Page 1 of 10

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 6

Publication Date: June 25, 2023

DOI:10.14738/assrj.106.14848.

Almuqren, A. (2023). The Contemporary Public Sphere-Habermas’ Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(6).

183-192.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

The Contemporary Public Sphere-Habermas’ Perspective

Abdullah Almuqren

ABSTRACT

Undoubtedly, the contribution of public opinion and involvement is a critical aspect

in shaping and influencing the political, social, and democratic courses within a

nation. The concept of the public sphere acknowledges the presence and studies the

initiation of integral discourses conducted by the public. Indeed, the German

philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, instigated and established the understanding of

such a concept. He critically highlights that the presence and participatory nature

of the public sphere is crucial for a democracy. His theory, espoused in his 1985

Theory of Communicative Action, is predicated upon the principle that how we

communicate, affects the content of that communication in the reasonable

discourse of a mature democracy (Lock and Strong, 2010, p. 78). Nevertheless, it is

evident that the development of technology and the internet has led to immense

changes in the manner in which the public is able to become involved in such

activities. Unquestionably, newspapers, writing letters, television and public

meetings are no longer the only public sphere sources of the communication of

information and the rise of social media and the virtual world provides many new

sorts of opportunities for the exchange of views (Masip et al, 2019). Jürgen

Habermas’ theory was established over a decade before the advent of social media,

which raises critical questions as to the placement of the public sphere in the

context of the realm of social media. The public sphere has been fundamentally

developed by digital communication and the emergence of the immediacy of

opinion making via social media platforms, introducing a less personally

interactive but much broader participatory base, increasingly sophisticated and

more contentious (Mahlouly, 2013). This paper will examine the nature of

communication in the contemporary public sphere and verify whether the rise of

social media and the virtual world extends the public sphere or diminishes the level

of rational conversation through exploring the public sphere; and monitor his

structure, function and places of work, according to Habermas’ theoretical vision.

Moreover, to explain its components in the political and social field in the lifeworld.

Also, to what extent of the contemporary sphere's applicability to Habermas'

communicative theory. While Habermas' vision of the public sphere and

communication was emphasized, it has been argued the perspective of Hannah

Arendt and her “public realm”. In addition, many contemporary thinkers,

particularly Fraser, argued about the concept of the contemporary public sphere in

the postmodern.

INTRODUCTION

The first effort to categorize, form public opinion, and legitimize state and government in post- war Western societies is Habermas' concept of the public sphere where it is possible to see the

public sphere as a world of social life where public opinion can be formed (Habermas, 1991, p.

398). Habermas was neither the first nor the only one who worked on this concept, as the

philosopher Immanuel Kant had previously provided a definition of the public sphere in his

Page 2 of 10

184

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 6, June-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

book “What is the Enlightenment” in 1784, and yet Habermas's contribution regarding the

public sphere is one of the first contributions to this concept in the twentieth century, The

importance of these contributions is evident in rethinking concepts accompanying the public

sphere, such as legitimacy, consultative democracy, and the formation of a free public opinion.

Habermas created a space distinguished by being open to everyone according to a

communicative reason focused on the public interest, while there were previous studies in the

public sphere. In this paper, there will be details on this point.

In “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere”, (Habermas, 1991) recounts his

interpretation of the development of the "civil society" from its foundation in the market place

of ancient Greek culture to the emergence of early finance and trade capitalism where a new

social order was forming in the exchange of ideas through travel and trade (Habermas, 1991, p.

3-14). The public arena, the market, was viewed as a place where theories and opinions on

governance attained a freedom of expression which imbued the conclusions of discourse with

a degree of permanence, differentiated from the transitory nature of the private realm of the

home, where decisions were made on the basis of necessity (Habermas, 1991, p. 14). The public

and private realm separation became more pronounced as civil society gained political

advancement in the depersonalisation of the state, as the household concerns emerged into the

public sphere (Habermas, 1991, p. 17).

However, as time evolved, ‘public’ was no longer a designation of state ownership on behalf of

the people but the epithet belonged to private citizens, particularly the 17th Century ‘bourgeois

intellectuals’ who frequented the coffee shops of Europe to chat, reflect and examine the

problems of the day. The sphere became political. From the perspective of defining the public

sphere as "a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be

formed”, (Habermas, 1974, p.201) places his theory of the socialising of citizens through

community discourse into the political arena .

