historians response to habermas

5/20/2018 Historians Response to Habermas

1/17

http://jci.sagepub.com

Journal of Communication Inquiry

DOI: 10.1177/0196859904266499

2004; 28; 217Journal of Communication InquiryAndrej Pinter

Public Sphere and History: Historians Response to Habermas on the "Worth" of the Past

http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/217The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:Cultural and Critical Studies Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Commu

can be found at:Journal of Communication InquiryAdditional services and information for

http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jci.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/217Citations

by Ras Roger on October 5, 2009http://jci.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.aejmc.org/http://www.aejmc.org/http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jci.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jci.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jci.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/217http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/217http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jci.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.aejmc.org/


2/17

10.1177/0196859904266499 ARTICLEJournal of Communication InquiryPublic Sphere and History

Andrej Pinter

Public Sphere and History:Historians Response to Habermason the Worth of the Past

This article deals with contested links between the public sphere and history. Inparticular, it presentsa challenge faced by cultural, social, and politicalhistori-ans to use history in clarifying the Habermasian notion of the public sphere.According to the early theory of Jrgen Habermas, history is a necessary ingre-dient of theoretical conceptualization of the public sphere. Recent research intothe history of the public sphere questioned some interpretations of facts onwhich Habermas based his early theory, but emerging historiansperspectiveson the nexus between history and theory of the public sphere uncovered otherproblems.The roleof history in building theories of the public sphere is one suchissue. In his later work, Habermas evaded this problem. This article alsoaddresses a thirdaspect of theproblem, which is developedwithin thehistory ofcommunication. From this perspective, the history of the public sphere appearsmuch more diverse, dynamic, and ambiguous. According to this position, his-tory appears instrumental in preserving thepluralityof possibilities and altern-ative intellectual routes.

Keywords:public sphere; history; Habermas; critical theory; historians of

communication

Publicsphere isusuallydefinedasarealmoffreeandintelligentcommunica-tion about contested public concerns and uninhibited exchange of opinionsabout these concerns (e.g., Habermas 1996; Hardt 1996; Hohendahl 2000;Keane 2003; Mah 2000; Peters 2001). It is established as a prominent conceptof social and communication research, drawing together different theoreticalapproaches. It is considered a useful tool for explaining social change as wellas other complex social and communication processes in the present-daydemocracies. In its Habermasian form, the public sphere is paradigmaticallyassociated with discussions on democracy and its shortcomings. In particular,

it links with attempts to renovate themodernist tradition in social and politicaltheory (see Jay 1985; Dahlgren 1991; Fraser 1992).

217

Journal of Communication Inquiry 28:3 (July 2004):217-232DOI: 10.1177/0196859904266499 2004 Sage Publications

http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/http://jci.sagepub.com/


3/17

Recent literature on the public sphere identifies many controversial issues,but among the most contested is the nexus between the public sphere and his-

tory. This idea is not only focused on the rich intellectual history of the idea ofthe public because the elements that permeate contemporary publics and pub-lic spheres are often historical in nature; for example, in the GermanHistorikerstreit, where the Habermasian notion of the public sphere extendedinto a practical application (Habermas 1998). In addition, various histories ofthe public sphere suggest that intellectual contexts in which present concep-tions and assumptions associated with this problematic concept developedwere not unambiguous (e.g., Habermas 1989; La Vopa 1992; Peters 1993;Hardt1998). The public sphere thereforeenables comprehensive overviews ofthe intellectual heritagebuilt intothepracticesof thepresent-day democracies.

Closely related questions have appeared in the recent literature: What does

the public sphere say about our past? If there are immediate links to the pastthrough the concept of the public sphere, what are they? These questions arederivative from Habermass own formulation of the issue. He often asked,Can we learn from history? (Habermas1998, 3-15). Obviously, hisquestionwas directed more to the public sphere at large, although it also can be rightlyaddressed to the theorists or historians of the public sphere. The question has atheoretical significance, whereas links between history and theory of the pub-lic sphere deserve closer investigation.

This article presents a challengeof thecultural, social, and political histori-anstotheHabermasianperspectiveonthenexusbetweenhistoryandtheoryofthe public sphere. After publication of his early theory in English (Habermas1989), critical literature developed one typical response to his work into a

comprehensive historization of the public sphere. Historians exploredwithin a programmatic outline some alternative explanations (e.g., Warner1990; Eley 1992; La Vopa 1992; Barry 1995). Implicit in these debates weredivergingconceptions of history. Whether related to these debates or not, it is afact that Habermas later abandoned hisversion of a developmental conceptionof history as an immediate backbone of his theory of the public sphere. Hisnew theory of the public sphere explicitly denies any reliance on a philosophyof history (Habermas 1996, 288). Because of this transformation, the chal-lenge of cultural, social, and political historians of the public sphere remainsunanswered. From the perspective of the critical social theory within whichHabermass work is positioned, the question of whether (and to what extent)theories of the public sphere can draw from history remains open.

