Media, Culture and Ideology: Habermas

Essays, articles, and papers

All papers in this section ©2002 Franni Vincent : they are here for your information, and I'm happy to discuss the ideas & content -contact me at franni@cantab.net .However, do remember that some have been available on the web since my time at Cambridge University: before you're tempted to use whole paragraphs from them, remember your tutor's probably already read them...

How useful is Habermas' notion of the public sphere for assessing the political significance of communication media?

How useful is Habermas' notion of the public sphere for assessing the political significance of communication media?

The public sphere of which Habermas speaks is a reference to the realm which exists between the formal state machinery or public authority, and the private realm . The realm of public authority contains those who have the control over the courts, and the 'means of violence'; the private realm splits into civil society which includes the domain of commodity production and exchange, together with the 'intimate sphere' of domestic and family concerns. The spheres are not totally separate entities, and an individual might move from one to the other (dependant on various factors such as class and gender) throughout his daily life.

In the public sphere, the decisions made and actions carried out by the state machinery may be questioned. The sphere formed an arena where criticism could be expressed, debate held, and through the exchange of views in this context, public opinion formed. This public opinion would control how civil society was organised and regulated, and to some extent the morality of the whole private sphere. It would possibly also curb excesses in the realm of public authority.

The idea of a sphere in which this debate could take place came from Ancient Greece, where communities were of a sufficiently small size that debate between adult males could take place openly. This arena was open to all, based on the idea that the private realm was very restricted, that labour within the economy was carried out by slaves, and that an adult male citizen's obligation and main interest would be in this rational and critical debate, where a person's debating and arguing skills were more important than his wealth or social position in opinion forming. Habermas saw a similar realm being established in the clubs, coffee houses and salons of C17th and C18th Europe.

Theoretically open to all, although in reality restricted to those who had the leisure, money and/or social position , Habermas saw this realm as a new evolution. The participants in this 'bourgeois public sphere' were drawn from the educated, the propertied and with few exceptions, the male section of society as a whole. Originally gathering in coffee houses and salons for 'open and unconstrained debate' in the realm of literature, this debate had soon extended to the political arena. Habermas saw the bourgeois public sphere's main use as that in being distinct from

'the public authority of the state and the private realms of civil society and family life', it was capable of forming a public opinion through critical discussion, reasoned argument and debate which would be instrumental in providing moral guidelines for the behaviour in both spheres.

The introduction of the first mechanised forms of communication media, in the form of newspapers and pamphlets produced by privately owned printers and publishers initially contributed to this debate. This was particularly true in Britain where the press was always far less restricted than in other European countries. When mass communication was restricted to the small scale presses, this provided an additional forum and opportunity to criticise the government to the face-to-face debates taking place. Provided the arguments continued to be conducted by the same 'rules' ie rational-critical debate, then mass communication was making a positive contribution, albeit still restricting participation to the literate.

Habermas' view of the function of communication media in its early development provides no indication of why the bourgeois public sphere has been eroded unless the structure of society as seen by the earlier Critical Theorists by whom he was influenced is taken into account. Habermas' view of the C17th and C18th salons and coffee houses might be somewhat idealised. The debate may never have been as uninfluenced by outside influences as he supposes. But as soon as a potential for profit was seen in newspaper and journal production, the nature of the debate changes. Economic and financial interests, rather than reasoned critical arguments dominate.

Financial interests are dominant on both sides of the public sphere; revenue from advertisements limits the amount of criticism any one newspaper might be willing to level at unsavoury practices in the civil society of the private sphere which were being carried out by its advertisers. Similarly, the success of the bourgeois public sphere depended on a comparatively small sphere of public authority. Once the most powerful and effective technology of the developing media industry is in the control of this realm, and the remaining technology in the hands of large scale organisations in the civil society of the private realm, the arena as it existed disappears. Communication media, once taken over by public and private large scale organisations, no longer provides the public sphere with an opportunity for critical debate; in effect, it contributes to the erosion of the sphere itself.

The disappearance of the bourgeois public sphere coincided to some extent with the erosion of the intimate sphere of private life, which had already been noted by Horkheimer

The gradual dissolution of the family, the transformation of personal life into leisure and of leisure into routines supervised to the last detail...has brought about the disappearance of the inner life .

This transformation also coincided, in Habermas' view, with the transformation of the structure of society, from the comparative liberal democracy of the first stages of capitalism, to the situation where

in which public opinion was formed by the mass, and culture was passively consumed by culture industry spectators .

As the influence of the political into the private increased, so the communication media becomes less an instrument for communication, 'institutions for the publication of news' , and more 'weapons of party politics'. Competing commercial interests take over the formation of 'public opinion', using the media to give full reign to their theatrical techniques. Politics become a 'managed show' with

leader and parties routinely seeking the acclamatory assent of a depoliticized population...

Whereas once publicity had been

the process of making proceedings public...to subject persons or affairs to public reason and to make political decisions subject to the court of public opinion .

it has been transformed into a tool whereby the mass can be managed.

