Critique Of The Public Sphere Analysis

1172 Words5 Pages
Critique of the Public Sphere Since the original appearance of Habermas’ Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere it has received a lot of criticism. Habermas’ analysis of the public sphere can be criticized for only focusing on the nature of the Bourgeois public sphere. He excluded the modern day sphere by exclusively talking about the Bourgeois public sphere, by doing this he underestimated the significance of the non-bourgeois sphere and its contribution to a rational-critical engagement with the world, “ The public sphere in Habermas’ sense is also conceptually distinct from the official economy; it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theatre for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling”. (Craig Calhoun, 1992, Pg. 111) Habermas speaks of only a single public sphere and does not take into account those that exist outside of the Bourgeois model. Oskar Negt and Alexander…show more content…
They speak of how there are numerous other social spheres that are separate from the traditional type. These separate social spheres are often unrecognized as being legitimate spheres. These can include such things like football matches, children spheres , religious gatherings and labour strikes. These public spheres are often formed as a result to satisfy the needs and wants of the people who don’t necessarily fit into the other traditional categories. The Internet allows such minority groups to come together to form a sphere to discuss the matters that relate to them. Regardless of recognition from multiple public spheres, the notion of self-recognition and public criticism is at the heart of both analyses. The theory of the Bourgeois public sphere is too restrictive. Habermas makes the sphere exclusive to the group of educated, property-owning, affluent white males of the Bourgeoisie,
Open Document