State shrinks Public Sphere

State shrinks Public Sphere

Since the time of Aristotle, political philosophers have contemplated the relationship between citizens and between citizens and political society as a whole and between citizens and state…  Today public sphere stands for an ideal for the construction of a democratic society in which public scrutiny of governmental policies moves beyond the boundaries of formal politics and acts as critical resource for the legitimization of these policies, integrating citizens into political community as whole, and protecting individual’s freedom and equality. Gurcan Kocan

Kocan states that the established system within a state is achieved through public sphere. He solely gives credit to public sphere formed by individual citizens. In that respect I argue, at the present context for various reasons public sphere is unable to function effectively because state imposes it. In my paper, I am trying to explain under sub headings: a) State and its role in public sphere b) Public sphere and its position in state.

State and its Role in Public Sphere

State is defined as authoritarian command by Agamben. State is independent entity to rule over citizen whereas public sphere is public forum for the communication among to share political concepts, social practices within the society or country. Habarmas defines “it as autonomous entity arising from a civil society at least conceptual distinct from the state” (8). Since the concept of polis and public sphere started, there had been tussle between state and public sphere. State always tries to minimize and limit the voice coming from public sphere. The concept of public sphere was started at the time of Aristotle who was the first one to separate private from public. At that time Public sphere is taken as important requirement for polis i.e. state to conduct rational discussion. But at the present context for various reasons public sphere is unable to function effectively. First and foremost reason is that state imposes its activities.

By state, here I mean to talk about any central power that commands to regulate people in certain territory.  Territory is administration and governance with fixed boundries, exclusive internal sovereignty. Stuart Elden added “Foucault stresses that there is no territorial definition of the state, it is not territory, it is not a province or a kingdom, it is only people and strong domination” (10). People of certain territory have powerful domination to make decisions for collective benefits and public sphere was always given importance. State is considered as handful amount of people who holds power and dominates majority of people. As matter of fact those majorities of people are also recognized as state governing people who assure human rights and other requirements that would drag them to be submissive to their rule. Rather than listening to public sphere and their demands, state impose their activities limiting them to lead bare life. Bare life is simple life of the people in the state. State compels people to lead such life with bio-politics as suggested by Agamben. He further adds bare life is captured naked life in between natural and human life. State demands submission of citizens hence not only people not having citizens are leading bare life but rightful citizens holding citizens are leading unidentified life. While analyzing notions of bare life he brings example of Nazi’s concentration camps and recognizes camp as “nomos of modernity” (301). Like camps were trapping Jews right to live we are being trapped by state. This has been practiced all over the world. As modernity emerges camp like state takes all the rights, first shows like it is ensuring all the rights for the people but eventually that act of ensuring rights to live in a state is an enactment of snatching their natural rights. So rather than facilitating citizens, state rules over them. We are reduced to bare life State drives us to do so by taking away the rights.

Giorgio Agamben theorizes the concept of biopolitics and appreciates that state’s power as bio power, a theory forwarded by Foucault. Biopolitics is defined as “the life of great actions and noble of life.” (299). According to this concept of biopolitics being within the state individuals are managed by strict regimes of authoritative power that can control knowledge, activities and life. So state drives everyone. It will only feeds things to people which it feels is beneficial implicitly and explicitly since even knowledge is provided by state. He says biopolitics is related to judicial power of state over individual and body. In biopolitics people are just taken as subjects. When formalized state taking power over its people has reduced people into population and people less treated as body which doesn’t function independently but becomes a controlled body by the power of state. He says biopolitics deals with the population in terms of political problems. In this regard he claims power has possessed life of people. For Foucault such bio power is a power that controls over biological life which is different than old sovereign power that is state’s power of life and death that is “sovereign right to kill.” (300) He comments that biopower has replaced sovereign power. He further adds though it didn’t snatch complete sovereign rights, right to live and state didn’t take life but those rights are penetrated and permeated by state. That means from letting them live, it has converted to power that to make live and to let die. State is practicing such mode of power and politics hence people are subjected to it.

