Abstract
In the public sphere as we have come to see it, the state sets the rules, admits and rejects participants, and, commonly preferring to be alone, persists in harassing and excluding other arenas, i.e., the market and, most particularly, civil society. What is frequently overlooked is that this is a historical concept and is by no means an anthropological constant. This chapter argues that this concept is outdated and in urgent need of fundamental revision. The failure of the nation state and of institutions in particular should serve as an alarm call to revisit the public sphere and devise a new model of organizing it. To this end, theoretical groundwork is needed. However, empirical studies alone, as important as they are, will not produce satisfactory results. A normative approach is called for in attempting to define the role of different contributors, notably the private (business) sector and civil society in a new and inclusive public sphere that suggests an active interplay of these arenas on a level playing field. This chapter analyzes a number of deficiencies of the present model and suggests some thoughts on how it should be adapted to the realities of modern society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine was first articulated in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in December 2001 and adopted in the United Nations World Summit Outcome Document in resolution 60/1 in 2005.
- 2.
Today, nearly 6000 NGOs enjoy this status.
- 3.
John Elvidge quotes this statement, heard in a public discussion, as a typical example of the misunderstandings around the role of various players in the public sphere and, in this case, as an expression of purposeful derision of civil society.
- 4.
viz. Art. 20, 2 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz): “Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus—All state power originates with the people.” (1949)/Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America: “We the People of the United States…”(1789)/Preamble of the United Nations Charter: “We the peoples of the United Nations…” (1945—changed from the original draft wording: “The High Contracting Parties…”).
- 5.
The CIVICUS 2019 State of Civil Society Report (https://www.civicus.org/index.php/state-of-civil-society-report-2019) ranks Germany in the top category as “open.”
- 6.
The acronym AMLCFT denominates all actions taken to fight money laundering, tax evasion, and financing terrorism in the widest possible sense. The main intergovernmental agency dealing with these issues is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
- 7.
Listed in this order by Stephen B. Heintz, President, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in an address delivered at the Gulbenkian Foundation , Lisbon, Portugal, on September 5, 2019.
References
Alter, R., Strachwitz, R., & Unger, T. (2019). Philanthropy. Insight—Work in progress. Maecenata (Observatorium no. 31).
Anheier, H. (2019, September 5). Die herausgeforderte Zivilgesellschaft—Quoi faire?. BBE Newsletter, no. 18.
Anheier, H. K., Lang, M., & Toepler, S. (2019). Civil society in times of change: Shrinking, changing and expanding spaces and the need for new regulatory approaches. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 13(2019–8), 1–27.
Arato, A., & Cohen, J. (1988, May 1). Civil society and social theory. Thesis Eleven, 21(1), 40–64.
Ayvazyan, K. (2019). The shrinking space of civil society—A report on trends, responses, and the role of donors. Maecenata (Opusculum no. 128).
Bouchet, N., & Wachsmann, I. (2019). A matter of precaution—Watching the shrinking civic space in Western Europe. Maecenata (Observatorium No. 29).
Civicus State of Civil Society Report (2019). Retrieved from https://www.civicus.org/index.php/state-of-civil-society-report-2019
D’Ambrosio, R. (2018). Democrazia e politica: risvolti etici. In R. D’Ambrosio & C. Venturi (Eds.), La democrazia: voci a confronto. Gregorian and Biblical Press.
Dahn, D. (2013). Wir sind der Staat. Warum Volk sein nicht genügt. Rowohlt. (Translation by the author).
Dahrendorf, R. (1985). Law and order. Stevens & Sons.
Davidson, J. D., & Rees-Mogg, L. W. (1999). The sovereign individual. Touchstone.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Henry Holt.
Edelman. (2019). 19th Edelman Trust Barometer. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.de/fileadmin/user_upload/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_Report.pdf
Elvidge, J. (2012). The enabling state: A discussion paper. Carnegie UK Trust.
Gramsci, A. [1929–1935, first published 1948–1951] (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart.
Habermas, J. (1994). Faktizitaet und Geltung. Beitraege zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Suhrkamp.
Hardinghaus, B., Kuntz, K., & Neufeld, D. (2013). Mutter Staat. Der Spiegel, 12/2013, 52–58.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty—Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.
Ilting, K.-H. (1983). Erlaeuterungen zu G.W.F. Hegel, Die Philosophie des Rechts—Die Mitschriften Wannemann und Homeyer. Klett.
Karakayali, S. (2013). Kosmopolitische Solidaritaet. In: APuZ 13–14/2013. (Translations by the author).
Khanna, P. (2011). How to run the world—Charting the course to the next renaissance. Random House.
Khanna, P. (2018, Summer). Bridges to everywhere—Connectivity as paradigm. Horizons, 12, 42–64.
Kissinger, H. A. (2020, 3 April). The coronavirus pandemic will forever alter the world order. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coronavirus-pandemic-will-forever-alter-the-world-order-11585953005
Koschorke, A. (2010). Ein neues Paradigma der Kulturwissenschaften. In E. Esslinger, T. Schlechtriemen, D. Schweitzer, & A. Zons (Eds.), Die Figur des Dritten—Ein kulturwissenschaftliches Paradigma (pp. 9–31). Suhrkamp.
Kronenberg, V. (2013). Was hält die Gesellschaft zusammen? Ein Blick nach vorn. In: APuZ 13–14/2013. (Translations by the author).
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die—What history reveals about our future. Penguin Random House.
Magee, B. (1973). Popper. Fontana.
Mounk, S. (2018). The people vs. democracy—Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Harvard University Press.
O’Toole, F. (2018). Heroic failure—Brexit and the politics of pain. Head of Zeus.
Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteeneightyfour. Secker & Warburg.
Perroux, F. (1960). Économie et société: contrainte, échange, don. Presses universitaires de France.
Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pozzo, R. (1990). “Bourgeois” oder “citoyen”?—Zu Hegels Begriff der buergerlichen Gesellschaft. In K.-O. Apel & R. Pozzo (Eds.), Zur Rekonstruktion der praktischen Philosophie—Gedenkschrift für Karl-Heinz Ilting. Frommann-Holzboog.
Rajan, R. (2019). The third pillar—How markets and the state leave the community behind. Penguin.
Rancière, J. (2004). La cause de l’autre. In Rancière: Au bord du politique.
Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W., & Associates. (1999). Global civil society. Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Sennett, R. (2012). Together—The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. Alan Lane.
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments.
Strachwitz, R. G. (2014). Social life and politics in voluntary organisations: An historical perspective. In M. Freise & T. Hallmann (Eds.), Modernizing democracy (pp. 19–30). Springer.
Strachwitz, R. G. (2019). Introduction. In Strachwitz (Ed.), Religious communities and civil Society in Europe (Vol. 1). De Gruyter.
Voegelin, E. (1952). New science of politics. University of Chicago Press.
Weiss, A., Pascal, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2018). Two-faced morality: Distrust promotes divergent moral standards for the self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(12), 1712–1724.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Strachwitz, R. (2022). The Theory of the Public Sphere Revisited. In: Hoelscher, M., List, R.A., Ruser, A., Toepler, S. (eds) Civil Society: Concepts, Challenges, Contexts. Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98008-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98008-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98007-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98008-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)