Public sphere theory. Public sphere and civil society
Philosophy. Culturology
Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University. N.I. Lobachevsky. Series Social Sciences, 2013, No. 3 (31), p. 125-130 125
UDC 004.7 + 14 + 304
"PUBLIC SPHERE" J. HABERMAS:
IMPLEMENTATION ON THE INTERNET DISCOURSE
© 2013 M.Yu. Kazakov
Nizhny Novgorod Institute of Management, a branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Civil Service under the President of the Russian Federation
Received March 10, 2013
The process of formation of a new "public sphere" within the framework of the Internet discourse is considered. A general description of the content of the concept of "public sphere" is given. Examples of using the Internet as a "public sphere" in modern Russian society are given.
Key words: Y. Habermas, public sphere, Internet discourse, social media, citizens
sky society, information society.
The information society is rapidly developing in the modern world. According to most researchers, the following fundamental features are inherent in it: an increase in the information activity of all members of society, the transformation of the information industry into the most dynamic sphere of its functioning, the penetration of information and communication technologies into the life of each individual, and also, thanks to the widespread use of flexible network structures, a change in all models social organization and cooperation. In the information society, mass media technologies play a decisive role in people's lives, especially in the processes of socialization, their participation in public life.
The renowned postmodern sociologist Jean-François Lyotard emphasized that in the information society "knowledge has become the main productive force, which significantly changed the composition of the active population in the most developed countries and constituted the main difficulty for developing countries." Information and knowledge are turning into a key factor in life in society. Taking also into account the position of the world culture of consumerism in the postmodern era and appealing to further reasoning of J.-F. Lyotard that “in the form of an information product necessary to enhance productive power, knowledge is and will be the most important, and perhaps the most significant stake in the world rivalry for power,” it should be noted that in the information society, unlike other forms sociality in the first
the variety of information flows and the expansion of the media space are coming out.
Simultaneously with the development of the information society, a civil society is being formed. In this regard, interest is aroused by the statements of some researchers that "civil society at the stage of dominance of the information component of human life in society becomes an information society." In our opinion, assumptions of this type are not entirely correct. Civil society is preserved and thanks to information technologies it gets new opportunities for its development. At the same time, it is difficult to overestimate the role played by the network information space in modern public life, creating completely new methods and means of communication and opening up unknown opportunities for civic engagement. The stated problems determine the relevance of the proposed research.
The most important indicator of the maturity of civil society is its ability to conduct a dialogue with the authorities, as well as create an opportunity for dialogue within society. In this case, dialogue is understood as the articulation of various semantic positions, which leads not to their mutual rejection or suppression, but to productive interaction. The criterion for the success of such interaction will be the emergence of new semantic constructions of all sides of the participants. The dialogue necessarily assumes: 1) the presence of full-fledged subjects-participants; 2) the initial absence of a monopoly on truth.
It seems that the concept of the public sphere, the founder of which is the German philosopher and sociologist J. Habermas, corresponds most closely to the objectives of the article on analyzing the current state of affairs with the dialogue between society and the state. Building on his main work on this topic, we want to articulate the question of a new "public sphere" emerging in Internet discourse.
Achieving this goal requires the following tasks: 1) to investigate the appearance and give a detailed description of the concept of "public sphere"; 2) determine the importance of the "public sphere" in modern society; 3) trace the formation of the "public sphere" within the framework of the Internet discourse; 4) show how the Internet is used as a "public sphere" in practice; 5) draw conclusions of a general nature that correspond to the stated problem.
When articulating the question of the concept of the "public sphere", the researcher is faced with a number of difficulties. Firstly, it should be noted that the Russian term "public sphere" is not entirely accurate, since it is a linguistic copy of the English term "public sphere", which, in turn, seems to be an incorrect translation of the German term "Offentlichkeit" by Habermas, which is found in Russian language meaning "publicity" or "public". However, the concept of "public sphere" in Russian is semantically most satisfying in relation to the concept of Habermas, therefore it is customary to use this term in domestic science.
