Public Sphere

The public, in an ordinary sense, is a multitude of people. A gathering of people in a space opens a context for discourse. People share their ideas in buses or trains, public places, university, organizations, tea shops, temples, monasteries, social gatherings, etc-, not as a society of strangers. They express their concerns, problems and emotions about their experience in life. A public sphere is neither status- bound nor authority governed. It is not even constrained by gender, class, religion, or ethnic barriers. This condition enhances its utility. The nature of people’s participation in the discourse here is not indirect as in a representative democracy; it is direct. And, the- quality of participation in public life helps determine the - essential democratic character of the existing polity.

The public is a holy symbol without any reference point. It is an object of enormous deference. Such a notion, however, evokes several interesting questions: Who composes the public? How is its sphere defined and defended? What are its underlying philosophies? The discourse on the autonomy of civil society and individuals as autonomous beings is associated with public sphere. A public sphere principally prevents the state’s motivation to absorb the society while it opposes the tendency of the market to atomize, disintegrate and dissolve the society. The tendencies of both the actors, that is, the state and the market, generate a tension between the process of social integration and social differentiation and between individual subjects capable of self-representation and their collective position for the general benefits of the society.

The state manipulates the public to achieve national consensus on issues; so does the market that sets a motivation for material self-indulgence. The peculiar character of the public sphere, therefore, comes to sight when its ideals are conceived as non-market and non-state, constantly mediated by individuals, families, civil societies and voluntary associations in the formation of political will. Freedom, as the goal of human life, is deep-seated in human beings’ struggle from the perverting limitations of the material world.

The growing importance of human rights - mainly freedom of speech, assembly and information continues to amplify the reign of civic power. Yet, if these attributes are grounded in partisan politics -they virulently express differences, generate a spate of animosities and conflicts. This undermines the spirit of this sphere. Rather such a trend casts back the essence of customary prerogative of the power holders capitalizing on traditional subjective rights. If the rights come as an absolute subjective concept they bear very little potential for democratic transformation. There is a high transformatory potential only in objective-rights.

A public sphere is not embedded in the theory of human nature which sees human beings in terms of needs, capacities and disadvantages. It is grounded on the sociability, trust and civic virtue of the citizens. If people are handicapped on important areas by virtue of their membership of a hierarchic set-up of society, it is in their interest to bring about social change by regenerating the potential of public discourse which can question, debate and discuss such membership. In this sense, the public sphere becomes a true shaper of public opinion for social change. Only a vibrant public forestalls the erosion of general interest in politics, even anti-politics sentiments.

The existence of a public sphere between the state and the private realms of citizens increases the relevance and reinvention of citizenship by way of encouraging socialization and participation by citizens in civic initiatives of various sorts. The style of public discourse is often informal and oral and through gestures. In this sense, it differs in purport from organized seminars, conferences and conventions as the latter are- formal with well-defined sets of agenda and purpose thus reflecting largely the sectional interests of certain groups. It, however, does not mean that these activities do not serve the public interest.

The public is the most critical element of democratic life. Democratic norms are embedded in the conscientiousness of the public and grow in the civility of citizens. When interest groups project themselves in the name of the public and the public performs no role in it, it merely becomes an onlooker and is, consequently, reduced working for publicity, indoctrination and propaganda. In this sense, the rise of interest groups has caused the decay of the public sphere. The forces of technology, ideology and value-free politics have augmented its very decline. The topic comes only occasionally to justify the existence of the interest groups. Public life has thus been allowed to disappear in everyday life-world. It is neither the subject of academic research and discourse nor an issue of acute media concern.

In the theory of economics, the public is substituted by consumers. In sociology, it is replaced by ethnic groups. In political theory, the public is replaced by interest groups, lobbies and political parties. The relation all these theories to the public are essentially predatory as each tries to alienate, divide and then reduce the public subjecting it to its own disciplinary dominance. Interests groups often function in the private sphere, often behind the -scenes and are less transparent. This enervates the vitality and totality of the public sphere. For all these groups, the public becomes a common space to be exposed to attacks from all sides in a fashion akin to what Garrett Hardin, terms the “Tragedy of the Commons.”

A version of Hardin’s theme can be stated here as a story. In a piece of common grassland, all herdsmen, as rational beings, graze their cattle on it at will and seek to maximize their infinite gain; thus all persons are locked into a system that compels them to increase their herds without limit - but in a world that is limited. Devastation is the destination toward which all persons move, pursuing their own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of com freedom commons. The lesson of this story is in the commons brings destruction to all.

How does democracy survive when its actors are increasingly de-coupled from the public, hitting them hard and rendering politics artificial in character which provides neither civic responsibility nor social stability? In the face of public ignorance about their intrinsic rights and responsibilities, expert knowledge of elites tends to maintain a hegemonic cultural formation colonizing what the great German scholar Jurgen Habermas culls the “life-world of people.” The ignorance of the public virtually reflects the failure of the media. When individual reporters are controlled by the state, political parties or business magnates, they serve the interests of those who offer them job and a number of lucrative benefits. Controlling the media means controlling the society and preventing the growth of free discourse intrinsic to civic culture. The critical question today is, therefore, how can media persons be liberated from many shackles that block the expression of their conscience?

