Philosophy. Cultural studies
Herald Nizhny Novgorod University them. N.I. Lobachevsky. Series Social Sciences, 2013, No. 3 (31), p. 125-130 125
UDC 004.7+14+304
“PUBLIC SPHERE” by J. HABERMAS:
IMPLEMENTATION IN INTERNET DISCOURSE
© 2013 M.Yu. Kazakov
Nizhny Novgorod Institute of Management, branch Russian Academy National economy and civil services under the President of the Russian Federation
Received by the editor 03/10/2013
The process of formation of a new “public sphere” within the framework of Internet discourse is considered. Given general characteristics content of the concept “public sphere”. Examples are given of the use of the Internet as a “public sphere” in modern Russian society.
Key words: J. Habermas, public sphere, Internet discourse, social media, citizens
social society, information society.
IN modern world The information society is rapidly developing. According to most researchers, it has the following fundamental features: an increase in the information activity of all members of society, the transformation of the information industry into the most dynamic sphere of its functioning, the penetration of information and communication technologies into the life activities of each individual, and also, thanks to the widespread use of flexible network structures, a change in all models social organization and cooperation. In the information society, mass media technologies play a decisive role in people’s lives, especially in the processes of socialization, their participation in public life.
The famous postmodern sociologist Jean-François Lyotard emphasized that in the information society “knowledge has become the main productive force, which has significantly changed the composition of the active population in the most developed countries and constituted the main difficulty for developing countries". Information and knowledge are turning into a key factor of life in society. Taking into account also the position about the global culture of consumerism in the postmodern era and appealing to the further reasoning of J.-F. Lyotard that “in the form of an information commodity necessary to strengthen productive power, knowledge is and will be the most important, and perhaps the most significant stake in the global competition for power”, it should be noted that in the information society, unlike other forms sociality on the per-
The diversity of information flows and the expansion of the media space are becoming increasingly important.
Simultaneously with the development of the information society, civil society is being formed. In this regard, of interest are the statements of some researchers that “civil society, at the stage of dominance of the information component of human existence in society, becomes an information society.” In our opinion, assumptions of this type are not entirely correct. Civil society is preserved and, thanks to information technology, receives new opportunities for its development. At the same time, it is difficult to overestimate the role played by the network information space in modern public life, forming completely new methods and means of communication and opening up unknown opportunities for civic activity. The stated problems determine the relevance of the proposed research.
The most important indicator of the maturity of civil society is its ability to conduct dialogue with the authorities, as well as create opportunities for dialogue within society. Dialogue in this case is understood as the articulation of various semantic positions, which leads not to their mutual rejection or suppression, but to productive interaction. The criterion for the success of such interaction will be the emergence of new semantic constructions on all sides of the participants. Dialogue necessarily presupposes: 1) the presence of full-fledged subjects-participants; 2) the initial absence of a monopoly on truth.
It seems that the concept of the public sphere, the founder of which is the German philosopher and sociologist J. Habermas, most closely corresponds to the objectives of the article on analyzing the current state of affairs with the dialogue between society and the state. Building on his major work on this topic, we want to articulate the question of a new “public sphere” emerging in Internet discourse.
Achieving this goal requires the following tasks: 1) explore the emergence and give a detailed description of the concept of “public sphere”; 2) determine the significance of the “public sphere” in modern society; 3) trace the formation of the “public sphere” within the framework of Internet discourse; 4) show how the Internet is used as a “public sphere” in practice; 5) draw general conclusions that correspond to the stated issues.
When articulating the question of the concept of the “public sphere,” the researcher faces a number of difficulties. Firstly, it should be noted that the Russian term “public sphere” is not entirely accurate, since it is a linguistic calque of the English term “public sphere”, which, in turn, seems to be a not entirely correct translation of Habermas’s German term “Offentlichkeit”, which acquires in Russian language meaning “public” or “public”. However, the concept of “public sphere” in Russian is semantically maximally satisfying in relation to Habermas’s concept, therefore in national science It is customary to use this term.
