The Public Sphere

1.1 The Public Sphere

The term public sphere is often related to Jürgen Habermas’ work and in particular to “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” (Habermas 1962

). The original Habermasian notion of a public sphere conceives of it as an arena for ‘the perception, identification, and treatment of problems affecting the whole society’ (Habermas 1962 , 1996

). It is here that “new problem situations can be perceived more sensitively, discourses aimed at achieving self-understanding can be conducted more widely and expressively, collective identities and need interpretations can be articulated [...]” (Habermas 1996

: 307–308).

The term ‘public sphere’ has sparked a long debate about the appropriate translation and implied meaning of ‘Öffentlichkeit’. Some have argued that “openness” or “openicity” are more accurate terms. Moreover the notion of the public sphere has been criticised (e.g., Fraser 1990 ). Implicitly the term refers to events that are open and accessible to all. It has a meaning of making something public or discussing something in public, but there are constraints and limits to any version of a public sphere which is typically not open and accessible to all.

Several scholars have pointed out that there is a gap between the theoretical (and ideal) and observable (and real) public sphere. Some of these criticisms relate to the public sphere relying on the assumption that public and private is distinguished. However, since this boundary is rather fluid and arbitrary there is a bias as to what issues are ‘admitted’ to the public sphere (Kunelius and Sparks 2001 ). Similarly the public sphere has been critiqued for being inherently based on reason and rationality. This basis of the public sphere, neglecting emotions and passions, also causes bias. Others have pointed out that the public sphere notion is too focused on discussion vis-à-vis action. The relationship and step from discussion and deliberation to political engagement and action is poorly defined. Finally, the public sphere largely assumes homogeneity and consensus whereas public and political life is often characterized by heterogeneity and disagreement (de Vreese 2006 ).

There is a strong body of scholarship in Europe sparked and inspired by Habermas’ work. Many of these ideas have in the past two decades resonated in the Anglo-Saxon literature, in particular following the translation of some of Habermas’ key pieces. Shortcomings, limitations or differences in conceptualization of the public sphere notwithstanding, the public sphere can be defined as an arena which enables citizens to interact and talk about (the same) political issues.