In this article, I propose to answer the question from a different angle.Because of a lack of receptiveness for theoretical abstraction in thework of thehistorians of the public sphere, I argue that it is possible to answer the abovequestion from the perspective of historians of communication. The relevance

218 Journal of Communication Inquiry



4/17

of the work of Hardt (1992, 2001), Peters (1993, 2001), McLuskie (2003), orSplichal (2003)is supportedby their similar connection with thelegacy of crit-

ical social theory and historically minded research. Implications from thework of Hanno Hardt seem particularly appropriate for this task. Thequestionaboutthenexusbetweentheoryofthepublicsphereanditshistoryisansweredfrom the angle of communication historians by way of pointing out the diver-sity of approaches that in the past shaped our present conceptions. Presentnotions of thepublic sphere, which preservedtheirsignificancein politicalandtheoretical terms, emerged from a plurality of perspectives and claims that inthe past competed for a prevalence among alternatives. History of the publicsphere from this angle reminds us of the plurality of possibilities and alterna-tive intellectual routes. From a theoretical perspective, it is informative toexplicate the history of the public sphere because this approach does not

narrow the range of imminent decisions and alternatives.

Historization of the Public Sphere

All recent discussions of the term public sphere refer to the work ofHabermas, especially to his seminal text Structural Transformation of thePublic Sphere(1989); when such discussions deal specifically with the nexusbetween thepublicsphereandhistory, this book,andto some extentHabermassother texts, predictably become their primary point of departure (La Vopa1992; Brooke 1998; Mah2000; Beaud andKaufmann 2001).1 Although Struc-tural Transformation of the Public Sphere (in fact, its English translation from1989) is justly credited for popularization of the public sphere concept and

also for its illuminating historization, Habermas invented neither. The idea ofthe public sphere or the public realm is already present in manymajor socialtheories throughout the twentieth century (Peters 2001; Splichal 2001). More-over, discussions about the idea of the public as a specific realm of the nascentliberal states clearly extends to the beginnings of modernization in advancedWestern European societies (Koselleck 1988; Habermas 1989). For some, theproblem of thepublic realm is an even older inheritance. According to HannahArendt (1958), modern understanding of the public realm derives from theancient Greek heritage. According to Sennett (1979, 4-6), on the other hand,the late modern public may be compared to the characteristics of the lateRoman society and its own anomalies.

The notion of the public spherehas,one can argue, a rich intellectual aswell

as experiential history andis thus entitled to systematic attentionfrom a histor-ical perspective. Awareness that conceptions of the public sphere and socialprocesses emergent in this realm depend on the dialogue with the past is vital.Since the eighteenth century, prominent thinkers whom are still cited today

Public Sphere and History 219



5/17

with reference to thepublic sphere began to develop systematic theories of thepublic (e.g., Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Kirkegaard, Nietzsche, Tocqueville,

Bentham, J. S. Mill, Tnnies). For most of them, the realm of public was inex-tricably bound with its historical contextespecially for Hegel, Kirkegaard,Marx, and Tnnies. After a pause in the early twentieth century, when the pre-vailing positivist attitudeof thesocial sciences in general, andofmass commu-nication in particular (Hardt 1992, 77-122), led to the neglect of history,social research was ready in the late twentieth century to embrace social phe-nomena, such as the public sphere, within its historical perspective.

Recently, a substantial push for a theoretical return to the past transforma-tions of the public sphere resulted from extraordinary social changes in theEastern and Central Europe, culminating in velvet revolutions of the late1980s and early 1990s. Later, the unrelenting tide of popular movements anddemocratization spread to Latin America and also to theFarEast; this contrib-uted to a certain globalization of this notion and itsnormative assumptions.2

In fact, renewed interest in Habermass work on the public sphere falls withinthis periodof general enthusiasm forsocialchange andtheoretical reformism.

Ifhistorizationmeans that social phenomena are interpreted and investi-gated against their historical backdrop, recent literature on the public spherecannotbeuniformlydescribedrelative to this concern. Links between thepub-lic sphere and history are explored in at least three different ways. One couldalso elaboratefora fourth, which I will also mention below, but this link devel-oped mostlyoutside theliterature on thetermpublic sphere, however centralthis point was initially for its popularization.

Following Habermas, historically oriented research of the public sphere

focuses on one or more of the following themes:

1. The public sphere is a historical phenomenon that emerged no later than in the late sev-enteenth century. In advanced societies of Western Europe, the public sphere epito-mized trends of the nascent urban culture and declining feudal authorities. This themerevolves around locating the public sphere in history.

2. The idea of the public sphere exemplifies progress of enlightened reason that tried tofree human subjectivity from the constraints of authoritarian traditions. In its presentform, the public sphere preserved certain values and hopes that evolved throughout theEnlightenment and are still relevant today. Thispoint guides historical investigations ofnormative assumptions of the public sphere.

3. Contested meanings of thepublic spherelie at thecore of enduring disputes andcontro-versies aboutpolitics, society, rationality, andpubliclife in general.Theoretical concep-tualizations of thepublic spherenecessarily integratediverse,even contradictory, ideas.This theme revolves around the history of ideas and the point that the public sphere is

embedded in diverse views of modernity.