However, in the development of democracy from the era of monarchical state, the new middle

classes of the 18th century began to express their private views in public discourse on the

performance and priorities of their government. Simply, the public sphere “grew out of a

specific phase of bourgeois society and [entered] into the order of the bourgeois constitutional

state only as a result of a particular constellation of interests” (Habermas, 1964, p. 50).

The public sphere was conceived as a gathering of those pursuing particular interests, experts

with valued knowledge and perspectives on areas of government, entrepreneurs and

intellectuals (Habermas, 2006).

Educated, intelligent and informed consensus would provide a mediation pathway “between

society and state, in which the public organises itself as the bearer of public opinion”

(Habermas, 1964, p. 50). It is owing to this notion of informed contribution, direction and the

ability of involvement of people in such political matters which emphasizes the importance of

the public sphere towards influencing political steps in a democratic nation Essentially,

sociological integration in the public sphere developed political discourse as a mediating

influence in the relationship between the citizen and state; founded on the rationality of argued

outcomes as an amalgam of shared opinion (Susen, 2011).

Page 3 of 10

185

Almuqren, A. (2023). The Contemporary Public Sphere-Habermas’ Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(6). 183-192.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.106.14848

RATIONALITY AND CONSENSUS IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

(Rutherford, 2000) describes the public sphere as an assembly of persons engaged in a dialogue

which generates opinions and perspectives which affirm or challenge decisions of state

government, guiding and influencing liberal democracy by developing public consensus. In

defining philosophical ‘rationality’ Habermas divides the concept in two: (i) the moral,

emancipative nature of communicative reasoning which aims to promote consensus and (ii)

the more manipulative method of strategic thinking, whose focus is a desired goal (Schaefer, et

al, 2013). These are also distinguished as communicative versus instrumental reason. His

somewhat idealistic thinking on the purpose of the public sphere is that the communicative

discourse therein is not primarily the accomplishment of the participant’s own aims but to seek

harmony with the plans and perspectives of other contributors (Habermas, 1984). Indeed, an

aspect of the perception of attaining a consensus is concomitant with the involvement of

rational and selective representors .

Although Habermas acknowledges that strategic action is a social act, it is an act that

distinguishes it from communicative action when outcomes and interests are achieved in the

first, while understanding is desired in the second. The real communication is inherent in

language for Habermas, meaning that deliberative action is based on the incorporation of

linguistic actions into the philosophy of action. According to the core principle of his pragmatic

theory of meaning, “we understand a speech act when we know the kinds of reasons that a

speaker could provide in order to convince a hearer that he is entitled in the given

circumstances to claim validity for his utterance—in short, when we know what makes it

acceptable” (Habermas, 1998b, p. 232). It can be said that (the linguistic turn) and the shift from

the subject's philosophy to communicative (intersubjective) philosophy formed the foundation

from which Habermas tried to build (the rationality of communicative action).

Nevertheless, generally, it is not socially rational to undertake the strategic path of persuasion

toward one’s self-interest. Herein lies the basis of consensus in the public sphere, where the

interests of all supersede those of the individual, an arguable contrast with the private realm of

thinking where an element of control forms a significant feature of discussion. Life in the public

sphere is more attractive where participants “behave neither like business or professional

people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal

constraints of a state bureaucracy” but otherwise free to express their views (Habermas, 1974,

p. 49). The consensus principle, the agreement reached after rational discourse in which all

participants believe in the truth of their contribution serves the interests of deliberative

democracy and improves the quality of governance (Lafont, 2006). Nevertheless, when

considering the nature and vast uses of social media, it remains questionable as to whether the

virtual world of social media has the effect of promoting this aim (or indeed if it was ever so to

the extent that Habermas suggests).

THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HABERMAS’

CONCEPT

As explicated above, the involvement of the populace in the public sphere was integral in

deliberating upon key societal and political issues. Intrinsically, such discourses largely

involved intellectuals who could produce educational contributions and findings to attain a

consensus to the deliberation at hand. (Dahlberg, 2001) describes this as informal citizenship

deliberation which enables rational public opinion to be formed that can critically guide