Habermas thought that the critical functions could be taken by groups, where the debate could be continued and brought to the notice of authority. He speaks of the possibility of 'grass-roots interest groups', and this view is possibly that which seems to have most relevance to the reality of political life; yet the access of any one group to the media is determined by many factors, a good many of them economic. The utopian view was criticised

..we cannot conceal the fact that the critical model in the end lost its theoretical standing and was reduced to the status of a 'utopia' or 'hope', a token protest raised in the name of man or reason or creativity, or again of some social category &endash; such as the Third World or the students &endash; on which is conferred in extremis the henceforth improbable function of critical subject .

To Lyotard, there was the possibility that any such critical protest would in turn be used as a tool, in the same was that the media itself, or indeed any ideology might have been in the past.

The disappearance of the bourgeois public sphere as it stood was not necessarily to be lamented. Habermas realised that it was elitist , but that the 'exercise of reason' was the 'valuable kernel in the flawed ideology of the bourgeois public sphere' . If the development of communication media had allowed greater opportunity for this 'exercise of reason' by participation in political life in more ways than simply voting, by ensuring that the structure incorporates the necessity for effective criticism, then the positive aspects of the public sphere could be said to be retained.

In a sense, new technology, such as the Internet is beginning to fulfil some of the functions of the old bourgeois public sphere. Groups are exchanging views, where 'reasoned argument ' in some cases is developing opinion. It is however, still in its infancy, and suffers from the same problem as the original 'club and coffee-house' based sphere, being mainly bourgeois, and having similar social and economic barriers. Only those with access to the technology(usually male), a certain degree of education and (computer) literacy are eligible. It is, however, remarkably free from pressure from the commercial and political 'spheres' at the present time, and so provides what could be seen as an ideal arena wherein Habermas' ideal public sphere could be recreated. It is in this area, perhaps, that the political significance of communication media will develop in the future.

Bibliography

John Thompson Ideology & Modern Culture (Polity 1990)

C Calhoun Habermas & the Public Sphere (MIT 1992)

David Held Introduction to Critical Theory (1980)

top of text

Footnotes

_______________

John Thompson Ideology and Modern Culture p112

John Thompson Ideology and Modern Culture p111-2

D Kellner Critical Theory , Marxism and Modernity (Polity, 1989)p128 quoting Horkheimer

D Kellner Critical Theory , Marxism and Modernity (Polity, 1989)

D Held Introduction to Critical Theory p261

J Thompson Ideology and Modern Culture p113

Habermas 'The Public Sphere' article p55

J-F Lyotard The Postmodern Condition : a report on knowledge (1979) -MUP edition(1984) p13

