Between the public and private spheres

20 Jun

The term “public sphere”, popularized by the concepts developed by Transparency2Jünger Habermas (1929- ), especially in the book published in 1962, “Structural Change of the Public Sphere”, which is a translation for the German word, Öffentlichkeit, substantivation of the adjective öffentlich ). “Publicity”, which is also used in a certain way also as “making public” Publizität is in turn a term used to make public certain court debates.
The theme is again relevant not only to the situation in Brazil, but also to the use of “publicity” in both Trump’s campaign and Marie Le Pen’s campaign, in addition to countless cases of corruption allegations in Brazil and other countries in America America and the planet.
The general idea of ​​Habermas, roughly speaking, is that critical advertising is subverted by advertising / propaganda, where public opinion becomes manipulated both by the mass media and by party and administrative policies, but the term Should not be confused with the public / private difficulties of the state.
Subsequently Habermas relativized the term, because political and social experiences that denied a total depoliticization of the public sphere also show curious facts as a certain return to nationalism, and the question of public transparency is questioned.
What made Habermas later develop the idea of ​​the communicative action, consecrated in the book (in some editions like the English in two Volumes) “The theory of communicative action”, published in 1984, but what neglected that also there was needed a repair , Placing the question of the “new intransparency” where, while admitting utopian exhaustion, he sees a horizon where there is some fusion between utopian thought and historical consciousness.
Habermas cites the utopian scenarios of the Middle Ages: “Thomas Morus and his Utopia, Campanella with City of the Sun, Bacon with his New Atlantis,” its modernization in modern times by “Robert Owen and Saint Simon, Fourier and Proudhon rejected violent utopianism” , And there is an update with “Ernst Bloch and Karl Mannheim” which in Habermas’s view “purified the term’utopia ‘”, but neglects the analysis made of Manheim by Paul Ricoeur in courses made at the University of Chicago in 1975, which later became Book: “The ideology and the utopia”.
Ricoeur’s analysis shows that ideological distortion is based on considering only the symbolic structure of social life, generally viewed from the perspective of justifications and identifications of social groups, although necessary, is not enough to make projections for the future, where The use of transformative social innovations and agents is necessary.
HABERMAS, J. The new intransparency. In: New Studies CEBRAP, nº 18, set. São Paulo: Ed. Brasileira de Ciências Ltda,


Comentários estão fechados.