Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
of elected governments, both local/regional and national). In each case,
different sets of interpersonal relations are operative, spanning the intimate
and the impersonal. However, people also connect lifeworld and system
by participation in the public sphere, which is that 'intermediating zone
between these two realms' (Barnett, 2004: 186). For Habermas, the public
sphere is a domain of discourse, debate and discussion among equals (citi-
zens) pertaining to collective affairs. Through such dialogue, people help to
make 'the public' something real, more than just an idea or empty signifier
(see
Figure 7.1
, noting the question posed immediately below it, which I will
address shortly).
What does 'public' mean? In the first instance, it's a noun, describing a
collective subject, 'the public'. It also refers to the things that concern it, as
in the phrase 'public affairs'. As Clive Barnett notes, 'some issues gain their
importance both from affecting and being addressed by the people acting
together in concert' (Barnett, 2008: 404). However, he continues, 'there is
another sense of “public”, one that refers to the idea that some things are
carried out in the open
...
involving free and unrestricted discussions and
...
debates
' (ibid.). So, in democracies, 'the public' is (ideally) a collective
subject that addresses issues of common concern in an inclusive manner
so as to influence its elected representatives.
Habermas's concept of the public sphere as a key intermediating zone
where the needs and wants of individuals can periodically alter the system-
world through collective decision-making includes what political analysts
call
civil society
. This, as sociologist Larry Ray put it, is a
network of civil associations, churches, sports clubs and the like that generate
'social capital'
Active, voluntary and informal groups and networks make
for more stable democracy and protect against incursions by the state.
(Ray, 2004: 223-4)
...
Civil society exists at the 'lifeworld' level for individuals and is much less
impersonal than their membership of a public (or publics). Individuals vol-
untarily leave the private realm of the home and participate in organisations
and activities that bring material or emotional benefits to others, as well as to
themselves. The greater the number of organisations and activities in a local-
ity or country, the stronger the bonds between citizens - people are likely to
feel less atomised if they have the opportunity, and desire, to invest in other
that they'll take their membership of larger publics seriously, beyond sim-
ply casting a vote at elections every few years. Indeed, a vibrant civil society
is the source of arguments, claims and projects that seek to make direct
appeals
to
'the public' and to sway elected governments. Critics have argued
that a weak civil society correlates closely with publics that are a mere aggre-
gation of largely personal, private 'preferences' - and thus scarcely publics
at all. The same has been said of countries where 'public goods' are few
