Habermas’s Notion of

Public Sphere: Exploring

the Grounds for a Genuine
Socio-political
Transformation

Maxwell Felicilda, Ph. D

Immaculate Conception Major Seminary
Tabe, Guiguinto, Bulacan
1. Preliminary Remarks

The issue on democracy is the most

challenging discussion that beset our country for
decades. After the lifting of Martial in the 80’s,
people celebrated the dawn of freedom. And yet,
after years of leaving in freedom, most of us are
still oblivious whether freedom helped us get out
of abject poverty. In the midst of phenomenal
democratic “uproars” such as the Edsa
Revolutions, and the expected change people
hope out of such revolutions, we are still a
country uncertain about our future. We question
whether freedom brought us any good.
Some people that I know even lamented the
excesses of so called people power. Frustration
has gone deeper in their desire for change that
they are even willing to trade democracy for a
despot if the lack of freedom means
development. In the desire for socio-political
transformation, we once again, come together
this day to ponder on the question: Is democracy
good for the country? Or better still what do we
understand by democracy? Are we living in a truly
democratic society? Is it enough to say that
because I can vote for the candidate I want to be
in office, I live in a democratic society?
 That because people around me seemed to be
free in expressing their sentiments in the streets,
democracy did not only exist but is the noblest of
all the virtues a society could provide to its
citizens. I have heard some people saying that if
a choice has to be made between freedom and
economic prosperity, they would choose freedom,
for it is the last bastion of a genuine civilized life.
The discussion on democracy, therefore, is very
significant in the sense that it is closely
connected with the notion of socio-political
transformation. If we are to ask the ground by
which we can anchor political change, we can
start with a close examination of the notion of
democracy.
 I am a believer in democracy. I believe in a
state that values and protects a person’s right to
speak, and such freedom is the beginning of a
genuine socio-political transformation. But allow
me to explain this belief. Allow me to qualify
what kind of democracy I have in mind.
 Genuine democracy means that any person
involved in any discussion could express his/her
views without restraint or fear so that sharing of
views are performed with utmost freedom. This
means that participants in any discussion are
given equal opportunities to speak out, and their
views are valued and considered despite the
possible presence of inequalities: such as
political position, education, profession, age,
gender, social status etc.
 It further means that there is no particular
person or group that dominate the exchange of
views. More importantly, participants in any
discussion are willing to provide further
arguments whenever challenged. The most
important element in this enterprise is the
posture of humility expected from all, that is,
the willingness to subscribe to the force of the
better argument.

Hence this presentation wishes to address

the question: “What is the most basic
requirement for a genuine democracy?” and
Does Philippine politics mirror this democratic
process?
This paper then wants to explore
Habermas’s notion of the Public Sphere
and how this serve as the ground for a
genuine socio-political transformation
through democratization of Philippine
politics.
 I would like to advance the thesis
that a real socio-political transformation
will never happen unless a genuine
Public Sphere is promoted and practiced
in any socio-political discussion.
2. Public Sphere and Democracy
In Habermas’s interpretation, the concept
public sphere started to emerge around 1700.
Essentially, it is designed to mediate between the
private concerns of individuals (such as the
concerns of the family, friends, relationship)
contrasted to the demands and concerns of social
and public life. He understands the public sphere
as a space, or a realm, where opinions and ideas
are freely exchanged, critiqued and debated upon,
by private individuals, and hopefully come up, in
the end, with a consensual public opinion.
The public sphere is the space that mediates the state, with
its official power, and the civil society. It articulates the
citizens’ collective desire as to what the state should do, or
should not do.

State

Public
Sphere

Society
Habermas is clear, however, that not all societies
have public spheres. The public sphere emerges
from some distinct social, political and economic
configurations. There are societies where such
configurations are favorable for a public sphere to
emerge, just as there are societies where such
configurations hinder the emergence of a public
sphere.

