The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society

I gave this book four stars because it is well considered and offers some valuable insights concerning the social organization of public opinion. However, not only are there questionable depictions of the historical account of the "public sphere," but I cannot accept the normative indictment on social organization. Habermas paints a convincing picture of what he considers the ideal form of civic participation of 18th century white culture. I object to its limitations though. It is very exclusive and is unapologetic on this point. Also, as a materialist dialectic on the human condition, I don't see how this idealized form could ever be re-captured. The logic precludes it and so the normative aspect of the discourse is self-defeating.

Really, when I think about it, it's almost TOO clearly written.

Retold in fairy tale language for a class assignment

In a distant past, there existed a feudal society, and in this society, there was not yet a public sphere. In fact, public referred to nobility, and everyone else was common (6). However, with the rise of capitalism and the bourgeois class came the commercial trade in news (15), and a public sphere began to emerge between the private sphere of life and the government (23). This public sphere was composed of the bourgeoisie, mostly male property owners, who used reason to debate public issues (27-29). In western Europe and America, these citizens engaged in dialogue in coffee shops, newspapers, and letters — that is, they debated in largely private spaces that created publics. Public show more opinion began to develop, but this wasn’t the public opinion we conceive of today: instead, it was formed through public debate, not through polling or other more modern mechanisms (66).

An aim of the public sphere was to abolish the domination of the state, and constitutional governments were set up to connect the law to public opinion (81-82). A central value of the bourgeois public sphere was inclusiveness — that as the bourgeoisie grew, so too would access to the public sphere. However, as the public enlarged, public opinion changed from the result of ongoing dialogue to a coercive force (133). This is largely because as the liberal state became a welfare state, it encroached on the private lives of people, or “stateized” society (142); the public sphere became less politicized (140). In part, this was caused as economic struggles became political struggles, and the state began to protect families and individuals, through education, workers’ rights laws, and welfare (155). Consumer culture also arose, so that a debating public sphere was replaced by an advertising public sphere; public debate became administered and consumed (164). The state began to “‘address’ its citizens like consumers” (195). Public opinion and propaganda began to be used in order to gain good will and justify legislation (177). The public sphere became “refeudalized” by the state and others looking to gain publicity.

The bourgeois public sphere has since passed away, and in its stead we have the modern notions of public opinion and publicity, as well as private individuals not engaged in a public, rational debate. Good bye, dear bourgeois public sphere. You are missed. show less

La critica dell’opinione pubblica di Habermas è un testo centrale di questo secolo. Così dicono in molti. Il testo, serrato e complesso, offre una quantità notevole di spunti di riflessione, fornendo diversi strumenti di comprensione ed approfondimento del tema. Ma, al contempo, rimane a parte la ricostruzione storica, troppo spesso in superficie. Intendiamoci, è così se parlassimo di un testo fondamentale. Non sarebbe se, invece, parliamo, semplicemente, di un ottimo lavoro. Nel complesso è un libro che, come detto, offre spunti di riflessione, strumenti di ragionamento, più che un’analisi strutturale del tema. Per carità, tema complessissimo, scivoloso. Ed è pure vero che se qualcuno trovasse una chiave di lettura unica, show more inequivocabilmente per questo argomento sarebbe un momento triste. I dubbi servono ad alimentare la coscienza dell’uomo. show less

5 estante frente