A polarizing multiverse? Assessing Habermas’ digital update of his public sphere theory

Abstract

I must leave these investigations to younger colleagues; and can only speculate. For the driving force behind these changes is digital communication, which represents a profound evolutionary break not only in this respect. (Habermas, 2020a, p. 26-own translation) Asked whether he stands to his rather optimistic reassessment of the public sphere from 30 years earlier, Jürgen Habermas hinted in an interview in 2020 that he himself would not undertake an attempt to renew his seminal theory of the democratic public sphere. Fortunately for us political theorists, he reversed course shortly thereafter. Although just as a reaction to the edited volume by Martin Seeliger and Sebastian Sevignani, the essay Habermas wrote presents his most elaborate explanation of how he thinks about the digital transformation and the way it affects the democratic public sphere (Habermas, 2022a, in English: 2022b.In what follows, I want to zoom in on the question of how Habermas approaches digital communication and its societal effects. Like others in this symposium, I have read Habermas' new essay mostly as a re-assessment of his normative outlook on the overall trajectory of the public sphere in Western liberal democracies. In this respect, the essay represents a break with the trend toward an increasingly positive assessment of the resilience and self-healing powers of democratic publics. To some extent, Habermas returns to the original story of decay of the public sphere which characterized his original work in 1962. Without questioning Habermas' diagnosis as a whole, I differentiate the effects of the digital constellation on democracy and the public sphere, pointing out counterforces, opportunities for regulation, and a more optimistic conclusion. 1 I will proceed in three steps. First, I will reconstruct how Habermas' thinking on digital communication has developed in comparison to earlier statements on the matter. Second, I will discuss how the analysis can be challenged and extended by placing it in the context of the wider debate on democracy and digitalization. Third, I will comment on the conclusions that Habermas draws at the end of the essay.