Let’s go back to the time when there was absence of formal concept of state. Even then, there was public sphere when state means only city. As kocan says “Since the time of Aristotle, political philosophers have contemplated the relationship between citizens and between citizens and political society as a whole and between citizens and state.”  (1). In a primitive state (city), Aristotle says people should have interest in political realm of the polis and through which rule of the people, for the people and by the people can be experienced. This account on history of public sphere says that its role was vital to form opinion for the democratic rule. Democratic roles come with human rights to speak, comment and react. But those human traits are not respected as Ranciere mentions that “Arendt abandons the project of human rights altogether, claiming that since it is inherently linked to the power of the nation state, it fails to provide rights for those that are excluded, or persecuted by the nation states.” (20)  State has no provision for them who are excluded minors and their voices are unable to reach in the public sphere. So it is state who limits effectiveness of public sphere. That’s why Agamben compares state with a concentration camp because these both paradigms snatches people’s right making them refugees hence he declares “we are all refugees” (20). This clearly shows the role of people in public sphere is being undermined by state making them refugees. This case is contextual in present time, as refugees are not being heard and they are deprived of treatment as citizens of state.

 On this regard Hanna Arendt comments “cynical claims that no such thing as inalienable human rights existed and that the affirmation of the democracies to the contrary were mere prejudice, hypocrisy, and cowardice in the face of the cruel majesty of a new world” (269) She explains refugees are not given human rights and she also believes thing like inalienable rights don’t exist. If that’s the case with those who are practicing democracies are also not governing with balanced and equal distribution of what they require to be in a state. State is ready there to command and desires submission to it how can we expect that public sphere can function freely? Well, in that case cynic’s cosmopolitanism can be solution. Cynics don’t believe on any such rights provided my state. For them its human himself needs to govern with rights. They seek for complete freedom rather than talking about state within a boundary, they favor for whole cosmos i.e. cynic cosmopolitanism which can be a single state where there will be no discrimination. John Sellars argues that cynic cosmopolitanism is main doctrine of independence and rejects conventional notion of citizenship. In his study of Aristotle, he found that Aristotle is rejecting political community and supports self sufficiency. For cynic self sufficiency is like becoming god. So Sellars says “ affirming the cosmos as the only true home for those who live in accordance with nature” (8). Having said that Sellar claims that in Zeno’s republic, true state is the cosmos itself. I think the solution for authoritative state indeed is cosmos as state but in the present context I don’t think it is attainable.

Public Sphere and its Position in State.

In addition, I put forward the concept of public sphere in state where it has been functioning since Aristotle’s time. During the time of Aristotle when the concept of state was confined in the polis,(city) where realm of public sphere could be experienced in real sense. Back at that era of Aristotle public sphere was regarded as “a legal and political realm of the polis, state, and city in contrast to the loci of family, home, and individual identity” (6). Gurcan Kocan says historically it was necessarily condition for political state where deliberately citizens rationally debate to bring good in the political societies. Kocan states that Hanna Arendt understanding of public sphere is equivalent to Athenian city where public sphere was accessible arena to all citizens. She also opposes the function of public sphere is to acquire public opinion and critical rational consensus. She rather appreciates public sphere as “autonomous space composed of private citizens who have competitive, resistant and critical stance not only to each other but also public policies” (7). To some extent if we assume private citizens restraining public policies are not enough educated and from heterogeneous background then the result of such public sphere can’t be effective. Final resolution amongst restraining citizens would hardly lead to common good.  So Ardent believes public sphere is agonism which means discursive contestation which forms diversity and creates differences between publics. For this reason also state withholds public sphere.

Jurgen Habermas, who popularized concept of public sphere highlights on the transformation of public sphere into bourgeoisie public sphere from historical public sphere, in his book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere- An Inquire into a Category of bourgeois Society. His work provides a basis for discussions of nature of public sphere in contemporary time. He shares, the concept of public sphere hasn’t been limited to the court and during eighteenth century it has emerged as clubs, coffee/ tea house and newspapers. He has observed bourgeois public sphere consists of mainly economically rising and politically marginalized people in his study of bourgeois public sphere. They propagated through the mass media such as large newspapers or broadcasters. He argues that  gradually it is transformed into commercialized form of media trade ( newspaper or broadcaster) where public has turned into audience and no longer rational debate can be performed because public opinion has become the outcome of media engineering. Hence public sphere has become a way of advertising and part of media business.

