Public Sphere

National Socialism tried, with some success, to do away with the traditional separation between the private and public sphere, and the document identifies the importance in allowing the integration of the personal and private sphere. In principle, the personal and private spheres existed and functioned exclusively for the benefit of the public and the political, for the Volksgemeinschaft and the race, in the specific context of a dictatorship.

The idea of a “public,” an informed collection of citizens invested in the common good and preservation of the state, reached fruition during the Enlightenment. Curiously, the coffee shop or café became the unofficial center of this new entity. Citizens would gather to read whatever literature was available, to engage in heated conversation with neighbors, or to ponder the affairs of state. What made this kind of revolution in free time possible was an increasingly urban, sophisticated population coupled with the steady progress of industrialization. The coffee houses became the stomping grounds of some of the greatest thinkers of the age. Indeed, democracy would have been unachievable if the citizens had no community forum in which to commiserate, plan, and debate their needs and desires. Grassroots political movements were the natural outgrowth of these populist venues. It must be stated, of course, that this public entity was still a very exclusive one. Women, minorities, and the lower classes were not exactly welcomed into this new civil discourse. For all the high-minded discussion of a new, egalitarian social order, the western world was still predominantly owned by middle class men.

The mass media has become a big part of our society and its counterparts. In a time span of 50 years this medium has influenced society to an extent where it has created wonders. This immaculate tool can control almost every action we perform, from speaking to the actions that every human being performs in society. The mass media has brought upon a new era of idea's and changes in the world we live in. As we analysis media in depth we will find many aspects of media which overlap and some of the smallest factors and aspects of media, which create the biggest impact on society.

Members of "societies" and "historical cultures" participate in vast and not altogether coherent superstructures which invite them to channel doubts through prevailing discourse practices. In the democratic tradition, we can categorize these channels as the personal, the technical and the public spheres. "Sphere" denotes branches of activity–the grounds upon which arguments are built and the authorities to which arguers appeal. (p.2)

These institutions and social relationship structures, to remain, put in place hierarchies of power, which evolves with a stint of inequality. As systematic means of maintaining order in such society may necessitate the need for control via force or putting in place an ideology. Thus controlling the way the specific society sees the world and current social relationships appearing natural, normative and inevitable.

Media was just as ever-changing as the society it was taking place within. During this time, media was just beginning to become a nationwide phenomenon. In May of 1874, the “Imperial Press Law” decreed that there would be freedom of the press. This opened the door not only for more forms of media to be readily available, but also for media to now be interwoven with politics. Newspapers

In the book Politics, Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that “man is by nature a politic animal”. Such claim of Aristotle clearly stressed the prevalence of homo politicus in the place he lived in. In fact, in the past society where economics and industry had yet to develop and disperse, people had shown great tendency towards political activities and organizations for the purpose of satisfying their personal needs. In addition, factors such as the inadequate transport infrastructure and communication system immensely limit people in the past and contribute to their sociability. However, the emergence of capitalism and the consequential development of economics sheered society off the path of homo politicus. Homo oeconomicus, as professor Wendy Brown points out, has infected and infiltrated the core of homo politics. In fact, homo oeconomicus alters the very fundamental structure of society from politics-based to economy-based, and this social change erodes the contemporary democracy by undermining equality among human beings. As far as I’m concerned, the social transformation and domination of homo oeconomicus damages democracy and thus bring about detrimental effects to society as a whole.

In Anthony Dimaggio’s chapter Propaganda, Celebrity Gossip, and the Decline of News the author protests against the idea that the press presents objective and balance within their reporting or event that they exist independently or semi-independent of government and are instead propagandistic. Through reliance on celebrity news, corporate media effectively divert attention from critical political media – manufacturing consent and marginalize dissidents through entertainment media. Mass communication media are successful and influential political institutions functioning as propaganda for government and in doing so manufacture consent through relying on economic forces, assumptions, and self-censorship without overt coercion.

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

Postman (1987) claims that television is an evil that destroys the purpose and complexities of public discourse. He argues that important issues are oversimplified and drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) confirm this assumption by remarking the evolution of print and radio into television and television into new media. Establishing the similarities between Postman’s chief complaints about the television medium and the new media then rearing its ugly head. Chaffee and Metzger indicate the shift in the denotations of mass, media, and communication. With technological advancements, it is impossible to ignore the new media and its impact on modern culture.

“The media are a primary source of those pictures in our heads about the larger world of public affairs, a world that for most citizens is ‘out of reach, out sight, out of mind’ and what we know about the world is largely based on what the media decide to tell us” (McCombs).

Rethinking The Public Sphere is a response to Habermas' 1973 essay, later published in English as The Public Sphere in 1989. Habermas states his concept of the public sphere as both historical, and normative. It is historical both in the sense of era and region- 20th century Western Europe. He dismantles the distinctions between the public and private domain.

The concept of public sphere appeared during the eighteenth century, specifically he discusses the history of the public sphere at the end of monarchy era. During this period, the feudal authorities had broken apart and the third estate was no longer hold the highest power in the realm of the state. This separation created two elements in the state; the private and the public. What are the main functions of the public sphere in the modern society and the state? And what are the consequences of the public sphere? To what extent does the public sphere disintegrate? These are the main questions that Habermas addressed in his essay.

Over the past century or two it has become quite evident that elite certainly hold all the cards when it comes to what the public should know through the media which initially was supposed to be autonomous of the government and the socially elite. This essay will mainly focus on the findings of Noam Chomsky and his postulations, the works of Harold Innis and his influence on the first application of the political economy approach within the media. And I will touch base on theories by Boyd Barrett then neatly wrap it up with a bow of how influence impacts public opinion in general.

Mass media plays an important role in the society by providing entertainment, information and acting as the government’s overseer. Several scholars have developed philosophies that help people understand how mass media fulfills its roles in the society. For example, Horkheimer and Adorno have constructed theories that explain the functions and impacts of mass media in the society across the globe (Mosco, 2008). The central theme in all mass communication models entails the meaning of media contents, which include the images and texts and their influence on the target audience. The perception of the target audience concerning the text and images in the media are what form the basis of these theories. This essay discusses two hypothetical frameworks: the political economy and cultural studies theories, including their similarities and differences, and how they help in understanding the relationship between the media and society.