Habermas’ definition of a Public Sphere is the first and founding trigger to classification

attempts of the formation of public opinions and the legitimization of state and
democracy in post-war Western societies. It is widely accepted as the standard work but
has also been widely challenged as the concept of the public sphere is constantly
developing. To get a good grasp of general criticism and current approaches towards an
up-to-date understanding of what and in which ways public opinions are shaped,
general terms of the Habermasian model have to be explained.

The public sphere is seen as a domain of social life where public opinion can be formed.
It can be seen as the breeding ground if you want. Habermas declares several aspects
as vital for the public sphere. Mainly it is open to all citizens and constituted in every
conversation in which individuals come together to form a Public. The citizen plays the
role of a private person who is not acting on behalf of a business or private interests but
one who is dealing with matters of general interest in order to form a public sphere.
There is no intimidating force behind the public sphere but its citizens assemble and
unite freely to express their opinions. The term political public sphere is introduced for
public discussions about topics connected to the state and political practice. Although
Habermas considers state power as ‘public power’ (ibid. 398) which is legitimized
through the public in elections, the state and its forceful practices and powers are not
part but are a counterpart of a public sphere where opinions are formed. Therefore
public opinion has to control the state and its authority in everyday discussions, as well
as through formal elections. A public sphere is the basic requirement to mediate
between state and society and in an ideal situation permits democratic control of state
activities. To allow discussions and the formation of a public opinion a record of state-
related activities and legal actions has to be publicly accessible.

Habermas dates the formation of the terms of public sphere and public opinion back to
the 18th century. Before the rise of the Bourgeoisie and the creation of bourgeois public
spheres the understanding of the term ‘public’ was quite different. Before that time the
representation of authority through a lord was called ‘public’. This public representation
was merely stating their authority before the people rather than for the people they
governed. Although the basic concept of representation through a government or head
of state remained, the attachment to aristocracy was discarded over time. By the end of
the 18th century, the feudal powers of the church and nobility of the King diminished
paving the way for the rise of bourgeois society in Europe. With it, the meaning of the
word ‘public’ changed as well. ‘Public’ no longer describes the representative court of a
person and their authority. It came to mean the legitimizing regulations of an institutional
system that held governing powers. Citizens were now subsumed under the state
forming the public.

Habermas’ liberal model of a public sphere holds a normative claim. This means that it
describes many idealised issues, pointing towards how a public sphere should ideally
be. As such it does not exist in modern democracies that are industrially advanced,
constituted as a social welfare state, and where masses of people are supposed to form
a public. It is an idealistic model of democracy shaped through structural changes in
society that resulted in a transformed understanding of the public sphere. Habermas
himself had to admit that the participation of women and the inclusion of minorities is not
guaranteed by his model relying on the circumstances of bourgeois society in the early
19th century.

Habermas countered his predecessors in the Frankfurt School, like Horkheimer and
Adorno saying they criticized Reason by looking from a very narrow and partial
viewpoint.

According to Habermas, Enlightenment, and Rational Modernity had some problems,

and maybe Science cannot arrive at the absolute Truth (with the capital T) and can’t
claim to have the solution to all the problems of the world. But we can take a better and
more mature look at the Enlightenment and can rework and reimagine it, so that we can
preserve all the good things about it (Technological advancement, Social progress, and
Industrial development.)

Habermas called the problems created by the Enlightenment are the pathologies of
modernity. These pathologies are not signs of failure, rather they prove that the project
of Enlightenment was incomplete. They considered two kinds of reasons – Reasonable
Statements about the world and Unbiased measuring tools that are supposed to get us
to the truth about the Universe…

Instrumental Reason - Which Human actions are reasonable – This is a type of reason
that helps us rationally progress from a starting point and leads to a conclusion. This
type of reason is instrumental when it comes to providing the rational means to reach
the end. Means to End!

