and the society is healthier than the correlation between the mass media and the administration body. In the public sphere the media plays the role of the agent of democracy. All parties in the public sphere need the media to fulfill their interest. McGuigan (2012, p. 126) argues that for the influence of a certain group to be felt in the public sphere, the media provides the best medium for this to be achieved. The media also brings the relationship between the parties in the public sphere. However, analysts have argued that the media and journalism are not being effective enough to ensure the public sphere remains compact (Fourie, 2008, p. 127). The same opinion is reiterated by McGuigan (2012, p.56) who argues that with the compactness of the public sphere being threatened, journalism is not doing enough to ensure that the rift is minimized. The forces emerging in the sphere have made it difficult to come up with strong strategies to ensure the public sphere remains compact. In an argument by Calhoun (1992, p.45), the impact of the media on the public sphere has been positively influenced by the digital generation. He further argues that the digital generation has also negatively impacted the public sphere. The digital generation has established numerous platforms for communication and interaction between various forces in the sphere. These platforms have strengthened the bond to various forces such as the political and market forces. Communication and interaction between these two forces have benefited the sphere because the two forces hold the key to the existence of the public sphere. Garman (2011, par. 7) argues that the digital generation has made it easier for the public forces to lure the market and political forces to their satisfaction. The influential political and market forces’ actions could be easily accounted for in the digital generation. The digital generation has also played a major role in championing for democracy. Different from Habermas’ concept of the public sphere which does not provide practical strategies to achieve democracy, the digital generation gives the public a significant and influential platform to raise their queries and air their opinions (McKee, 2009, p. 111). The author further argues that the influence on the public sphere by the digital generation could easily ensure its existence. However, the digital generation has also made it easier for the political and market forces to fulfill their interest. With a wide coverage of the public, personal interests could be easily influenced through the modern day media. This creates numerous rifts between the existing social circles in the public. With misuse of the digital generation, the market and political forces could easily lead to the decline of the public sphere (Fourie, 2008, p. 89). The above advances in the field of communication are different from Jurgen Habermas’ concept of the public sphere and journalism. In his concept journalism had the responsibility of highlighting the plight of the public and not giving negative voice to forces leading to the decline of the public sphere. The central function of journalism was to ensure even the least significant members of the sphere were given voice and a platform to speak. In Habermas’ concept, journalism is portrayed as the voice to the people. In words by Curran and Seaton (2009, p. 78) journalism plays the neutral role in the public sphere which mostly relies on the story of the public rather than the superior forces. It is a general perception that the public sphere needs the media to remain intact and compact. However, the media with no morals and infected by superior forces is worse than a sphere with no support from journalism. 4.0. Refeudalisation of the Public Sphere Refeudalisation of the public sphere has made the modern day public an advantageous group. Refeudalisation refers to the action that is done towards the public by superior forces aiming to influence personal interest. With many competing public forces, the public is the gaining factor in this arrangement. According to Fraser (1990, p. 59), the relationship between the public and the superior forces in the pubic sphere is made more compatible by refeudalisation. However, through communication the public sphere could gain feudalism without the influence of other forces. This can be achieved by the public taking part in different projects and creating groups that have common interest. In the concept by Habermas, refeudalisation was only aimed at empowering the public through their own means and capabilities. Other forces in the society were not included in this concept. However, this has changed as other forces have been significant in ensuring the public attains feudalism. These forces include political forces, market forces, interest groups and public relations. In an argument by McGuigan (2012, p. 67), the modern day public sphere has to collaborate with other forces to attain federalism. 5.0. Conclusion From the above investigation, it is palpable that the concept of public sphere has undergone major changes since its interpretation by Habermas. Many analysts argue that the concept by Habermas needs significant changes in order to be applied in the current century. However, it is a common opinion that the public at large employs means by which they are able to provide incentives and attain refeudaralism on their own. The influence of other forces is compensated in a way. With the influence of journalism and the media, the public sphere has changed significantly since the establishment of the concept by Habermas. References Berkowitz, D. ed., 1997. Social meanings of news: a text-reader. London: Sage.  Boyce, G., Curran, J. and Wingate, P. eds., 1978. Newspaper history: from the 17th century to the present day. London: Constable. Calhoun, G., 1992. Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press. Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M. eds., 2000. Mass media and society. 3rd ed. London: Arnold. Curran, J. and Seaton, J., 2009. Power without responsibility: the press and broadcasting in Britain. London: Routledge. Fourie, P., 2008. Media studies, volume 1: media history, media and society. New York: Juta Company Ltd. Fraser, N., 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Duke: Duke University Press. [Online] Available at: http://www.apass.be/dpt/APT/3564-rethinking_the_public_sphere.pdf. Garman, A., 2011. The ‘refeudalisation’ or the ‘return of the repressed’ of the public sphere? [Online] [Accessed 8th Nov 201]. Gripsrud, J., Moe, H., Molander, A. and Murdock, A., 2010. The idea of the public sphere: a reader. New York: Lexington Books. Habermas, J., 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  McGuigan, J., 2012. Culture and the public sphere. London: Routledge. McKee, A., 2009. The public sphere: an introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More