In accordance with the classical Habermas concept, the "public sphere" is interpreted as a space for rational discussion based on the principles of openness and equality of parties, as well as 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. It is not the arithmetic average of the opinions of all participants, but the result of a discussion that clears it from distortions introduced by private interests and the limitations of individual points of view. The outcome of the discussion is determined solely by the strength of the argumentation, and not by the status of the participants. Such public opinion (and the public sphere as a space for its formation) acts as the main limiter of state power and a source of
democratic legitimacy through the articulation of public interests, public control of the activities of power structures, as well as participation in the discussion and formation of state policy.
As you know, modeling the public sphere, Habermas proceeded from the neo-Marxist interpretation of Hegel's social philosophy. At the same time, Habermas was looking for a space that was autonomous both from the state (as opposed to Hegel) and from the market (as opposed to Marx). For him, this zone is the public sphere, "the very existence of which was a direct consequence of the constitution of the state and the emergence of a market economy, which led to the emergence of a citizen, on the one hand, and a private individual, on the other."
According to Habermas, the development of the periodical press and especially the flourishing of political journalism in the 18th century, when people began to meet in salons, coffee shops and other public places specifically in order to discuss newspaper publications on current problems, played a decisive role in the development of the public sphere in modern times ... With the emergence and development of printed media (books, newspapers, magazines), the public sphere, in contrast to its ancient Greek version (Agora), emerges as a “virtual” community of private individuals who write, read, reflect, interpret and thereby discuss social problems on new level. It was this social environment that was the potential basis for the emergence of opposition, which, with its inherent critical attitude to the existing government, became a key factor in the formation of modern Western democracy. However, in the future, according to Habermas, this environment was largely subject to deterioration: meetings in coffee houses lost their former significance, while publishing houses turned into large-scale commercial enterprises, concerned more with the problem of consumer manipulation than the organization of rational discussions in society. It is important to note that the very concept of the public sphere is value-oriented. The public sphere is an ideal in the name of which criticism of the existing government, mass culture, consumer "idols" and a passive public will always be possible.
Within the framework of the media space, the public sphere is a conditionally distinguished virtual community in which public discourse is carried out,
which is the result of collective reflection on the current and socially significant events of the so-called democratic majority. The public sphere is the most important condition for the existence of civil society. Civil society without a developed public sphere lacks the participation of members of society in political decision-making. Equally important is the feature of the public sphere to act as an environment for social integration, a form of social solidarity and an arena for discussing possible social action. It should be noted that the public sphere within the Internet changes the audience vector from elitism to mass character, thus not excluding any citizen from participation in the discussion.
One of the difficulties arising in the analysis of the public sphere is to delineate the areas of competence of the public sphere, separate the public sphere from the private. There are several methods of understanding this dichotomy: 1) “public” mainly means those types of activities or powers that were somehow connected with the state and society, while “private” means the activities of private citizens; 2) in contrast to the public and the private, the “public” is distinguished as “open” and “available to the public,” that is, information that can be obtained by the majority. On the contrary, “private” is what is hidden from the public, about which only a limited circle of people is aware. As applied to the sphere of politics, this dichotomy gives rise to the problem of "publicity" as the degree of "visibility", openness, on the one hand, of state power, on the other, of the private life of citizens. It is not possible to solve this complexity within the framework of this article, but we understand "publicity" in the second sense.
At the heart of Habermas's public sphere is justice and truth. Habermas denotes the principle of justice as “(and)” - the “principle of universal” ethics of discourse, and writes about truth: “Argumentation ensures, in principle, the free and equal participation of all parties in a joint search for truth, where nothing forces anyone except the power of the best argument ". "The Power of a Better Argument" is a key tenet of his work.
Justice and truth are ensured where five requirements for discourse ethics are met:
1. None of the participants in the discussion should be excluded from the discourse (requirement of universality).
2. In the process of discourse, everyone should have an equal opportunity to present and criticize claims to fairness (demand for autonomy).
3. Participants must be able to share the claims of others for fairness (requirement of perfect role performance).
4. The existing power differences between the participants should be neutralized so that the differences do not affect the achievement of consensus (the requirement of neutrality of the power of power).
5. Participants should openly declare their goals, intentions and refrain from strategic actions (requirement of transparency).
