Secondly, a more fundamental reimagining of the public sphere as a concept will undoubtedly help to dismantle some of the destructive and disruptive assumptions governing the Commission's response to public dissatisfaction. By focusing on "debate" as the central tenet of a healthy public sphere, the European Union's leadership is able to avoid facing any real public criticism, because that criticism may be treated as an illegitimate and uninformed debate position by the ruling authority. Thus, a "change in perspective from the 'public sphere' to, respectively, 'public discourse'" forces both ruled and rulers to discuss the formulation of policy on equal footing, because one side is not able to dictate what does and does not constitute a reasonable position (Steeg, 2002, p. 508). As can be seen in the Commission's discussion of its communication policy, the concept of "debate" in the public sphere functions as a kind of distraction from the actual concerns of the public, so by refocusing attention instead on public discourse as a whole, the European community would be better able to give voice to an abundance of opinions, and not just those held by the kind of people likely to be invited to EU brainstorming sessions.

Conclusion

The key problem forestalling the creation of a robust European public sphere is governmental intransigence on the part of European Union officials, who seem committed to ignoring the stated desires of European citizens and instead assume that anyone who is dissatisfied is merely misinformed. In turn, this breeds apathy and disinterest on the part of the citizenry, thus instigating a vicious circle. Solutions to this problem and the challenges created by it involve an acknowledgment of the very real policy differences people have and a focus on involving the whole of the ideological spectrum when determining EU policy, and not just those actors which have been approved by the Commission as a result of their safe, noncritical positions on the structure of the EU itself.

Appendix

The greatest difficult in writing this essay stemmed not from finding sources of information and criticism, as there were plenty (which is reasonable,...

Put another way, because the European Union, and particularly the Commission, is so adept at generating the appearance and tone of introspection and thoughtful consideration of public opinion, one is almost lulled into complacency by the repeated references to "empowerment" and local initiatives. It was only upon comparing the Commission's response to the reality of public sentiment towards it, and the EU in general, did it become clear that the majority of the Commission's communications and information policy functions not to facilitate communication between the EU and citizens, or between citizens and each other, but rather to dictate the terms of the larger discussion such that no communication is possible that does not implicitly justify the continued existence of the EU and the Commission in its current form, including and structural or cultural problems which keep it from effectively gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the public.