Bourgeois? Public? Sociable?
Habermas and Koselleck on civil society
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.61.26470Keywords:
Habermas, Koselleck, civil society, public sphere, freemasonryAbstract
Habermas’ work on the “bourgeois public sphere” was published more than sixty years ago and had a major international impact. The author himself has recently commented on the study’s encounter with contemporary media landscapes and society. Habermas, and many with him, still see the decay of later modern civil society as a threat to its potential as infrastructure for publicity, civility and discursive democracy. Koselleck’s classical study of the Enlightenment preceded Habermas, but warned against utopianism, “despotic moralism” and held that irresponsible criticism could be the consequences of enlightened public discourses. Habermas’ more influential analysis speaks of an uncompleted modernity and continues to defend a rational public sphere in the spirit of Kant’s Enlightenment. Koselleck warned against the completion of the Enlightenment in which he judged Freemasons to be far more active promoters than Habermas, but Koselleck’s political position in this is still subject to interpretation and criticism. This article
sets the two approaches in relation to each other and tries to clarify Koselleck’s position. Both similarities and differences are highlighted. Finally, the issue of what is fruitful and what needs to be reformulated are discussed.
References
Baker, K. M. (1992) ”Defining the public sphere in Eighteenth-Century France. Variations on a theme by Habermas”, 180–211 i C. Calhoun (red.) Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge. Massachusetts: The MIT press.
Berndtsson, T. (2020) The Order and the Archive. Freemasonic archival culture in Eighteenth-Century Europe. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Litteraturvetenskapliga institutionen nr 50.
Bernstein, R. J. (2012) ”The normative core of the public sphere”, Political Theory 40 (6):767–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591712457666
Beynes, T. (2022) ”Staying with the secret. The public sphere in platform society”, Theory, Culture & Society 39 (4):111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221104681
Bogdan, H. (2016) ”Freemasonry in Sweden”, 168–181 i H. Bogdun & O. Hammer (red.) Western esotericism in Scandinavia. Leiden: Brill.
Bruno, J. R. (2017) ”Vigilance and confidence. Jaremy Bentham, publicity, and the dialectics of political trust and distrust”, The American Political Science Review, 111 (2):295–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000708
Calhoun, C. (1992) ”Introduction”, 1–50 i C. Calhoun (red.) Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT press.
Cohen, E. (1995) ”Freemasonry”, 175–176 i J. W. Yolton, R. Porter, P. Rogers & B. M. Stafford (red.) The Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cohen, J. L. & A. Arato (1993) Det civila samhället och den politiska teorin. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Cutler, F. (1999) ”Jeremy Bentham and the Public Opinion Tribunal”, The Public Opinion Quarterly 63 (3):321–346.
Dean, J. (2001) ”Publicity’s Secret”, Political Theory 29 (5):624–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029005002
Edwards, J. (2006) ”Critique and crisis today. Koselleck, Enlightenment and the concept of politics”, Contemporary Political Theory 5:428–446. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300247
Emden, C. J. & D. Midgley (2012) “Introduction”, 1–11 i C. J. Emden & D. Midgley (red.) The changing perceptions of the public sphere. New York: Berghahn Books.
Fraser, N. (2017) ”The theory of the public sphere. The structural transformation of the public sphere (1962)”, 245–255 i H. Brunkhorst, R. Kreide & C. LaFont (red.) The Habermas Handbook. New York: Columbia University Press.
Frängsmyr, T. (2006) Sökandet efter upplysningen. Perspektiv på svenskt 1700-tal. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Gustafsson, R. Å. (1993) ”Ekonomi, politik, civilitet. Ett handlingsteoretiskt bidrag till diskussionen om marknad, stat och civilsamhälle”, Sociologisk Forskning 30 (4):3–32.
Gustafsson, R. Å. (2000) Välfärdstjänstearbetet. Dragkampen mellan offentligt och privat i ett historie-sociologiskt perspektiv. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Gustafsson, R. Å. (2016) Från ämbetsmannastat till välfärdsstat. En studie av svensk offentlig arbetsgivarpolitik. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Gustafsson, R. Å. (2024) Svensk folkhemssociologi. En essä om tid, rum och begreppshistoria. Stockholm: Södertörns högskola.
