In today’s world, it has been commonly assumed that modern society is divided into 3 major sectors – the private or business sector, the public sector or state, and the civil sector. The state or public sector is the one that represents the various public services and governments while the private sector represents the businesses and is thus, named so. The civil sector comprises the common people or the ordinary citizens of a nation.
Since each sector plays a separate role, each having its independence, autonomy, and freedom of operation, there has been compartmentalization and fragmentation in their activities which has also resulted in differences in communication among them. Until and unless the different sectors of society can collaborate and work efficiently social and economic development will not be achieved sustainably and equitably.
We have seen that due to the communication difference among the state, civil and business sectors there have been many hostile interactions among them where, for example, the civil sector has actively and strongly opposed to various infrastructure issues on which both the state and the business sector have been working on. Similarly, we see that due to communication differences among Envision Construction (business sector) and the SWAG members (civil sector) there has been a lot of commotion problems which have even resulted in the accident of a protestor.
State, civil and business sectors: communication differences
The communication differences among the state, civil and business sectors of society are mainly because they have distinct characteristics which make it difficult for them to collaborate and thus, take mutually beneficial decisions. While the business or private sector tends to be competitive, aggressive, and single-minded, the state or the public sector tends to be intransigent, inflexible, and bureaucratic, and the civil sector tends to be territorial, defensive, and combative.
Like in this case, Envision Construction fights back with an aggressive tone when they are alleged to not care about nature. The SWAG members are extremely defensive and argumentative and are even ready to go to court if necessary rather than solve the situation, calmly. Therein lays the communication problem. The state is adamant in its ways and even when there has been a major accident, decides that the project is of importance for further development of that area.
Communication problems also arise since the state, civil and business sectors have completely different and opposite attributes. The business sector is profit-driven and they are justified in being so since they are answerable to the employees and shareholders. (Lamb 2004) This sector is inventive and very fast in its actions. Like Envision Construction is completely focused on creating a fabulous lifestyle around Wallaby Forest which will set a new standard.
The state is rights-driven and thus, provides legitimacy, information, and stability. Their work is based on a set of ethical principles and universal values, like dignity, equality, social progress, justice, peaceful settlement of conflicts, tolerance, freedom, and providing a higher standard of living for the people. Like here the Council wanted the development of Wallaby Forest to be carried out in an orderly manner for the betterment of the local people.
Finally, the civil sector is values-driven and hence, it is imaginative, responsive, and inclusive. This sector possesses a vast amount of experience and knowledge and also comprises talented and intuitive people. Like here the SWAG members start to protest against the construction of Wallaby Forest thinking that this might have negative effects on the health of their families. (King 2006)
Views of Communication differences
Since communication among the state, civil and business sectors is important for achieving various targets difficulties in it leads to negative thoughts creating further confusion. Communication differences among the state, civil and business sectors has created a false view of the various phenomenon, situations, and facts and has led to many misunderstandings and tense actions. Sometimes communication problems even lead to prejudices among these sectors giving rise to unwanted results, like here the accident of Frank Jersol. Communication problems also arise due to the different needs and requirements of the state, civil and business sectors.
The business sector wants to be more successful and stable and thus, is more interested in profitable options. The state needs to be viewed as an entity that is not only responsive but also accessible by all and thus, assumes authority. But, the civil sector wants to create an impact so that it can widen its reach. Since, the necessities, attributes, and characteristics of the state, civil, and business sectors are completely different from each other they often find themselves facing communication problems. The state, business, and civil sectors are independent elements of a society that are connected and sometimes even overlap. (Kar 2006)
Policy intention
Communication among the state, civil and business sectors regarding policy intentions is very important and also delicate since any miscommunication can lead to a lot of damages on either of the sectors. Communication problems also arise since each of the sectors is confronted with certain typical restraints, like diverse objectives and products, supplementary formal and legal limitations, rigid procedures, and an uneven and complicated atmosphere. Due to these constraints state, civil and business sectors face communication problems among themselves which sometimes even results in conflict situations.
Sometimes, when a conflict has started among the state, civil and business sectors, they completely stop communicating with each other and this further complicates the situation. Like here, Envision Construction and the SWAG members stopped communicating with each other and this led to the fatal accident of one of the members of the SWAG team. Communication problems have also arisen among the state, civil and business sectors since rather than concentrating on their actions they are more interested in what the other sector is doing. Misinterpretations take place, further escalating the conflict. (Lamb 2004)
Habermas’ View on Communication
Jürgen Habermas has given us a theoretical foundation that provides us with a view of planning and development that stresses widespread public participation and the perspectives of a public communicator. He says that public communicators need to share information with the common people so that harmony can be achieved without having to exercise unnecessary power. Thus, it is also important that as a public communicator one needs to have more than one perception to bring about the necessary consensus.
