Public Sphere
The rationality of the public is based upon the sphere it exists in and is influenced by the sphere itself. The public sphere is the appearance of a social environment in which a group of citizens can form a public opinion. Understanding this relies on the coherent nature of this statement, the individuals social life feeds into the public’s opinion and the opinion itself feeds into the social life, it’s a loop. Habermas brings upon the very apt question of coercion, “Communication requires certain means of dissemination and influence; today”; he questions the use of media and social information to allow the power of coercive conditioning to be used in the public sphere. This feeds into the downfalls of social media and the rampant misinformation in the current digital society.
The public sphere used to be limited to the physical environment but in these changing times, it has vastly grown due to the access of communication around the world. This causes a sense of modularity to the sphere itself, having divisions based on race, gender and ethnicity already determine subcategories. Is the public sphere inclusive? No, but we are working towards it. Is the subcategorised public sphere inclusive? Yes, it might be. The specific public sphere isn’t a private one, it accepts the opinions of others if given an inclination to do so, but there is a difference in representation. A monarchy or communist state is the ideal example of public representation, their authority is presented before the people, a decision based on self interest rather than self interest with sympathy as Adam Smith puts it. The idea of censorship and structural incompetence is achieved by the abuse of information in the public sphere, this breaks down the public into private spheres of opinions which causes clashes. The public sphere in an idealistic world is inclusive but the rampant needs for individuality and self interest are the barriers for to become all inclusive. Rationality is built upon the information that’s spread in the public sphere, and if the content of media is controlled then the irrational is converted into the rational.
The mentality of Fraser allows for a modern understanding of the concept that Habermas ignites, as Fraser says “a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk,” is a great approach to describe the current democratic systems of much of the world. Certain keys factors that is mentioned by Fraser are integral in the growth of this concept, the idealism of Habermas’s understanding that everyone starts at the same level is corrected by Fraser, mentioning that due to differences in social, economical and political environments that everyone begins their journey at different levels. She sees the public sphere to be an opportunity for an all inclusive platform, focusing on changing the narrow nature of private and public interest to allow for more equal understanding of the public. She makes the very important claim of the harm caused by dividing the civil society and of the states, she questions that the workers of the state are private citizens as well which allows for the cohesion of the civil society and the states. The one thing that Fraser misses is that the workers of the state are in constant fight between the two identities, the marxist nature of the way the state functions squeezes the civil interest of the individual if the opinions don’t align.
The public sphere is a place that’s constantly evolving through private interests, we currently live in a world where a handful of people control the flow of information into this sphere, it is more inclusive but it comes with a side of hate. The pandemic is a great example of the exercised power of the public sphere, coming to a form of consensus to defeat and save us from this world altering problem. Hence, it is proved that the public sphere is ever present and at its largest size, but this is just the start of this rationale.