There is also a fourth, and perhaps most ambitious, theme with respect tothenexusbetween publicsphereandhistory, although itspresence is no longer




6/17

so pervasive in the vast literature on histories of the public sphere. There thepublic sphere figures as (4) a model for the reconstruction of political, social,

or intellectual history. Although the early work of Habermas is clearly anaccomplishment in this direction, subsequent historical analyses of the publicsphere rarely took up further exploration of this idea. The notion of public orthe public sphere as a reconstructive model is located far outside the special-ized literature and did not develop in direct response to Habermas. The worksof Raymond Williams (1971), Hannah Arendt (1958), Richard Sennett (1979),Benedict Anderson (1983), John Keane (1991), John Hartley (1992), orCharles Taylor (2002) may exemplify this fourth theme; here, ideas are devel-oped more or less independently of theearly Habermasian theory of thepublicsphere. In some sense, such appropriations of the public sphere (or public-ness) forexplaining complex and large-scale social transformation are inher-

ently polemical and comprehensive, but they are simultaneously quite elusiveanddifficulttocomparebecauseoftheirbroadandsometimesratherloosedef-initions of what is public. More detailed discussion of these works exceedsthe scope of the present analysis.

Various approaches to thehistorization of thepublic sphere turned out to bevery productive. By and large, they are heavily indebted to Habermas (1989,1992b). In the early 1990s, debates in which public sphere was framed in itshistorical perspective centered mainly on the chronological precision ofHabermass analyses (Baker1992; Eley 1992; Barry 1995; Brooke1998; Mah2000).Cultural,political, andsocialhistorians attemptedto show that it is pos-sible to locate an enlightened, liberal public sphere of urban citizens alreadymuch earlier than Habermas had argued (La Vopa 1992). Whereas Habermas

(1989, 57-73) claimed that the public sphere emerged at the turn of the eigh-teenth century, historical material shows that elements of rational debate andpublication oriented toward consensus on contested issues existed throughoutthe entire seventeenth century (e.g., Barry 1995, 223).

Locating the public sphere in history led to discussions about its diversenormative assumptions, which were articulated either theoretically or throughpractices of public appearance and communication (Eley 1992; Fraser 1992;Beaud and Kaufmann 2001). Studies also emerged featuring past discussionson thecontested notions andassumptions of thepublic life and were presentedas uncertain and dynamic exchanges through which some of the present con-ceptions developed. These analyses present past insights not as given but asevolving in thesurrounding socialandpoliticalcontext, thus further illuminat-

ing their veiled dimensions (e.g., Pesante 1995; Hohendahl 2000; Splichal2003). Few researchers of the public sphere, however, attempted to transformthis growing body of knowledge into new models of societal modernizationand transformation of feudal structures of power under the aegis of the liberal




7/17

ideology of publicity, the ffentlichkeit. Habermass early theory remainsunparalleled in this respect.

History of the Public Sphere andCritical Theory of Democracy

An implicit dispute between Habermas and the historians of the publicsphere relies upon the difference in understanding the role of history in theepistemic quest for new knowledge. Habermas is no historian, but in his earlystudy he used history to present certain theses about the development anddemise of an enlightened public sphere. Historians engage the problem asexperts on historical detail but are less receptive to theoretical abstraction (seeKramer1992, 236-39). Thedebatebetween Habermass early notionof public

sphere and historians response to it can be summarized as a tension betweennormative and descriptive aspect of social theories. For Habermas, there is animportant difference between how things are and how they should be. For his-torians, facticity as unveiled with historical research is in fact normative.

The logic of Habermass argument as presented in hisStructural Transfor-mation (1989)based on his assessment of flaws in the evolving Germandemocracy of 1960s (Habermas 1989, 219-22; 1992a, 81)is as follows:There is much to be improved in the mass democracies of liberal welfarestates. Part of the problem is due to a grand antinomy in that states seek legiti-macy with reference to the enlightenment standard of public government, butpublicityhasalso becomeerodedby thepowers ofcapital andunfettered econ-omies of themass media.To improvedemocratic conditions, Habermas (1989,

17)suggestedreturning to theideas that theenlightened publicused in thepastwhen it successfully claimed possession over emancipatory forums of publicdebate and reasoning. In other words, Habermas (1989, 233) called to refash-ion effects of the transformed public sphere. In his analyses, the public spherewaslocatedinaneraofdynamicpubliclifewherefreediscussionwasthemostapparent form of sociability. Habermas (1989, 89-140) was also able to tracehis assumptions about public sphere to the social and political philosophy ofthe time.

