The Destruction of The Public Sphere
Habermas:
During the 18th and 19th centuries capitalism spread through Britain allowing the emergence of the Public Sphere. Habermas studied this emergence of the public sphere and its supposed decline during the 20th century. Habermas theory defines the public sphere as “An arena, independent of the government…and also enjoying autonomy from partisan economic forces, which is dedicated to rational debate and which is both accessible to entry and open to inspection by citizenry.”However Habermas claims that the Public Sphere dissolved with the introduction of the Mass Media, causing media platforms to use advertising to manipulate consumers and public relations to distort the information received by the public, rather than acting as a source for reliable information. This is what Habermas means when he suggested that a society controlled by the media only has a public sphere in appearance. He suggests that due to the deception and manipulation the public are not inspired to take part in critical discussion or debate but are inspired to consume. (F.Webster 1995)
Habermas argues that the public sphere came about due to the capitalist society that engulfed Britain. The capitalist entrepreneurs were constantly pushing and wanting to beak from the Church and State in order to achieve independence. As the wealth of the Capitalist entrepreneurs grew so did their threat to the state and the church. They saw the Public Sphere as a way to gain information and develop their views and opinions with out them being effected or influenced by the state or church. Public Sphere although a conceptual idea could be physically seen, for example through the Coffee Houses seen in Britain throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. The Public Sphere was driven by the “letter”for example information and opinions being expressed through the theatre, art, novels and criticism. Habermas suggested that the Public Sphere saw “Conversation (turn) into criticism”. The idea of freedom of opinion and speech eventually snowballed with lower classes fighting to receive the same freedoms both in speech but also electorally. This in turn inspired the public to put pressure on the government to introduce independent and free newspapers. Eventually these were all achieved however according to Habermas the Public Sphere did not survive. (F.Webster 1995)
Habermas believes that mass communication and the mass media caused the destruction of the public sphere and rational debate, specifically the introduction of public relations and advertisements. During the 20th century mass communication and the mass media became monopolies, this, according to Habermas’philosophies, diminished their reliability as the deliverer of information, therefore causing the public sphere to diminish. During the 20th century the medias function changed due to becoming capitalist organisations causing the media to become to the maker of public opinion rather than the giver of information to the public. This therefore caused the political character of the public sphere to disappear, due to the commercialism and entertainment taking place of reliable information, which in turn caused the end of rational debate and freedom of opinion. The opinions of the people were not separate from influence, although not influenced by the state or the church the masses were influenced by the mass media and their faked opinion that is imposed on the public.
Habermas believed that public relations and advertisements bought the end of the public sphere due to the fact that they both interfered with the freedom of opinion and rational debate. According to Webster public relations “disguises the interests it represents therefore cloaking them in appeals such as ’public welfare’and the ’national interest’thus making contemporary debate a faked version”(F.Webster 1995). The key problem with public relations it that it invades the public opinion by systematically creating and exploiting news events that attract the attention of society, this therefore causes a staged public opinion. By public relations picking and choosing what the public should or should not be informed of prevents the public making an informed decision, therefore damaging key aspects of the public sphere, as manipulation of information stops the people from truely understanding situations and therefore not being able to critically analyse the information or debate it. Habermas suggested that a public sphere is only possible if there is undistorted communication, so how can a society that is run by the mass media and consumerism be a public sphere?(F.Webster 1995)
Advertising effected the public sphere as its demands on the media to gain the maximum audience possible began to rule the content of what the public received. The increase in commercialism and corporate expansion in turn caused a decrease in the importance of “letters”amongst the public. The public began to turn to “Blockbusters”and “Best Sellers”. This demonstrates the shift in the public for example the former inspires critical debate whereas the latter inspires cultural consumption. Communication cooperations are more interested in the market and their product is merely made to sell in order to achieve the maximum advertising revenue therefore information content becomes the lowest common denominator, such as action adventure, trivia, sensationalism, personalisation of affairs, celebration of contemporary life styles. Although this type of media sells to the masses its informational quality is negligible. The information that the media provides the public is not information but infotainment, and as Habermass has suggested the information of todays society “Subjects audiences to the soft compulsion of constant consumption training.”(F.Webster 1995) Riengold supports Habermas’views that the consumer societies destroy the public sphere as they use the power of the electronic media to shape opinions and beliefs of the public. Therefore taking away the publics right to freedom of opinion and one crucial part of a public sphere, that suggests that the public should only receive undistorted information. Rhiengold demonstrates the threat of consumerism had to the public sphere, when he suggested that “The consumer society, the most powerful vehicle for generating short-term wealth ever invented, ensures economic growth by first promoting the idea that the way to be is buy.”This connotes the ethos of the media in a consumerist society, that they must achieve the maximum audience base and gain the maximum amount of profit. (H.Rhiengold 1998)
