Habermas's View on the Public Sphere and His Dilemma with Nancy Fraser - Coursework Example

The Not-So Public Sphere There are various issues that are blossoming in a very fast pace. Not all of these issues are accepted freely by the public as a whole. Often, there is a conditional acceptance towards issues unless discussed further thus creating a sort of public sphere concerning the discussion of particulars regarding a certain issue. This is the idea that was popularized by Jürgen Habermas. It could tickle one’s interest at it addresses a group that tackles certain issues and topic which Habermas pertains to as a “public sphere.” As years pass, the “public sphere” had been connoted to be associated with bourgeois. The idea of a “public sphere” is slowly being taken over privately and often of those who have a somewhat close-minded approach to issues. People use the public sphere in further molding their ideas and opinions which the majority of the population may not be ready to accept (Habermas 1-5, 89-95). How can an issue be freely and truly discussed when the people who are in the so-called sphere who are discussing it has a predetermined opinion at the on-set? With the latter statement being laid, one can predict that the emerging and the already established public spheres are established to gain more followers to their beliefs or opinion. It is only taking the word public as there are still people outside of the “sphere” who need further evaluation of the topic at hand. A conclusion which can be generated by this line of thought would be that the public sphere was introduced to acquire followers who would then further grasp the ideologies of the people who started the sphere. The opinions which are formulated within the public sphere could eventually fuel the aspiration of the population (Durham & Kellner, 75-6). Habermas seemed to aim towards equality for the information which is being disseminated to the public. There will always be a time when information will not be passed through everyone in the population. Though there are people, just like journalists, who are designated to give the public the information they deserve as it concerns their well-being and livelihood. However, there are certain groups who are blocking these people from doing their jobs. Habermas aimed, or dreamed, to abolish this and keep the public to be properly informed in their day-to-day lives. At the onset, public sphere gave certain groups the courage and the weapon to fight the state. This weapon is information. Information has always been a very crucial protection towards the stability of the society. When the majority of the population is well-informed, the government would not have anything to hide that would make them more “powerful.” Private individuals and/or organizations would invest to get whatever information they can get as this would eventually aid the public sphere (Durham & Kellner, 77-9). A question that may arise during discussion about public sphere is the word public itself. As one has been accustomed through the years, the word public has been connoted with things most of the people in the population have access to. This is already contradicting to what is happening in a public sphere. There are ideas, conversations and discussions that have taken place during a meeting of the sphere which is not disclosed to anyone outside of the sphere thus making this private. With such being stated, why can one just pertain to Habermas’ public sphere as plainly group discussion or meeting instead and excluding the word public? Here lies the dilemma of Habermas’ idea and that of Nancy Fraser’s. There are issues and opinions which are being left behind not because of what the opinion was all about but by who stated the opinion. One can point out the difference in the way of Habermas and Fraser is mainly brought about by the timeframe of their existence. There is an absolute difference in the ways of thinking during the time of Habermas and of Fraser though both aiming for equality and democracy. Flaws would eventually come up as this idea is bound to be criticized by certain people with ideals that are contradicting each other. Timeliness of the topic and of the opinion should be considered on whether or not one proposition is considered as more accurate than the other (Fraser). The public sphere has become the platform of some activists who would want their opinions to be heard. As Habermas tried to point out, the public sphere was more aimed towards politically-inspired groups where ideologies of people involved have issues which may or may not agree with the opinion or position of the ruling party. On the contrary, Fraser’s opinion towards this is timelier therefore making recent scholars conclude that they can relate more with Fraser’s proposal and consider Habermas’ as a biased ideal. The obstruction mainly is the time factor. There would always be conflict in opinions whether it is discussed publicly or kept in private. As both Fraser and Habermas pointed out, there are a number of different public spheres which could create conflicts in ideas. There will be discrimination between these spheres and even within the sphere (Fraser & Bourdieu, 38-40; Fraser). Information dissemination often discriminates. One could not be informed about certain points of views and/or even just as simple as meetings. If a person is deemed to have a slight different opinion than the majority in the group, that person may not be included in a meeting where the opinion of one may disrupt the harmony within the sphere. In such cases, a sub-group may emerge from the existing sphere which may eventually grow as an independent group thus making time an essential factor again. The existing public spheres emerged from just a particular sphere that aimed to inform the public. In recent years, the public have been well-informed thus making them more intelligent than ever before. This also makes them more powerful than ever because of the information that they hold. A concern however comes into mind. Are the information disseminated biased or unbiased? These public spheres are keeping the public informed, but are they informed for their own good or for the good aimed to a particular group? It is good that there are public spheres that discuss topics which are beneficial for everyone. Though these spheres may promote discrimination or prejudice, it is still a learning place for people to know opinions and as well as plans which are not readily available to everyone on a timely manner. A slight delay may affect the credibility and importance of the opinion whether in a public sphere or general public. The ideas that Habermas introduced are still incomplete and can be concluded to be inflicted with one too many flaws. As for Fraser, her ideas is already based to what was initially given by Habermas therefore making her proposals have lesser flaws and more accurate since the points that needed to be tweaked have been given proper attention. Though the ideas of Habermas and Fraser have been criticized against each other, one thing is certain and that is information dissemination is very critical in forming opinions and knowledge. One may not be able to share their opinion due to numerous factors thus making public spheres play a critical role in voicing-out the sentiments of what others may consider as a minority. Public spheres do create congregations that may divide people from the majority but it does not make them wrong just because they are part of a minority. There are no wrong or correct opinions. What matter is that one would exercise their right to think and keep their opinion as unbiased as possible. As individuals, a person has the knowledge to formulate his own opinion without being manipulated by other people who may be considered as “more powerful” than the individual either due to money or social status. Public spheres play a very important role in the society as a whole and not just in politics. With the technology present, information are being made readily available to the public which make public spheres bigger as it can accommodate individuals with the same ideologies though living in different countries and being brought up in different cultures. Armed with timely information, public spheres have more data and factual support than ever. This seems to entwine Fraser’s and Habermas’ opinion towards public spheres. It may still not be as perfect as others may still see flaws into the principles of the two combined yet public spheres would be more efficient at present time with the aid of technology. The latter statement is true as it is also true that people would always voice out their opinion regardless if there will be others who would back up the opinion with their own conclusions. Critics would always be around to negate every information and opinion. Technology also aids these critics thus making debates more open as there would be variations in outlooks and also with the coverage of the public spheres, the opinions are more unbiased and also unstable. It can be a pro or a con depending on how the topic would be handled and explained by the people concerned in its dissemination. Works Cited Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence. USA: Michigan Institute of Technology. 1991. Durham, Meenakshi Gigi & Kellner, Douglas M. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 2012. Hume, Robert Ernest. Treasure House of the Living Religions: Selections from Their Sacred Scriptures. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1932. Fraser, Nancy. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World. EIPCP Multilingual Webjournal. Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. http://eipcp.net/transversal/0605/fraser/en. Fraser, Nancy & Bourdieu, Pierre. (Mis)recognition, Social Inequality and Social Justice. Ed. Terry Lovell. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 2007. Read More