Although the main work of Habermas we are analyzing, dedicated to understanding the public sphere, “Structural transformations of the public sphere. Reflections on the category of civil society ”, was published in 1962, Habermas is even more critical and strict in discussing the problem of the public sphere in his later speeches and studies. For example, in his 2006 speech at the University of Vienna, he again talks about the possibility of realizing the concept of the public sphere through the latest media.
Despite the idealism and utopianism of the Habermas bourgeois public sphere criticized by many scientists, we can assert that most of the requirements of the universal ethics of discourse are satisfied already at the present stage of the development of the Internet.
Indeed, in the late XX - early XXI century, as the pinnacle of the evolution of information technology, a qualitatively new communication space appears - the Internet. Within its framework, in our opinion, the formation of a networked public sphere at the global, transnational level is currently underway.
As a consistent development of information technologies, the Internet has become an exclusive means of communication and has led to the emergence of fundamentally new forms of communication interaction, due to which it has become an object of active interest of researchers from all over the world and, perhaps, with some delay, of Russian researchers. It is difficult to overestimate the role played by this network information space, influencing social processes, both in Russia and in the world, forming completely new methods and means of communication, re-structuring social and change
the real sphere. With the transition to a new technological and ideological paradigm of the Internet - Web 2.0 (Web 2.0) and the emergence of social media, social Internet communication became possible, correlated in terms of capabilities with free communication in the concept of the civil public sphere of Habermas.
The global Internet, as an initially decentralized communication system, creates new forms of interaction, initiates new types of relations between its participants, and allows dialogue to be maintained outside the borders of existing states. The Internet has other important features that distinguish it from traditional media: accessibility, low cost of use and the ability to quickly distribute large amounts of information over a considerable distance. According to the influential Western researcher of globalization, Dutch sociologist S. Sassen, "The Internet is an extremely important tool and space for democratic participation at all levels, for strengthening the foundations of civil society, for shaping a new vision of the world through political and civil projects that are transnational in nature." ... Another authoritative author, appealing to Habermas, confirms that in the 21st century such features of the public sphere have developed as: "open discussion, criticism of the actions of the authorities, full accountability, transparency and independence of actors from economic interests and state control."
The new communication system is based on the network integration of different types of communication and includes many cultural phenomena, which leads to important social consequences for a person. Thanks to the emergence of the Internet, there is a significant weakening of the symbolic power of traditional message senders, especially the institutions of power that govern with the help of historically encoded social practices (religion, morality, authority, traditional values, political ideology).
Members of the information society, having received the opportunity to have equal access to information, change their attitude towards the authorities, receive information that makes them critical of the actions of the ruling circles. Thus, the new communication regime of the information society is becoming a powerful factor that destroys the monologue form of relations between power and society and contributes to
building a dialogical form of communication.
On the Internet, there are discussions on such issues as the US invasion of Iraq, the legitimacy of the elections, the expediency of spending the state budget and other socially important topics. Largely thanks to the Internet, hundreds of thousands of people have walked the streets of the world to protest the military action in Iraq. For example, the largest Western civil law Internet resource www.moveon.org (whose motto is “Democracy in Action”) helped thousands of people to cooperate and organize this action. Another prime example of civic cohesion achieved through Internet communication is the recent tsunami in Japan, when the dissemination of video evidence of the terrible tragedy on the Internet led to widespread pre-national fundraising in support of the affected cities.
The Internet provides its members with a number of significant advantages in expressing citizenship and participating in the discussion of pressing public issues. First, the Internet erases geographic boundaries, and, regardless of location, every person connected to the network can express their opinion. Moreover, communication can take place both in real time (online) and with a delay in receiving a message (offline). The second significant characteristic of the virtual space is the relative ease of access to the information "mouthpiece" on the Internet in comparison with traditional media. These two advantages, together with the presence of a free, uncontrolled communication space in which one can easily communicate without significant restrictions, makes the Internet an ideal location for oppositionists and other citizens who want to exercise their civil rights online through new social practices.
The main democratic functions of modern media are: to make important public information public for all citizens and to enable these citizens to discuss this information among themselves, "launch a discourse." But even oppositional traditional media, coping with the first function, cannot technologically provide opportunities for dialogue. Social media, in turn, is built on social communication and dialogue. Public forums, blogs, online communities - all of them
provide an opportunity for communication by commenting on entries and comments from other readers. Video hosting YouTube and other similar social services provide the ability for individuals to download videos that are thus made public.
