The New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

Abstract

Set against the background of mid-twentieth-century institutional changes analyzed by Jürgen Habermas, we provide an account of new social conditions that compose “the public sphere” in the contemporary United States. First, we review recent developments in theorizing the public sphere, arguing they benefit from renewed attention to institutional changes in how that sphere operates. Second, we identify and summarize three lines of recent sociological research that document a new structural transformation of the contemporary public sphere: (1) civic communication through new media; (2) the professionalization of social movements; and (3) new, hybrid institutions such as think tanks, nonprofit foundations, and other public-private partnerships. Third, we argue that these new formations define a uniquely autonomous, interstitial social field. We conclude by discussing the implications of this synthesis for sociological theories of public life, arguing it can inform more effective study of the social infrastructure of democratic practice.

Homemaking in the public. On the scales and stakes of framing, feeling, and claiming extra‐domestic space as “home”

“…Common to them is the fact of being “grounded in the thin sociality of fleeting encounters across class lines” (Bodnar, 2015, p. 2097), characterized by Goffman’s (1963) “civil inattention”, while also holding “the remote possibility of those encounters growing into the thicker sociability of a community” (Bodnar, 2015). In this sense, public space is a more place‐specific notion than “public” (Stewart & Hartmann, 2020) or “civil” (Alexander, 2006) sphere, since it rests on geographical location, sensory involvement, and some degree of proximate interaction. It should be appreciated, however, as a continuum of degrees of accessibility for different functions and audiences, possibly at different moments (i.e., in asynchronous ways), rather than a residual category for all that is not domestic, personal, or private.…”

The public sphere in the twilight zone of publicness

“…Despite the existence of three specific terms in English—publicness, the public, and the public sphere—to denote the specific components of the complex German concept of Öffentlichkeit, they have often been avoided or confused by scholarly discussions related to the “public sphere.” As Mah (2000: 167) demonstrated, many historians conceived of the public sphere in “spatialized” terms, as a domain that one can enter, occupy, and leave, but “when the public sphere is recognized as a unified entity, it is rhetorically personified, referred to as if it were a person.” Darnton (2000) found that French historians often attributed agency to “l'espace public” and “made it the crucial factor, more important than ideas or public opinion.” Failure to understand the differences between publicness, the public, and the public sphere can lead to a curious realization of the need “to consider multiple publics instead of a single public sphere ,” as “‘ the public ’ is often conceived as an interstitial space that sits between politics, the economy, and civil society” (Stewart and Hartmann, 2020; emphasis added). Not even Dewey's and Lippmann's “publics” could escape the temptations to be renamed “the public sphere” in retrospect.…”

“…It was argued that “too many sociologists […] are equipped with entirely the wrong understanding of the public sphere […] By relying so heavily on the Habermas—Kant understanding of the public sphere—the reason—morality understanding—the ‘critical’ branches of sociology are effectively seeking to steer the discipline as a whole into public policy irrelevance” (Wickham, 2012: 157, 170). To overcome this “peripheral understanding” of the public sphere irrelevant to those “doing the actual governing,” it is suggested that “a broader, more multifaceted conception of the institutional dimensions of public life” is needed (Stewart and Hartmann, 2020: 185), “a more dynamic and multifaceted vision of public communication than that provided by Habermas's ‘public sphere’ in its orthodox interpretation […] to understand the contemporary post-mass media environment” (Bruns, 2018: 322).…”

“…Darnton (2000) found that French historians often attributed agency to "l'espace public" and "made it the crucial factor, more important than ideas or public opinion." Failure to understand the differences between publicness, the public, and the public sphere can lead to a curious realization of the need "to consider multiple publics instead of a single public sphere," as "'the public' is often conceived as an interstitial space that sits between politics, the economy, and civil society" (Stewart and Hartmann, 2020;emphasis added). Not even Dewey's and Lippmann's "publics" could escape the temptations to be renamed "the public sphere" in retrospect.…”

Analysis of Ageism, Sexism, and Ableism in User Comments on YouTube Videos About Climate Activist Greta Thunberg

“…Civility speaks to “the fundamental tone and practice of democracy” (Herbst, 2010, p. 3). The emergence of the Web in the early 1990s, gave hope for a democratic zone for rational and critical debate (Sunstein, 2001), a zone that 30 years later is ever shifting in relation to “political and economic spheres” (Stewart & Hartman, 2020, p. 173). Today’s digital media fosters an environment in which incivility spreads more rapidly and widely than ever before (Chen et al, 2019; Sobieraj & Berry, 2011), and can be particularly harsh on young influencers, such as Thunberg.…”