In accordance with the classical Habermasian concept, the “public sphere” is interpreted as a space of rational discussion based on the principles of openness and equality of parties, as well as on jointly developed and generally accepted criteria and standards. It is in the public sphere, in the process of discussion and exchange of information free from external control, that what can be called “public opinion” is developed. It does not represent the arithmetic average of the opinions of all participants, but the result of a discussion that clears it of distortions introduced by private interests and the limitations of individual points of view. The outcome of the discussion is determined solely by the strength of the argument, and not by the status of the participants. Such public opinion (and the public sphere as the space for its formation) acts as the main limiter of state power and source
democratic legitimacy through the articulation of public interests, public control of the activities of government structures, as well as participation in the discussion and formation of public policy.
As is known, when modeling the public sphere, Habermas proceeded from the neo-Marxist interpretation of Hegel’s social philosophy. At the same time, Habermas was looking for a space autonomous from both the state (unlike Hegel) and the market (unlike Marx). This zone for him is the public sphere, “the very existence of which was a direct consequence of the constitution of the state and the emergence of a market economy, which led to the emergence of the citizen, on the one hand, and the private individual, on the other.”
According to Habermas, the decisive role in the development of the public sphere in modern times was played by the development of periodicals and especially the rise of political journalism in the 18th century, when people began to meet in salons, coffee houses and other public places specifically to discuss newspaper publications on current issues. . With the advent and development of printed media (books, newspapers, magazines), the public sphere, in contrast to its ancient Greek version (Agora), emerges as a “virtual” community of private individuals who write, read, reflect, interpret and thereby discuss public problems on new level. Exactly this social environment and was a potential basis for the emergence of an opposition, which, with its inherent critical attitude towards the existing government, became a key factor in the formation of modern Western democracy. However, later, according to Habermas, this environment was largely subject to deterioration: meetings in coffee houses lost their former importance, while publishing houses turned into large-scale commercial enterprises, concerned more with the problem of manipulating consumers than with organizing rational discussions in society. It is important to note that the very concept of the public sphere is value-oriented. The public sphere is an ideal in the name of which criticism of the existing government, mass culture, consumer “idols” and a passive public will always be possible.
Within the media space, the public sphere is a conditionally designated virtual community in which public discourse is carried out, which is
resulting from collective reflection on current and socially significant events of the so-called democratic majority. The public sphere is the most important condition for the existence of civil society. A civil society without a developed public sphere lacks the participation of members of society in political decision-making. Equally important is the ability of the public sphere to act as a medium of social integration, a form of social solidarity and an arena for discussing possible social measures of action. It should be noted that the public sphere within the Internet changes the audience vector from elitism to mass participation, thus not excluding any citizen from participation in the discussion.
One of the difficulties that arises when analyzing the public sphere is to delimit the spheres of competence of the public sphere, i.e. separate the public sphere from the private. There are several methods for conceptualizing this dichotomy: 1) “public” primarily refers to those types of activities or powers that were in one way or another associated with the state and society, while “private” refers to the activities of private citizens; 2) in contrast between public and private, “public” is distinguished as “open” and “available to the public,” that is, information that can be obtained by the majority. On the contrary, “private” is something that is hidden from the public, which is known only to a limited circle of people. In relation to the sphere of politics, this dichotomy gives rise to the problem of “publicity” as the degree of “visibility”, openness, on the one hand, of state power, and on the other, the personal life of citizens. It is not possible to solve this complexity within the framework of this article, but we understand “publicity” in the second sense.
At the heart of the Habermasian public sphere is justice and truth. Habermas denotes the principle of justice as “(and)” - the “principle of universal” ethics of discourse, and about truth he writes: “Argumentation ensures in principle the free and equal participation of all parties in a joint search for truth, where nothing forces anyone except the force of the best argument ". “The power of the best argument” is the key point of his works.
Justice and truth are ensured where the five requirements for discourse ethics are met:
1. None of the participants in the discussion should be excluded from the discourse (the requirement of universality).
2. In the process of discourse, everyone must have an equal opportunity to present and criticize claims to justice (the demand for autonomy).