Theunderlyingconceptionofhistoryinthisargumentwas,likeforHegelorMarx, given objectively. The past, according to this view, already contained avision of thedesired future. A refeudalized publicsphereof mass democracieswas a distortion of a historicallygrounded visionanda sidestep in theprogressof liberal ideals (Habermas 1989, 231-35). This circumvention could beobserved, Habermas (1989) proposed, through the (un)working of criticalpublicity. He was concerned that the public sphere of industrially advancedsocieties that progressed towards increasing plurality of interests might lose




8/17

the antagonistic edge of competing needs (p. 234). Democratization there-fore could be evaluated through relations of conflict and consensus and the

way critical publicity helps to give agencies wider autonomy in reachingconsensus through the questioning of authorities (p. 250).

To appreciate the historicist motifs in thisargument,Habermass allegianceto critical theory is central. On one hand, his book was intended as a moveaway from thehistorical materialismof theearlier generation of Frankfurt the-orists, yet it still depended on its broad outline of the philosophy of history.

Habermas said in a later recollection,

Only to a superficial glance would it have appeared possible to writeStructuralTransformation along the lines of adevelopmental history of society [italicsadded] in the style of Marx and Max Weber. The dialecticof the bourgeoispub-lic sphere, which determines the books structure, wears the ideology-critical

approach on its sleeve. (1992b, 442)

But Habermas already admitted a decade earlier in one of his written inter-views that the book was an attempt to continue the Hegelian and WeberianMarxism of the nineteen-twentieswith other means[italics added] (1992a,148). There may be little difference in his statements. But it seems that, what-ever Habermas chose as new means for his departure from the traditionwithin which he worked, he certainly did not depart radically inStructuralTransformationfrom the ideology of historical progress.

Habermass dialectics of the enlightened public sphere suggests a develop-mental logic of a cherished past and a demonstrably impaired present on itsway to a dim future; he even talked explicitly about the framework of his his-

torical anddevelopmentalmodelof thepublicsphere(1989,248). In his thor-ough revisions of this early theory, Habermas did not renounce his underlyingacceptance of developmental logic operationalized by a highly selectivereconstruction of history (1992b). For instance, any attempt to incorporatefeminist critiques of exclusion into the liberal ideology of the public sphere,either in its early enlightenment vision or its contemporary form, should beobvious as an invalidation ofa linearanalysisof thehistorical subversion alongthe lines of what is proposed in Structural Transformation. Yet Habermasinsisted on the contrary. A mistake in the assessment of the significance ofcertain aspects does not falsify the larger outline ofthe process of transforma-tion[italics added] that I presented (1992b, 430).

Subsequent toStructural Transformation, Habermas developed a theoreti-cal program for a defense of modernity, an unfinished project. This dictumstill implies the logic of historical development and progress akin to theHegelian philosophy of history. Two most revealing projects about this under-lying motif that Habermas published in defense of modernity were his theory




9/17

of communication action and communicative approach to explanation ofsocial evolution (e.g.,Habermas 1979). Habermass own concept of history,

which, according to Jay(1985, 131), developed in these works, was anythingbut antievolutionary.3

This important aspect, which is consistent with the theoretical aims ofStructural Transformation, should be contrasted with a later development ofHabermass theory. Recently, he proposed a different conception of the nexusbetween history and the public sphere. His new theory of the public sphere nolonger relieson a conception of practical reason. Instead, he now turns to com-municative reason and action.

In the demanding conditions of fair procedure and the presuppositions of com-munication that undergird legitimate lawmaking, thereason that positsand teststhe norms has assumed a procedural form. . . .This approach does not need a

philosophy of history to support it[italics added]. It is premised simply on theidea that one cannot adequately describe the operation of a constitutionallyorganized political system, even at an empirical level, without referring to thevalidity dimensions of law and the legitimating force of the democratic genesisof law. (1996, 288)

From thisnew angle, history of the public sphere is worth little in viewof itspresent conceptualization or need for criticism. Rather than concluding thecontested issue and making a definite statement regarding different ways ofhistorization of the public sphere in recent theories, Habermas decided toevade thequestion altogether. Historization of the public sphere has, from thisnew perspective, little theoretical significance for a comprehensive critical

theory of democracy based on the notion of the public sphere. Any theory ofthe public sphere embedded in the above arguments may find history usefulmerely as a vehicle of discursive formation of opinion on the level of individ-ualcitizens. In this new conception of thenexus between thepublic sphereandhistory, the worth of the latter is defined in a negative sense.

If history plays a didactic role at all, it is as a critical authority that informsus that what our cultural legacy had up to that point considered valid is no lon-ger tenable. Then history functions as an authority that demands not so muchimitation as revision (Habermas 1998, 11).

The public sphere should feed on interpretations of history for the sake ofpreventing its own amnesia. History that is thus redefined as an alarmingdevice for detecting contested issues can no longer provide explanations of

historical change. Instead, it is on a parwith other sources of generating publicattention. Robust visions of future are, according to this conception, inherentin the constellations of the present communicative actions. Current problemsmaybetheonlymeansavailableforexplainingthecourseofsocietalevolution.