The problem with this kind of reason is rational means can lead us to the desired end
but the means we are taking can be wrong… History has shown us that this process
can go wrong creating a hell lot of chaos… World Wars and all… So how will you be
sure that the end we are aiming to reach is not manufactured/co-opted by one single
thinker or group who wants to achieve that goal compelled by their understanding and
culture?

That’s why postmodern theorists feared a very real threat that was looming out there.
Their defensive strategies were to deconstruct and fragment these grand narratives that
spoke about the single goal we should be aiming for. Human knowledge is always
coming from one single person’s perspective.

Habermas comes up with a unique solution – He acknowledges that on the one hand
knowledge should go through the filter of individual human perspective, and on the
other hand, he thinks it’s possible through inter-subjectivity and through several
individual perspectives coming together we can reach a point where knowledge of
reality which is not a monolithic doctrine; where it doesn’t anymore rely on individual
human’s perspective. This is called Pragmatism.

From this pragmatic perspective, Habermas realized where Horkheimer and Adorno
went wrong… The new approach Habermas applied is called Communicative
Rationality.

Communicative Rationality is people from all walks of life coming together, and having a
genuine conversation about topics where everyone is included, everyone is
understanding and together they are reaching at an endpoint where everyone has
consent… thus a society moves forward. If you take notice of this process of
Communicative Rationality – it’s Democracy.

Democracy is not only a political settlement but also a social and cultural approach
where everyone comes together with a common set of interests, understanding, and
course of action. Think about going to Church, Mosque, or Mandir together with a
common set of beliefs. Think about an Adda where all friends get together to chat,
argue, and synthesize their differences.

This is called the Public Sphere. It is based on the ideas of Communicative Rationality.
With technological advancements, this Public Sphere is shrinking and vanishing
gradually. The change in the role of Mass Media is one of the core reasons behind this.
Media has become sales agents who are trying to sell political strategies, economic
policies, and even industrial products! So people are not reading Newspapers or
Journals to be informed and understand what is going on in the surroundings. Rather
they are consuming what media is trying to nudge them with the backing of corporate
states. – REFEUDALISATION of Public Sphere.

The economic Governmental system is gradually colonizing the Public Sphere. We

don’t get together to exchange our views and critical thinking rather we are grabbed by
mobile screens. RECOLONISATION of Public Sphere.

The further we get away from the origin of the Public Sphere the further we get away
from Communicative Rationality. The type of reason grounded in communication, that
enables us to understand and empathize with other people’s perspectives, is inter-
subjectivity.

True Democracy is the Life World that controls the system, not the system that controls
the life world.
Criticisms - A major critic of the evolving public sphere, particularly in the context of
contemporary digital media, is Jürgen Habermas; his theory of the "public sphere"
highlights the ideal of a space where citizens can engage in rational-critical debate on
public issues, but critics argue that the modern media landscape, with its fragmentation
and commercialization, significantly undermines this ideal, leading to a distorted and
less informed public discourse.

 Commercialization and manipulation:

Critics argue that the dominance of corporate media and social media platforms
prioritize profit over genuine public discourse, leading to manipulation of information
and targeted advertising that can influence public opinion.
 Filter bubbles and echo chambers:
The algorithms on social media platforms can create echo chambers where users are
primarily exposed to views that align with their existing beliefs, limiting exposure to
diverse perspectives.
 Unequal access and participation:
Not everyone has equal access to the digital public sphere, leading to concerns about
the voices of marginalized groups being silenced or not adequately represented.
 Erosion of critical thinking:
The fast-paced nature of online communication can discourage thoughtful deliberation
and promote simplistic narratives, potentially hindering the ability to critically evaluate
information.

Counter Publics - Habermas's model overlooks the experiences of marginalized

groups and calls for the concept of "counterpublics" where marginalized communities
can engage in their own public discourse.

Complexity of Public Sphere – Public Sphere is not a single, unified space but rather a
dynamic network of multiple public spheres with different power dynamics.