3. Participants must be able to share the claims of others for fairness (the requirement for ideal performance of the role).
4. Existing power differences between participants must be neutralized so that differences do not affect the achievement of consensus (the requirement of power neutrality).
5. Participants must openly declare their goals, intentions and refrain from strategic actions (transparency requirement).
Although the main work of Habermas that we are analyzing, dedicated to understanding the public sphere, “Structural transformations of the public sphere. Reflections on the Category of Civil Society,” published in 1962, Habermas is even more critical and rigorous in discussing the problem of the public sphere in his later speeches and studies. For example, in his 2006 speech at the University of Vienna, he again talks about the possibility of realizing the concept of the public sphere through the latest media of mass communication.
Despite the idealism and utopianism of the Habermasian bourgeois public sphere criticized by many scientists, we can claim that most of the requirements of universal discourse ethics are satisfied already at modern stage development of the Internet.
Indeed, at the end of the XX - beginning of XXI centuries, as the pinnacle of evolution information technologies, a qualitatively new communication space is emerging - the Internet. Within its framework, in our opinion, a networked public sphere is currently being formed at the global, transnational level.
As a consistent development of information technology, the Internet has become an exceptional means of communication and has led to the emergence of fundamentally new forms of communication interaction, thanks to which it has become the object of active interest of researchers around the world and, perhaps with some delay, Russian researchers. It is difficult to overestimate the role played by this network information space, influencing social processes, both in Russia and in the world, forming completely new methods and means of communication, re-structuring the social and
tal sphere. With the transition to a new technological and ideological paradigm of the Internet - Web 2.0 (Web 2.0) and the emergence of social media, social Internet communication became possible, comparable in capabilities to free communication in the concept of the civil public sphere of Habermas.
The global Internet, as an initially decentralized communication system, creates new forms of interaction, initiates new types of relations between its participants, and allows for dialogue beyond the borders of existing states. The Internet also has other important features that distinguish it from traditional media: accessibility, low price use and the ability to quickly distribute large amounts of information over a considerable distance. According to the influential Western globalization researcher, Dutch sociologist S. Sassen, “The Internet is an extremely important tool and space for democratic participation at all levels, for strengthening the foundations of civil society, for the formation of a new vision of the world through political and civil projects that are transnational in nature.” . Another authoritative author, appealing to Habermas, confirms that in the 21st century such features of the public sphere have developed as: “open discussion, criticism of the actions of the authorities, full accountability, openness and independence characters from economic interests and state control."
New system communications is based on network integration different types communication and includes many cultural phenomena, which leads to important social consequences for a person. Thanks to the advent of the Internet, there is a significant weakening of the symbolic power of traditional message senders, especially institutions of power that govern through historically coded social practices (religion, morality, authority, traditional values, political ideology).
Members of the information society, having received the opportunity to have equal access to information, change their attitude towards the authorities and receive information that forces them to be critical of the actions of the ruling circles. Thus, the new communication mode of the information society becomes a powerful factor that destroys the monological form of relations between power and society and contributes to
contributing to the construction of a dialogical form of communication.
Discussions take place on the Internet on issues such as the US invasion of Iraq, the legitimacy of the past elections, the appropriateness of spending the state budget and other socially important topics. Thanks in large part to the Internet, hundreds of thousands of people marched in the streets of the world to protest the military action in Iraq. For example, the largest Western civil law Internet resource www.moveon.org (whose motto is “Democracy in Action”) helped thousands of people cooperate and organize this action. Another striking example of civic cohesion achieved through Internet communication is the situation with the recent tsunami in Japan, where the dissemination of video evidence of the terrible tragedy on the Internet led to widespread pre-national fundraising in support of the affected cities.