The public sphere contributes to the growth of the democratic process. Civic culture can flourish only in a condition where the virtuous public is nurtured by a self-governing society where the question of rural-urban dualism, gender imbalances and the rich-poor gaps of the masses are well mediated by means of providing an opportunity to the disadvantaged groups to rise socially. If one looks at the quality of public debates today, one can easily notice the reverberation of tension between the voice of reason and rhetoric. Even public opinion is shaped more by emotion than by rationalism, by professionalism than by journalism and by value-neutrality than by human affection. This is why, despite living in an age of information, the majority of citizens are grossly ill-informed.

Religion hardly sets an ethical code of conduct in politics today as it did in the past. Because religion has become increasingly privatized and secular, it has failed to serve the spirit of human beings - as the liberator of the oppressed. The serious threat to public sphere, in this context, comes not from the mal-distribution of wealth but from the renunciation of public institutions by the elected leaders. In such a situation public policy should limit the dominance of the materialist passion of the leaders and the commercialization of the public to keep the plurality of public sphere intact. A theoretical interest in public life can be aroused with the proliferation of civil society, NGOs and voluntary associations. A robust civil society, free of ethnic, class and religious polarization, can be expected to regenerate the social capital necessary for securing human security, justice and equity.

Unfortunately, the elite who have control over the flow of information and capital have been enforcing conformity to the elite values and leaving the mass in a permanent state of subjugation, hegemony and colonization. Can the new social movements of feminists, ecologists’, human rights workers, trade unions and civil society act against the hegemony formation of the techno-bureaucratic culture and prevent the transformation of antidemocratic control of society into a productive and harmonious social relation? Certainly yes, if these movements are sustained by a vibrant public sphere and that they do not contain an elitist ego and, consequently, try to secure their privileges while nullifying the opposition of the deprived. Are these movements based on recognition of social conditions and social diversities? Perhaps, yes but only to a limited extent.

As capital integrates the globe, weaker members of the society fear that global governance, controlled by bureaucrats, technocrats and the corporate elite, will undermine their national space and revive the reassertion of ethnic distinctiveness thus eroding the state from its very base. The consequence of this for democracy is that without national affection rulers will not bear any responsibility for their own actions.

In that sense, the politics of privatization of public property corresponds to the evacuation of the public sphere. People do not understand the expert language of statistics that promote privatization as being capable of spawning economic benefits to them. In a pseudo democratic regime, it is masked by the ideological nature of economies. Scientific rationality is used to set a pattern to exclude the needs of public. Such rationality is used only to understand whether the representatives of the promoters are performing well or not in totality and promoting their own interest.

Privatization is, therefore, producing a class of cosmopolitan citizens who are not obliged by what the notion of citizenship entails in a democratic polity. The same elite assail the public spirit, the ideological glue of nation-states, unleashing a potential ethnic powder keg and ultimately resulting in the destruction of their culture. The decline of nation-states, in this context, can be attributed to the decay of the middle class - a crucial mediator of contending social interests. It is this class that combines labor with capital and tries to achieve economic self-reliance in society. If this decline continues, then the society dissolves into atomized individuals thereby consuming the core values of social capital based on social trust, cohesion and solidarity.

Can the modern school system serve as a viable engine for nurturing this social capital? Certainly not. Modern schools are increasingly turning into commercial houses and the diversity of the school system is based on the economic model which makes the circulation of elite difficult. Rather, this diversity continues to intensify social differentiation thus producing an unequal level of citizens. Modern education is accelerating the decline of the middle class developing a culture of social blindness, towards the poor and the powerless. The discourse on education neither deals with the social question nor equips men and women for active life in the public realm. Indeed, modern education continues to detach individuals form the circumstances of life. This is why people are abusing the system, not only the elite. If democracy does not help to equalize citizens through a process of setting a balance between power and wealth, as each generation passes, it cannot take deep roots in the society.

A virtuous public sphere cannot be built by using the free-market ideology. The market —the central institution of a liberal society — postulates not just self-interest but an enlightened self-interest that correspond to long-term responsibility and commitments. Today this enlightened aspect is fundamentally amiss. When the market infringes on family affairs it is the child who suffers the most. When it infringes on the society, it is the poor who are left out. The marketization of values continues to weaken the roots of the family, the neighborhood, the schools, the community and the foundation of the, state in the process of universalizing self- such as respect for authority, trust in social institutions, public accountability and socialization. This entails a limit on the role of the market. This can be done by promoting a general discourse on society across race, ethnic, caste, class and professional lines and by enriching civic life through sociability, loyalty, trust, and accountability. It is also done through. the resilience and reactivation of civil society made up of voluntary associations and citizens groups. The decay of participatory democracy indicates a decline of civil society and public sphere.

The most pernicious effect of the information revolution is the widening gap between the knowledge class and working class people Democracy requires not only information but critical values and issues for public debate -a debate conscious of civic obligations. For this, an independent media and intellectuals must be prepared to challenge the spoils- system on its own turf. The modem society mirrors no dynamo for self- reflection and self-direction. This is because of a lack of social consciousness among the power elite. This has tarnished the image of democracy as only a transitory power arrangement rather than a good way of life Only public power can set democracy in proper perspective.

(Dahal is the Chief of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung-Nepal)

Posted on : 2009-07-29 05:57:42

Comments (0)