“Ideology and simultaneously more than mere ideology”: On Habermas’ reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere

As someone who works interdisciplinarily between media and communication studies sociology with an overall interest in critical social theory, Habermas’ “most successful” (Habermas, 2022a, p. 145) book is important at least three respects: He develops a normative, concept of the public sphere formation opinion, which aims democratizing domination, that ties it to process unrestricted discussion questions general involving all those affected. The development this possibility, but also transformation disintegration sphere, sociologically embedded, is, considered light changing socio-spatial frames reference, mediatization, political-economic developments (cf. Seeliger & Sevignani, 2022). Habermas, like few concerned organization political economy media.1 It was therefore great honor he not only contributed commentary texts edited by Martin me (first German: 2021, then English: 2022a), even wrote independent text, now available as together smaller 2022b). Against background, I very pleased be invited participate symposium on his new book. In contribution, will first, according briefly sketch role liberal-representative systems its during rise digital communication. Then, point notable tension, immanent Habermas reflections, between, one hand, normative goal communicative learning and, other affirmation “editorial tutelage.” This think, presses repose question ideology again has removed from best locates outside sphere. By making gate-keeper paradigm mass-media yardstick evaluate ongoing transformations, tends misjudge quality semi-public spheres. Not lack generalization, argue finally, different, emancipatory, form generalization core problem opinion formation. recapitulates—in concise accessible form—his approach theory reconstructive critique (1), “sociological translation” 1996, 315) (2), effects brought about same (3). final probably accounts for attention text already received. First, reconstructs, starting late 18th century, rational incompletely realized content modern subjectivity sees itself free, equal, wanting shape future. could have developed through democratic institutions, such human rights, constitutions, parliaments, were historically origin. To meet under conditions socio-economic heterogeneity cultural background consensus, societies depend establishment spheres deliberation opinion-formation. order do justice their own demands, these must, far possible, two characteristics, namely equal participation specific discursive exchange, consists addressing relevant problems developing viable solutions them. Second, outlines what ideal two-track system decision-making deliberation, “strong” “weak” publics (Fraser, 2014), are separated representation. system, liberal culture provides inputs mass condense into plural citizens use guide will-formation electoral choices. direction decisions may modified—one say post-democratized—by inherent logic institutions direct influence legislative extent taken continue recognizable perceivable caused informed citizens. Only if can recognize themselves authors laws rules they abide defend way, culture, recognizes defeats dissenting opinions legitimate, reproduced institutional structure reinforcing way. Antagonisms tear community apart thus hemmed community-compatible agonisms Mouffe, 2005), flanked welfare state redistribution measures education support competences crucial element politically precondition decisions; supposed responsive citizens, generate problems, delimit positions editorial processing services, well present them verified comprehensible manner. Third, course digitalization way range expanding while, time, intensity reception decreasing. For minority audience (in Federal Republic Germany, least), forms echo chambers tend oppose each other, seal off. Such relate irreconcilably no longer agonally. hybridization puts classical pressure competition advertising revenues problematic consequences deliberative opinion-forming. Crucial theoretical architecture, however, mixing private newly created “semi-public sphere” 166). tense simultaneity socio-material citizen interests (expressed, example, framework constitutional patriotism), successfully litigated tilts toward self-interest detriment common good. People discuss issues fundamentally interest, address others “opponents” within shared binding discourse. erodes fragile consequence, perception traceable principles should confirm kind culture. view complex, coherent elaborated over long period always tempted interested reader or theorist fall rut impressive grand when agreeing more aspects. Since publication Structural Transformation 1962, Habermasian been critically evaluated hegemony- ideology-theoretical perspective (e.g., Eley, 1992; Fraser, 1992, 2007, 2014; Koivisto Väliverronen, 1996; Negt Kluge, 1993). These engagements posed number fundamental questions. first addressed whether bourgeois “unconstrained compulsion better argument” really provide model rule democratically liquefied, cannot shed class-specific taint because must disregarded (ultimately rationality remains means rule). A second issue civil society political-liberal end emancipation if, following Gramsci, domination “softly” production consensus (armored coercion). Finally, critiques questioned differentiation achieved capitalism sphere—and inclusive governments economy, life-world—can readjusted, established set up differently. Pointedly, argued against envisages ideological. Following problematizations, examine conceptualized come conflict people's agency competences, might play this. My departure passages Reflections Hypotheses fit without tension. previous pre-digital often described “gatekeeper” paradigm, characterized one-to-many communication, socially differentiated journalism institutionalized carried professionalized communicators journalists ex-ante control does imply “disenfranchisement users; merely describes enable acquire necessary knowledge information so her need regulation” 160; On think right underline ambivalence accompanies eroding gatekeeper subsequent re-intermediation platforms “hybrid systems” Chadwick, 2017). “mass self-communication” (Castells, 2009), blending many-to-many lay mixes professional offerings, effect becomes questionable, done after recipients, authors. argues accordingly: “One self-empowerment price latter pay being released tutelage old yet learned make good media. Just printing made everyone potential reader, today digitalisation author. But how did take until able read?” 160). interesting here this: successful, emancipatory opinion-formation requires