The Internet provides its members with a number of significant advantages in expressing civic positions and participating in the discussion of current public issues. Firstly, the Internet erases geographical boundaries, and, regardless of location, every person connected to the network can express their opinion. Moreover, communication can take place both in real time (online) and with a delay in receiving the message (offline). The second significant characteristic of the virtual space is the relative ease of access to the information “mouthpiece” on the Internet, compared to traditional media. These two advantages, together with the presence of a free communication space uncontrolled by the authorities, in which one can easily communicate without significant restrictions, make the Internet an ideal location for oppositionists and other citizens who want to exercise their civil rights online through new social practices.
The main democratic functions of modern media are: to make important public information public to all citizens and to enable these citizens to discuss this information among themselves, to “start a discourse.” But even oppositional traditional media, while coping with the first function, cannot technologically provide opportunities for dialogue. Social media, in turn, is built on social communication and dialogue. Public forums, blogs, online communities - they all
provide an opportunity for communication by commenting on posts and comments from other readers. Video hosting YouTube and other similar social services provide opportunities for individuals to upload videos, which thereby become public domain.
An example is the parliamentary elections in our country to the State Duma on December 4, 2011, when many actors in the blogosphere actively expressed outrage after summing up the election results, since they did not agree with the election results. After the elections, hundreds of videos from different polling stations were posted on YouTube, showing violations of election rules. For example, this happened with a video that captured violations during the parliamentary elections on December 4, 2011 at one of the Moscow polling stations. This case, as well as subsequent opposition rallies and the demands of their participants, were actively discussed in the blogs of important political figures and in groups social networks. The effectiveness of social media is especially noticeable during the “unrest” against the backdrop of the actions of traditional media, which ignored the ongoing opposition rallies, although they showed a smaller rally in support of the election results, which took place not far from the first one.
With all the positive changes in civil discourse thanks to the Internet, there are several points that cannot but cause concern: 1) the gradual saturation of the network space with manipulative actors and falsifiers, whose tasks include using information leverage to carry out information wars against ordinary citizen actors in order to compromise and refute the socially important information they provide; 2) in most countries, the Internet is, one way or another, controlled by the authorities under the pretext of combating illegal activities such as hacking, nationalism, obscenity, copyright infringement, pornography, preparation of terrorist acts, fraud and illegal gambling. There are legitimate concerns that these controls may sooner or later lead to a decline in freedom of speech on the Internet; 3) the virtualization of society in the future may lead to the fact that civil consolidation will not go beyond the virtual space and virtual discussions will no longer stimulate civil action in reality.
Thus, having analyzed the material stated regarding the identified issues, we can draw certain conclusions:
1) the term “public sphere”, first introduced in the 20th century by J. Habermas and used to designate a new information space that arose in the 18th-19th centuries in salons, coffee houses and other public places where representatives of society discussed current public issues, turns out to be fruitful for analysis modern processes;
2) in modern society, the “public sphere” provides free media space for communication between citizens, and therefore its role for society increases significantly;
3) the formation of a new public sphere within the framework of Internet discourse occurs due to the following properties of the Internet: decentralization, network structure, lack of control by the state, as well as the unprecedented ease of becoming an active actor in the network;
4) the examples given in the article of using the Internet as a “public sphere” justify the proposed hypothesis about the emergence of a new type of public sphere, but at the same time, some concerns arise about the future of this networked public sphere.
The phenomenon of the formation of the modern “public sphere” within the framework of Internet discourse in Russian science practically not studied, and, of course, its further in-depth study is relevant.
Bibliography
1. Lyotard J.-F. The state of postmodernity: Trans. from French St. Petersburg, 1998. R. 18-19.
2. Bumagina E.L. The role of the media in the formation of civil society: Auto-ref. dis. Ph.D. Phil. Sciences: 09.00.11. M., 2002. P. 9.
3. Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991. 301 p.
4. Trakhtenberg A.D. Internet and the revival of the “public sphere” // Scientific yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Ekaterinburg, 2007. No. 7. P. 224-230.
5. Bobbio N. Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power. Minneapolis, 1989. R. 36.
6. Habermas J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, Mass, 1990. R. 122.
7. Sassen S. On the Internet and Sovereignty // Global Legal Studies Journal, 1998. R. 545-559.
8. Webster F. Theories of the information society. M., 2004. 400 p.
10. Blog of A. Navalny [Electronic resource] // 11. Blog of M. Prokhorov [Electronic resource] //
Access mode: . Retrieved 02/11/2012. 84044.html]. Retrieved 02/11/2012.
