Habermas’ Public Sphere

When we discussed Jorgen Habermas’ notion of the public sphere in class last week, I immediately thought of a scene from the Spanish film ‘La Colmena’ (‘The Beehive’) by director Mario Camus. The movie, an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Camilo Jose Cela, is an illustration of the poverty and desperation of post-civil war Madrid, Spain in 1943, during the height of the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. In this scene, several characters met in the local café, which they did regularly, to discuss and debate their opinions of the social and political issues of the time, of which there were plenty. After our in class discussion I thought, is this really an illustration of the notion of the public sphere?



The World Bank’s Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (‘CommGAP’) states that the notion of the public sphere “…has always been closely tied to historical circumstances and to technical developments.” The communication technology that was available in Spain during the 1940’s was very limited, especially considering that mass communication was heavily censored by the government. Meeting in a café was where debate about public issues was possible at that time. Of course, there were also major limitations in terms of who has access to these debates. However, I think it is a close approximation to the notion based on the technological, governmental and other restrictions of the time.

For me, more questions arise when we talk about the public sphere of the 21st century. Is there a functioning public sphere in the 21st century? One may think that the creation of the internet would provide the ideal public sphere. However, as Prof. Hayden mentioned in class, this is not actually the case. In theory the Internet may look like it would be the ideal public sphere, but it essentially creates a contradictory effect.

To explore this idea, I looked further at Habermas’ notion of the public sphere. In its most basic sense it is, quite evidently, somewhere between the private sphere (the individual, the home) and the government. This ‘somewhere in between’ is meant to critique the government, keeping them honest so to speak, and is concerned with the public good. Everyone has access to it, and it is unaffected by the biases of the individual or the authority of the government. Doesn’t the internet qualify?

Taking a closer look, there are limitations and weaknesses to the internet which may be reasons why it does not constitute a functioning public sphere. First, not everyone has free access to the internet, and some do not have means to access it at all. Therefore, because it is not freely inclusive of every individual, it violates the first condition of Habermas’ public sphere. Second, many countries place censorship restrictions on internet content. Internet use can be monitored, restricted, or blocked based on where it is being accessed from. So it is not, as Habermas theorized, free from government influence. Next, it would have to provide an environment free of individual agenda and debates would focus solely on the public good. Unfortunately, the internet is not a neutral space. There are many examples of individuals’ biased opinions on the internet. Sometimes when people have too much room for freedom of opinion, they take it too far as we have seen in recent international events, which can be offensive and dangerous, and in opposition of the public good. This is certainly not within the notion of the public sphere.

The World Bank CommGAP states that the public sphere “…is “defined in relation to the mass media, because the mass media permit the circulation of opinion and offer the conditions in which the forum can function.”6“. Although the internet has many shortfalls in terms of being a functioning public sphere, it cannot be denied that it is a form of mass media which creates a network where people can openly communicate, debate and share information across space and borders.