Communication and Birth of the Public
Communication and Birth of the Public
The birth of the ‘public’ as key players in the formation of public opinion in modern sense was possible apparently by a specific socio-historical and political situation in history. Jourgen Habermas, by his concept “public sphere,” traces back how the ‘public’ as a counterpart of state forming public opinion came to exist, and how the public - though it is limited to ‘bourgeois’ public in Habermas’s explanation - has lost its critical property in the course of modern history.
According to Habermas, a transition from monarchic society to civil one was a seedbed for the birth and formation of public sphere. Thus, the condition that moved society toward civil society is also one that enabled the formation of public sphere. What then was “the condition?” The condition is summarized into depersonalization of state authority and the rise of bourgeois. Depersonalization of state authority parallels the change of court society into state bureaucracies, though it was rudimentary. Here, bourgeois, “the public of the now emerging public sphere of civil society,” (p.23) had to use their reason ‘publicly’ and ‘critically,’ in other words, ‘politically’ to maintain their status. For this reason, public sphere then was critical sphere, thus political sphere. Press, here, functions as an instrument that enables the public to take on this challenge. However, in mass welfare-state democratic system, the public sphere becomes “a field for competition among interests,” and specified large civil organization mostly, not private persons, takes the mediating function between state and society: commodity consumption replaces public and critical use of reason. This results in the loss of critical edge of public sphere.
Though some parts of Habermas’s argument, for example, the historical evidence of the bourgeois public sphere, have been severely challenged, Structural Formation still remains a canonic text in studying democracy and community. It seems that the shortcomings of Structural Formation is offset by its other strong points, his longing for the progression of human society, and providing normative ideals of modernity. In this way, one can find both motivation and destination of sociology in Habermas’s work. However, it is somewhat peculiar that a normative model drawn from the ‘bourgeois’ public sphere can be a generalizable model for the ‘whole’ society. Can bourgeoisies’ use of reason in the 18th century be truly ‘critical’ and ‘publicly’ relevant? Might it not be rather protective and self-interested use of reason for the construction of bourgeois hegemony? Here comes the crucial question. What is the meaning of ‘critical’ use of reason?
The birth of the ‘public’ as key players in the formation of public opinion in modern sense was possible apparently by a specific socio-historical and political situation in history. Jourgen Habermas, by his concept “public sphere,” traces back how the ‘public’ as a counterpart of state forming public opinion came to exist, and how the public - though it is limited to ‘bourgeois’ public in Habermas’s explanation - has lost its critical property in the course of modern history.
According to Habermas, a transition from monarchic society to civil one was a seedbed for the birth and formation of public sphere. Thus, the condition that moved society toward civil society is also one that enabled the formation of public sphere. What then was “the condition?” The condition is summarized into depersonalization of state authority and the rise of bourgeois. Depersonalization of state authority parallels the change of court society into state bureaucracies, though it was rudimentary. Here, bourgeois, “the public of the now emerging public sphere of civil society,” (p.23) had to use their reason ‘publicly’ and ‘critically,’ in other words, ‘politically’ to maintain their status. For this reason, public sphere then was critical sphere, thus political sphere. Press, here, functions as an instrument that enables the public to take on this challenge. However, in mass welfare-state democratic system, the public sphere becomes “a field for competition among interests,” and specified large civil organization mostly, not private persons, takes the mediating function between state and society: commodity consumption replaces public and critical use of reason. This results in the loss of critical edge of public sphere.
Though some parts of Habermas’s argument, for example, the historical evidence of the bourgeois public sphere, have been severely challenged, Structural Formation still remains a canonic text in studying democracy and community. It seems that the shortcomings of Structural Formation is offset by its other strong points, his longing for the progression of human society, and providing normative ideals of modernity. In this way, one can find both motivation and destination of sociology in Habermas’s work. However, it is somewhat peculiar that a normative model drawn from the ‘bourgeois’ public sphere can be a generalizable model for the ‘whole’ society. Can bourgeoisies’ use of reason in the 18th century be truly ‘critical’ and ‘publicly’ relevant? Might it not be rather protective and self-interested use of reason for the construction of bourgeois hegemony? Here comes the crucial question. What is the meaning of ‘critical’ use of reason?
posted by Anonymous at
6:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home