An example is the parliamentary elections in our country to the State Duma of December 4, 2011, when many actors in the blogosphere actively expressed their indignation after summing up the election results, as they did not agree with the election results. After the elections, hundreds of videos from various polling stations were posted on YouTube showing violations of election rules. For example, this happened with a video that showed violations in the parliamentary elections on December 4, 2011 at one of the Moscow polling stations. This case, as well as the subsequent opposition rallies, the demands of their participants were actively discussed in the blogs of important political figures and in social networking groups. The effectiveness of social media is especially noticeable during the "unrest" against the backdrop of the actions of the traditional media, which ignored the ongoing opposition rallies, although showed a smaller rally in support of the election results, which took place close to the first.
With all the positive changes in civic discourse thanks to the Internet, there are several points that cannot but cause concern: 1) the gradual saturation of the network space with manipulator actors and falsifier actors, whose tasks include the use of information levers of influence to conduct information wars against ordinary citizens-actors in order to compromise and refute the socially important information they provide; 2) in most countries, the Internet is, in one way or another, controlled by the authorities under the pretext of combating illegal actions such as hacker attacks, nationalism, obscenity, copyright infringement, pornography, preparation of terrorist acts, fraud and illegal gambling. There are well-founded fears that this control may sooner or later lead to a decrease in freedom of speech on the Internet; 3) the virtualization of society in the future may lead to the fact that civic consolidation will not go beyond the virtual space and virtual discussions will cease to stimulate civic action in reality.
Thus, after analyzing the material declared regarding the designated issue, we can draw certain conclusions:
1) the term "public sphere", first introduced in the XX century by J. Habermas and used to denote the new information space that arose in the XVIII-XIX centuries in salons, coffee shops and other public places, where representatives of society discussed topical public issues, turns out to be fruitful for analysis modern processes;
2) in modern society, the "public sphere" provides a free media space for communication between citizens, in connection with which its role for society increases significantly;
3) the formation of a new public sphere within the Internet discourse occurs due to the following properties of the Internet: decentralization, network structure, non-state control, as well as unprecedented ease in becoming an active actor in the network;
4) the examples of using the Internet in the role of a "public sphere" given in the article justify the proposed hypothesis about the emergence of a new type of public sphere, but at the same time, there are some concerns about the future of this networked public sphere.
The phenomenon of the formation of the modern "public sphere" within the framework of Internet discourse in russian science practically not studied, and, of course, its further deeper study is relevant.
Bibliography
1. Lyotard J.-F. Postmodern state: Per. with French SPb., 1998. P. 18-19.
2. Bumagina E.L. The role of the media in the formation of civil society: Avto-ref. dis. Cand. Phil. Sciences: 09.00.11. M., 2002.S. 9.
3. Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991.301 p.
4. Trakhtenberg A.D. Internet and the revival of the "public sphere" // Scientific Yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Ekaterinburg, 2007. No. 7. S. 224-230.
5. Bobbio N. Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power. Minneapolis, 1989, P. 36.
6. Habermas J. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, Mass, 1990. P. 122.
7. Sassen S. On the Internet and Sovereignty // Global Legal Studies Journal, 1998. P. 545-559.
8. Webster F. Theories of the information society. M., 2004.400 p.
10. A. Navalny's blog [Electronic resource] // 11. M. Prokhorov's blog [Electronic resource] //
Access mode: . Retrieved 11.02.2012. 84044.html]. Retrieved 11.02.2012.
"PUBLIC SPHERE" OF J.HABERMAS: ITS REALIZATION IN INTERNET-DISCOURSE
This article discusses the process of forming a new "public sphere" in the online discourse. The author gives a general description of the content of the concept of "public domain". The article gives examples of using the Internet as a "public sphere" in modern Russian society.
Keywords: J. Habermas, public sphere, internet-discourse, social media, civil society, information society.
CONCEPTS OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND COMMUNICATIONS
Communication:
1. A means of communication for any objects of the material and spirit of the world.
2. Communication, transfer of information from person to person.
3. Transfer and mass exchange of information with the aim of influencing the public and its constituent components.
K. is an act of communication, a connection between two or more individuals, based on mutual understanding; information message from one person to another or to a number of persons by common system symbols (signs).
