Jürgen Habermas’ Sociology
Jürgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere plays a central role in understanding how modern democracy and public debate developed in Western societies. Habermas describes the emergence of the public sphere as a slow and quiet revolution that took place between 1700 and 1850. This process created a new space in society where private individuals could formulate criticism and exchange opinions — a space that existed between the private sphere (the home) and power (the state, church, and monarchy).
According to Habermas, the bourgeois public sphere emerged in a society marked by economic changes and a growing middle class. These citizens were often involved in economic life but were not part of the old power structures like the aristocracy, monarchy, or church. Habermas points out that this new class demanded greater influence in society, creating a need for a public space where power could be discussed and challenged. Here, public reasoning — the ability to argue, persuade, and listen — was essential. Language and communication were therefore crucial to how the public sphere functioned.
The first manifestations of the bourgeois public sphere took place in salons and coffeehouses, where people from different social strata could meet and discuss freely, without being bound by status. These common spaces were characterized by equality, where the strength of the argument was more important than the social position of the participants.
Journalism played a central role in the development of the bourgeois public sphere, as media like newspapers and journals began to challenge the monopoly of power over information. Journalism became a new profession, meant to be more independent of economic and political interests, with the purpose of informing and facilitating public debate.
However, Habermas’ theory faces criticism. Drawing on thinkers like Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu, one could argue that Habermas’ ideal of a public sphere free from power relations is naive. Bourdieu would likely argue that although there was formal equality in these public spaces, there were still real exclusions based on class and gender. It can thus be argued that Habermas’ historical interpretation contains a significant gap, as it was, in practice, wealthy men who constituted this public sphere, creating an elite bias rooted in a specific class habitus. Foucault points out that power structures are always present — even in the spaces Habermas perceives as free from power. For Foucault, power is productive, and all social spaces are permeated by power, meaning that Habermas, in his romanticization of the public sphere, overlooks central pitfalls.
Another key dimension of Habermas’ thinking is the so-called “decay thesis.” According to this thesis, the bourgeois public sphere began to change character in the mid-1800s. The media became commercial, and public reasoning became more marked by class struggle and ideological conflicts, disrupting the dialogue and the willingness to listen that originally characterized the public sphere.
In modern times, Habermas describes how politics has become more performative and manipulative, a process he calls “refeudalization.” The refeudalization of politics means that today, politics often involves staging and strategies rather than real dialogue and public debate, as seen in the phenomenon of spin and political strategic communication. For Habermas, it is problematic if politics and public debate are increasingly dominated by an inflation of spin and strategy, as this diminishes the conditions for communicative rationality and instead results in manipulative publicity.
Habermas’ thoughts also extend into understanding the lifeworld and the system. The lifeworld is the sphere where people create meaning, shared values, and norms. It is where cultural reproduction, social integration, and socialization take place. The system, on the other hand, operates according to a goal-oriented rational logic, which is separate from the meaning- and understanding-oriented actions of the lifeworld. Habermas believes that problems arise when the system begins to colonize the lifeworld — when market and state logics invade areas where they do not belong, such as in education or healthcare.
In ethics, Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel developed a discourse ethics, inspired by Immanuel Kant. It is deontological, as it focuses on duty and moral norms that apply universally to all people. In the case of disagreement about a norm, rational discussion (discourse) is required, where the parties present their arguments. Discourse aims at consensus, where the validity of norms is established through open and inclusive debate. Habermas is therefore concerned with the ideal of domination-free communication, where communicative rationality helps establish norms.
For communication or argumentation to begin, certain idealizations must be assumed by the participants. One of these assumptions is that participants use the same linguistic expressions in the same way. This ensures that all parties understand each other equally and avoid misunderstandings. Another important assumption is that no relevant arguments are suppressed or excluded from the conversation. This creates an open dialogue where all viewpoints can be heard and considered.
Additionally, it is essential that no form of power is exercised, except for the power of the better argument. This means that the most convincing and well-grounded position should prevail, not the one held by those with the most authority or power. At the same time, all participants must be motivated by a sincere desire to find the best argument, meaning that their primary focus is on reaching a true or rational solution rather than defending personal or ideological interests.
When it comes to discourse itself, there are further assumptions. One of them is that all participants will eventually agree on the validity of the claim being discussed. This implies that what is concluded must be able to achieve universal agreement among all reasonable actors. It is also assumed that all those capable of speaking and acting have the right to participate in the discourse. Everyone should have equal rights to introduce new topics and express their opinions, needs, or desires.
Finally, no validity claims are exempt from critical evaluation. This means that all claims made must be open to discussion and potential opposition, ensuring a fair and transparent argumentative process where no viewpoints or claims are above criticism.
Overall, Habermas offers a theory of how modern societies can coordinate actions and create shared understanding through public debate. He emphasizes the importance of language and rational dialogue, but his ideal is also challenged by contemporary political and media realities, where economic interests and power games often undermine the freedom and quality of public reasoning.