But once public sphere emerges, it does not have

the characteristics of stability and immutability. It
can change for better or for worse, or disappear
altogether.
To sum up, the principles of the public
sphere, therefore, involves an open
discussion of all issues of general concern in
which discursive argumentation was employed
to ascertain general interests and the public
good. It further presupposes freedoms of
speech and assembly, a free press, and the
right to freely participate in political debate
and decision-making.
2.1. The Theory of Communicative Action
Habermas's notion of the public sphere is
essentially an application of his theory of
communicative action. This theory (Habermas
1984, 288) assumes the following character.
First, those partners in dialogue make
understandable utterances, that is, the elements
of the propositions (vocables) are sensible, and
observe the acceptable principles of grammar.
Second that the propositions advanced are clear.
Clarity requires that these propositions are not
only classifiable into true or false, but every
proposition made is necessarily true. Habermas
adds that a sensible proposition means that it
either denies or affirms a state of affairs in the
objective world, and not beyond imaginary facts
that are hidden from the awareness of both
speakers.
 The true measure of truthfulness also demands
that any person who advances an argument must
work within the parameters of issues at bar, issues
that are not imagined or theoretically assumed.

Third, communication requires that persons

involved in dialogue are sincere and truthful so
that both parties can adhere considerably to the
importance and necessity of agreeing into
something. In its purest form, this means that any
participant must provide additional arguments in
support of his or her claims whenever challenged.
Whatever the case may be, such arguments are
supposed to be delivered rationally and
objectively.
 Fourth, sincerity of intention is governed by
social norms. Whenever we speak we established
relationships, and such relationships are governed
by conventions of society that circumscribe
speakers in a dialogue (Habermas 1984, 1:58;
Rorty 1976: 3). The Theory of communicative
action, therefore, exposes that any form of
communication unfolds social norms that may be
crafted from a collection of belief systems
imbedded in the very social psyche so that all
forms of interaction are constituted by these
norms.

To sum up, TCA assumes the interaction of three

worlds namely the world of objects, the world of
the subject, and the world of norms. All these
worlds are present in any form of discourse.
 JURGEN HABERMAS’ THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE
ACTION
The theory conceptualizes language as composed of three
different levels:

Propositional Talks about the Wahrheit

physical world (Truth)

Expressive Talks about the Wahrhaftig

inner world (Sincerity)
Illocutionary Builds social Richtigkeit
relationships (Appropriateness)

If language has three different levels, it follows that there

are three different levels in evaluating language.
Thus, Habermas proposes his triple criteria of Wahrheit
(truth), Wahrhaftig (sincerity), and Richtigkeit
(appropriateness).
 JURGEN HABERMAS’ THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE
ACTION

In very simple terms, the theory requires us to evaluate a

linguistic utterance by asking three basic things:
1. Is it true?
2. Is the speaker sincere?
3. Is the utterance appropriate? (Does it build social
relations?)
Any linguistic utterance that fails in just one of these three
criteria would not satisfy the requirements for a genuine
theory of communicative action.
 JURGEN HABERMAS’ THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE
ACTION
What is very significant is the presence of the
spirit of dialogue. Moving further, Habermas
contends that discourses may end up in consensus
provided that participants assume the attitude of
listening to what the other has to say. Hence,
unhindered communication resulting from the
absence of constraints and restraints of participants
to speak, physical or psychological, is what
Habermas calls the ideal speech situation. This
situation is comparable to the ancient agora of
Socrates where students are free to ask questions,
challenge others opinions. Habermas insists that
discourse should be nurtured by the willingness of
each speaker to provide further proofs to their
positions.
What is commendable in this theory is its
radicality in terms of subjecting any form of
narrative: political, religious, scientific, or
metaphysical, into discourse. Narratives shape the
life-world. Oppressive narratives subjugate the
lifeworld. Freeing oneself from this subjugation
can be done through laying down such narrative
into a free discussion. The absence of discourse is
the presence of oppression. Conversely, the
presence of discourse is the absence of
oppression.
 To sum up, the idea of the public sphere could
be presented in the following diagram:
 values

family

friends

relationship

personal plans

aspirations

PRIVATE SPHERE PUBLIC SPHERE

 Ideal Speech
Situation:
1. absence of
values
constraints and
restraints
family
2. speakers must
be sincere
friends
3. presence of the
spirit of
relationship
dialogue
4. discourses may
end up in
personal plans consensus
5. argumentation
based on
aspirations
reason through
willingness to
provide further
proofs if
challenged.

