How to Build a Better Monster

Habermas and The Public Sphere

Do I sense a tiny bit of optimism? Over the past several weeks, I’ve read some incredibly dismal takes on culture, class, and society. After last week’s experience with Horkheimer and Adorno, I’d given up all of my hope (which is not much, but still) for society. With claims like “Fun is a medicinal bath,” how can one expect to go on? Gulp! Perhaps good ol’ Max and Theodor were extremists, and that’s why I’m reading Jürgen Habermas’ “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article” as uplifting, even though it still points out flaws in the media-dominated public sphere we know today.

In this selection from his book, Critical Theory and Society: A Reader, Habermas discusses how the “public sphere” emerged in bourgeois society in the 18th century. He sees the public sphere as a kind of mediator between society and state, between public and private interests, through which the public can organize its opinion. Thus, the public sphere is a forum in which people are “unrestricted” in what they say and are guaranteed freedom of expression in all of its forms. (This element of freedom is why Habermas says the public sphere could not/did not exist prior to the existence of bourgeois society.)

The new public sphere allowed people (for the first time) to shape public opinion. The public could make their private concerns known through multiple means, but print became highly important. During the periods of the French and American revolutions, Habermas notes that people were quick to assemble and seize newspapers as political tools. Upon distribution, even the more private publications showcased an incredibly loud voice of the public in response to the state publications.

Habermas includes a quote from Karl Bücher that describes the situation that then unfolded as a result of the changing press: “Newspapers changed from mere institutions for the publication of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion – weapons of party politics. This transformed the newspaper business. A new element emerged between the gathering and publication of news: the editorial staff. But for the newspaper publisher it meant that he changed from a vendor recent news to a dealer in public opinion.” The state of newspapers as described by Bücher seems ideal; it’s a forum that is open to and indeed created by the combined voices of the public. However, this state of journalism was short-lived. The public sphere lost its power to, what else? According to Habermas, consumer interests. Naturally.

“Although the liberal model of the public sphere is still instructive today with respect to the normative claim that information be accessible to the public, it cannot be applied to the actual conditions of an industrially advanced mass democracy organized in the form of the social welfare state.” Well said, Habermas. “Because of the diffusion of press and propaganda,” the public sphere lost its voice. Groups of people have had to change their voice and their stances in order to receive any voice at all in the media. If their agenda doesn’t satisfy the political authorities (which are closely connected to media supervisors), then it’s simply not fit to print. In the end, these groups with the voices that once stood out from the political sphere must compromise their goals, relinquish their social power, and become part of the political sphere itself.

By the time one reaches the end of Habermas’ article on the public sphere, it’s not so far off from the dismal writings of Horkheimer and Adorno. Well, at least it’s equally as dark in terms of theme; I’d say the language employed is far less discouraging. At least Habermas argues that there once existed a time in which the media wasn’t corrupt; but it’s a shame that the only time at which the press was at its ideal form was during political revolution.