Calhoun Habermas & the Public Sphere

	Essays, articles, and papers All papers in this section ©2002 Franni Vincent : they are here for your information, and I'm happy to discuss the ideas & content -contact me at franni@cantab.net .However, do remember that some have been available on the web since my time at Cambridge University: before you're tempted to use whole paragraphs from them, remember your tutor's probably already read them...
	How useful is Habermas' notion of the public sphere for assessing the political significance of communication media?
	How useful is Habermas' notion of the public sphere for assessing the political significance of communication media? The public sphere of which Habermas speaks is a reference to the realm which exists between the formal state machinery or public authority, and the private realm . The realm of public authority contains those who have the control over the courts, and the 'means of violence'; the private realm splits into civil society which includes the domain of commodity production and exchange, together with the 'intimate sphere' of domestic and family concerns. The spheres are not totally separate entities, and an individual might move from one to the other (dependant on various factors such as class and gender) throughout his daily life. In the public sphere, the decisions made and actions carried out by the state machinery may be questioned. The sphere formed an arena where criticism could be expressed, debate held, and through the exchange of views in this context, public opinion formed. This public opinion would control how civil society was organised and regulated, and to some extent the morality of the whole private sphere. It would possibly also curb excesses in the realm of public authority. The idea of a sphere in which this debate could take place came from Ancient Greece, where communities were of a sufficiently small size that debate between adult males could take place openly. This arena was open to all, based on the idea that the private realm was very restricted, that labour within the economy was carried out by slaves, and that an adult male citizen's obligation and main interest would be in this rational and critical debate, where a person's debating and arguing skills were more important than his wealth or social position in opinion forming. Habermas saw a similar realm being established in the clubs, coffee houses and salons of C17th and C18th Europe. Theoretically open to all, although in reality restricted to those who had the leisure, money and/or social position , Habermas saw this realm as a new evolution. The participants in this 'bourgeois public sphere' were drawn from the educated, the propertied and with few exceptions, the male section of society as a whole. Originally gathering in coffee houses and salons for 'open and unconstrained debate' in the realm of literature, this debate had soon extended to the political arena. Habermas saw the bourgeois public sphere's main use as that in being distinct from 'the public authority of the state and the private realms of civil society and family life', it was capable of forming a public opinion through critical discussion, reasoned argument and debate which would be instrumental in providing moral guidelines for the behaviour in both spheres. The introduction of the first mechanised forms of communication media, in the form of newspapers and pamphlets produced by privately owned printers and publishers initially contributed to this debate. This was particularly true in Britain where the press was always far less restricted than in other European countries. When mass communication was restricted to the small scale presses, this provided an additional forum and opportunity to criticise the government to the face-to-face debates taking place. Provided the arguments continued to be conducted by the same 'rules' ie rational-critical debate, then mass communication was making a positive contribution, albeit still restricting participation to the literate. Habermas' view of the function of communication media in its early development provides no indication of why the bourgeois public sphere has been eroded unless the structure of society as seen by the earlier Critical Theorists by whom he was influenced is taken into account. Habermas' view of the C17th and C18th salons and coffee houses might be somewhat idealised. The debate may never have been as uninfluenced by outside influences as he supposes. But as soon as a potential for profit was seen in newspaper and journal production, the nature of the debate changes. Economic and financial interests, rather than reasoned critical arguments dominate. Financial interests are dominant on both sides of the public sphere; revenue from advertisements limits the amount of criticism any one newspaper might be willing to level at unsavoury practices in the civil society of the private sphere which were being carried out by its advertisers. Similarly, the success of the bourgeois public sphere depended on a comparatively small sphere of public authority. Once the most powerful and effective technology of the developing media industry is in the control of this realm, and the remaining technology in the hands of large scale organisations in the civil society of the private realm, the arena as it existed disappears. Communication media, once taken over by public and private large scale organisations, no longer provides the public sphere with an opportunity for critical debate; in effect, it contributes to the erosion of the sphere itself. The disappearance of the bourgeois public sphere coincided to some extent with the erosion of the intimate sphere of private life, which had already been noted by Horkheimer The gradual dissolution of the family, the transformation of personal life into leisure and of leisure into routines supervised to the last detail...has brought about the disappearance of the inner life . This transformation also coincided, in Habermas' view, with the transformation of the structure of society, from the comparative liberal democracy of the first stages of capitalism, to the situation where in which public opinion was formed by the mass, and culture was passively consumed by culture industry spectators . As the influence of the political into the private increased, so the communication media becomes less an instrument for communication, 'institutions for the publication of news' , and more 'weapons of party politics'. Competing commercial interests take over the formation of 'public opinion', using the media to give full reign to their theatrical techniques. Politics become a 'managed show' with leader and parties routinely seeking the acclamatory assent of a depoliticized population... Whereas once publicity had been the process of making proceedings public...to subject persons or affairs to public reason and to make political decisions subject to the court of public opinion . it has been transformed into a tool whereby the mass can be managed. Habermas thought that the critical functions could be taken by groups, where the debate could be continued and brought to the notice of authority. He speaks of the possibility of 'grass-roots interest groups', and this view is possibly that which seems to have most relevance to the reality of political life; yet the access of any one group to the media is determined by many factors, a good many of them economic. The utopian view was criticised ..we cannot conceal the fact that the critical model in the end lost its theoretical standing and was reduced to the status of a 'utopia' or 'hope', a token protest raised in the name of man or reason or creativity, or again of some social category &endash; such as the Third World or the students &endash; on which is conferred in extremis the henceforth improbable function of critical subject . To Lyotard, there was the possibility that any such critical protest would in turn be used as a tool, in the same was that the media itself, or indeed any ideology might have been in the past. The disappearance of the bourgeois public sphere as it stood was not necessarily to be lamented. Habermas realised that it was elitist , but that the 'exercise of reason' was the 'valuable kernel in the flawed ideology of the bourgeois public sphere' . If the development of communication media had allowed greater opportunity for this 'exercise of reason' by participation in political life in more ways than simply voting, by ensuring that the structure incorporates the necessity for effective criticism, then the positive aspects of the public sphere could be said to be retained. In a sense, new technology, such as the Internet is beginning to fulfil some of the functions of the old bourgeois public sphere. Groups are exchanging views, where 'reasoned argument ' in some cases is developing opinion. It is however, still in its infancy, and suffers from the same problem as the original 'club and coffee-house' based sphere, being mainly bourgeois, and having similar social and economic barriers. Only those with access to the technology(usually male), a certain degree of education and (computer) literacy are eligible. It is, however, remarkably free from pressure from the commercial and political 'spheres' at the present time, and so provides what could be seen as an ideal arena wherein Habermas' ideal public sphere could be recreated. It is in this area, perhaps, that the political significance of communication media will develop in the future. Bibliography John Thompson Ideology & Modern Culture (Polity 1990) C Calhoun Habermas & the Public Sphere (MIT 1992) David Held Introduction to Critical Theory (1980)
	top of text


	Footnotes
_______________		John Thompson Ideology and Modern Culture p112
		John Thompson Ideology and Modern Culture p111-2
		D Kellner Critical Theory , Marxism and Modernity (Polity, 1989)p128 quoting Horkheimer
		D Kellner Critical Theory , Marxism and Modernity (Polity, 1989)
		D Held Introduction to Critical Theory p261
		J Thompson Ideology and Modern Culture p113
		Habermas 'The Public Sphere' article p55
		J-F Lyotard The Postmodern Condition : a report on knowledge (1979) -MUP edition(1984) p13
		Calhoun Habermas & the Public Sphere