"PUBLIC SPHERE" OF J.HABERMAS: ITS REALISATION IN INTERNET-DISCOURSE
This article discusses the process of forming a new “public sphere” in the online discourse. The author gives a general description of the content of the concept of “public domain”. The article gives examples of using the Internet as a “public sphere” in modern Russian society.
Keywords: J. Habermas, public sphere, internet-discourse, social media, civil society, information society.
The concept of the "public sphere" was introduced by Jürgen Habermas in 1962 to designate the "literate bourgeois society" and later the "society as a whole" capable of acting as a critical counterweight to the state.
Mainly on material relating to Great Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Habermas shows how the public sphere emerged in the early days of capitalism, and then in the middle and end of the 20th century. - it fell into disrepair. This sphere was independent not only from the state (although it was financed by it), but also from the main economic forces. This was a sphere that allowed anyone who wanted to rationally discuss a problem (that is, to hold a discussion or debate, the participants of which are not personally interested in its outcome, do not pretend or manipulate its results), join this discussion, and become familiar with its materials. It was in this area that public opinion was formed.
Information served as the backbone of the public sphere. It was assumed that participants in public discussions would clearly state their positions, and the general public would become familiar with them and be aware of what was happening. The elementary and at the same time the most important form of public discussion were parliamentary debates, which were published verbatim, although, of course, libraries and the publication of government statistics played a role (and a significant one).
The ideal organization of the public sphere is easy to imagine: honest members of the House of Commons who condemn issues in the House of Commons, supported by capable and dedicated public servants who honestly gather the information they need along the way. The whole process takes place in the public eye: what is said is faithfully reflected in official publications, and the press provides access to the contents of these publications and diligently reports everything that happens, so that when it comes to elections, the politician can be forced to account for his activities (and, Naturally, he does this during his term in parliament, so all his activities are completely transparent).
The idea of a public sphere is extremely attractive to supporters of democracy and those influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. For the former, a well-functioning public sphere is an ideal model on which to demonstrate the role of information in a democratic society: they are attracted by the fact that reliable information, which is made available to everyone without any conditions, is a guarantee of openness and accessibility of democratic procedures. The concept of the public sphere also has endless appeal for those influenced by Enlightenment ideas. It gives people access to facts, they can calmly analyze and think about them, and then make a rational decision about what to do.
It is useful to become familiar with Habermas's account of the history of the development of the public sphere in order to understand the dynamics and directions of this development. Habermas believes that the public sphere, or more precisely, what he calls the bourgeois public sphere, arose in the 18th century. in connection with some important features of capitalism, which developed at this time in Great Britain. The most important thing was that the entrepreneurial class became wealthy enough to achieve independence and get rid of the tutelage of the state and church. Until then, the sphere of public life was dominated by the court and the church, emphatically demonstrating adherence to feudal customs, until the growing wealth of the new capitalists undermined the dominance of the traditional nobility. One of the manifestations of this wealth was the growing support by entrepreneurs of everything that was connected with literature and writers: theater, coffee houses, novels and literary criticism. Then, in turn, the dependence of writers on patrons weakened, and, freed from traditional dependencies, they formed an environment critical of traditional power. As Habermas notes, “the art of small talk has become criticism, and wit has become argument.”
Another source of growing support for freedom of speech and parliamentary reform was the development of market relations. As capitalism grew and became stronger, it acquired greater independence from the state, increasingly demanding changes in its institutions, and not least the institutions of representative power, wider participation in which would allow it to continue the expansion of market relations. The outsiders, having gained strength and self-confidence, now wanted to become insiders. The fight for parliamentary reform was also a fight for freedom of the press, since those who advocated this reform also sought greater openness in politics. It is significant that in the middle of the 18th century. For the first time, full reports of parliamentary meetings appeared.
