Where was the public sphere most prone to radicalism? Answer with reference to either the eighteenth or the nineteenth century
The public sphere, as coined by Habermas, is where ‘private people come together as a public… to engage in a debate over the general rules governing relations’ (Jürgen Habermas, 1989). Habermas argued that the eighteenth century saw an expansion in the realm of public interactions, in public urban spaces such as coffee houses, parks, and theatres, and in the literature of the public sphere: printed sermons, pamphlets, newspapers, vernacular books, and journals (Craig Calhoun, 1992). He argues by the nineteenth century it was expanding beyond the bourgeois, to include popular participation. To limit the question of where this public sphere in the nineteenth century was most prone to radicalism to a mere national comparison would be a simplification, which would ignore both the transnational element of the European public sphere (whilst differences in timescale of emergence, there were notable similarities and shared communications across Europe), and would ignore the more important sociological patterns of radicalisation. The public sphere was most radical where it was least legitimate, as participants were radicalised by their marginalised. Calhoun defines a radical position as those who ‘sought systematic, rapid or thoroughgoing change’, though radicalism is not a ‘stable ideological position’: something that is radical at one time can be merely liberal or even conservative at another. Radical ideas informed the public sphere and helped shape its form, as sharp contention grew in the social movement field; not just classic conflicts about distribution of power and wealth. but also about voice, recognition, and the capacity to participate in the public sphere (Calhoun, 2012). The modern public sphere was shaped by struggles over inclusion and exclusion, and these struggles in turn shaped radicalism throughout Europe.
Excellent
The classic Habermas ideal of the seventeenth and eighteenth century public sphere is of a legitimate, bourgeois sphere, structured around rational, critical argument, which included a narrow segment of the European population: educated, propertied men. Their discourse was exclusive, and prejudiced against the interests of those that they excluded. Habermas writes of a ‘structural transformation’ of the public sphere, expanding continuously in the nineteenth century to include more and more participants, including the previously marginalised. This essay will attempt to argue that these marginal groups, once they had some form of voice, were the most radical. Habermas claims that as the public sphere expanded it became more of an arena for advertising than a setting for rational-critical debate, such as legislators appealing to constituents and special-interest organisations reinforcing their own positions. He sees this reflected in political parties, which allegedly shifted in the nineteenth century from being groups of voters to becoming bureaucratic organisations aimed at motivating abstract voters (Calhoun, 1992). Habermas’ thesis of transformation includes an expansion of participation but a contraction in quality of discourse. And yet, those included did have genuine, critical discussions, and many had radical views of their own. In the nineteenth century, there was a wide European trend of the democratisation and radicalisation of the cultural sphere, with a new craze for societies and associations. These new collectivities, despite the inclusion of common members, were still sites for rational discourse, and provided effective social mobilisation in the purist of a common goal by individuals united by common interests (Abigail Green, 2001).
Critical to the radicalisation of the public sphere during the era of expansion was the fact that, in the midst of the transformation, elites attempted to keep certain groups marginalised; this would feed their radicalisation. The era of the French Revolution has increased diverse debate, but the rise of Napoleon, war, and fear of revolution, led to attempts to exclude radical voices and prevent a Plebeian influence in the ‘legitimate’ public sphere. These included arrests and stamp taxes in London (Calhoun, 2012), and similar measures in Paris, with strict laws in the nineteenth century intended to limit the number of papers, restrain their radicalism and raise their price to a level that only the well-off could afford (Jeremy D. Popkin, 2001). The first half of the nineteenth century, due to the upheaval of the last decades of the previous century, saw a distinct attempt to expel less wealthy, more democratic voices, which forced radicals into more violent strategies, such as public protest. This further increased fear of revolution, and increased attempts to close the public sphere. An alternative strategy, of peaceful collective action, developed due to these attempts to exclude popular radicals from the political public sphere, such as craft organisations, churches, and social movements. Radicals were able to adapt to circumstances by making and remaking their own public sphere. It is for this reason that Habermas separates the plebeian public discourse from the bourgeois public sphere, as well as the difference of their focus: the plebeian sphere focused more on material interest and straightforward logic, although they engaged in rational discourse nonetheless. In the nineteenth century, compared to prior ages, attempts at exclusion from the legitimate public sphere were experienced especially bitterly, as recognition as a legitimate, valued part of the nation was seen as crucial (Calhoun, 2012). In Germany, voluntary societies were central to national and liberal politics prior to the revolutions of 1848-9, but repressive restoration governments placed restrictions on associational activity out of fear of unrest. This forced many societies to become anti-establishment by default. Scholarly and cultural societies began to often mask real subversion, such as the Schiller Society in Leipzig, which was the front for the political activities of the Saxon democrat Robert Blum (Green, 2001).
