Public sphere. Habermas' concept of the public sphere Concepts of the public sphere and communications
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 who has 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 view, i.e. This is contact communication in contrast to distant mass communication carried out through the media.
Listeners are, to a certain extent, an interested audience who specifically came to listen to the speaker due to their social role(for example, employees of the organization, students, parishioners, supporters of a 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 spheres of communication accepted in it and the prevailing social institutions: political, business, scientific, pedagogical, medical, military, sports, religious, legal, etc.
Public speaking occupies an especially large place in political PR campaigns, which primarily include various shapes public addresses of state and public figures to citizens and the people, reports of 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 substantive 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 a complex system with six main plans:
· intentional plan (communication project);
· current plan or performance (practical implementation of a communication project in live activity that has a sign-symbolic nature);
· virtual plane (mental mechanisms of transmission and perception of semantic units of communication, including value orientations, methods of identification, repertoires of interpretation 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 countries(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 communication between the state and the public, in other words, as communication of institutional and substantial subjects of the public sphere.
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, there is a “grinding in” of different interest groups, and in a dialogue with the state authorities, civil consciousness and a civic position are formed.” In the public sphere, public opinion is formed, socio-political problems are discussed, public interests are realized, and various organizations representing private interests influence public policy.
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. Their degree of influence on government bodies in order to realize public interests depends on the activity of various organizations, unions, and movements.
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 the Russian tradition of the “political,” writes the 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, and itself becomes guided not by the goal of homogenizing society, but by the intention to use its potential for diversity , will connect 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 able to satisfy a significant part of the demands of society without a strong state, 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, the existing trends in the development of civil society provide grounds for a moderately optimistic assessment of the prospects for the country’s social development, associated with an increase in people’s activity in public life and their interest in realizing their interests, aimed at the institutions of the political system.
Great contribution to the development of important problems for understanding information society the concept of the public sphere was introduced by a German philosopher and sociologist, a representative of the Frankfurt School J. Habermas. At the center of his thinking is the concept of communicative reason. The first step in the development of this concept was Habermas’s book “Knowledge and Interest” (Erkenntnis und Interesse, 1968). Even earlier, in one of his early works, “Structurwandel der Öffentlichkeit” (Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, 1962), he considered the concept of public information.
In his studies, Habermas describes the public sphere as a forum for “rational discussion.” This sphere was independent not only from the state (although it was financed by it), but also from the main economic forces. Information served as its backbone: 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; libraries and the publication of government statistics also played a very significant role.
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 the 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. For the latter, it means the ability to access facts so that people can calmly analyze and think about them, and then make a rational decision about what to do in a given situation.
Habermas especially emphasizes the connection between information and democratic government. If we assume that public opinion should be formed as a result of open discussion, then the effectiveness of this process will be determined by the amount of information, its accessibility and the method of delivery to the consumer. This consideration has led some analysts, especially the British Marxist N. Garnham to the idea of using the concept of the public sphere to understand changes in the field of information. At the same time, the concept of the information sphere introduced by Habermas is used to assess what information was available in the past, how it has changed and in what direction further changes are taking place. In particular, the information domain concept was used to analyze changes in three interrelated areas.
The first area is some institutions of the public sphere, for example, libraries. Nowadays, when the demand for information has increased greatly and many technological innovations have appeared, a new concept of accessing information through libraries has emerged. Whereas information was previously seen as a public resource that was to be distributed free of charge, it is now seen as a commodity that can be bought and sold for private consumption, and the amount of access to this resource depends on a fee. The features of these changes can already be seen in the new terminology: library visitors are now called consumers, librarians are building business plans, etc. Due to the fact that resources for maintaining libraries have been reduced and at the same time criticism of the fundamentals of the organization of librarianship has intensified, many of these institutions have come to because they began to use a two-tier model: free for the public, for a fee for the corporate user. Of course, this model does not fit well with the traditional approach to library services as a public service accessible to everyone, regardless of income. Today, many features of not only libraries, but also museums and art galleries are in danger of disappearing. According to a number of researchers, their information functions damage has been caused by attempts to force them to play by market rules.
