Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

INFORMATION AND DEMOCRACY
1
1
1
2
1
1
The upshot of such developments was the formation of the ‘bourgeois public
sphere’ by the mid-nineteenth century with its characteristic features of open
debate, critical scrutiny, full reportage, increased accessibility and independence
of actors from economic interest as well as from state control. Habermas emphasises
that the fight for independence from the state was an essential constituent
of the ‘bourgeois public sphere’. That is, early capitalism was impelled to resist
the established state – hence the centrality of struggles for a free press, for
political reform and for greater representation.
However, as the historical analysis proceeds, Habermas points to paradoxical
features of the ‘bourgeois public sphere’ that led ultimately to what he calls
its ‘refeudalisation’ in some areas. The first centres on the continuing aggrandisement
of capitalism. While Habermas notes that there had long been a ‘mutual
infiltration’ (p. 141) of private property and the public sphere, his view is that a
precarious balance was tilted towards the former during the closing decades of
the nineteenth century. As capitalism grew in strength and influence, so did its
enthusiasts move from calls for reform of the established state towards a takeover
of the state and use of it to further their own ends. In short, the capitalist state
came into being: as such its adherents increasingly turned their backs on an agitational
and argumentative role and used the state – now dominated by capital –
to further their own ends. The result of the expansion of MPs’ private directorships,
of business financing of political parties and think tanks, and of the
systematic lobbying of Parliament and public opinion by organised interests
has been a reduction in the autonomy of the public sphere. To be sure, there
have been alternative players in this game – one thinks, for instance, of organisations
such as Friends of the Earth and the trade unions and, most prominently,
the Labour Party in Britain – but most have spoken the ‘language of adaptation’
(Miliband, 1969, p. 195) to capitalist relations and have thereby forfeited much
of their oppositional role.
Habermas does not suggest that these trends represent a straightforward
return to a previous epoch. His view is that, during the twentieth century especially,
the spread of a public relations and lobbying culture is actually testament
to the continuing salience of important elements of the public sphere, not least
that it is acknowledgement of an area where political debate must be conducted
to gain legitimacy. However, what public relations does, in entering public debate,
is to disguise the interests it represents (cloaking them in appeals such as ‘public
welfare’ and the ‘national interest’), thus making contemporary debate a ‘faked
version’ (Habermas, 1962, p. 195) of a genuine public sphere. It is in this sense
that Habermas adopts the term ‘refeudalisation’, signalling ways in which public
affairs become occasions for ‘displays’ of the powers that be (in a manner analogous
to the medieval court) rather than spheres of contestation between
different policies and outlooks.
A second, related expression of ‘refeudalisation’ comes from changes within
the system of mass communications. One needs to recollect that this is central
to the effective operation of the public sphere since media allow scrutiny of, and
thence widespread access to, public affairs. However, during the twentieth
century the mass media developed into monopoly capitalist organisations and,
165