Let’s look at mass media which has become a public sphere but Habermas comments it has remained so in appearance only. Likewise now we have social media which is giving platform to express views that we can consider public voice. There is debate upon role of social media, for it is able to function to increase civic participation and shift the balance of power away from the institutions and also for it is being manipulative by stupidity and mediocrity as Ulises A. Mejias mentions in his blog with the title “Social Media and the Networked Public Sphere.” During eighteenth century the private concerns of individuals in their familial, economic, and social life in contrast to the demands and concerns of social and public life. This public sphere includes various kinds of people from different strata and which is regulated through mass media like intellectual journals, pamphlets and newspaper. These kinds of activities were set in coffee houses and clubs. He claims bourgeois public sphere was a result of struggle against tyrannical states. According to Habermas bourgeois public sphere declined after mid- nineteenth century because advanced industrial capitalism intervened liberal capitalism of eighteenth century. It became impossible for private citizens to get involved in critical debate under the presence of industrialization. Habermas also thinks effectiveness of mass democracy has increased the possibility of interference of less educated people and public sphere loses its credibility. Public sphere started to shrink when they enter to public sphere.

Likewise State plays the role of interventionist to handle the growing contradictions of capitalism. State accompanies interested economically rich groups and organizations thus forming key political partners with state and state dismiss the role of the public. According to Habermass increasing intervene of mass media which maintains public concern though advertising and entertainment erodes the critical functions of the public. It has reduced intellectual heads as mere spectator. It is so because right to generate views is all centered at the hands of media owner who are driven by commercial motif. They are concerned to make profit out of news and views. This mechanism has given priority to those few people who are paying them mostly business heads and even some political forces. That is why circle created by such practice can only result on media engineering of public poll. Which seems like public views but in fact a construction of media. Intellectual heads are put aside and kept away from fundamental political debates. So we are not able to acquire rational debate and effective options of educated people. This is how public sphere is losing its essence becoming pseudo public sphere.

It is important to mention , according to Nancy Fraser, Public sphere relies “on the uncoordinated negotiation with competing arenas of discourse and conflict.” (10). So conflict is inevitable among heterogeneous people. Heterogeneous people have various language, social life and culture. It will hard to rest on single decisions and similar we can’t achieve single solution for common issues, in that case they have tussle and state tends to stop such conflicts. As for instance awareness of being different from every aspect of social life, language, and culture has brought problems in Madhesi and Pahadi. They felt, New Constitution (promulgated on 20 sepetember 2015) had failed to satisfy them because of that reason Madesh Andolan also known as Madhesi Civil Rights Movements fueled up. They constantly asked for justice and state had tried to reduce such problem with its power. She further adds to decrease the risk of single domination multiple public sphere in democratic society should come into effect. She thinks to become a strong public sphere; it needs to go complete separation for the state. That means public sphere in some way organizes agitational activities directed towards state. And I don’t see any solution resulted effectively even after revolt. For example Maoist insurgency (recognized as the voice of poor public at that time regardless of what it has become today) of 90’s which one of agitational activities against state. Maoist insurgency was against exclusion, underdevelopment, unemployment, corruption and bad governance which it strongly opposed by state. During its inception state tried its best to control their activities. Such agitational activities created chaotic situation and state tries to retain public sphere showing power as a part of its duty.

The concept of heterotopia is put forward by Foucault. Heterotopia is an alternative for structured state with norms and which orders people. So issues addressed by Fraser can be brought into reconciliation through hetertopia. David Harvey says with the hope of providing places to maintain all kinds of differences Foucault has given the concept of heterotopias. He doesn’t confirm existing utopianism gives another option to settle down the issues of state known heterogenous utopia. Harvey assures that heterotopia is heterogeneous utopia. Foucault says it is not final thing but process of ordering unjust prevalent in society. Harvey argues communism and neoliberalism hindered the progress of utopian project. Now it’s rich capitalist countries that is undervaluing utopia. Hence in my understanding in the present day scenario we lack anarchic power which can preserve proper function of public sphere. It has been either strained by power of state or capitalist and most precisely with the politics of rich capitalist countries.