Goodman, D. (1992) ”Public sphere and private life. Toward a synthesis of current historiographical approaches to the old regime”, History and Theory 31 (1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505605
Gordon, D. (1992) ”Philosophy and gender in the enlightenment conception of public opinion”, French Historical Studies 17 (4):882–911.
Habermas, J. (1974) ”The public sphere. An encyclopedia article (1964)”, New German Critique, Autumn (3):49–55.
Habermas, J. (1984 [1962]) Borgerlig offentlighet. Kategorierna ”privat” och ”offentligt” i det moderna samhället. Lund: Arkiv förlag.
Habermas, J. (1992) ”Further Reflections on the public sphere”, 421–461 i C. Calhoun (red.) Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT press.
Habermas, J. (2022) ”Reflections and hypothesis on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere”, Theory, Culture & Society 39 (4):145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221112341
Habermas, J. (2023 [2022]) Offentlighetens nya strukturomvandling och idén om deliberativ demokrati. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Haikala, S. (1997) ”Criticism in the enlightenment. Perspectives on Koselleck’s Kritik und Krise”, Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought 1:70–87.
Hirschman, A. O. (1997) The passions and the interests. Political arguments for capitalism before its triumph. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hoffmann, S.-L. (2007) Freemasonry and German civil society 1840–1918. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Hofmann, M. (2021) ”Theoretical and practical influences of Habermas’s global academic best seller. Structural transformation of the public sphere in the United States”, Kybernetes 50 (4):955–968.
Hofmann, M. (2023) ”Political deliberation vs. social media branding in crises-prone capitalist democracies”, Journal of Political Sociology 2 (1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.54195/jps.17736
Isenberg, B. (2012) ”Kritik och kris. Reinhart Kosellecks tes om modernitetens tillblivelse”, Eurozine https://www.eurozine.com/kritik-och-kris-reinhart-kosellecks-tes-om-modernitetens-tillblivelse/
Jacob, M. & M. Crow (2014) ”Freemasonry and the enlightenment”, 100–116 i H. Bogdan & J. A. M. Snoek (red.) Handbook of Freemasonry. Leiden: Brill.
Kant, I. (2024a [1784]) ”Svar på frågan: Vad är upplysning?”, 49–61 i A. Molander & J. Lindvall (red.) Immanuel Kant. Vad är upplysning och andra småskrifter. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Kant, I (2024b [1784]) ”Idé till en allmän historia med världsmedborgerligt syfte”, 21–46 i A. Molander & J. Lindvall (red.) Immanuel Kant. Vad är upplysning och andra småskrifter. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Koller, A. (2010) ”The public sphere and comparative research. An introduction”, Social Science History 34 (3):261–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0145553200011263
Koselleck, R. (1988 [1959]) Critique and Crisis. Enlightenment and the pathogenesis of modern society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Koselleck, R. (2008) ”The status of enlightenment in German history”, 253–264 i H. Joas & K. Wiegandt (red.) The cultural values of Europe. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Koselleck, R. (2018) ”Histories in the plural and theory of history. An interview with Carsten Durr”, 250–265 i R. Koselleck, Sediments of time – on possible histories. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
La Vopa, A. J. (1992) ”Review: Conceiving a public. Ideas and society in Eighteenth-Century Europe”, The Journal of Modern History 64 (1):79–116.
Lara, M. P. (2013) ”Reinhart Koselleck’s model of secularization”, i M. P. Lara, The disclosure of politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lenczewska, O. (2022) ”From rationality to morality. The collective development of practical reason in Kant’s moral anthropology”, Kantian Review 27:363–383 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415422000152
Mehigan, T. & H. De Burgh (2008) ”’Aufklärung’, freemasonry, the public sphere and the question of Enlightenment”, Journal of European Studies 38 (1):5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244107086798
Olsen, N. (2011) ”Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck and the foundations of history and politics”, History of European Ideas 37:197–208.
