Thought, existence, and understanding in the Contemporary Public Sphere

Today’s public life and rational debate seems to serve the purpose to evaluate and understand in a clear, concise manner without any preconceived notions, but this does not occur to the extent we would like it to, and Castells categorizes this gap into four distinct, but interrelated, political crises: crises of efficiency, legitimacy, identity, and equity. (82). The public never seems to question things that make sense and seem indubitable, and we (the public) may accept truth, but the biggest concern is that we do not understand truth.  We rely on our senses to tell us truth, and like Habermas mentions, the senses telling us truth derive from newspapers, journals, and debates by public authority (52), but sometimes our senses that lead us to truth can be deceiving.  If the public wants to seek out the truth they need to question (which leads to understanding) the purpose and audience, rhetoric, and means of delivery.  Thought leads to the existence of a public, and existence leads to the public understanding.

The public’s understanding leads to growth: intellectually, morally, and emotionally.  Because of these growths, the public evolves with its interests and interactions with other public groups.  Fraser counters Habermas’ writings with the idea that the public Habermas “idealizes the liberal public sphere but also he that he fails to examine other, nonliberal, nonbourgeois, competing public spheres” (Fraser 115).  While I see Fraser’s point that the founding definition of “a public” and “the public” is outdated and an exclusive portion of the real public that exists, I feel a concession can be made—progress.  Fraser argues for a revision of the public with “the assumption that it is possible for interlocutors in a public sphere to bracket status differentials and to deliberate as if they were social equals” (117), which allows the public to progress by reconstructing or reorganizing experiences.  This is because the previous experiences of a public are connected to newfound experiences and ideas, thus creating more experiences for an ever-changing, ever-evolving public.

Now, let's apply these thoughts and criticisms to today. Today, the public’s sphere is to help serve society (the public) and help the health of public life by correcting unfair opportunities and deficits of the current public.  We see the public sphere through the same means Habermas has mentioned with the addition of other media outlets:television, magazines, and social networking sites, all thanks to our evolving use, interpretation, and understanding of media literacy. A shift in our public sphere has gone from public matters being understood to harvest a better society, and now focuses on social networking which divides a line of being a public sphere or a private sphere.  Before, the debates and criticisms were not about the type of public outlets we (the public) use, but what we did with the information the public gave us and how it affects us as a public whereas now, it is they type of public outlets and why the information we're gettign from them has any relevance to our society.  It relates to the age-old debate of the public being given information from entertainment stars' lives, and whether their lives were public or private, which then shifts us right back to our original writers and criticisms of the focus of a public and the information given and its use to the public. I believe our public sphere is a bit tilted with the misconception that many things that should fall into a private sphere are now emerging into a public sphere, with the mentality "the public's right to know" and "avoid government secrecy".  As a public sphere, we should be trying to keep our public sphere progressing with the use of truth in thought, existence, and understanding.