De Tocqueville
When concept takes on many different meanings it probably means nothing. One of the things that it is becoming apparent is that the terms "public sphere" and "civil sphere" appear to take on different meanings when described by different writers. Nonetheless, these terms and the nuances in what they represent depending on the writer can move beyond false universals and thinking that is entrenched in rigid definitions (Edwards 2004).
Alexis de Tocqueville may have been the one of those who popularized the notion of a "civil society" especially as a result of his visits to the United States in the 1830s and his writings on democracy. He viewed America's rich associational life (public sphere) as crucial in its development of the new democracy. The original notion of a civil society represented a type of culture that was associated with certain ideals and realizing such ideals would involve the actions of many different institutions as opposed to the voluntary associations that de Tocqueville commented on (Edwards, 2004). The more current notions of the civil society have evolved as a public sphere where the citizens debate with one-another about the great issues of the day and collaborate on an evolving awareness of a common or "public interest" (Edwards, 2004). De Tocqueville famously made the prediction that the United States and Russia would rise to be the dominant forces in world politics due to their vast resources under the domination of a quasi-European state (Malia, 2000). However, one of these countries evolved a sophisticated public sphere relatively early in its development, whereas the other country...
Although America also had somewhat of an authoritarian past based on British rule, this rule did not directly exert influence on the colonies as the rule in Russia did to its people. De Tocqueville's identification of the prevalence of strong executive control in an authoritarian state and powerful security forces lead to weakened associational life and to the ineffectiveness of the public sphere in exerting influence is very pertinent. This condition was not present to nearly the same degree in America, even at the height of British rule. Likewise the presence of an authoritarian state typically nullifies the development of a free press which is crucial for the stimulation of debate, social criticism, and exposure to knowledge and different opinions by the public sector. The coexistence of a free press and an authoritarian state would be highly unlikely if not impossible. Because of the nature of an authoritarian state and its need to exert control, influence, and exploitation of the public a free press is counterproductive to these goals. Thus, authoritarian states typically control the information and types of debate that the press distributes to citizens. It is important to understand the relationships to appreciate both how these factors are related and to avoid the…