Different perceptions in the various sectors of our modern society are also necessary for a sustainable civil society, productive social changes, liberal democracy, and above all for a proper public life. His theories on the public sphere also represent necessary conditions required for harmony and further emphasizes the fact the different perceptions are necessary for a public communicator. According to him the public sphere with its rational debates on various important political issues helped to create a potential parliamentary democracy.
These rational debates were made possible by the public communicators from different sectors with different perceptions centering on the printed media and literary and intellectual salons. They helped in the promotion of the ideals of justice, equality, and human rights, and the public sphere was led by the standard of critical argumentation and rational discussions. Here, the strength of an individual’s argument was much more vital than an individual’s identity. (Fletcher 2005)
Habermas on the public communicator
Habermas says the opinion of a public communicator can take on various meanings. It sometimes depends on whether the opinion has been brought up as a critical right about the prescriptive that exercising social or political authority can be subjected to publicity. It can also depend on the entity to be shaped concerning an influential propagation and staged display of publicity for servicing institutions or individuals or their programs and goods.
Habermas described both the public sphere and the importance of perspectives for a public communicator equally in terms of the concrete infrastructure that supports it and through the practices and standards which enabled the crucial political discourses to flourish. He even had separate views when describing a public sphere as a historical formation and a concept. To him, the basic notion of a public sphere includes the idea where private entities come together to form a single private entity and take part in rational deliberation. This is also one reason why a public communicator should have more than one perspective since ultimately the decisions that are made influence the entire state.
On the other hand, the public sphere, as a historical structure, involves a space that is completely isolated from the state, the business sector, and the civil sector. Habermas also had the opinion that several factors were responsible for the ultimate decline of the materialistic public sphere, the most important of these factors being the different structural forces, specifically the development of the commercial mass media. Due to this, the resultant situation became such where media was viewed as something like a commodity which rather than being used as a tool by public communicators for public discourses became something that is to be consumed. (Lamb 2004)
Importance of multiple perspectives
Since Habermas’s theory also supported the fact that it is important to have more than one perspective as a public communicator, he often criticized the various biased practices of modernization that were guided by the forces of administrative and economic validation. According to him, the developing involvements of the formal systems in our daily lives can be traced to the growth of the corporate capitalism and welfare state and the customs of mass consumption.
So, public communicators need to have more than one perception of the state, the business sector, and the civil sector since the reinforcing trends mentioned above justifies for the widening of the public life presenting it to the general sense of control and effectiveness. Habermas says that as more and more participatory democracy gets substituted by interest groups and political parties, society gets progressively administrated at a remote level using the inputs of the citizens. Due to this the boundaries that have been set between the state and business sector, society and the civil sector, and the “life-world” and the entire system has deteriorated. (Edelman 2005)
Conclusion
A public communicator needs to have perceptions of the state, civil sector, and the business sector since democratic public life can only prosper in places where the citizens can discuss and argue over subjects that are important for the public. Unless the public communicators know all the realms of society they will not be able to debate over important matters. Habermas has also described for us an ideal speech situation where public communicators are provided with opportunities for discussions, equally, so that they can identify one another’s fundamental social equalities and also where their speeches are accurate and confers through ideology.
Thus, Habermas, too, encourages an individual’s capability of communicative action. He further says that a public communicator has to not only be an initiator who can dominate over circumstances through the activities carried out, for which he or she is responsible, but also a product of the various alterations taking place around him and the method of socialization. Habermas says that a democracy based on discourse needs a political community and a communicator who together can determine the political will to execute the various policies at every stage of the legislative state system.
Such a political system needs an advanced public sphere and a versatile public communicator so that the issues which are of common interest and also political matters can properly discourse and public opinion has the power to shape this cognitive process of decision making.
Bibliography
Edelman, S 2005, Evaluation Techniques in Communication, ABP Ltd, Bloemfontein.
Fletcher, R 2005, Principals: Believing and Knowing, Howard & Price, Dunedin.
Kar, P 2006, History of Public Communications and Related Applications, Dasgupta & Chatterjee, Kolkata.
King, H 2006, Communication Management Principals, HBT & Brooks Ltd, Auckland.
Lamb, D 2004, Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization, National Book Trust, Wellington.