Publics and the State

When thinking of the terms publics and counter publics, many social movements come to mind. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, the LGBT movement of the last decade, and many others. One that comes to mind for me is the rise of the Nazi Party in Post-war Germany. This example raises an important question. When a public or counter public becomes the State, are they still considered either?

According to Warner's classification, a public "must be organized by something other than the State." In the example of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, it began as a public, then formed into the party of the German government.  Does this mean that the Nazi Party is no longer considered a public? I think not. Unlike most political parties, the Nazi Party shaped its policy and discourse around their issue of Jews in Europe. This anti-Semitic rhetoric was the basis of most of the actions of Germany from the mid 1930s until their demise in 1945.

In post-World War 1 Germany, the rise of the Nazi party served as a counter public to many of the political movements at the time. It had a specific anti-Semetic and anti-communist rhetoric, as well as being a strong critic of capitalism. All these discourses could have singular publics formed around them, but they all fell under the Nazi party. Once they rose to power, their membership in the public was not revoked, as Warner would assert, but rather empowered.

So I disagree with Warner's claim that a public cannot be organized by the State. Perhaps in the U.S. where the government is not motivated by a specific social issue, or imperative, his assertion may stand. When a public transitions into the role of the State, it cannot be denied that it remains a public.

The Public

Habermas, and his piece regarding the public sphere made me think about what society considers "public." In class, we argued whether the class itself was public. While we attend and work in a public, government funded University, the small rhetorics class does not fall under a public designation. Aside from the small class size, the content and discussion of the class will rarely leave the classroom.

Sadie brought up an important point regarding how we define public. The example of the blind artist handing out his work on a public street corner comes to mind. Yes, he is in "public" and interacting with its members, but is he engaging in a public discourse? I think not. The public, in the context of this class, refers to a larger audience. The audience can vary in size, but it is always active in its attention. The artist may have a large audience, but many of its members are passive in their interaction. The defining feature of a public, is engagement.

Now that a public is defined, what is considered public in our society? The example that fits my definition the most is politics. The activity of its audience is higher than most in the public sphere. Not only are its members active listeners, but participants as well. The audience engages in the same discourse as the rhetors.

A similar trend develops now with the many forums of the internet. Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or the comment section of Youtube, active discussion occurs frequently. Opinion is strong theme of the Habermas article, and the private opinions of society are entered into the public sphere through these forums.

My opinion of what the public sphere encapsulates will surely shift. Its constraints shift from setting to setting. By the end of this semester I hopefully be able to have a better understanding of what I consider Public.