10/17

How Much Can Theories of the Public

Sphere Learn from History?Habermass theory of the public sphere changed substantially in the years

since its translation and publication. In addition to a different role assigned tohistory, other substantial amendments were made (Habermas 1992b, 1996).Chronology and details of this change are illuminating, but they surpass theconcern of this article. It is not clear, however, whether his changed under-standing of history relates to appropriation of the termpublic sphereby thecultural, political, and social historians in recent literature. The shift from atheory of public sphere that is based on a modified materialist philosophy ofhistory to a theory of public sphere that builds on discursive theory of law andlinks with deliberative theory of politics is motivated by many complex theo-

retical and empirical considerations (kerlep 2002). However, this shiftexposes,withinthe limitsof thepresent analysis, threebroader perspectives onthe role of history in theorizing the public sphere.

One such perspective is advocated by historians of the public sphere, to thedegree that it is possible to condense this approach as homogeneous. Two fur-ther perspectives derive from different conceptualizations of the nexusbetween the public sphere and history in the works of Jrgen Habermas. Bothpositions proposed by Habermas are flawed on the topical question about theworth of history in theorizing thepublic sphere, and thehistorianschallengesto these positions should be considered carefully.

Neither of Habermass positions can provide an answer to the question,How much can theories of the public sphere learn from history? According

to the early theory of Habermas, this is a misguided question as investigationof history leads the formation of future. Theorists should instead ask howmuch of the past has been forgotten. The second conception suggests that onecan learn from the past as much as present theoretical concerns allow; in mostcases, this makes past experience obsolete and irrelevant. Put more bluntly,according to the first view, history is an omnicompetent judge of present con-dition; according to the second, the present is an omnicompetent judge on therelevance of history.

What emerges from historiansviews on therole of history in theorizing thepublic sphere? It became apparent through historical analyses of the publicsphere that this concept enables integration of entirely different, even contra-dictory, perspectives. Impressive theoretical diversity is clear from biblio-

graphical records (Strum 1994; Hohendahl 2000, 124-79). Other upshots arealsoacademicachievementsandareattributable,inwholeorinpart,tothepro-lific literature in which the concept of the public sphere has been framed in itshistorical perspective. Mah (2000, 156-68) mentioned spatialization of the




11/17

public as a consequence of the historiansapproach to the concept; he arguedthat the historiansspatialization of the term is . . . in keeping with the aim of

recovering and empowering neglected social groups (p. 163). 4Another such contribution of the historical approach is pluralization of cul-

tural and ethnic experiences linked with the concept. Habermass initialaccount is focused primarily on three most advanced societies of the West:England, France, and Germany. Subsequent studies recognized historical andtheoretical significanceof other contemporary societies fora discussion of thepublic sphere, for instance, Italian states, Switzerland, the Netherlands, theMediterranean, and the United States (e.g., Warner 1990; Barry 1995; Ryan1992; Wolff 2001). Slightly different in this literatures contribution was itssystematic attention to language. Habermas consistently claimed the publicsphere is a discursive formation (1989,1992b, 1996). It seems natural that this

aspect is reflected in the languages and codes established through public life.Habermas himself emphasized the importance of this aspect by investigatingGerman, French, and English uses of words likepublic, opinion,andpublicity(1989); many others furthered this insight (Warner 1990; Keane 1991; Baker1992; Peters 1993; Barry 1995).

Admirable contributions of cultural historians response to Habermas not-withstanding, there is much reason to be critical about theway theoretical con-cepts are used in their works. Historians rarely acknowledge that investiga-tions of the past are motivated and shaped by concerns for the present andsometimeseven by concerns forthefuture. In theinitial response to Habermas,historians sought to correct his factographic mistakes (Baker 1992; La Vopa1992). With the exception of Eley (1992), cultural and political history was

relatively disinterested in the vividly disputed normative implications of theconcept. Kramer (1992, 239) formulated this problematic concern with thequestion, How canhistorians research andwrite about thepast within thedis-ciplinary constraints of their profession and also develop the critical engage-ment with the present that Habermas work calls for and demonstrates?

Historians responses to the theory of the public sphere for more than adecade lacked answers to the question of how to link historical and theoreticalinsights and how to define historical knowledge as a resource for theoreticalanalysis and critique. The implicit suggestion in this response was that theo-rists should not do history, and it was only recently abandoned when the twoaspects, theory and history, became important components of historiansresearch (Mah 2000, How 2001, Bradley 2002).

Such flaws in theorizing links between history and theory of the publicsphere can be made very plain by using the history of communication, ratherthan cultural orpoliticalhistory, as anentrance to thehistorical investigationofthe concept. The work of Hanno Hardt (1996), John Peters (1993, 2001), andSlavko Splichal (2003) is illuminating in this respect. These scholars offer not