At the same time, there was a struggle for the independence of the press from the state. This struggle was facilitated by the apathy of the state, but also by low publishing costs. As it turned out, the press of the 18th-19th centuries, in which a very wide range of opinions was represented, at the same time very fully reflected the activities of parliament, which indicates the existence of a close connection between the development of the press and parliamentary reform. (It is significant that it was in 1832 that the expression “fourth estate” began to be used in relation to the press, meaning that its place is after the power of the nobility (lords), princes, church and the House of Commons.)
And, of course, the formation of a political opposition played an important role in the struggle of the Different Forces, which stimulated the clash and struggle of opinions, which ultimately led to the emergence of what Habermas calls rationally acceptable politics.
The result of the development was the creation of mid-19th V. bourgeois public sphere with its characteristic features: open discussion, criticism of government actions, full accountability, transparency and independence of actors from economic interests and state control. Habermas emphasizes that the struggle for independence from the state has become an important component of the bourgeois public sphere. Early capitalism was forced to resist the state, hence the struggle for a free press, for political reform and for fuller representation of capital in power.
In his historical analysis, Habermas also points out the paradoxical features of the bourgeois public sphere, which he calls the re-feudalization of certain spheres of life. One of them is related to the continued growth of capitalism. For some time, Habermas notes, there was an “interpenetration” of relations between private property and the public sphere, but during the last decades of the 19th century. the fragile balance between them gradually began to be upset in favor of private property. As capitalism became more powerful and influential, its supporters moved from calls for reforms to state institutions, to their capture and use for their own purposes. The capitalist state emerged, and its supporters increasingly moved from debate and agitation to using the state they now dominated to fight for their private interests.
As a result, members of parliament simultaneously found themselves on the boards of private companies, political parties began to receive direct funding from business, centers for developing party strategies emerged, systematic lobbying activities and processing of public opinion began in parliament, and the public sphere lost its independence. Of course, independent actors continued to play a role - for example, organizations such as Friends of the Earth and trade unions, and, of course, the UK Labor Party - but the majority were in favor of adapting to capitalist relations and therefore parting with the role of oppositionists ( shining example- Tony Blair's New Labor movement.
Habermas does not claim that there is a return to an immediately previous era. On the contrary, the proliferation of lobbying and public relations technologies - especially throughout the 20th century - shows that vital elements of the public sphere have remained, it has become generally accepted, for example, that in some cases only previous political debates can confer legitimacy decisions taken. What PR technology has brought to the public sphere is the masquerade that debaters resort to to hide their true interests by talking about the “welfare society” or the “national interest,” which in turn turns the debate into modern society in a “fake” of a real public sphere. Therefore, when using the term “refeudalization,” Habermas means rather a return to forceful confrontation, to something similar to medieval judicial duels, instead of a fair competition of different views and opinions.
Another evidence of refeudalization associated with the mentioned argument is the restructuring of the system of mass communications in society. It must be borne in mind that this system plays an important role in the public sphere, since the media monitors events occurring in it, and thereby provides the public with wide access to it. In the 20th century, however, the media turned into monopolistic organizations and began to perform less of their most important function - to bring reliable information to the public. As the media increasingly express the interests of the capitalist class, they do not so much disseminate information as shape public opinion.
There are many aspects to this process, but the bottom line is that as the press becomes a means of advertising and takes on propaganda functions (even when publishing seemingly mere reports), the public sphere declines . For the same reasons - growing commercialization and expansion of corporate capital - the role of literature is decreasing, its function is becoming predominantly entertainment, now it is bestsellers and blockbusters that are written not to be critically discussed, but to be consumed. Whether it concerns publishing houses, the press or the more important television, they are all today enslaved, “feudalized”, their task has become the glorification of the capitalist way of life.
