According to the compilation of Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock (2010, p. XIV), Habermas’ concept of ‘public sphere’ relates to the social life of humans and how well they adjust in the society. Adjustments in the society, in this case, relates to an arena whereby the members of the society can come in and discuss the problems that affect them in the society. In the words of Habermas (1989, p. 30), it is this freedom of the public to have varying opinions that the political action is shaped so as to fit the ideas of the ‘public’. The ‘public sphere’ is one that explains that persons and groupings in the society have a right to assemble and deliberate issues that impact them in the course of their livelihood.
On the other hand, Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock (2010, p. XIV) indicate that the ‘public sphere’ is an avenue whereby modern day societies come together and share ideas through discussions, thus creating a channel for airing public opinions. In this instance, it is apparent that a collision between the ‘public sphere’ and the authority that governs or rules the ‘public sphere’ exists. The ‘public sphere’ in this context refers to the civil society – the beneficiaries of social labor – whilst the authority refers to the ruling class or the vehicle that drives the need of the ‘public sphere’ (Gripsrud, Moe, Molander and Murdock, 2010, p. XVII).
In the words of Habermas (1991, p. 129), the ‘public sphere’ determines the manner in which the ruling class will govern the ‘public sphere’. Through the ‘public sphere’ the laws and regulations of the market are drawn, and debates on how buying and selling will take place. ...