12/17

only a different angle on the historical contexts in which the public spheredeveloped but also a differentangle on historization as a process. If onereturns

to theclassificationof thefour predominant themesin studies that historize thepublic sphere, one should note that historians of communication contributesubstantially to the second and third theme. The history of communication isnot itself able to pinpoint where in the Western history a rational, enlightenedpublic sphere emerged. It can offer, however, a great insight into debates thatsurrounded in the past emergence of key theoretical concepts. The history ofcommunication can also fruitfully map out various normative implications ofsuch theoretical concepts. In some sense, thehistory of communication is con-cerned precisely with the rich tradition of disputed ideas and possible devia-tionsfromthemthatwereforgottensometimeinthepast.Communicationhis-tory, to borrow a phrase from Peters (1993), is concerned with the paths not

taken in subsequent communication research. As also argued by McLuskie(2003),

Relatively submerged conceptions in the history of communication studiesoften stand as an alternative set of perspectiveson communication waiting to bementionedand developed. Some provide a basis for more critical, more human-istic, lines of inquiry for the academy, its students, and others. (p. 26)

That history is central to theoretical investigation of communication is acharacteristic point of Hanno Hardts work (1979, 1992, 1996, 2001). Hisunderstanding of history as a framework of experience also falls within thelarger area of critical social theory that attempts to merge the study of societalprogress and improvement of the human thought with historical evidence(1992, 1998, 2001). But within this framework, Hardts conception of the his-torically informed theorization appears in strong contrast to both theearly andlate scholarship of Habermas. Early Habermas searches for roots of largesocial transformations in history, whereas Hardtclarifiespast intellectual con-troversies and theoretical expectations for a better understanding of ourpresent conceptions.

Hardt (1992, x) argued that any overview of the history should focus on theresources for the betterment of contemporary democracies, for the improve-ment of society. In this sense, his three important books on the social theoriesof the press and on the critical study of communication are structured as inves-tigations of inspiring visions of a better human condition (Hardt 1979, 1992,

2001).For Hardt, historically minded research also is one that inspires the con-struction of a sense of understanding thecourse of ideas, mainly about com-munication but also about other related phenomena or ideals that interest thescholars of communication (1992, xi). In this sense, his own study of the intel-




13/17

lectual traditions within whichmedia, communication, and journalismstudieshave developed grew out of a hope to find a vision of theory as an instructive

anduseful instrument in a searchforconditions which allowindividuals to livea truly human existence (1992, xv). History, according to Hardt, is not a mereopportunity for celebration but an opportunity tocater to theneed of informedself-reflection.

Here the link between history and theory is defined much more clearly thanin the works of cultural, political, and social historians of the public sphere.One may learn from the past that which mayshed a critical light on the presenthuman condition. Past experiences are indeed instrumental for the buildup oftheoretical critique. On the other hand, the past is not defined as an omni-competent guide to thefuture. Historical investigation, according to Hardt andother communication historians, clarifies the fuzziness of developmental pro-

cesses through which present notions and ideas were established. It does notprovide a clear-cut, unilinear abstraction that was sought by the earlyHabermas in theheritage of theEnlightenment. In some sense,history, accord-ing to Hardt, appears instrumental in preserving the plurality of possibilitiesand of alternative intellectual routes, rather than a tool for narrowing down therange of imminent decisions and alternatives.

Such conception of the nexus between the public sphere and history is, infact, quite different from theoneadvocatedby a pessimistic reading of thecrit-ical theory of society. As Adorno and Horkheimer (2002, 245) put it in one oftheir unfinished philosophical fragments, if onethinks of history as comple-mentary to a consistent theory, or as something one can construe, then suchhistory cannot be good, but only horrific. Habermass recent diversion from

this position led in a different direction. He denied the role of the past in con-ceptualizing present theoretical concerns with respect to the public sphere.Recent communication history, conversely, shows how the worth of the pastmay be preserved without denying the epistemic role of history.

Conclusions

After the big revolutions in the eighteenth century, social and politicalthinkersspoke moresystematicallyabout the relationship between history andtheoretical reason. This is also a specific historical era in which Habermasiantheoryrecognizes theblossoming of thepublicsphere. Thenotionof history isthus unavoidably connected to the emergence of the public sphere and also to

its subsequent conceptualizations. After paradigmatic social change in thatera, theoretical reflections centered on a realization that the present momentmay have cultivated powerful means to break with the past and to realign theexpectations for the futurewith theachievableprogress of humanity. Howeverlarge the reflections of history had been looming to the philosophers of the




14/17

Enlightenment, it was only possible to articulate them within the publicsphere. Whatever the future had in store was to be unveiled in public.

The notion of the public sphere has presently developed into a catalyst ofcontemporary social thought, but it retains a productive and theoretically con-tested link with the human history. From the vast literature on the publicsphere, one can argue that its links with the past are charismatic. In its histori-cal perspective, the public sphere ignites discussions among social and politi-cal theorists, historians and practitioners. Indeed, historically orientedapproaches to the public sphere compete with other methodologies that find ituseful. However,even scholarship about thepublic spherethat does notexplic-itly address its various links with history makes use of the insights that wereformulated in historians debates on the concept (e.g., Fraser 1992).

But there are different perceptions of what the past may contribute to the

contemporary theoretical reflection. The early theory of Habermas impliedthat historical transformation of the public sphere contained a blueprint of itsfuturedevelopment (1989). ButHabermas recently found it most instructive toinvestigate thedialectics between the horizon of experience and subsequentdisappointments or negative experiences (1998, 10). This position led himinto the thesis that history plays no epistemic role in constructing theory of thepublic sphere (1996). Thus, he does notdirectly answer thechallengeof histo-rians of the public sphere but, in many respects, evades it.