The role of suppression in feeding radicalisation of the public sphere can be most clearly seen in regard to censorship. In Germany, as soon as censorship was removed in 1848, the existing political press was radicalised. Links between political groupings and particular newspapers grew, such as the Beobachter developing ties with the Württemberg democrats. The local press became politicised by their new entitlement to print political articles, and often reprinted articles from high-profile opposition newspapers. There was a rapid proliferation of local newspapers, who began to write for the countryside too. Many writers sized the chance to express their views in print for the first time. The prior suppression of the public sphere had manifested in its later proliferation and radicalisation. This can be clearly seen by the realisation of and actions by governments throughout Germany in the mid-1860s of the dangerous radicalisation of the free press, such as Bismarck in June 1863 introducing hard-line press controls in Prussia in an attempt to weaken the untied stand taken by literals in the constitutional conflict. These measures made the press less critical but did not change public opinion; in fact, the opposite. The press decree provoked outrage for being introduced unconstitutionally and without parliamentary backing, and Bismarck withdrew the decree shortly afterwards. Other German governments soon too concluded that repression was radicalising and harmful, with the head of the Hanoverian Press Office, Oskar Meding, recommending in 1863 that suppressing opposition newspapers was counterproductive because ‘every time that a newspaper loses its concession, the reputation and circulation of that newspaper increases, whilst the standing of the government in public opinion falls’ (Green, 2001). In Russia,
in the first half of the nineteenth century, official disapproval of popular secular reading grew, and in 1865 the Ministry of Internal Affairs sharply restricted the activities of lubok sellers, requiring them to gain permission from authorities to sell in each locale. Whilst it is hard to measure quantitatively the effect of censorship on the selection of works published in Russia, the case often appeared to be that the kinds of books prohibited by censors would appear, and gain popularity, on the market later (Jeffrey Brooks, 1985). France showed similar patterns to Germany and Russia. In November 1815, the police finally authorised three periodicals in Lyon, but only allowed one to report on politics. Despite restrictions, the early 1820s saw several efforts to create unofficial local newspapers, such as the 1820 Gazette universelle and the Précurseur, a daily with a print format as large as many Paris papers. Lyon liberals succeeded in creating a substantive press, and the popular notion of a local press to reflect distinct local interests was growing in spite of legal obstacles and strong opposition from authorities. Louis Philippe’s ministers in the 1830s attempted to censor the press for working-class readers by proposing a law against street sellers, intended ‘to protect a monopoly on publicity for the daily newspapers that address themselves to the bourgeoisie’, and in an even more draconian law banned associations in March 1834. This increasing censorship and marginalisation led to radicalisation, with republican uprisings sparked in Paris and Lyon in March 1834 (Popkin, 2001).
One group who were especially marginalised, and hence especially radical in the public sphere, were workers. In France, the history of labour struggles (the paradigmatic social movement) is essential in the history of broader struggles for republican, and eventually democratic, government. Struggles for inclusion in the dominant public sphere were important to both radical intellectuals, and more widely to workers who wanted to be recognised as citzens, and have the state consider their needs and wants. Workers voices in the public sphere spoke in defence of their economic positions (such as those based on craft skills), against eradication by progress in the interests of others (capitalist and consumers), and to defend the rights or resources that they had won during previous struggles. The main grievances of this audience combined concerns for political liberty with economic threats to their crafts and communities. Yet the common features amongst worker groups throughout Europe was not their characteristic ideology or social base, but ‘radical’ resistance to efforts to narrowly define the public sphere and exclude them. They were less concentrated in the capital and more dispersed around the country than the participants of the bourgeois sphere. The most consistent advocates for a truly open public sphere were the artisan leaders this ‘Popular radicalism’, following the expulsion of artisan intellectuals from the legitimate, propertied public sphere. This led to new alliances, and whilst many intellectuals still idealized a cross-class public sphere, they discovered a consistent readership amongst artisans and workers. A new generation of English writers developed who sought readers amongst workers, and engaged with traditional cultures, communities and crafts, such as T.J. Wooler and Richard Carlile; these writings sharpened the radicalism of popular discontent (Calhoun, 2012). In France, following the 1830 July Revolution, the public sphere widened throughout France to include workers. In Lyon, papers such as the Échoe de la fabrique developed to specifically target workers, and existing papers such as the Précurseur and Glaneuse started producing simplified version of the publications, sold as individual pamphlets and intended to bring political discourse to a popular audience. The politicisation of workers became a radical threat: Mayor Prunele of Lyon proclaimed that ‘These are not simple press-law violations; collisions and fights in the street are being provoked and incited. In a word, they want a new revolution; they don’t even avoid the word!’ (Popkin, 2001).