PRIVATE SPHERE PUBLIC SPHERE

2.2 The Public Sphere: Structure
and Challenges
The essence of the Public
Sphere is linked with the idea of
political participation as the core of
a democratic society. Democracy is
essentially freedom of speech, and
any society who claims to be
democratic must be first and
foremost promoters of free speech,
and not only enshrine in its most
sacred laws the absolute protection
of such right, but most importantly
ensure that such is enjoyed by all
irregardless of education or standing
in the community.
 When applied in our own context,
the notion of Public Sphere faces
three overwhelming threats:

2.21. Highly hierarchic social

relationship (created by assumption
of various metanarratives) that
constitute all forms of democratic
exercises.

2.22. The effects of science and

technology that lead to
the scientization of
society.
2.23 Extreme poverty

2.24 Lack of quality education

2.21. Highly hierarchic social relationship
(created by assumption of various
metanarratives) that constitute all forms
of democratic exercises.

 Philippine culture does not engender the

genuine character of a democratic society.
Decisions are achieved not through open
discourses, but by those that occupy the seat of
power such as the elders of the community: the
politicians, the professionals, the financially
rich, the priests and nuns, or anybody who
enjoys considerable influence on the
community.
 Election is not even democratic. Aside from
the threat of goons or the seduction of gold, it
is also warped by the complexity of social
relations in terms of consanguinity, alliances,
familiarity or even popularity.
 We choose leaders based on geography not on
integrity, ethnicity not performance, opportunity
not principles. We set aside conscience, if
conscience does not and will not realize vested
interests or provide even a dent of hope for the
achievement of our most cherished dreams for a
better future.
 We trade good for evil because being good
does not bring food to the table but evil such as
corruption promises not only financial security
but power and honor for both could be bought
from the wealth illegally amassed
 Our culture is constituted by various
narratives of what is good, what is right, and
what is just, and shuns any attempt of
questioning this well entrenched beliefs
2.22. The effects of science and
technology that lead to the
scientization of society.
The age of Science is the age of
reason. But this kind of reason is
intolerant to any truth claim that does
not fit in with its own methodologies.
Hence it does not consider traditional
knowledge loaded with metaphysical
assumptions to be acceptable. In other
words, science considers itself as a new
metaphysics, a new metanarrative that
served as the final arbiter of truth. The
scientific attitude is not open to truth
claims other than its own.
 A close examination on the curriculum followed
by our colleges and universities reveal an intrinsic
prejudice against other fields other than the
sciences. For instance, courses in the liberal arts
are reduced. Philosophy is dramatically reduced
to three units. On the other hand, research grants
in the liberal arts are rechanneled to researches
that employ empirical methods. Philosophy, which
was considered as the queen of all sciences, is
dying. What used to be the luces of the ancient
times for having laid the foundation of knowledge
no longer enjoys the respect it truly deserved.
Philosophy nurtures the critical attitude. It allows
reason to set the proper direction of disputes. It
trains the mind to be more reflective. Science
assumes an epistemology of unquestionability.
Discourses are limited among experts and the
learned.
The rise of the sciences has
tremendous repercussions to the
notion of the public sphere. Sciences
are too secluded and enjoys the
comfort of its own field. It is not
open to the possibility of multiple
discourses. It knows only its own
language game. As a matter of fact,
it is the cause of the gradual
displacement of the role played by
the elderly in our society. Our Lolos
and Lolas are the keepers of
tradition. When we consider what
they believe as superstition, they no
longer appreciate old age.
The present generation is intensely
mesmerized by the scientific
paradigm. While it surely prepares
them for the need of the times, it
does not engender a culture of
settling disputes through rational
discourse. The conflagration of
management related courses
cultivate, what Habermas calls
Strategic Action, an action that
satisfies individual interest only and
is incapable of extending itself to the
scrutiny of the other. Hence we
produced technocrats, experts in
their own fields but not as good
agents of argumentation
2.23 Extreme poverty
Poverty in the country kills democracy.
It pushes people to surrender their
most sacred rights, say, to choose the
right candidate. It prevents them to
ventilate grievances for fear of
repercussions. The notion of justice is
constricted within the confines of the
rich and the powerful so that justice
belongs to the highest bidder. Surveys
are influenced by the dictates of greed
and influence. In a poor country such as
ours, quality of education is accessible
only for the rich. High tuition fees
deprived the poor to participate in
enlightened political discussion in the
sense that our society acknowledges
only the wisdom of the learned.
2.24 Lack of quality education
 Quality education is not affordable. If we base
our classification of top rank schools in the
country in terms of the findings of an
international organization, there are only 4
universities that made it to the top 150
worldwide: ADMU, DLSU, UST and UP. With the
exemption of UP, how much do these universities
cost? Who can avail such quality education?
 It appears that just as social relationship is
constituted by affiliations or network of influence.
A graduate of any of these schools have a good
chance of getting a better job for the reason that
big people in the industry are alumnus and
alumna of these schools also
 The immediate consequence is that our
educational system does not really help in the
alleviation of poverty. My argument is this that for
a genuine public sphere to thrive and consequently
attain socio-political transformation, the middle
class has to secure a good grip in the political
exercise. This grip could only happen if their
number increase. Strong democracies all over the
world consists of a middle class as the base of the
social strata.
 By quality education, I mean an education that
is liberating. I may have biases for philosophy, but
a firmly believe that such education should contain
more subjects in the liberal arts. These subjects
help the next generation attain certain degree of
enlightenment helpful for the nurturance of the
public sphere
Habermas’s notion of the public
sphere could thrive only in a society
where the percentage of the learned
increase. True Democracy means that
the greater majority responsibly
choose, say a candidate, based on
consensually acknowledge standard
of governance. Strong democracy
assumes a strong middle class. In our
case, 80% are poor, 12 – 17% are in
the middle class while the remaining
3% are the extremely rich. This
disparity is disastrous during elections
since the vote of the learned is equal
to the vote of the for-sale. The poor is
the most vulnerable in any attempt to
rig the election.
 The effects of science
and technology that lead
to the scientization of
society.