Communication is interaction between people through signs placed in presentation, representational, technical means, distributed through certain channels in accordance with the selected code.
Public communications are those "aimed at transmitting information of public interest, while giving it a public status." Public status - status, communication. with openness and orientation. for the common good.
Public communications are carried out in three spheres of social life: politics, economics, spiritual and cultural sphere. Political communications are developing most actively in the public sphere today, by which they mean "communication, the transfer of information from managers to controlled ones and vice versa, as well as the means of communication used in this - forms, methods, channels of communication."
Phase of public communications is possible in the public sphere.
Public sphere - this is a certain space in the cat. various social systems (government, parties, trade unions, mass media) lead societies. discussion and can enter into opposition to rel. others to others
Subject space of the public sphere(D.P. Gavre) 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 some common interests and values \u200b\u200bthat have a public status.
The object of public communications is gradually becoming the search for public consensus m / d social. subjects, first of all, through information and persuasion.
We can say that the “direction” of public communications acquires polydirectionality: 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 a mass audience: oral public speech and written public speech. The orientation of such texts to a certain segment of its target audience. D / public speech xn pronounced impact. x-r.
Under information generally means “the whole set of data, facts, information about physical world and society, the entire amount of knowledge is the result of human cognitive activity, which in one form or another is used by society for various purposes. " The Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On Information, Informatization and Information Protection", adopted by the State. Duma January 25. 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 public importance, the following are distinguishedtypes 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 associated with society and individuals. Social will be considered that information that "is produced in the process of human activity, reflects the facts from the point of view of their social significance and serves for communication between people and the achievement of their goals, due to their social status." It should have such qualities as truth and reliability, systematization and complexity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, timeliness and efficiency.
A great contribution to the development of the concept of the public sphere, which is important for understanding the problems of the information society, was made by a German philosopher and sociologist, a representative of the Frankfurt School J. Habermas... At the center of his thinking is the concept of the communicative mind. The first step in the development of this concept was the book by Habermas "Knowledge and Interest" (Erkenntnis und Interesse, 1968). Earlier, in one of his early works, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (1962), Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, he considered the concept of public information.
In his research, 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 the participants in public discussions would clearly state their positions, and the general public would get acquainted with them and be aware of what was happening. The elementary and at the same time the most important form of public debate was parliamentary debate, which was published verbatim; libraries and the publication of state statistics also played a very significant role.
The idea of \u200b\u200bthe public sphere is extremely attractive to supporters of democracy and those who have been influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. For the former, a well-functioning public sphere is an ideal model on which the role of information in a democratic society can be demonstrated: they are attracted by the fact that reliable information, which is provided to everyone without any conditions, is a guarantee of openness and accessibility of democratic procedures. For the second, it means the ability to access facts so that people can calmly analyze and think about them, and then accept. rational decisionwhat to do in a given situation.
Habermas emphasizes the link between information and democratic governance. 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 availability and the way it is communicated to the consumer. This consideration has led some analysts, especially the British Marxist N. Garnam to the idea of \u200b\u200busing the concept of the public sphere to comprehend 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 which direction further changes are going. In particular, the information domain concept has been used to analyze changes in three interrelated areas.
The first area is some of the institutions of the public sphere, such as libraries. In our time, when the demand for information has grown greatly and many technological innovations have appeared, a new concept of access to information through libraries has emerged. If previously information was viewed as a public resource that was supposed to be distributed free of charge, now it is perceived as a commodity that can be sold and bought for private consumption, and the amount of access to this resource depends on the fee. The features of these changes can already be seen in the new terminology: library visitors are now called consumers, librarians make business plans, etc. In view of the fact that resources for library maintenance have decreased and at the same time criticism of the foundations of library organization has increased, many of these institutions have come to the fact that they began to use a two-tier model: for the public for free, for a corporate user for money. Of course, this model does not fit well with the traditional approach to library service as a public service available to all, regardless of income. Today, many features not only of libraries, but also of museums and art galleries are endangered. According to a number of researchers, their information functions have been damaged as a result of attempts to force them to play by market rules.