The second area relates to the general concern about the commodification of government information, since most of the information we get about society comes from government information services. Even when we learn something from the press or television, we understand that their information is based on government sources. Only the government is an institution capable of systematically and constantly collecting and processing information about everything that surrounds us, because the solution to this complex task requires enormous financial costs and legitimacy. Trust in such information depends on the effectiveness of government and the ability of citizens to participate meaningfully in society. Government concept information service fits very well with the concept of the public sphere. Employees of a service that, for example, collects and makes available statistical information are characterized by a certain set of ethical values of a civil servant - honesty, personal disinterest in the results of their work, etc. Since the dissemination of government information has always been considered an important task, its solution is generous subsidized from the budget. But now more and more public services and departments disseminate their information on a fee basis, which reduces the possibility of access to socially significant information for the general public.
The third area is the general state of the communications system in modern world, in which, for various reasons, more and more unreliable and distorted information is created and disseminated. The public sphere suffered not only from changes in functions public services, but also from the desire to put a gloss on the information in order to certainly “foist” it on the consumer. “Promotion specialists”, “media consultants”, “image management specialists”, etc. appeared. Various new means of persuading people have penetrated deeply even into the sphere of consumption. All this leads to the emergence of what G. Schiller disparagingly called “information garbage.” Doesn't hesitate to manipulate public opinion with the help of communication and information, even the state, because this helps it to exercise social control. Consciously used systematic control through information is called propaganda, which amounts to the dissemination of certain messages and restricting the dissemination of others, that is, it involves the use of censorship. According to Habermas, this is where the decline of the public sphere begins. However, this is where the irony lies: propaganda, no matter how disgusting it may seem, to some extent contributes to the preservation of the public sphere - after all, democratic processes in society do not stop, and opposing sides that need legitimacy try to control public opinion in order to win in the open confrontation.
In our time, the public sphere certainly needs reform, and this reform should be aimed at preserving the best that serves the development of society. At the same time, the goals facing institutions and institutions of the public sphere, one way or another, need to be revised.
POLITICAL SCIENCE
Zaitsev Alexander Vladimirovich
Candidate of Philosophy, Kostroma State University. ON THE. Nekrasova
PUBLIC SPHERE AS A FIELD FOR DIALOGUE OF THE STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY
The article deals with the public sphere, where communication and dialogue between the state and civil society takes place. This point of view is confirmed by references to such Western European thinkers as K. Schmidt, H. Arendt, J. Habermas, as well as modern Russian political scientists and sociologists. Through such discourse with civil society, state power increases its own legitimacy and the legitimacy of political decisions.
Keywords: state, civil society, public sphere, dialogue, discourse, communication
Over the past 15-20 years, the vocabulary of Russian political science enriched with new terms, some of which were borrowed from foreign political science. Among them, the most important place belongs to the phrases “public policy”, “public space” and “public sphere”, which in modern Russia have become, one can say without exaggeration, almost the most sought-after and popular of the new political science terms and concepts.
K. Schmidt (parliamentary public sphere), H. Arendt (ancient public sphere), J. Habermas (bourgeois public space), etc. wrote about the public sphere. At the same time, K. Schmidt, H. Arendt, and J. Habemas state the decline of the public sphere and the disappearance of the public as active citizens seeking to discuss any pressing political issues through public dialogue. However, the advent of the Internet gave rise to hopes that “thanks to technological breakthroughs, the public sphere, gradually being squeezed out of social reality, will be restored to reality” in the form of “discussion and exchange of information free from external control” in the blogosphere and in social networks, where public opinion is now formed and developed on a discursive basis.
From the point of view of K. Schmidt, the embodiment of the ideas of political liberalism is parliamentarism and the discussion organically inherent in it with a consistent consideration of all points of view and arguments, both “for” and “against”. According to K. Schmidt, “indispensable prerequisites for discussion are common beliefs, willingness to be persuaded, independence from party obligations, freedom from selfish interests.” A unified political will is born in the process of open confrontation of different opinions. In this - public deliberation
arguments and counterarguments, in public debates and public discussions - is the essence of true parliamentarism.
“Discussion means an exchange of opinions,” says K. Schmidt, “the main goal of which is to convince the opponent of some truth and correctness with rational arguments, or to allow oneself to be convinced of the truth and correctness.” And this process should be as public as possible. Firstly, because parliament, as a public body, is autonomous, that is, free from external pressure. And secondly, because it is transparent and open to the outside world.