Another notable marginalised group who, upon eventual access to the public sphere, gained radical voices, were the peasants. 1848 saw the last ‘classical urban mode’ of Western European revolution, and whilst it was concentrated in the cities, it engaged those outside the urban public sphere and normally relatively apolitical, such as peasants and small-town professionals (Calhoun, 2012). Radicalisation of peasants was especially significant where serfdom had existed and emancipation occurred much later: Eastern Europe. Here, the ‘structural transformation’ of the public sphere emancipation manifested later than Western Europe, but with similar patterns. Between 1861 and 1917, popular culture arose in Russia based on a newly developed common literacy, as the lower classes learnt to read. Most of the people reading the new popular literature were peasants and former peasants. The pioneer in reaching the newly diverse reading public were illustrate weekly magazines, known as ‘thin magazines’; the most successful of these, Niva (shown left, 1891 edition), had a circulation in 1890 of 120,000 copies. The most important theme in Russian popular literature was freedom and rebellion, which was a cross-cultural theme: in Western Europe and North America popular culture too, the rebellious individual was an iconic figure in writings. These writings both reflected and stimulated disrespect for established authority, mere decades before one of the largest rebellions in history. Literary themes regarding national identity also shows the growth of radical new attitudes amongst peasants in the public sphere. Physical and human geography of the empire replaced the place of the tsar and Church in shaping national identity in Russia, demonstrating the stress placed on traditional religious and political loyalties. The growing spirit of rebellion was leading to a breakdown of authoritarian ideals, and new materials for a popular audience advocated increasingly more radical behaviour, feeding the radical feeling that would culminate in the twentieth century (Brooks, 1985). The reason that twentieth century in Russia saw successful popular revolts, compared to the doomed peasant rebellions of the past, was popular communication and the access to the public sphere for the marginalised. Poland, like Russia, developed a public sphere later than the West. The legitimate bourgeoisie public sphere that appeared in seventeenth and eighteenth century Western Europe only appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century, due to restrictions on public assembly. From this point, the larger rural community also began to enter political life, with modern institutions of democratic governance making their appearance in the Polish countryside. Yet premodern forces such as belief in witchcraft and evil spirits informed village discussions, and villagers brought ‘validity claims’ to public debate, including criteria radically different to the value norms of the Polish bourgeoisie and gentry. Ideals of nationalism were growing throughout Poland, but peasants took a different, more radical as less official, approach to nation forming, and characterised national fortunes in terms of devils and angels, witches and miracle workers (Keely Stauter-Hasled, 1998).
To ignore the role of gender in the public sphere would be to ignore half the population; by the default of their exclusion, female involvement in the public sphere was radical. In Paris, women held ‘salons’ for men of letters, and held similar roles in cities such as Brussels, Milan, Berlin and Moscow. Whilst salonniéres could gain dignity, respect and authority, their role was ultimately marginalised: they governed male conversation and enabled male work, but their own voices were absent. Whil
st female readers grew, accessing the public sphere, they had little space as writers, with pressure exerted on women to limit writing activity to private consumption. Yet this marginalisation just fed radicalisation, as it had with workers and peasants. Authority in the salon called into question for women their traditional subordination to men in the world outside of the salon. These modern institutions of feminine space would facilitate the growth of a feminist movement, radical by default for the novelty of its ideas of equality (Dena Goodman, 1998). Following the July Revolution, papers in France that addressed women began to seriously raise the question of their exclusion from public discussion. The creation of the Conseiller de femmes in 1833, a ‘radical’ feminist publication, was a serious effort to challenge the exclusion of women from the public sphere. It proposed a radical plan for an Athénée des femmes, an institution to offer public education for women and allow them to make intelligent contributions to the discussion of public issues (Popkin, 2001). In Spain, women too turned to radical measures to join or be heard in the public sphere. In February 1878 in Valencia, the fematers (countryside boys who emptied the city’s waste) and verduleras (female vegetable peddlers from the countryside) went on strike, and these radical actions meant for the first time there was a voice for the tension between the peasant countryside economy and urban groups. Peasant figures invaded the urban public sphere, and women played a key role in this. In the peasant strike, peasant women (and young boys) made themselves visible and even implicit participants in middle class urban debates and newspaper articles of the public sphere (Mónica Burgeura, 2004).
