Post the First -- The Public as Evidence

If we follow Habermaus’ line of thinking, a public sphere is constituted by individuals who collectively gather and confer in order to create public opinions that have legs, so to speak. Distinguishing “mere opinion” from “public opinion,” he writes, “Though mere opinions (cultural assumptions, normative attitudes, collective prejudices and values) seem to persist unchanged in their natural form as a kind of sediment of history, public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed” (Habermaus 50).

This quote stood out, because it seems the current U.S. public sphere at this moment of history is comprised of individuals whom contemporary society deems worthy of the title “reasoning,” or reasonable/rational. Although I appreciated Habermaus’ differentiation between government and the public, and how he explained the importance of that distinction especially as it relates to a free exchange of information, I felt his perspective revealed exactly how participation and acceptance in the dominant “public” is largely delimited by individuals who abide by traditional Western standards of rationalism. Counter-publics certainly emerge with opposing epistemologies and alternate standards for discursive evidence, but when I consider what makes up “the public sphere” of the 21st century in terms of influence, I mostly see individuals who can prove to the world they hold a “rational” perspective (and these standards largely favor men.)

But, society is progressing. More and more individuals who counter traditional epistemologies that say who can and cannot have a public voice are emerging, and making waves to influence law and policy.  And that type of work needs to continue.  But that last part—influencing law and policy—I see as a primary type of work public spheres are able to accomplish. Habermaus wrote, “Only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does the political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over the government through the instrument of law-making bodies” (49). I see current public spheres as working to accomplish just that, the free exchange and spread of information. Every person and every public has a slightly different idea on how we should “do life” within a nation. Consensus usually begins at the starting point where every contributor to a given discussion knows the same as everyone else. Even if opinions and experiences differ, effective discourse usually begins when interlocutors can agree on certain things—that racism is still an issue, that we need alternative fuel sources, etc. Then, as more and more individuals and groups agree on certain types of information, it can affect public policy and law.

I find it intriguing that public opinion, in many ways, is the direct act of refusing to be wholly governed. That is, a public who never questioned their government’s rule or ethic would find no need for “public opinion,” because the ideologies of the ruling system would become their personal ideologies. Like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, personal thought which diverged from the governing regime would be (nearly) nonexistent. “The public,” and within it sub-publics, are indicative reminders that individuals, though they may accept rule and governance, will never stop expecting and demanding that their personal convictions, ideas, and desires for life within a nation be heard, and recognized as having weight and value.