However, K. Schmidt notes the decline of the contemporary parliamentary public sphere. Why? “The situation of parliamentarism today is so critical because the development of modern mass democracy has made public discussion using arguments an empty formality. - This is the answer to our question given by K. Schmidt. - Therefore, many norms of modern parliamentary law, first of all, regulations regarding the independence of deputies and the publicity of meetings, look like excessive decoration, unnecessary and even dubious... Parties... these days no longer oppose each other as opinions in a discussion, they act as social or economic power groups (Machtgruppen), calculate the mutual interests and power capabilities (Machtmbglichkeiten) of both sides and, on this factual basis, conclude compromises and coalitions. The masses are won over by a propaganda apparatus that is most effective when appealing to the most pressing interests and passions. The argument in the literal sense of the word, characteristic of a genuine discussion, disappears. Its place in party negotiations is taken by a targeted calculation of interests and power chances (MasMLapsep), and in dealing with the masses - by an effective suggestion or symbol...”
© Zaitsev A.V., 2013
Bulletin of KSU named after. ON THE. Nekrasova ♦ No. 1, 2013
Real political activity does not take place in public plenary discussions, but in committees, commissions, and cabinets. Thus, all responsibility is removed and abolished, and the entire parliamentary system is just a façade, behind which lies the dominance of parties and economic interests. Parliament, as a public institution, from the point of view of K. Schmidt, has lost its soil and functions only as an empty apparatus, by the force of inertia. As a result, parliamentary publicity and its inherent spirit of discussion turned into an empty formality.
The basis of H. Arendt's theory of the public sphere is her interpretation of the model of ancient republics. In her understanding, the polis is “an organization of people arising from their joint speaking and joint action. H. Arendt understands the public as a group of people seeing each other, as, for example, in the ancient Greek agora, and existing within the geometry of the ancient polis.”
For H. Arendt, public space is the arena of actions people perform in front of each other. Thus, publicity for her is associated with direct interaction between individuals who share one or another value system, which is a guarantee that they correctly interpret each other’s actions. But communication and dialogue are understood by H. Arendt not only as speech interaction or as the ability to persuade through speech, symbols and signs, but also as the ability to exercise power itself.
Modeling the public sphere, J. Habermas proceeded from the neo-Marxist interpretation of the social philosophy of G.V.F. Hegel. If for G.W.F. For Hegel, the starting point in the analysis of society was the state, and for K. Marx - the market economy (which the early K. Marx identified with civil society), then J. Habermas was looking for an area autonomous from both the state and the market. This area for him was the public sphere, the very existence of which was a direct consequence of the constitution of the state and institutionalization market economy. J. Habermas attributes the emergence of the public sphere to the Age of Enlightenment, focusing not so much on the visibility of members of the public to each other (H. Arendt), but on their audibility of each other, which became possible thanks to the growth of printing and the development of mass communication. The classical model of the public sphere by J. Habermas assumes that a whole complex of public platforms is being formed.
They could be, for example, coffee shops and literary salons XVIII century. J. Habermas calls these institutions the most striking example of how the public sphere should be built. They reproduce the ideal model of social
opinions when newspapers and magazines are read and discussed in face-to-face groups. For him, the public is a kind of virtual community that develops with the growth of the number of printed publications, among those who read, write and interpret, discuss, gathering together in public (public) places. If H. Arendt states the decline of the public sphere in the conditions of modernity, then J. Habermas notes the emergence in the Enlightenment of a new form of publicity - the public as private individuals discussing public problems together, relying on the text of an author who publicly expressed his opinion, some printed source.
In J. Habermas’s interpretation of the public sphere and public policy, their “narrow” and “broad” interpretations are distinguished. In a “narrow” understanding, the public sphere is that “area of social life in which public opinion is formed.” That is, J. Habermas focuses on the ability of people to form a political community or political public that takes part in the discussion of problems that are significant to society.
The public sphere is understood by J. Habermas as a special communicative environment where public opinion is born and circulates, which performs the function of criticism and control in relation to the state. IN in a broad sense The public, as opposed to the private, acts as the sphere of realization of the public (public) interests inherent in any society. The public sphere is not limited to communications of citizens and public reflection, it reaches the level of dialogue with the state, transforming into practical actions for the sake of the common good.
Public opinion in the model of J. Habermas is not the arithmetic average of the opinions of all participants, but the result of a discussion that frees it from distortions introduced by private interests and the status of participants. The formation of such public opinion presupposes the presence of several mandatory conditions:
1. Universal access - anyone can have access to the discussion site;
2. Rational debate, i.e. any topic is raised by any participant and discussed rationally until agreement is reached;
3. Ignoring the status of the discussion participants.
Thus, the public sphere model
J. Habermas is directly related to the emergence of an “enlightened public”, access to which required certain resources, including a certain level of education and wealth.
