1. Week 3: The Public Sphere
Media Studies:
Week 3: The Public Sphere
The First Reading at Mme Geoffrin's of Voltaire's Tragedy 'L'Orphelin de la Chine', Anicet-Charles Lemonnier 

2. The Reading Room', 1843 Johann Peter Hasenclever
The Reading Room', Johann Peter Hasenclever 

3. Marshall McLuhan
“The Medium is the Message”

6. The Painted Work of Art in the Age of Orality
12th century religious icon

7. The Painted Work of Art in the Age of Print
The School of Athens - Raphael 1510

8. The Painted Work of Art in the Electrical Age
Portrait De Femme - Picasso 1937
Composition no. 8 - Kandinsky 1923

9. Assembly line in the age of the book

10. Assembly line in the age of electrical media

11. The Birth of the Public Sphere
Theory proposed by German Sociologist Jürgen Habermas ( )
18th century rise of ‘bourgeoisie’ class
Rising importance of a market economy
Travel of goods, ideas, communication
New forums for the discussion of ‘public opinion’:
The coffee house, the salon, the newspaper
No longer state/church monopoly on ideas
Creation of editorial format: communication begins to flow two ways

12. The Reading Room, 1843 Johann Peter Hasenclever
The Reading Room, Johann Peter Hasenclever 

13. Habermas “The Public Sphere”
He defines the public sphere as “a domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed” (p.231).
It’s a sphere in which matters of general concern (not private/business affairs or legal obligations) can be discussed.
It is, in theory, open to all citizens and free from coercion or intimidation by the state. A space in which the “common good” may be debated and decided upon.

14. Habermas “The Public Sphere”
The aim of the public sphere is not so much to seize political or state power, as it is to influence the state, or as Habermas writes: “mediate the state with the needs of bourgeois society” and “convert political authority to ‘rational’ authority” (p.234).
The public sphere is a kind of middle-ground between the desires and needs of private individuals, and the power of the state.
Habermas emphasizes the role and importance of enlightened, rational public discussion – he calls this a process of “communicative rationality.”

15. Habermas “The Public Sphere”
A functioning public sphere is, however, a historically specific occurrence (in 18th and early 19th century Europe). He comments on the current erosion of the liberal model of the public sphere through:
the expansion of the public beyond the confines of the bourgeoisie, leading to a “mass of competing interest groups” (Fraser 5)
the creation of the social-welfare state which leads to the embedding of state influence/policies within the realm of private citizens
the rise of large-scale organizations which promote or lobby for their interests through secret, rather than public, compromises with the state (rise of public relations rather than public debate)

16. Nancy Fraser “Rethinking the Public Sphere”
Mounts a critique of Habermas’s theories and reminds us that the ideal of an inclusive public sphere open to all citizens was in reality prone to exclusions based on gender and class (only property owners were granted access to the realm of politics).
“A discourse of publicity touting accessibility, rationality, and the suspension of status hierarchies is itself deployed as a strategy of distinction.” (p.60)

17. The Floor Scrapers, 1875 Gustave Caillebotte 

18. Nancy Fraser “Rethinking the Public Sphere”
Challenges Habermas’s conception of the bourgeois public sphere on four fronts:
1. Argues that one can not simply bracket out one’s identity (class, race, linguistic, religious differences) in order to enter into “rational debate.” Instead one should declare them to understand how they might be influencing decision making and political interactions.
“…discursive interaction within the bourgeois public sphere was governed by protocols of style and decorum that were themselves correlates and markers of status inequality. These functioned to marginalize women and members of the plebian classes and to prevent them from participating as peers.” (p.63)

19. Nancy Fraser “Rethinking the Public Sphere”
2. Suggests that a multiplicity of publics is not a problem that indicates a lack of social unity: within a given state or territory, a multiplicity of publics is a good thing and not a sign of social disorder.
Were it not for counter publics or alternative publics “members of subordinated groups [women, workers, people of color, gays and lesbians, etc.] would have no arenas for deliberation among themselves about their needs, objectives and strategies.” (p.66)

20. Nancy Fraser “Rethinking the Public Sphere”
3. Questions assumption that discussions in the public sphere should be restricted to the common good and exclude all questions of “private interests or issues.”
“For example, until quite recently, feminists were in the minority in thinking that domestic violence against women was a matter of common concern and thus a legitimate topic of public discourse. The great majority of people considered this issue to be a private matter between…couples.” (p.71)

21. Nancy Fraser “Rethinking the Public Sphere”
4. Challenges assumption that a functioning public sphere requires a sharp separation between civil society and the state – opinion-formation, but not decision-making.
“…the ‘force of public opinion’ is strengthened when a body representing it is empowered to translate such ‘opinion’ into authoritative decisions” (p.71)