Olsen, N. (2012) History in the plural. An introduction to the work of Reinhart Koselleck. New York: Berghan Books.
Pankakoski, T. (2010) ”Conflict, context, concreteness. Koselleck and Schmitt on concepts”, Political Theory 38(6):749–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591710378572
Parameshwar Gaonkar, D. & R. J. Mc Carthy, Jr. (1994) ”Panoptiticism and publicity. Bentham’s quest for transparency”, Public Culture 6:547–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591710378572
Petri, G. (2024) Upplysningen. En essä om dess beskaffenhet, nytta och nödvändighet för samhället. Stockholm: Fri Tanke.
Quélennec, B. (2023) ”’Light on the enlightenment’ or ’counter enlightenment’? Rereading Reinhart Koselleck’s Critique and Crises in its context(s)”, History of European Ideas 49 (1):56–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2021.1937886
Rauchfleisch, A. (2017) ”The public sphere as an essentially contested concept. A co-citation analysis of the last 20 years of public sphere research”, Communication and the Public 2 (1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317691054
Rogers, P. (1995) ”Letters, profession of”, 284–285 i J. W. Yolton, R. Porter, P. Rogers & B. M. Stafford (red.) The Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scheuerman, W. E. (2012) ”Good-bye to radical reformism?”, Political Theory 40 (6):830–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591712457665
Schmidt, J. (1998) ”Civility, Enlightenment, and society. Conceptual confusions and Kantian remedies”, The American Political Science Review 92 (2):419–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585674
Seeliger, M. & Sevignani, S. (2022) ”A new structural transformation of the public sphere? An introduction”, Theory, Culture & Society 39 (4):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221109439
Sevignani, S. (2023) ”’Ideology and simultaneously more and mere ideology’. On Habermas’ reflections and hypothesis on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere”, Constellations 30:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12666
Simmel, G. (1906) ”The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies”, The American Journal of Sociology 11 (4):441–498.
Simonsen, J. (2006) ”Socialhistoriska perspektiv på Svenska Frimurare Ordens Generalmatrikel”, 122–143 i A. Önnerfors (red.) Mystiskt brödraskap – mäktigt nätverk. Studier i det svenska 1700-talsfrimureriet. Lunds universitet: Ugglan Minerva serien 12.
Smith Allen, J. (2003) ”Sisters of another sort. Freemasonry women in modern France, 1725–1940”, Journal of Modern History (December):783–835.
Tomaselli, S (1995) ”Civil society”, 90–119 i J. W. Yolton, R. Porter, P. Rogers & B. M. Stafford (red.) The Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Dijck, M. F., B. De Munck & N. Terpstra (2017) “Relocating civil society”, Social Science History 41 (1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2016.35
Van Horn Melton, J. (2008) The rise of the public in enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zammito, J. H. (2012) ”The second life of the ’public sphere’. On charisma and routinization in the history of a concept”, 90–122 i C. J. Emden & D. Midgley (red.) The changing perceptions of the public sphere. New York: Berghahn Books.
Önnerfors, A (2006) ”Inledning”, 10–36 i A. Önnerfors (red.) Mystiskt brödraskap – mäktigt nätverk. Studier i det svenska 1700-talsfrimureriet. Lunds universitet: Ugglan Minerva serien 12.
Önnerfors, A. (2017) Freemasonry. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Önnerfors, A. (2022) ”Fraternal kingdom? Freemasonry at the court of Gustav III of Sweden (1772–1792)”, 231–256 i T. Biskup, A. Marschke, A. Pecar & D. Tricoire (red.) Enlightenment at court. Patrons, philosophes, and reformers in Eighteenth-Century Europe, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Rolf Å Gustafsson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All content in Sociologisk Forskning is published with immediate open access, under the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
All content may be read, downloaded, shared and printed for non-commercial purposes, free and without fees. Contents may not be altered. When content is reused, author, source and a link to the copyright licence must be provided. The author retains copyright to their content. No publication fees are charged.