For J. Habermas, the concept of the public sphere became one of the key ones in analyzing the problems and prospects for the formation of civil society.
stva. According to his theory, civil society includes constantly emerging associations, organizations and movements that resonate with what is happening in the sphere privacy, amplifying and sending it all into the public sphere . Thus, which is especially relevant from the point of view of our research, “civil society is directly connected with the public sphere; as J. Habermas himself notes, the communicative structure of the public sphere is preserved only thanks to an energetic civil society.” The political culture of citizens can thus be identified with their active participation in the functioning of the public sphere.
J. Habermas associates the phenomenon of communicative action with the concept of publicity. Citizens are involved in the political decision-making process by raising issues for public discussion. As a result of the discussion, some public consensus on the problem is formed. It should be noted that the subjects of discussion are autonomous public associations. J. Habermas calls autonomous only those public associations that are not produced political system for purposes of legitimation, and are not part of this system. These associations must arise spontaneously from everyday practices and have permeable boundaries. Thus, the deliberative political process is a process of public consultation on socially significant issues involving as many people as possible in the development of public policy. more citizens.
The public sphere and public policy represent a dialogue between the state and civil society. Thus, M. Ritter writes that “public policy should be understood as a mediating level between state power and private interests, which operates in two directions: on the one hand, subjects discuss government decisions and plans... On the other hand, citizens and citizens thus formulate their needs and proposals for their solutions and address them as demands on the state.”
Not only foreign, but also many domestic authors focus on the dialogical nature of the public sphere and public policy. Is not it. Nikovskaya and V.N. Yakimets write that full representation of the socio-political interests of society “can only be carried out in the public sphere - the sphere of dialogue, communication, agreement with the state on issues of general importance.” Not only the public sphere is dialogical, but also public policy. Here is what the two above-mentioned authors note about this: “Public policy is a system of working
mechanisms of dialogue between the state and society when making significant decisions."
From this point of view, other researchers of the public sphere and public policy agree. “Public policy is discursive communication, which is based on a multi-level dialogue, where all the objects and phenomena that are significant for its participants are highlighted, and subject-subject interaction predominates. - Writes S.A. Gadyshev. “This definition allows us to highlight another approach to understanding public policy - communicative, which assumes the existence of feedback rather than unidirectional.”
But the point of view of A.D. Trachtenberg: “...The public sphere “sphere” is a space for rational discussion based on the principles of openness and equality of parties and 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.” G.V. focuses on the dialogue of the public sphere as an area of dialogue between the state and civil society. Sinekopova: “The ideal character of the public sphere lies in its fundamental dialogism, i.e. the readiness and desire of all its participants to jointly build and reconstruct reasoned discourse.” .
The public sphere is inextricably linked with civil society and with the civil dialogue inherent in it, the dialogue between the state and civil society, with the institutionalization of this two-way communicative interaction in it. The public sphere is a special area of social life where the possibility of achieving civil consent arises. But this possibility acquires the status of reality only in the conditions of dialogue, compromise and tolerance.
The public nature of politics implies that political decisions and programs are not only carried out in the interests of society and aimed at meeting its most important needs, but are also subject to public control at each stage of their implementation. This lies not only in the legitimation of decisions made, but also in the legitimacy of the government itself.
The political participation of citizens, in contrast to the liberal and republican traditions, according to J. Habermas, lies in the discursive and communicative public use (use) of reason. “And then the democratic procedure will draw legitimating force not only - and even not so much - from participation and expression of will, but from the public accessibility of consultation -
Bulletin of KSU named after. K.A. Nekrasova ♦ No. 1, 2013
tive process, whose properties justify the expectation of rationally acceptable results. - Writes J. Habermas. “This understanding of democracy in the spirit of discourse theory changes the theoretical requirements for the conditions of legitimacy of democratic politics.”
Thus, from the point of view of the theory of dialogics of civil society, the public sphere is the sphere of dialogue between society and the state. Through dialogic discourse, society and individual citizens are included in the discursive process of decision-making and decision-making. And state power, on the basis of such institutionalized discourse, increases its legitimacy and the legitimacy of political decisions made in the process of public deliberative process.