PUBLIC SPHERE) The sphere of public life within which a discussion of socially significant issues can take place, leading to the formation of an informed public opinion. A number of institutions are associated with the development of the public sphere - the state, newspapers and magazines, the provision of public space such as parks, cafes and others public places, - as well as a culture conducive to public life. Some theorists, such as Habermas or Sennett (1974), have argued that the public sphere was most developed in 18th-century Europe, and that since then there has been a retreat from public participation and a growing division between the public and public spheres. privacy influenced by the development of capitalism and commodification Everyday life. This meant a break between family and household life on the one hand, and the world of work and politics on the other. This division is also due to gender differences, since the organization of the private sphere is carried out by women, while the public sphere is dominated by men. The subject of wide discussion was modern role mass media, especially television, in maintaining the public sphere (Dahlgren, 1995). Some participants in this debate argue that television trivializes the issues involved and is biased, thereby preventing informed public debate. Others say that television essentially provides raw material that people use to discuss public issues in everyday life. See also: Privatization; Privatism.
A significant place in the research of Russian scientists is occupied by public sphere. where, in the words of Yu. Krasin, “in an open comparison of views, “grinding in” occurs” different groups interests, and in dialogue with government authorities, civil consciousness and civic position are formed.” In the public sphere, public opinion is formed, socio-political problems are discussed, public interests are realized, and influence is exercised. public policy various organizations representing private interests.
The development of the public sphere is impossible without the formation of a mature civil society and civil culture. From the point of view of the French democracy researcher Guy Hermé, to form citizenship a culture is needed that is characterized by certain features, such as openness towards other people; tolerance, which allows you to compare and contrast your point of view with the opinions of others, accept change and renewal; the need for reporting on the activities of managers at all levels. Citizenship, in his opinion, consists of three complementary and inseparable elements: it is based on an awareness of the unity of morals and duties, which are useless if they remain unclaimed; presupposes the presence of specific civic actions - from the need to be informed to active participation in political and election campaigns; relies on a system of values and moral convictions that give meaning and meaning to this system 1 .
A similar point of view is shared by the domestic scientist Yu. Krasin, who believes that the increasing diversity of interests enriches social life, but at the same time creates the need for tolerance towards each other. Tolerance. from his point of view, “this is a question of how to live in the presence of differences between people.”
In the public sphere, there is an interaction between the public interests of citizens and the public policy of the state, which depends on the readiness of the population to form civil society structures. The activity of various organizations, unions, and movements determines their degree of influence on government bodies in order to realize public interests.
The public sphere ensures the influence of society on government, being the most important attribute of democratization. It is difficult to disagree with the American political scientist L. Diamond, who wrote: “Ultimately...democracy wins or loses thanks to individuals and groups, their choices and actions.”
Democracy is incompatible with the total extension of state power to the non-state sphere of civil society. At the same time, democratization cannot be defined as the abolition of the state and the achievement of a spontaneously emerging agreement between citizens who make up civil society. The democratic project lies between these two extremes. Democracy represents the process of distribution of power and public control over its execution within the framework of politics, which is characterized by the presence of institutionally different but interconnected spheres of civil society and the state. Monitoring and public control over the exercise of power is best carried out in a democratic system precisely with such institutional separation. Democracy in this case is understood as a bipartite and self-reflective system of power in which both rulers and ruled are daily reminded that those who exercise power over others must not act arbitrarily.
The problem of the public sphere, which, from the point of view of L.V. Smorgunov, has not been resolved in Russia, is connected with the fact that the “political” and “public” are still associated with the state. "Serving the state as Russian tradition“political,” writes a Russian political scientist, “can have a positive effect if the state itself becomes sensitive to the development of the public, to supporting the initiatives of civil society, it itself becomes guided not by the goal of homogenizing society, but by the intention to use its potential for diversity, and connects management with self-government.” .