promotes (here: reading authorship), unfold development. However, although speaks tutelage” age, underestimates aspects (mass) “sluices” “gate-keeping” opinion-forming positive increase relieve burden enabling rationalization lifeworld representing historical achievement. dissolve solidify it—and possibility learning. Let elaborate (for detailed line argument cf. excluded systematically distorted communications “communication pathologies” (cf., e.g., 1984, 252ff.) “systematically conditions” (Strecker, 2012, 179ff.) level favor suppressions—happening strategic (advertising) Kempf, 2023). leads him assessment media, let reporting influenced addition reasonably understood suppression, “filters” act condensation provision instance discussions Mullen Klaehn, 2010; Zollmann, 2019). emergence permanent reproduction ideological communication—not suppression communication—can derived subjects become capable acting. Agency defined “the capacity gain, cooperation others, individual's life (Holzkamp, 2013, 20), dimension beings, we constantly interpreting world around us. We working found meanings interrelated construct structures meaning. am referring Critical Psychology, school thinking, alternative Freudo-Marxism Germany Scandinavian countries cultural-historical (Soviet) psychology Vygotsky, Leontev, Luria) distinguish categorial agency: “restrictive” “generalizing” 23f.). former maintenance accepting prevailing deal partial interests. restrictive externalizes costs maintaining one's onto thereby lose agency. Restrictive agency, while subjectively functional, sustainable run. satisfaction needs still dependent linked fear situation granted powerful. contradictions affect subjective action. Generalized contrary, decoding given (hegemonic) meanings, creating meaning, determine realm meaningful subject, generalizable material involves appropriating organizing cooperatively change conditions. capitalist societies, intrinsically antagonistic happiness strong correlates suffering weak (Boltanski Chiapello, 360ff.). If so, some gain expense others. arises achieve integration despite disrupted commonality, secure subjects’ time conflict-generating restrict among possible building “competence/incompetence structure” (Haug, 1993, 70, Rehmann, 254ff.) interplay publics. divides offices held over-reaching imaginary “bourgeois inclusive, domination-free promises pacify relations. constructed specialists. instances orientation proxy, true false, legitimate illegitimate valuable worthless. Professional rules, journalistic habitus “journalistic ideology” (Deuze, activists PR agents. They claim perform civic publicity that, integrative values, function “empty signifiers” Laclau, 36ff.). aligning counter-factual imaginary, interpret community-founding impartiality, objectivity, relevance, influential neutral terrains but, fruitful analysis “density resilience” (Poulantzas) “material compression power relations” Jessop, 2008, 122ff.). Thus, depending resources dominant meaning structures, certain interpretations represented all, marginally represented, question, interpretive favors position another demanding wage increases plausible profit rates rise). Integration hegemony succeed absorbing simultaneously subordinating experiences refraining Kluge (1993) had objected original conception central mechanism precisely construction counterfactual, relations societies. Media vary culturally regard proportion integrating Hallin Mancini, 2014). broadcasting functions counterweight interest-driven, “divisive” organizational structure. problem, Generalization driven processes, surrender self-association tutelage. capacities subalternity. scope gained agency; allows everyday contexts At goes hand-in-hand loss check truth accuracy, reality. Under inequality relations, develop sufficiently Bohman, 1990, 107). short, my enables based deficient competences. separation authorial than thinks. Mechanisms indicate claims validity repressed, damaged mechanisms compromise formation, understanding contribute shielding discursively practically challenged. context commercial platforms, find similar tendencies media: unequal reinforced rather balanced out; commodity place advertisements indirectly create coverage incentives journalists, directly high-reach “sponsored stories”; possibly acceleration lower depth reception—a click reception, argument. would out differences: All kinds character space emerges unavailable different actors increasingly privately curated corporations controlled. privileged platforms’ surveillance-based business models algorithmic recommendation evaluation interactions accumulated users’ preferences. Algorithmic recommendations combine consider current preferences users. monitored, aim linking directing (purchase) actions exploitable, profitable paths 2022c). view, things channeled effectively towards valorization, denotes further depoliticization easily due simple searchability mentioned systems, creates opportunities identity-forming sub-publics. can, turn 1992). many debates movements Porta, 2022) tie possibility. there effective networked finally authorized author, close off irritation thesis doubling experiences, industry analyses older Frankfurt School himself habilitation took up, context. With restriction actively performed receptive. examination “quality” “truth” undertaken mode acceptance intersubjective potentially epistemic praxeological effects. striking focus option collection transcends immediate short-circuits third opinions. stuck scheme privatization hand fragmentation threatening irreversibly bound together. platform mediators (so least) pretensions: where selections criteria topicality, balance, transparency, careful research. editorially unfiltered expect concern discussed perspectives; rather, feel encouraged seek lead self-affirming non-discussing closed sub-publics, calls understand guarantees unifying sphere; omitted, threatened him. Lack generalization—but generalization—is When educational communicate digitally learn authors, just once readers, presumably refrain purification participatory limiting editorship? strive leave here? After said above, secures lies exclusion threat relativized, competence, experience aloofness, securing suitable evaluating transformation. Of course, arises—with urgency—as non-ideological look environments. Open access funding enabled organized Projekt DEAL. Sebastian Sevignani post-doctoral researcher principal investigator Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena's department Collaborative Research Centre TRR 294 “Structural Change Property”. His research include theories capitalism, intelelctual property, transformations privacy, (development).