Social capital has played important role to reduce public sphere which certainly is a part of state. Kocan includes in his essay on “Model of Public Sphere in Political Philosophy” that Robert Putnam considered social capital like intimate relationships, friendships, bowling in a club, the elks based on voluntary association participation of individuals are networks where of citizens get engaged enjoying each other company. He states “as a basis for public sphere, it establishes networks, norms and social trust in society and facilities co-ordination and cooperation and for mutual benefits among individual citizens. Putnam has argued that television and internet with their emphasis on consumption is one of the main factors responsible for the decline of public sphere” (11). Rather than getting involved into rational debate and discussion to make decision for collective benefits, they are occupied into recreational activities based on the production of capitalism. By any means social capital production has diverted people’s attention. They are more concerned to lead showy life than living life meaningfully. Rather than leading productive life for collective benefits, they have become self centered. Putman blames consumerist attitude of people which has caused superfluous life. For all these reasons for public sphere effectiveness of public sphere is eroding.

Conclusion

Due to the population rise and industrialization in a present time state has turned more into like concentration camps in which people are treated as if they have no value as suggested by Agamben. Well, in this scenario I don’t see any authentic role of public sphere. Though technology has given solution like media, social networking sites to save the rights of public in the form of public sphere, it can’t perform effectively. Media has been limited to capitalists’ motif and social networking site has become easy access for less intellectual heads and become a major medium to manipulate thoughts of common less educated people.

The state devised techniques (disciplinary) and biopolitics to manage people so it caused the gradual loss of public sphere. With the span of time public sphere has changed its status. It has lost its essence. State tends to withhold the growth of public sphere. It is because of state, citizens are compelled to lead bare life being limited to biological being with bio- politics within the state. Hence Agamben clearly argues that state imposes vulnerability as a condition of participation in public or political life. So this way state is only there to rule and impose denying the role of public sphere. It has resulted the absence of proper development of citizens.

Ranciere and Badiou strongly comment that there are the other forces within the state to limit Public Sphere’s command. They say, the state doesn’t or can’t usurp the entire space of the political. There is some space outside the control of the state that can be used to launch political activism against the state. I argue here, if such activism, most precisely political sphere is helping to function public sphere, situation of all citizens would have been similar. But around the world, we witness uneven situation among poor and rich even at the presence of true political activists’ movements. Nepal would be its perfect instance. Though four major political parties and other various national parties should have been able to function for the collective benefits and let’s say for public sphere to function. And for this very reason, people have to constantly fight and resist the state’s aggression and incursion, for the public sphere and from the little space left out by the state.

As Hemel says state itself includes to exclude in his essay ‘Included but not belonging’. I opine that state is allowing people to function as public sphere i.e. political parties to command over them to exclude from all kinds of rights and to limit their role. State has been limited in the hands of political leaders who seem like representing the voice to take it to state but they are just fulfilling their own interest because of this reason also public sphere hasn’t remained as historical public sphere. Hence I go for the solution of these, is to have stateless entity. I assume rather than the concept of authoritarian state we need to have heterotopia to prevent the shrink of public sphere caused by State.

       Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. “The Decline of the Nation- State and the End of the Rights of Man.” The Origins of Totalitarianism,1973,  pp. 267-302.

Elden, Stauart. “How Should We Do The History Of Territory?”. The regional Studies Association,Vol. 1, No. 1, 2013, pp. 5-20. Print.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT, 1981.

Print.

Hemel, Ernst Van Den. “Included But Not Belonging.” Krisis Journal for contemporary philosophy, 2008, pp.16-28. Print.

Kocan, Gurcan. “Model of Public Sphere in Political Philosophy.” Eurosphere. No. o2. 2008, pp.1-28.Print.

Mejias, Ulises A. “Social Media and the Networked Public Sphere.” Ulises A. Mejias. 20 Jul. 2006. Web. 6 Oct 2016. <http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2006/07/20/social-media-and-the-networked-public-sphere/ >.

Ranciere, Jacques. “Who Is the subject of the Rights of Man?” The South Atlantic Quarterly 103:2/3 (Spring/Summer 2004), pp. 297-309. Print.

Sellars, John. “Stoic Cosmopolitanism and Zeno’s Republic.” History of Political Thoughts. Vol.28. No.1. Spring 2007, pp.1-29. Print.