The public sphere cannot be identified with civil society, because here the dia-south of society with power must take place. As one of the most important conditions strengthening the role of civil society in the liberal democratic tradition is considered to be a decrease in the influence of government institutions. Proponents of this concept of civil society proceed from the irreconcilable confrontation between the state and civil society, when the strength and success of one is possible only with the weakness and defeat of the other. However, as political practice shows, within the framework of a democratic system, the relations of these institutions should be built on different principles. The state and civil society, within the framework of a democratic system, are interested in supporting each other and increasing the effectiveness of their activities. Civil society is not capable without strong state satisfy a significant part of the demands of society, and the state must see in civil society its specific role in creating democracy. Therefore, modern Western researchers (Gz. Ekiert, O. Encarnacion) believe that the power of the state and civil society in a democracy should increase simultaneously. Civil society should not be based on narrow egoistic demands. It must be concerned with maintaining a balance between the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual institutions and sectors of civil society in particular.
Characterizing the situation about the state of civil society in Russia, A. A. Galkin and Yu. A. Krasin conclude that statements denying its existence are untenable. Russian researchers believe that civil society exists and functions, but it is only going through the initial stages of its formation, which is “the source of the dramatic contradictions of Russian reality, its instability, and the weakness of the entire party-political system.”
In general, existing trends in the development of civil society provide grounds for a moderately optimistic assessment of the prospects social development country associated with increased activity of people in public life and their interest in realizing their interests, aimed at the institutions of the political system.
Under public communication usually understand a type of oral communication in which information in an official setting transmitted to a significant number of listeners.
Public communications are characterized by communication of information affecting public interest, with simultaneous giving it public status.
Public status implies the communication of information by a person with a certain social status, i.e. the formally established or tacitly recognized place of an individual in the hierarchy of a social group.
In addition, the status of publicity is associated with the formality of the communication environment, which involves timely notification of the audience about the topic of the message and the status of the speaker and inviting it to a certain place and time. Official communication is subject to certain regulations.
In public communication, listeners must be in the speaker’s field of vision, i.e. This is contact communication in contrast to distant mass communication carried out through the media.
Listeners are a somewhat interested audience who specifically came to listen to the speaker due to their social role (for example, employees of an organization, students, parishioners, supporters political party etc.). Public communication refers to institutional (status-oriented) communication in contrast to personal (personally oriented).
Status-oriented communication has many varieties, distinguished in a particular society in accordance with the accepted spheres of communication and established social institutions: political, business, scientific, pedagogical, medical, military, sports, religious, legal, etc.
Especially the bigger place public speaking occupies a role in political PR campaigns, which primarily include various forms of public appeal by government and public figures to citizens and the people, reports by party leaders at congresses and other political forums, speeches by participants in political debates, as well as speeches made at rallies and meetings with voters.
Public sphere- this is a certain space, cat. various social systems(government, parties, trade unions, mass media) lead societies. discussion and can enter into opposition regarding others to others
The sphere of public life within which a discussion of socially significant issues can take place, leading to the formation of an informed public opinion. Associated with the development of the public sphere are a number of institutions - the state, newspapers and magazines, the provision of public space such as parks, cafes and other public places - as well as a culture conducive to public life.
The subjective space of the public sphere (D. P. Le Havre) consists of two types of subjects - institutional and substantial.
The public as a substantial subject of the public sphere is understood as a set of individuals and social communities that function in the public sphere and are driven by certain common interests and values that have public status.
The object of public communications is gradually becoming the search for public consensus among social media. subjects, first of all, through informing and persuading
Based on these postulates, we interpret the discourse of public communication as complex system, which has six main plans:
· intentional plan (communication project);
current plan or performance ( practical implementation communication project in live activity of a sign-symbolic nature);
· virtual plan (mental mechanisms of transmission and perception of semantic units of communication, including value orientations, methods of identification, repertoires of interpretations and other mental operations);
· contextual plan (expansion of the semantic field based on sociocultural, historical and other contexts);
· the psychological plane of discourse, which permeates all its other planes, acting as their emotionally charged component;
· “sedimentary” plan (impression of all the above plans in the form of precedent texts, architectural cultural monuments, memorial sites, monumental images and symbols).
In large European states (and Russia in this case repeats the development of the latter), public communications originate and are formed primarily in the public sphere as communication of certain social groups and institutions, mainly as communications between the state and the public, in other words, as communications between institutional and substantial subjects of the public sphere.