In his book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere released for the first time in 1962, Jurgen Habermas investigates the beginning, transformation, and the ultimate collapse of the freethinking form of bourgeoisie public sphere. The debate on the ideas of public sphere and opinion emerged in Europe in the eighteenth century.
Prior to this period, public authority was represented through a monarchy type of government characterized by rigid bureaucratic systems and authoritarianism.
However, with the introduction of capitalism and emergence of a bourgeoisie class, monarchical systems were replaced with a more liberal bourgeoisie form of public sphere. The main purpose of this public sphere was to act as an intermediary between the private spheres made up of family and the economy, and the authoritarian state that was in existence at that time (Habermas 1962).
Habernas concepts regarding democratization are grounded on the philosophy of participatory politics as the basis of a true democracy.
In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, he attempts to draw comparison between three kinds of public spheres; the bureaucratic public sphere of the industrial period, the more liberal bourgeoisie public sphere, and the modern form of public sphere that is controlled by the state and a few monopolistic corporations (Habermas 1962).
The main themes of this book are the source of the bourgeoisie public sphere and the process leading to its disintegration, and the rise of today’s public sphere.
The Industrial Period Public Sphere
The public sphere of the industrial period was characterized by very little public participation. Virtually all of public power was in the hands of the state represented by the monarch (Downing 1984). Thus governance was authoritarian and bureaucratic and the general public had little say on political issues that affected their lives. This form of public sphere would later change with the rise of the economic power of the bourgeoisie class.
The Bourgeoisie Public Sphere
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of bourgeoisie public sphere was to mediate between the private sphere-private matters of individuals regarding family, economic and social issues- and public life. This type of public sphere was more liberal and participatory and encouraged citizens to rise beyond personal interests and consider what was best for the society as a whole (Gitlin 1987).
Its key components consisted of the media and political institutions. The media provided a means for the public to air their political views and was made up mainly of newspapers and journals while political institutions, on the other hand, comprised of legislature, public conferences, town halls, and informal public places such as salons, coffee shops, and pubs among others.
Individuals would meet in these public places to hold political discussions on the current political issues and their consensus would then be conveyed to the state by the media.
During this era, political practice was shaped by public opinion and there was direct articulation of public sentiments to the state including any discontent that the public had concerning the running of state affairs. This was made possible by the presence of an independent media that was not, in any way, compromised by the state.
Habermas idea of public sphere, therefore, consisted of the media, the state, and social places where people convened to discuss public issues and express their views and opinions on governance. In this era, all societal issues were discussed openly and the general consensus conveyed to the state by the media to be acted upon.
The principles of freedom of expression, unfettered press, and freedom of association were upheld to encourage public participation in political debates (Czitrom 1982).
To further strengthen and secure democracy, these principles were enshrined in a constitutional order that could only be amended with the mandate of the public. A judicial system was also created to solve disputes among individual persons and between individuals and the state. Thus in bourgeoisie public sphere, the public was involved in every important aspect of political decision-making.
The Modern Public Sphere
In modern public sphere, public affairs are determined mainly by political, economic, and media elite. Moreover, free press is no longer in existence and today’s media is largely compromised by politicians and the wealthy capitalists (Fromme 1989). The economic elite are represented by large monopolistic corporations which have concentrated economic power.
Because of their economic power, these corporations have the ability to influence political issues through lobbying. Such lobbying is done for the interest of the wealthy capitalists who own the corporations.
In contemporary public sphere, the general public has been reduced to just consumers of goods from the said corporations while in politics it is a mere spectator and has little influence, if any, on state affairs and political decision-making.
Unlike in the bourgeoisie public sphere where public views on political issues relied on public debate and consensus, modern public opinion on issues is determined by a selected few from the media, economic, and political groups. The media has also been reduced to a tool for use by the elite groups in shaping public opinion.
Criticism to Habermas Views on Public Sphere
Habermas representation of the transformation of the public sphere from the industrial period to modern times is largely correct but it also suffers some shortcomings.
The most notable shortcoming in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is that Herbermas happened to place the bourgeoisie type of public sphere on a pedestal, taking it as an ideal while in reality this form of public sphere was not perfect (Fiske 1994). There are several aspects of the bourgeoisie system which point out that it was not ideal.
For instance, the public sphere was controlled by white male capital owners meaning that the black population, women and the working class were not adequately represented. To protect their interests, the marginalized groups during this era namely women, black, and working class populations formed there own public spheres.
These spheres existed side by side and competed with that of the bourgeoisie class. In fact, a close examination of bourgeoisie and modern public sphere may yield some similarities as the two system aimed at protecting and advancing the interests of economic elites.
Conclusion
In the book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas makes comparison between three forms of public spheres; the industrial age public sphere, the bourgeoisie public sphere and the modern public sphere.
His aim is to show how the nature of public sphere has transformed over the years to its present form. In contrasting the three forms, however, he tends to idealize the bourgeoisie type of public sphere showing it to be perfect though in reality this is far from the truth.
References
Czitrom, D 1982, Media and the American Mind, Chapel Hill, North Carolina University Press.
Downing, J 1984, Radical Media, Boston, South End Press.
Fiske, J 1994, Media Matters, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Fromm, E 1989, The Working Class in Weimar Germany: A Psychological and Sociological Study, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Gitlin, T 1987, The Sixties: Years of Hope Days of Rage, New York, Doubleday.
Habermas, J 1962, Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit, Neuwied and Berlin, Luchterhand.