1. Gadyshev S.A. Modern approaches to the definition of public policy // Humanitarian vector. - 2010. - No. 3 (27).
2. Zaitsev A.V. Dialogue of civil society: origins, concept, meaning // Vestnik Kostromsky state university them. ON THE. Nekrasova. - 2012. - No. 3.
3. Kondrashina M.I. Russian media in the context of diversification of the public sphere // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science. - 2010. - No. 3.
4. Nikovskaya L.I., Yakimets V.N. Public policy in modern Russia: between the corporate-bureaucratic and civil-modernization choice // Polity. - 2007. - No. 1.
5. Nikovskaya L.I., Yakimets V.N. Public policy in the regions of Russia: types, subjects, institutions and modern challenges // Polis: Political Studies. - 2011. - No. 1.
6. Ritter M. Public sphere as an ideal of political culture // Citizens and power: new approaches. - M., 1998.
7. Sinekopova G.V. Normative foundations of the public sphere and their critical analysis // Theory of language and intercultural communication, 2007. - No. 2. - [ Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://tl-ic.kursksu.ru/pdf/002-12.pdf.
8. Trakhtenberg A.D. Runet as a public sphere: Habermasian ideal and reality // POLY-TEX. - 2006. - No. 2. - [Electronic resource]. -Access mode: http://politex.info/content/view/158/40/.
9. Trubina E.G. Public // Newest philosophical dictionary. - [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http: //www. gumer. info/bogoslov_Buks/ Philos/fil_dict/645.php.
10. Habermas Yu. Political works / comp. A.V. Denezhkina; lane with him. V.M. Skuratova. - M.: Praxis, 2005.
11. Shmatko N.A. The phenomenon of public policy // Sociological studies. - 2001. - No. 7.
12. Schmitt K. Spiritual and historical state of modern parliamentarism. Preliminary remarks (On the contrast between parliamentarism and democracy) // Sociological Review. - 2009. - T. 8. - No. 2.
13. Habermas J. “The Public Sphere” in Seidman, S(ed.). Jurgen Habermas on Society and Politics. -Boston, 1973.
CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC SPHERE AND COMMUNICATIONS
Communication:
1. A means of connecting any objects of the material and spiritual world.
2. Communication, transfer of information from person to person.
3. Transfer and mass exchange of information with the aim of influencing society and its constituent components.
K. act of communication, communication between two or more individuals, based on mutual understanding; communication of information by one person to another or a number of persons through common system symbols (signs).
Communication interaction between people through signs placed in presentation, representation, technical means, distributed through certain channels in accordance with the chosen code.
Public communications are those “aimed at transmitting information affecting public interest, while simultaneously giving it public status.” Public status - status, connection. with openness and orientation. for the common good.
Public communications are carried out in three spheres of public life: politics, economics, and the spiritual and cultural sphere. Political communications are developing most actively in the public sphere today, which means “communication, the transfer of information from managers to the governed and back, as well as the means of communication used in this case - forms, methods, channels of communication.”
F-e public communication is possible in the public sphere.
Public sphere this is a certain space, in a cat. Various social systems (government, parties, trade unions, mass media) lead societies. discussion and can enter into opposition regarding others to others
Subjective space of the public sphere(D.P. Gavra) there are two types of subjects: institutional and substantial. Publicas 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 information and persuasion.
We can say that the “direction” of public communications becomes polydirectional: these are “horizontal” communications between substantial subjects and “vertical” communications between institutional and substantial subjects of the public sphere. Publ. communications ensure the right of an individual, a substantial subject, to information, to the right to be information.
There are two groups of texts intended for mass audiences: oral public speech and written public speech. The orientation of such texts to a specific segment of its target audience. D/public speech x-n pronounced impact. x-r.
Under information generally understood as “the entire body of data, facts, information about the physical world and society, the entire sum of knowledge result cognitive activity a person, which in one form or another is used by society for various purposes.” In the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Information, Informatization and Information Protection”, adopted by the State. Duma 25 Jan. 1995, the following definition is given: “Information is information about persons, objects, facts, events, phenomena and processes, regardless of the form of their presentation.”
According to the degree of social significance, the following are distinguished:types of information: mass, social and personal. SSOs operate with a certain type of social information - one of the most complex and diverse types of information related to society and people. Social will be considered that information that “is produced in the process of human activity, reflects facts from the point of view of their social significance and serves for communication between people and their achievement of their goals determined by their social status.” It must have such qualities as truth and reliability, systematization and complexity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, timeliness and efficiency.
Loading...
