In The public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964) Habermas, based on classical

conceptions, undertakes to conceive the ontological space “the public sphere” and to
apprehend the relevant political transformations of modern societies which altered
the engagements and discussions within this space. He divides the transformations
up in chapters which I‟ll summarise in a similar fashion with my paragraphs.

Habermas starts (1964:49) by delimiting the public sphere to an area where citizens
join unrestrictedly together in interlocution (public body), in order to form a public
opinion on matters relating to „general interest‟. He admonishes us not to mistake the
public sphere for the political public sphere: The political public sphere pertains to
the “objects connected to the activity of the state” (ibid) in contrast to matters of
general interest, even though these matters may be about the state or its activities.

In the chapter entitled History, Habermas (1964:50) takes us back to the 18th century
where he argues the first inklings, of his conception of the public sphere manifested:
The first was a split between funds for the ruler‟s private estate and public
endeavours; the church, military and institutions who acted autonomously of the
estate owner yet were available to the public and the nobility becoming an early
organisation of authority. These historical transformations, Habermas argues
(1964:52), coupled with the ever growing „market economy‟ – which could not
anymore be contained by authorities in the private sphere – made manifest the realm
of the bourgeois public sphere where “individuals assembled into a public body”.

As the rulers devolved more of their power upon the public body, public authority
became more shared instead of monopolised. Along with the proliferation of the
printing press, political newspapers became a hub for public opinion and represented
the first liberal model of the public sphere – which is also the title of the chapter -;
until after the revolutions when the constitutional state took over that responsibility
(Habermas 1964:53). These newspapers then started to look in other avenues such
as commerce. Habermas argues that the adoption commercial activity of the
newspapers reintroduced the private into the domain of the media.

Leaving with the above mentioned conclusion, Habermas brings us back again to
contemporary times and maintains the situation, pertaining the liberal model
espoused, is still roughly the same. However, Habermas asserts, there is a slight
difference between this prescriptive model of the public sphere and what is actually
happening based on the private encroaching in the media: He postulates (1964:54 &
55) that in democratic welfare states, the media expanded in beyond the remit and
power of the bourgeoisie over to the private or commercial group, which doesn‟t
allow for the proper public sphere since the private individual or group is not freely
discussing on behalf of the state but their own interest. Instead of garnering public
opinion, Habermas argues that they merely garner publicity since these decisions
are not made in the sole interest of the state. In addition some changes of policy also
now occur without entering the public sphere, which for Habermas (1964:55)
contravenes the constitution.

In response and conclusion Habermas appeals for a “reorganisation of social and

political power” which will ensure that institutions and organisations are devoted
toward the use of the public sphere where such matter defined above are concerned.

Bibliography:

Jürgen Habermas; Sara Lennox; Frank Lennox. New German Critique, No. 3.
(Autumn, 1974), pp. 49-55.