Habermas's Public Sphere, Anderson, and Media Theory

Introduction

The idea that the continuum of people in a geographical space makes up some sort of cohesive unit has been championed since the beginning of known history. Humans need the protection of groups because only then does brain power outweigh the otherwise immense power of fang and claw. This seems to be an evolutionary imperative that remains strong within people. However, as people gather together, they begin to realize that their close proximity also means that they have the power to decide how they will live as a community, and that every person can influence that through the power of voice.

Every person has the ability to state an opinion, no matter how inane it may seem to the others of the group. Teachers will often say that there are no dumb questions, and within a social group there are no dumb suggestions. Many times throughout history, people have made seemingly inane suggestions in the public forum that appeared ridiculous at the time but have since become integral parts of government, thought, and education. This forum has been called the "public sphere" by Jürgen Habermas, who believes it has been an essential component of societal growth and sustainment throughout recorded history. This paper examines what Habermas meant by the term "public sphere," how it fits into Anderson's idea of imagined communities, what others have said about the practice, and how it has changed over time.

The Public Sphere

Habermas formed the idea of the public sphere in the early years of his research and expounded upon it for much of his life. He wrote a book called The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in which he examined the historic antecedents of the practice and the changes that had occurred since its inception. Habermas believed that the maintenance of the sphere was critical for a society to grow within the governmental constraints in which it existed. His theoretical stance was based on the philosophy of political liberalism expounded by philosophers such as Locke and Kant. To understand the philosophy, it is first necessary to grasp the definitions as Habermas saw them.

Habermas (1991, p. 398) first delineates the elements of what he means by "public." He wrote: "Citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion; thus, with the guarantee that they may assemble and unite freely, and express and publicize their opinions freely." He was essentially describing a form of government that would allow its citizens to discuss matters of social import in an open forum without fear of governmental reprisal. He also advocates a free and open print media when he states that the public should be able to "publicize their opinions freely" (Habermas, 1991, p. 398).

The public sphere, then, is the grouping of these people together (Habermas, 1991, p. 398). It is common for individuals to think of their "sphere" of friends, and this was exactly what Habermas was talking about. However, it did not have to include only friends or even people one was acquainted with. The public sphere that each individual is associated with in a society grows as the society grows. Thus, the public sphere quickly becomes too large to occupy coffee houses, the town square, or even a small-town newspaper. When the sphere grows large it is sustained by the media. Habermas (1991, p. 398) states: "When the public sphere is large, this kind of communication requires certain means of dissemination and influence; today, newspapers and periodicals, radio and television are the media of the public sphere." He does not suggest that the need is simply for media dissemination, but also for the influence of those who are writing or speaking on behalf of the entire sphere. This influence — just as it would have been for someone prominent in a small-town sphere — is important so that people can trust what they are hearing about the social aspects of their world.

Habermas (1991, p. 398) also draws a distinction between the whole of the public sphere and the political public sphere. Although he seems to believe that the general interest of the sphere is in the political realities of the society, he recognizes that there are other interests the public can use the sphere forum for. He states that the political public sphere is not part of the state, but is its "counterpart" (Habermas, 1991, p. 398). In many cases the public sphere, even when political in nature, does not have direct power over the state. The caveat to this is when the state is "subordinated to the requirements of democratic publicness" (Habermas, 1991, p. 399). When the government is set up as either a democracy or a representative republic — such as the United States — the public sphere and the discussions conducted within it have great influence on the state.

Imagined Communities

To properly analyze how Anderson's "imagined communities" (2006) and Habermas's "public sphere" (1991) do or do not coincide, it is first necessary to understand what Anderson meant by his concept. He proposes: "I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community — and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign" (Anderson, 2006). It is necessary to understand what he means by "limited and sovereign." A nation is a finite concept because only so many people can fit within its geographical bounds. The nation is also sovereign within those limited borders. Anderson then goes on to explain what he means by "imagined": "It is imagined because even the members of the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion" (Anderson, 2006). Thus, people who have no actual acquaintance with one another are imaginarily grouped together within a bounded geographical district that is distinct from other similar imaginary groupings.

Anderson illustrates his point through examples of how this concept manifests itself. He mentions the Olympics as a useful test case for his theory. People see athletes wearing uniforms recognizable as belonging to a particular community. Since the viewer imagines him- or herself to be a member — a citizen — of that particular grouping, they cheer for that athlete. Watching on television, this individual notices other people he or she has never met before who are rooting for the same athlete. The individual feels a sense of camaraderie with these strangers, feeling they are known simply because they all cheer for the same athlete and chant a nationalist slogan (such as "U-S-A"). This is also an example of the nationalism that Anderson speaks about throughout his book.

Conclusion

Habermas put forth an idea that was deemed correct because it could be seen in society as far back as people could view them. Individuals have gathered together to air their opinions because they then feel a sense of community with others like themselves. The public sphere also serves to strengthen Anderson's idea of the imagined community and nationalism. Other writers have enriched the discussion of this construct and have added their thoughts on the public sphere's advancement through education and electronic media. Of course, there are dissenting voices when it comes to any idea, but for the most part, scholars seem to agree that the public sphere is the mechanism through which a free society remains free, and that breaking down that discourse degrades and ultimately enslaves the society.

References

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29–47). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1991). The public sphere. In C. Mukerji & M. Schudson (Eds.), Rethinking popular culture (pp. 398–404). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Marx, K. (2000). The fetishism of the commodity and its secret. In M. Lee (Ed.), The consumer society reader (pp. 10–18). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Meyrowitz, J. (1999). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. In H. MacKay & T. O'Sullivan (Eds.), The media reader: Continuity and transformation (pp. 99–120). London: SAGE Publications.