At the start of this article, I proposed tocompare the workofcultural, social,andpolitical historians of thepublic spherewith thehistory of communicationresearch. Since historians of the public sphere did not solve the problemimplicit in the link between history and theory, the insights of critical commu-

nication history clearly illuminates the flaws of their research. Communica-tion history solves the contested nexus between history and the public spherein a most inspiring way: it preserves the plurality and dynamism of the pastdebates from which present ideas emerged. The history of communicationattempts to reconstruct academicpublic spheres through thehistory of ideasof the past and to provide theoretical means of informed self-reflection orcritique for the present purposes.

There is an important bias in both fields of historical research that makes itimpossible to generalize even more broadly this insight. Historians of thepub-licsphere andcommunication both share a fortunatecircumstance in that theirresearch places social communication and democratic life at the center ofattention. The public sphere has the role of an angel of historya role

soughtby another prominentcritical theorist,Walter Benjamin (1968,215). Inthe last chapter of hisImagined Communities, Benedict Anderson (1983) sim-ilarly uses this poetic allegory and suggests that according to his theory, theangelofhistoryishiddeninthecomplexprocessesofsocialcommunicationinthe past that led to the flourishing nationalisms and their political charge. To




15/17

the theorists and historians of the public sphere, the angel of history is alreadythere. Habermas unveiled it but then left it in the past. The challenge of histori-

ans of the public sphere therefore can be condensed into one contested ques-tion: how tounderstand and use this unveiled potential and what todo with it intheory.

Notes

1. I was able to locate with a recent survey of online databases of academic journals morethan 100 peer-reviewed articles published in the past dozen years wherein the connection oftermspublic sphere and historyappeared in thetitleor abstract;EBSCOhost database produced101 hits with these two keywords (last verification of this result, December 16, 2003). Onlysome of these references areused in thepresent text.The situationis perfectlydescribed by Har-oldMah(2000,153), who pointed out that one of themost significant historiographical devel-opments of the last decade has been the revival of an early work by Jrgen Habermas, hisStrukturwandel der ffentlichkeit, translated into English asThe Structural Transformation ofthe Public Sphere.

2. For an informative list of references concerning non-European public spheres, see thework of Arthur Strum (1994, 201-2) andhis colleagues (Hohendahl 2000,177-79);see also thework of Avritzer (2002)for a systematicapplication of this concept to theLatin American socialandpoliticalcontext.Democratization processesmentionedabovewere not interpreted throughtheories of the public sphere alone, however; similar concepts were also widely used, as forinstancea more specificnotion of thecivilsociety (e.g.,Hahnand Dunn 1996; Bradley 2002).

3. It is interesting to note that Habermass theory of social evolution received similar objec-tions ashisearly theoryof thepublic sphere. How (2001,178)summarized these objections intofour groups: eurocentrism, gender bias, opportunistic attitude toward historical evidence, andfallacious application of ontogenetic level to phylogenetic level of development.

4.Itseemstomethatthetermspatialization ,whichMah(2000,156)usedtodescribehistori-

ans response to Habermas is not very accurate, as the realm of the public is featured in theo-retical literature long before the appearance of Habermass work. Also, in his later works,Habermasemphatically emphasized spatial aspects of thepublicsphere (1996,360-66). But thepoint that historians brought to attention various neglected social and political actors, subjects,so to speak, in and of the public sphere, while investigating historical validity of the concept, iswell placed. Barry (1995,221) wrote in this sense,I think with more precision, about theshiftoffocus from structure to transformation in historians response to Habermas; this shiftenabled him to study more closely social agency and means of expression in public. JosephBradley(2002,1095)putitsimilarly:EuropeanandAmericanhistorianshaveusedtheconceptof public sphereand itsderivatives as categories of analysis to examine theconstitution of indi-vidual and group identities, the relationship between the individual and the state, reform move-ments, the construction of citizenship (especially by those denied it), political culture, and therealmsof publicand privatelife. SeealsoLa Vopa(1992) andBrooke (1998) forsimilarpoints.

References

Adorno, Theodor W., and MaxHorkheimer.2002.Dialektika razsvetljenstva. Filozofski fragmenti.Ljubljana, Slovenia: ISH.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983.Imagined communities. London: New Left Books.Arendt, Hannah. 1958.The human condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.




