Revisiting Habermas' Public Sphere: Welcome to the Virtual Sphere

     It’s been more than a half century since the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas first introduced the concept of the Public Sphere in his book titled The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Habermas coined the term “Public Sphere” to refer to the discussions and interaction that took place between merchants and among citizens of 18th century Europe.  

     These discussions about the happenings of the day, often took place in coffee houses, taverns, town squares, as well as in books, pamphlets and newspapers.  With the rise of liberal thinking, particularly the works of Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and others,  the feudal public sphere transformed into what Habermas called the bourgeois public sphere-which described a place where individuals could discuss and debate on the issues of the time, not only politics and commerce but also philosophy and the arts. 

     Of course, technology, the industrial revolution, and many other factors transformed the public sphere.  One of the most influential factors being woman’s suffrage movements in the late 19th and 20th century, particularly in the United States.  The influence of radio and television, the global conflicts of the 20th century, the civil rights and other movements during the latter half of the 20th century, the rise of multilateralism, globalization, terrorism, and of course, cable television and mass media, all significantly impacted the evolution of the public sphere. 

     This is not surprising.  In fact, Habermas himself described how the bourgeois public sphere of the 18th and 19th century, would give way to a “mass-media” driven public sphere, driven not by rational communication but rather by public relations, commercial and partisan interests, and consumerism.  This sounds about right, if we think about today’s public sphere.  However, today’s public sphere is fundamentally different from what Habermas envisioned.

     Jorge Adriano Lubenow (2012) in his article on the Public Sphere 50 years later, argues that “what is configured in the manipulated public sphere is just an “opinion atmosphere”, in general, manipulated mostly by the calculation of socio-psychological tendencies which, however, provoke expected reactions.” Lubenow adds that “…the mass media hierarchize the horizon of possible communications, establish obstacles and substitute the structures of communication that had enabled the public discussion”.  Finally, Lubenow points to two very important necessary conditions that need to be present in a Habermasian public sphere.  “…a self-regulating media system needs to maintain its independence with their surrounding while it links political communication in public sphere with civil society and political center; the inclusive civil society needs to encourage citizens to participate and respond in public discourse that, in turn, cannot degenerate into a mode of colonized communication”. 

     Today’s public sphere seems to mirror Lubenow’s description.  Today’s public sphere is nothing more than an echo chamber of opinions, mostly void of reason, rational thought, correctness or even truth.  The rational communication element of the Habermasian public sphere has been (as Lubenow points out) hindered by mainstream media.  Not only is the media not independent, they have adopted the role of shapers of reality; through framing, priming, data manipulation, among other tactics. 

     Worse and perhaps more dangerous, is the role of the citizen in today’s social media public sphere.  According to the Pew Research Center, almost 7 out of 10 Americans report using Facebook (68%) and of those, roughly two-thirds report using Facebook on a daily basis.  This is the public sphere in 2020! The “Virtual Sphere”.   

     Surely, I am oversimplifying things a bit here, but the truth is, Habermas’ public sphere is now a virtual one.  Habermas’ (1991) concept of the public sphere was based on the element of “publicity”.  What was deemed public or what made it public?  He argued in many ways, that if something was “open or accessible to all”, that made it public.  In this sense, Habermas’ notion of the public sphere would be consistent with what we see today, and could even argue that at least in that context, today’s public sphere is more open and “available to all” than it ever was; which is good.  After all, the more accessible information is, the better-informed people will be to make informed rational decisions.   

     However, what Habermas determined as rational communication is not what is taking place in today’s virtual public sphere.  Sharing and “liking”, have become impulses void of rationality.  If we recognize the source as one that we agree with or which confirms our worldview, we like it and share it (which in today’s virtual public sphere has become tantamount to agreeing with it).  But on the other hand, if we don’t, we either delete it, discredit the source, or worse “shoot the messenger” which often means being insulted, mocked, and at times, removed from the conversation.  No longer are we Habermasian “spectators” waiting to be fed by the media.  We are now active participants, each of us creating our own reality. We now have this power.    

     This accessibility has seen the rational discourse and debate of the old public sphere, replaced with “noise”.  Senseless memes, “one-liners”, half-truths (and many lies), vulgarity, insults, and of course, cheap partisan propaganda.  But for the first time in the evolution of the public sphere, we now have the power to control, not only what others see and hear, but in our use of #hashtags and other tools, we now have the power to influence and manipulate how others think and make sense of their realities. 

     This could have (and it is already having) dire economic, political, and even institutional consequences for the world.  For the U.S. there are constitutional implications as well.  The virtual public sphere threatens the very foundations of the American republic. Voting in particular, but beyond that, the principles of federalism and states’ rights vis-à-vis the federal government, will be blurred in this virtual public sphere.  It will not matter what Virginians or Texans want.  It will only matter what virtual America wants.  This is a dangerous predicament.  

The Uniqueness of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has become one of the most debated and discussed of all amendments, particularly in the wake of the horrifying trend of mass shootings in public places, schools, and university campuses, across the U.S. and the world.  There are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, as to whether or not, the 2nd amendment should be abolished.  These arguments are the source of much heated debate between Congress and the President, (who in fact proclaimed in his State of the Union Address last night, that he would continue to defend the 2nd Amendment).

2nd Amendment cases have been brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court for more than a century.  Dating back to Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibiting the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.” More recently in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the High Court cited self-defense was the “central component” of the amendment and that the District of Columbia’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” to be unconstitutional.  In 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago, the court expanded its decision in Heller (2008), in that “the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense” is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause (though important to note that the decision by the court interpreted this right to be afforded to citizens; not to include or extend to non-citizens.)

Both, the narrowness of these decisions by the High Court, as well as constitutional questions related to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, have left the door ajar to much more debate surrounding the 2nd Amendment.  Particularly, whether the 2nd amendment should be interpreted as a right to self-defense, or whether the right should be interpreted as a right (to the people) to organize and participate in the militia, for the purpose of preserving their liberties.

What seems to escape the debate on both sides, is the all-important preamble to the 2nd Amendment, which reads:  “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”  followed by the rest of the 2nd Amendment-which is the part that most of us know and which the debate seems to focus on-“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY amendment with a preamble.  It begs the question of why.  Why did the Framers include this preamble, rather than simply stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed?  The Framers were first and foremost, preoccupied with the prospect of a tyrannical national government which would ultimately infringe upon the rights of the states (and the people).  So, to ensure the security of each state, in its ability to defend its sovereignty vis-à-vis the national government, (as the 2nd amendment states), they ensured that each state would have the right to organize and arm its own militia.  However, this right entrusted to the states was not absolute; but rather required regulation (by each state), as the preamble clearly states.

What does this mean in today’s America? Perhaps proponents of gun control as well as supporters of the 2nd Amendment should pay more attention to the preamble of the 2nd amendment, to find a workable solution that serves the concerns of both sides.  The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.  It requires regulation (by the states); and regulation implies controls and restrictions.  That may not sit well with gun supporters, but that is what the Framers intended when they included that all important preamble to the 2^nd amendment.  That said however, the right of the people to keep and bear arms-expressed and interpreted as the militia-should be upheld, if regulatory requirements established by each state are met.