Ideal Speech
Situation:
Highly hierarchic relationship
1. absence of
social relationship family constraints and
restraints
(created by assumption friends 2. speakers must
of various be sincere
values
metanarratives) that 3. presence of the
spirit of dialogue
constitute all forms of personal 4. discourses may
plans
democratic exercises. end up in
consensus
aspirations 5. argumentation
based on reason
through
willingness to
provide further
proofs if
challenged.
Extreme
Poverty PRIVATE SPHERE PUBLIC SPHERE

Lack of quality
education
 The effects of science
and technology that lead
to the scientization of
society.

Highly hierarchic
social relationship Vote padding
(created by Reproductive Health
Bill
assumption of various
metanarratives) that
constitute all forms of
democratic exercises.

Same sex marriage corruption

Trapo

poverty
Extreme
Poverty
PUBLIC SPHERE
Lack of quality
education
CONCLUSION
 It is logical to assume that genuine democracy
thrives only in a society where the level of
rational maturity is high. Rational maturity
assumes that citizens resolve disputes through
unhindered dialogue so that both parties abide
with the force of the better argument.
 A society that is under constraint from various
sides such as the influence of transnational
corporation, subliminal submission to the
paradigms of science and technology and extreme
poverty seem to engender a social psyche that
stunts the culture of dialogue.
 Aspirations for a genuine democracy
requires a kind of genetic structuration
starting from the classroom by way of
teaching students to settle differences
through reason alone. Intensifying courses
in the liberal arts are assumed to
contribute substantially to the nurturing
and maturation of the spirit of dialogue.
Besides, university education has to be
accessed by all and not only a privilege
few. An educated community is expected to
discern more objectively, and the level of
moral judgment may go beyond the
dictates of money or even force or
violence.
 Democracy requires that anybody who has
something to say in any issue has to express
his views and sentiments sincerely. The
absence of sincerity defeats all attempts for
consensual understanding.
 Genuine democracy, above all
considerations, demands a strong conviction
that there is a better way of settling disputes
and that is by way of transcending influences
of money, or power or food and material
comfort. Reason sets standards, and the
validity of which depends on constant renewal
by the community. It should not be fixed and
absolute. It has to be flexible yet firm and
reason determines when it lasts and why
should it last.
Habermas’s Notion of Public Sphere:
Exploring the Grounds for a Genuine
Socio-political Transformation

Maxwell Felicilda, Ph. D

END OF PRESENTATION