Week 4: The Public Sphere (CMNS 130)

CMNS 130: Week 4 “The Public Sphere”  This week... Wednesday: – Review Quiz – Habermas; Fraser – Lecture : The Public Sphere Saturday: – Keywords – Habermas, Fraser – News Media Project: Introduction and Preliminary Group Work ...

CMNS 130: Week 4 “The Public Sphere”  This week... Wednesday: – Review Quiz – Habermas; Fraser – Lecture : The Public Sphere Saturday: – Keywords – Habermas, Fraser – News Media Project: Introduction and Preliminary Group Work  Lecture - the public sphere Our definition of the “public sphere”: “an abstract place where people are able to discuss and consider matters of common concern and interest” In Habermas’s words: “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (p.49).  The Public Sphere concept first published in his 1962 book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, the idea embodies an ideal of freedom of expression and association, particularly around political speech (p.49) Habermas puts forward a “liberal” model of the public sphere, in which the State is supposed to guarantee unrestricted free expression "only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does the political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over the government through the instrument of law-making bodies" (p.49)  The Public Sphere concept Some examples of “public communication”: – open court hearings – parliamentary debates – government collected statistical and scientific information these need to be all guaranteed by the state in a democracy (p.50). The “public sphere” helps keep the State in check. For Habermas, public conversation must be free, or there can be no "public opinion" (only a plurality of opinions that are held separately by different groups and individuals) (p.50).  The Public Sphere: history in Medieval Europe, under feudalism, there was no public sphere. (p.50) opinions were publically expressed (by kings, lords, and religious officials, and others with status/power)... but there was no concept of "public/private" in the Medieval period [p.50]. the monarchy, the church, and the nobility (landowners) were said to "represent" public opinion (p.51). this is the earliest incarnation of the concept.  The Public Sphere: history 17C-18C: Europe shifted from Feudalism/Monarchy to Capitalism/ Democracy society increasingly made up of (bourgeois) "private" individuals that were separate from the State: "the sphere of private individuals assembled into a public body" (p.52) Newspapers & journals: site for debate about politics and "general rules of social intercourse" (p.52) – also a medium between the public and the State Newspapers  Coffeehouses in Britain Matthew Green explains the relationship of coffeehouses to the emergence of the public sphere in England: – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83A7vaHTiE Also relevant: the BBC In Our Time (podcast) episode on coffee: – https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000c4x1  Think/pair/share: the public sphere, today Discuss: Starbucks (or Tim Hortons, for that matter) doesn’t function like a public sphere... Where might we find the public sphere today? Are there places in the physical world (or in the online world) where free public discussion of matters of state take place without interference?  The liberal model of the public sphere newly emerging democracies during the Renaissance and into the 18C were all about individual liberties (rather than public obligation). the functions of government were limited by the new constitutional documents of nation states (p.53). newspapers became prominent in society at this time. literary journalism (nonfiction essay argumentative form) became dominant in the early "newspapers" (supplanting the earlier form, which was just collections of public notices) (p.53)  The liberal model of the public sphere the business of newspapers changed - they required editorial staff as a gatekeeper of public opinion. the press became an organ of public conversation (p.53), a "mediator and intensifier" of public discussion, not merely a source for news. political groups sponsored their own newspapers of this sort as early as 1789 in France. By 1848 there were over 200 such journals in France. In the 1830s the transformation of the press from a "journalism of conviction" like this toward a journalism of commerce began. The public sphere that emerges as a result of this transformation was fueled by "the influx of private interests" (p.53)  the public sphere in the social welfare state Under mass democracy/mass media, the liberal public sphere lost its character of "private individuals assembled as a public body" which was replaced by the notion of a “mass” public - not just the bourgeoisie. it also was no longer coherent due to the removal of the "relatively high standard of education" that once was a barrier to participation public and private became interwoven and confused Habermas calls this a "refeudalization" of the public sphere (p.54), whereby large businesses run the press and act as a stand-in for democratic public will.  the public sphere in the social welfare state Habermas: the social welfare state's public sphere has been weakened this is in opposition to the trend in social welfare states toward expanded human rights and liberties. "the idea of the public sphere...threatens to disintegrate with the structural transformation of the public sphere itself" to restore a true public sphere we would need to reorganize political and social power (p.55) Critique of the public sphere: Fraser 1st problem: Habermas's idea of "public sphere" conflates the press with the State. Fraser contends that this failure (in Marxism) leads to more authoritarian/central govt paradigm than into a participatory democratic form (p.56). 2nd problem: "the public sphere" is used vaguely, in contrast to the “domestic sphere” (which is feminized), which falsely depicts feminism as against democratic speech (p.57). Habermas's sphere was one for a bourgeois liberal elite, and Habermas fails to articulate what a public sphere within the social welfare state would look like (p.58) Critique of the public sphere: Fraser Fraser provides an alternate account to the history of the public sphere Fraser: Habermas was too idealistic in his formulation (p.59). His public sphere excluded people on the basis of gender and social class (p.60) this helped to reinforce a liberal enlightenment ideology that was still rooted in patriarchy (despite its concern for human rights) (p.60) Critique of the public sphere: Fraser this also ignores the struggles of these groups to organize alternative spaces to launch critiques/alternative public spheres (p.61) what Fraser later in the paper calls "subaltern counterpublics" (p.67) the public sphere Habermas idealized has also engaged in the effort of "popular containment" (of the voices of counterpublics), too (p.61) the bourgeois public sphere legitimized a certain kind of masculinist class rule (p.62) - it became an institution through which ruling ideologies were imposed on the mass public [p.62]  4 faulty assumptions of the “public sphere” Assumption 1: the public sphere can ignore class and gender differences (and admit everyone in to the coffeehouses) (p.62) – Historically this is untrue. Also, conventions of discourse are gendered - men talk over and interrupt women, and uses of language are routinely used to mask domination (p.64) – the public sphere cannot be drained of all cultural content and operate in a vacuum (p.64) Assumption 2: it assumes that a plurality of counterpublics is contrary to democracy - only a unified public sphere can support democracy (p.62) – societies are already stratified, which implies that a pluralistic model will better support "participatory parity", accounting for multiple public spheres (p.66)  4 faulty assumptions of the “public sphere” Assumption 3: the public sphere is focused on the "common good" (excluding discussion of private interests) (p.62) – not all interests (esp.counterpublics) are seen as "of common concern" within the liberal public sphere. counterpublics have to force their agenda items into the conversation (p.71) – Fraser says Habermas has limited notions of "public" and "private" (pp.70-74) Assumption 4: a public sphere requires a sharp distinction between itself and the State (p.63) – laissez-faire capitalism doesn't make society egalitarian. in fact, state regulation is required to achieve that end (p.74). – Fraser here calls Habermas’s ideal sphere a kind of "weak public" that excludes politics (p.75)  Discussion: the public sphere Get into your Project groups. Discuss: – What are the barriers to public participation in political dialogue today? Government censorship? Technology access? Culture (i.e., institutional sexism, or racism) – Should we strive for a unified liberal public sphere like Habermas idealizes? Or should we take the approach Fraser suggests (multiple public spheres for different groups of people)? Use evidence to inform your group’s recommendation Each group will talk briefly (2 minutes) to the class. Appoint someone as speaker who will do this on behalf of the group.  Next up...Week 5 No readings – review all previous readings to date Midterm exam (20% of your term mark; 2 hours, closed book, multiple choice questions) – on Wednesday Oct 9 No class on Saturday (statutory holiday)