Even journalists themselves formed a marginalised, and hence radicalised, group. The revolutionary situation of the early 1830s in France meant high ideological stakes, and unofficial journalists tended to be ‘movement entrepreneurs’, representing radical political views of marginalised groups such as workers, women, and ‘youth’. They were willing to ignore the unprofitability of their work and risk of legal punishment due to the urgency of their causes. Provincial journalists in general were marginalised figures in French society, despite being literate and ‘bourgeois’ in their social origins. In Paris, newspaper writers were often stigmatised as ‘prostitutes’, and in Lyon the public nature of their activities set them apart from the rest of the population. They risked being challenged to duels, put on trial and imprisonment. They were harshly controlled by contracts and laws, and held responsible directly for their papers through editors being forced to be gérants. Due to the risks and demands of their occupation, most journalists had strong commitments to their ideals, such as Eugénie Niboyet, founder of La Voix des Femmes, the first feminist daily newspaper in France, who notable for her gender but typical in her radicalisation. Her letters show her dedication, leadership abilities and willingness to speak out on behalf of her own ideals. The widely publicised defiance of the police in July 1830 by Jérôme Morin, editor of the Précurseur, also marked the era of outspoken, individualistic, radical newspaper writers. The leading French satirical journal of the early nineteenth century was Charles Philipon’s La Caricature, in which newspapers were symbolically represented as individual figures. The cartoon on the left, ‘Le Revue de Lyon’, portrays Lyon’s ‘journalist field’ in early 1835, with each symbolical figure representing a rival periodical. The popularity of these caricatures shows that periodicals were understood as symbolic persons, held responsible for their political views, and the conflict of the image demonstrates the radical opposition that occurred between various newspapers and journalists (Pompkin, 2001).
In conclusion, the public sphere in nineteenth century Europe was most prone to radicalisation amongst those who were the largest victims of marginalisation: workers, peasants, women, and even journalists. The development of the public sphere was not identical across Europe, but highly interconnected. In Western Europe in the nineteenth century, an expansion of the public sphere occurred (first in England, then France, then Germany, and so on), but in parallel to this wider democratisation were increased attempts at contraction and exclusion of groups regarded as unable to contribute to discourse, or threats to the fragile public order. This expansion, with rising literacy rates and developing cheap print, gave voice to marginalised groups, and where combined with this attempted suppression of these same groups, their contribution to the public sphere became radical. Longstanding biases about gender, civil freedom, and property only gave way slowly, but those who found themselves excluded kept up with public discourse through public meetings and publications, despite harassment from authorities and defenders of the bourgeois order (Calhoun, 2012). In Eastern Europe, the development of a bourgeois public sphere did not occur until the nineteenth century (over a century later than the West), but this delayed expansion too gave voice to marginalised groups, notably former serfs, who too presented radical voices within the old regime. As Geoff Eley wrote, the multiplication of voices in the nineteenth century European public sphere meant it became ‘an arena of contested meanings, in which different and opposing publics manoeuvred for space’ (Eley, 1992), and the most radical of these publics were those who had to manoeuvre hardest: the marginalised. In fact, marginalised groups were almost always radical by default, just for presenting different interests and perspectives to the ‘legitimate’ bourgeois public sphere, and for insisting on having a voice where they were told to have none.
Sources
A copy of Niva from 1891. These illustrated weekly magazines, known as ‘thin magazines’, were pioneering in reaching a wide and diverse reading public was less serious and ideological than monthly ‘thick journals’ for educated readers. The most successful was Niva, 1890 circulation of 120,000 copies. As can be seen, it features large images and large text, and images of peasants. The founder of Rodina (A. A. Kaspari), Niva’s major competitor which appealed to an even wider audience explained Niva was for ‘the first, second, and even, let’s say, the third class of the secondary institution’.
‘La Revue de Lyon’, portraying Lyon’s ‘journalistic field’ in early 1835. This caricature was originally published in a large, brightly coloured format. Each periodical is represented by a symbolic figure. In the foreground, the Papillion and the short-lived Épingle, two rival cultural magazines, attack each other. The other papers, identified by captions that state their place in the press system, look on. On the hills in the background, columns of soldiers and working-class insurgents can be seen. This demonstrates the insurrectionary atmosphere in which Lyon’s diversified press had developed. On the upper left, an unidentified publication is being taken to the ‘literary burying ground’, which indicates the fragile nature of press enterprises in this period.
Bibliography
Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, (Cambridge, 1989)
Craig Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1992)
Geoff Eley, Nations, publics, and political cultures: placing Habermas in the nineteenth century, (1992)
Jeffrey Brooks, When Russia Learned to Read. Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861-1917, (Princeton, 1985)
Keely Stauter-Halsed, Natio
nalism and the Public Sphere: The Limits of Rational Association in the Nineteenth Century Polish Countryside, (1998)
Jeremy D. Popkin, Press, Revolution, and Social Identities in France, 1830-1835 (Philadelphia, 2001)
Abigail Green, Fatherlands. State-Building and Nationhood in Nineteenth-Century Germany, (Cambridge, 2001)
Dena Goodman, Women and the Enlightenment, (1998)
Craig Calhoun, The Roots of Radicalism, (2012)
Mónica Burguera, Gendered Scenes of the Countryside: Public Sphere and Peasant Family Resistance in the Nineteenth-Century Spanish Town, (2004)