Habermas believed the public sphere ended with the introduction of the mass media and its power to manipulate the public, however others do not agree with Habermas claim, suggesting that the forms which the public sphere take have merely changed. For example the internet can be seen as a platform for the public sphere. There is a belief amongst some that virtual communication can strengthen communities, as opposed to encouraging the consumerist society that destroys the public sphere. The internet can act as a place where one can take part in rational debate. Fernback and Thompson suggested that “It seems most likely that the virtual public sphere brought about by computer-mediated communication will serve a cathartic role, allowing the public to feel involved”By this they demonstrate the way in which freedom of opinion can be openly expressed and debated using the internet and electronic forms of communication. However they also felt that although this new technology has advantages, it also holds many disadvantages, for example the ownership and control of technology and who the technology really benefits. “Although computer-mediated communication offers some advantages over face to face communication…we find the disadvantages outweigh the advantages…Appearances do matter; conversation should not be based solely on efficiency; some ideas are more useful than others.”Fernback and Thompson concluded that an online community did not solve the problems of democratic representation.(J.Fernback B.Thompson 1995) However Rhiengold stressed the importance of public participation and the electronic media offer a different way of communicating and publishing which is, as Habermas has suggested, a vital part of a democratic society. (H.Rhiengold 1998)
John Hartley is also skeptical about Habermas claims that in a media saturated society a public sphere only exists in appearance. He suggests that the modern mass media is the public sphere, “Television, popular newspapers, magazines and photography, ,the popular media of the modern period are the public domain, the place where and the means by which the public is created and has its being J.Hartly argues the image has taken place of the word and “Letter”. The public sphere still exists in a modern consumerist society, but it exists in popular media. The mass media have created their own public sphere in the form of “Popular readerships”Therefore believing in the philosophy that the public sphere still exists, it does not take on the forms of 18th and 19th centuries, due to the introduction of the electronic media, but it still exists through the media.(J.Hartlry 1992) However how can this be true when a public sphere can only exist when the public can take part in rational debate and have the freedom to their own opinions. Although they can freely express their own opinion, their views are deeply influenced by the media, which is pressurised by both advertising and public relations to manipulate audiences in order to gain maximum consumerism, therefore their opinions are not free from influence. (J.Habermas 1989)
One of Habermas strongest beliefs is that the quality of a society depends on its ability to communicate, to debate and discuss, he believes reason is crucial to communication.(J.Habermas 1989) The public sphere is based on this belief, and therefore Habermas believes that a public sphere cannot survive on a media orientated world as there opinion is not separate from influence. Due to the mass media and the introduction of public relations and advertising the media has become the creatre of public opinion as opposed to being the informer. Habermas argues that a public sphere is primarily based on the public receiving undistorted communication, yet how can this be possible in a world run and owned by the media and advertisements. The information received by the public from the media is not the whole truth, as certain things manipulate the information in order to achieve the maximum audience base. A public sphere cannot exist in a society like this as a public sphere is based on informed rational debate, however how can there be informed rational debate when the information pumped in to the public is infotainment and is of the lowest common denominator. Habermas also argues that there is no point in everyone having the right to vote and other such freedoms if they are unaware of what they are voting for, due to a lack of reliable information and of critical debate. Although more information has been made accessible to a larger range of people, Habermas argues there is no point in having more “information, if it is the service of deception”. The public sphere has ultimately declined due to computer-mediated communication taking place of the “Letter”. Habermas and others believe the public sphere no longer exists in todays society due to the mass media, although some have argued against this, for example John Hartley’s belief that the media is the public sphere, a public sphere cannot survive the power and control the media has over the public and their beliefs.(J.Hartley 1992) Ultimately “Capitalism is victorious, the autonomy of individuals is radically reduced, the capacity for critical thought minimal, there is no real space for a public sphere in an era of transitional media conglomerates and a pervasive culture of advertising. “(F.Webster 1994)
Comments are closed!