Habermas
Summary
Jürgen Habermas’ article “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopaedia Article” is a conceptual, historical and liberal explanation of the Public Sphere as a discursive space where discussion occurs. Habermas defines the public sphere as a mediation between the private and authoritarian spheres; similar to a middle sector (a Bourgeois public sphere) where private citizens “confer…about matters of general interest". * * In Habermas’ account, the public sphere is founded in its simple accessibility to individuals, who come together without hierarchy in an equality of debate. The public sphere, despite its name, takes place in private, or in certain liminal regions on the borders of the public and private; the coffee-house is a paradigmatic example, because in it, individual people come together in a space that is intimate and thus private, but also open, thus public.
Not to be conceptually considered with ‘the public’, the public sphere, as a body of citizens, freely expresses opinion in an unrestricted fashion via the communicative form of mass media. To Habermas, “the media and public sphere function outside of the actual political-institutional system” (Kellner, 2009) – where the public challenges bureaucratic state and its ruling structures: a representation of democracy.
Habermas believes that these concepts of the public sphere and public representation and their historical birth were not coincidental. Arising from the monarchic governing bodies of the European Middle Ages, representative publicity saw ‘”feudal authorities” – Church, nobility and princes – as the public individual, addressing what we may define as the ‘public’, as an ‘audience’.
The status of the ‘higher power’ represented a kind of medieval public sphere, which differs greatly from Habermas’ idea of a bourgeois public sphere. The former related to the existence of a ruler, functioning as representations of “power” before the people, as opposed to for the people. Unlike the
Jürgen Habermas’ article “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopaedia Article” is a conceptual, historical and liberal explanation of the Public Sphere as a discursive space where discussion occurs. Habermas defines the public sphere as a mediation between the private and authoritarian spheres; similar to a middle sector (a Bourgeois public sphere) where private citizens “confer…about matters of general interest". * * In Habermas’ account, the public sphere is founded in its simple accessibility to individuals, who come together without hierarchy in an equality of debate. The public sphere, despite its name, takes place in private, or in certain liminal regions on the borders of the public and private; the coffee-house is a paradigmatic example, because in it, individual people come together in a space that is intimate and thus private, but also open, thus public.
Not to be conceptually considered with ‘the public’, the public sphere, as a body of citizens, freely expresses opinion in an unrestricted fashion via the communicative form of mass media. To Habermas, “the media and public sphere function outside of the actual political-institutional system” (Kellner, 2009) – where the public challenges bureaucratic state and its ruling structures: a representation of democracy.
Habermas believes that these concepts of the public sphere and public representation and their historical birth were not coincidental. Arising from the monarchic governing bodies of the European Middle Ages, representative publicity saw ‘”feudal authorities” – Church, nobility and princes – as the public individual, addressing what we may define as the ‘public’, as an ‘audience’.
The status of the ‘higher power’ represented a kind of medieval public sphere, which differs greatly from Habermas’ idea of a bourgeois public sphere. The former related to the existence of a ruler, functioning as representations of “power” before the people, as opposed to for the people. Unlike the
Bibliography: E-book/reading Habermas, “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article” Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009