The second area has to do with the general concern that government information is commodified, as the most significant piece of information about society we get 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 of this complex problem requires colossal financial costs and legitimacy. The credibility of such information determines the effectiveness of the government and the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in the life of society. Government concept information service fits very well with the concept of the public sphere. For employees of a service that, for example, collects and makes available statistical information, a certain set of ethical values \u200b\u200bof a civil servant is characteristic - 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 was subsidized from the budget. But now more and more government services and departments are distributing their information on a reimbursable basis, which reduces the possibility of access to socially significant information for the general public.
The third area is the general state of the communication system in the modern world, in which, for various reasons, more and more inaccurate and distorted information is created and distributed. The public sphere has suffered not only from the change in the functions of public services, but also from the desire to put gloss on the information, in order to certainly "foist" it on the consumer. There appeared "promotion specialists", "media consultants", "image management specialists" and others. Various new means of persuading people have penetrated deeply even into the sphere of consumption. All this leads to the appearance of what G. Schiller disparagingly called "information garbage". Even the state does not hesitate to manipulate public opinion with the help of communication and information, since this helps it to exercise social control. Deliberately used systematic information management is called propaganda, which boils down to spreading certain messages and limiting the spread of others, that is, it includes 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 the opposing parties, who need legitimacy, are trying to control public opinion in order to win in an open confrontation.
In our time, the public sphere, of course, needs reforming, and this reform should be aimed at preserving the best that serves the development of society. At the same time, the goals facing the institutions and institutions of the public sphere, one way or another, need to be revised.
A significant place in the research of Russian scientists is public sphere... where, in the words of Yu. Krasin, "in an open comparison of views, different interest groups are" adjusted ", and civic consciousness and civic position are formed in a dialogue with the government." In the public sphere, public opinion is formed, socio-political problems are discussed, public interests are realized, and various organizations representing private interests are influencing 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 Erme, for the formation citizenship a culture that is characterized by certain traits, such as openness towards other people, is needed; tolerance, which allows you to compare and compare your point of view with the opinion of others, to accept changes 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 the awareness of the unity of character 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 electoral campaigns; relies on a system of values \u200b\u200band moral conviction that give meaning and meaning to this system 1.
A similar point of view is shared by the Russian scientist Yu. Krasin, who believes that the growing diversity of interests enriches public life, but at the same time creates a 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 the structures of civil society. The activity of various organizations, unions, movements determines their degree of influence on state bodies in order to realize public interests.
The public sphere ensures the influence of society on power, being the most important attribute of democratization. It is difficult to disagree with the American political scientist L. Diamond, who wrote: "In the final analysis ... 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 the citizens of civil society. The democratic project lies between these two extremes. Democracy represents the process of distribution of power and public control over its implementation within the framework of politics, which is characterized by the presence of institutionally different but interrelated spheres of civil society and the state. Monitoring and public control over the execution of power is best carried out in a democratic system precisely with this institutional division. Democracy in this case is understood as a divided into two parts and a self-reflective system of power, in which both rulers and ruled receive a daily reminder that those who exercise power over others should not be arbitrary.
The problem of the public sphere, which, from the point of view of L. V. Smorgunov, is not resolved in Russia, is associated with the fact that the “political” and “public” are still associated with the state. “Serving the state as a 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 support the initiatives of civil society, it 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 equated with civil society, because the dia-south of society with power must take place here. One of the most important conditions for strengthening the role of civil society in the liberal-democratic tradition is considered to be a decrease in the influence of institutions of state power. The supporters 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 based on different principles. The state and civil society, within the framework of a democratic system, are interested in supporting each other, increasing the effectiveness of their activities. Civil society is not capable of satisfying 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 (G. Ekiert, O. Encarnación) believe that the strength of the state and civil society in a democracy should increase simultaneously. Civil society should not be based on narrowly selfish demands. It should 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 the statements rejecting its existence are untenable. Russian researchers believe that civil society exists and functions, but it goes through only the initial stages of its formation, which is the "source of dramatic contradictions in Russian reality, its instability, and the weakness of the entire party-political system."
In general, the existing trends in the development of civil society give 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.