16/17

Avritzer, Leonardo. 2002.Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Baker, Keith Michael. 1992. Defining the public sphere in eighteenth-century France. InHabermas and the public sphere, ed. C. Calhoun, 181-211. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Barry, Jonathan.1995.A historical postscript. In Shiftingthe boundaries,ed.D.Castiglioneand

L. Sharpe, 220-37. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press.Beaud, Pauland LaurenceKaufmann.2001.Policingopinion: Elites, science,andpopular opin-

ion.In Publicopinionand democracy,ed.S.Splichal,55-84.Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress.Benjamin, Walter. 1968.Illuminations. New York: Harcourt.Bradley, Joseph. 2002. Subjects into citizens: Societies, civil society and autocracy in tsarist

Russia.American Historical Review54:1094-123.Brooke, John L.1998.Reason andpassion in thepublic sphere: Habermasandthe cultural histo-

rians.Journal of Interdisciplinary History29:43-67.Dahlgren, Peter. 1991. Introduction. InCommunication and citizenship, ed. P. Dahlgren and C.

Sparks, 1-25. London: Sage.Eley, Geoff. 1992. Nations, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the nineteenth

century. InHabermasand thepublicsphere,ed.C.Calhoun,289-339.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the public sphere. InHabermas and the public sphere, ed. C.Calhoun, 109-42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jrgen. 1979.Communication and social evolution. London: Heinemann.. 1989.Structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Polity.. 1992a.Autonomy and solidarity. London: Verso.. 1992b.Further reflections on thepublic sphere. InHabermasand the publicsphere,ed.

C. Calhoun, 421-61. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.. 1996.Between facts and norms. Oxford, UK: Polity.. 1998.A Berlin Republic. Oxford, UK: Polity.Hahn, Chris and Elizabeth Dunn, eds. 1996.Civil society: Challenging western models. Lon-

don: Routledge.Hardt, Hanno. 1979.Social theories of the press. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

. 1992.Critical communication studies. London: Routledge.. 1996. The making of the public sphere: Class relations and communication in the

United States.Javnost/The Public3:7-23.. 1998.Interactions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.. 2001.Social theories of the press. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Hartley, John. 1992.The politics of pictures. London: Routledge.Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. 2000.ffentlichkeit. Stuttgart, Germany: Metzler.How, Alan R. 2001. Habermas, history and social evolution.Sociology35:177-94.Jay, Martin. 1985. Habermas and modernism. In Habermas and modernity, ed. R. Bernstein,

125-39. Oxford, UK: Polity.Keane, John. 1991.The media and democracy. Oxford, UK: Polity.. 2003.Global civil society?Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Koselleck, Reinhart. 1988.Critique and crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kramer,Lloyd. 1992.Habermas,historyandcritical theory.InHabermasand thepublicsphere,

ed. C. Calhoun, 236-58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.La Vopa, AnhonyJ. 1992. Conceiving a public: ideas andsociety in eighteenth-century Europe.

Journal of Modern History64:79-116.Mah, Harold. 2000. Phantasies of the public sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of historians.

Journal of Modern History72:153-82.




17/17

McLuskie,Ed. 2003. Reading Humboldt through the theoryof communicative action.Javnost/The Public10:25-44.

Pesante, Maria Luisa. 1995. An impartial actor: The private and the public sphere in AdamSmiths theory of moral sentiments. InShifting the boundaries, ed. D. Castiglione and L.Sharpe, 172-95. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press.

Peters, John D. 1993. Distrust of representation: Habermas on the public sphere.Media, Cul-ture, and Society15:541-71.

. 2001. Realism in socialrepresentation andthe fate of thepublic.In Public opinion anddemocracy, ed. S. Splichal, 85-102. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sennett, Richard. 1979.The fall of public man. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.Splichal,Slavko.2001.Definingpublic opinion in history. In Ferdinand Tnnieson publicopin-

ion, selections and analyses, ed.H. Hardt and S. Splichal, 11-48. Lanham, MD:Rowman &Littlefield.

.2003. Principles ofpublicity andpressfreedom.Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield.Strum, Arthur. 1994. A bibliography of the concept ffentlichkeit. New German Critique

61:161-202.

kerlep, Andrej. 2002. Javnost, javno mnenje in diskurzivna racionalnost. Druzboslovnerazprave41:191-202.

Taylor, Charles. 2002. Modern social imaginaries.Public Culture14:15-26.Tnnies, Ferdinand. 1998.Kritika javnega mnenja. Ljubljana, Slovenia: FDV.Warner,Michael.1990. Thelettersof therepublic. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity Press.Williams, Raymond. 1971.The long revolution. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Wolff, Larry. 2001.Venice and the Slavs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Andrej Pinter wrote his doctoral dissertation on the role of classical ideas incontemporary theories of the public sphere (2003). He is a president of theSlovenian Communication Association. In 1999, he translated into SlovenianDeweys seminal book,The Public and its Problems, which was simultaneouslypublished with the translation of LippmannsPublic Opinion(trans. Vida Zei).

These twoworks marked the first systematic introduction of theAmerican prag-matist tradition to the Slovenian academe. Pinter cites Hanno Hardt, now pro-fessor at the University of Ljubljana, as one of the key authorities in the processof recognizing the importance of the pragmatist thought in Slovenia. He claimsthat Hardts reading of pragmatism in connection with the kind of critical the-ory which is adopted and thought in the broader intellectual context of the Cen-tral Europe finds much support in the post-transitional social thinking inSlovenia.



historians response to habermas

Documents