The Public Sphere

“The public sphere, which once confronted the state with the principle of rational-critical debate, has lost its critical function. It has become a sphere of ‘public relations,’ in which large organizations—state and private—seek to manipulate public opinion rather than engage with it.” 

These words, which read to us as extremely up-to-date, were written in 1962 by the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas in one of his most known works: “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.”

Habermas is known to some as the last member of the Frankfurt School, the predominantly Jewish Neo-Marxist group of critical theorists. (Adorno, Horheimer, Marcuse, Benjamin.) Habermas in fact was the only non-Jewish member of the group. He was raised in Dusseldorf by a father who was a member of the Nazi party, and like all German boys in those years was made to join the Hitler Youth. However, learning about the horrors of the Holocaust and paying close attention to the Nuremberg trials powerfully shaped him and his philosophy, which centered around strengthening  Democracy through rational discourse. 

It is not surprising that later in life Habermas went to study philosophy and sociology under Horkheimer and Adorno who returned to Frankfurt from the United States after the war.

Perhaps one of the most interesting things about Habermas was the fact that he was born with a cleft palate and had corrective surgery twice during childhood — this could explain why his philosophy mostly centers around communication.

Habermas idea of the Public Sphere was his attempt to create an arena in which people could engage in rational, inclusive and open debate. 

This idea of Habermas is in fact a core idea in Judaism, one which we call Machloket L’shem Shamayim מחלוקת לשם שמים, which is translated to “Dispute for the sake of heaven.” It is also one of the main ideas in our portion this week, Korach.

Our portion tells the story of the Levite Korach, who together with other leaders stages a rebellion against Moses and Aaron. At the core of his claim, he challenges the elevation of Moses and Aaron and suggesting that the entire nation is holy.

"וַיִּֽקָּהֲל֞וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֲלֵהֶם֮ רַב־לָכֶם֒ כִּ֤י כׇל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם יְהֹוָ֑ה וּמַדּ֥וּעַ תִּֽתְנַשְּׂא֖וּ עַל־קְהַ֥ל יְהֹוָֽה׃

“They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and יהוה is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above יהוה’s congregation?”

Moses then proposes a test in which the two groups offer incense to determine which group prevails. The ground opens and swallows Korach and his men alive and fire consumes all of his followers.

In the Mishna in Pirkei Avot it is written:

כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:

“Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.”

The Mishnah here differentiates two types of disputes: those which are for the sake of heaven - positive, helpful disputes, and those which are not, the negative and destructive ones, such as the dispute that Korach started in our portion.

The big question here, and one which our commentators tried to answer was, how do we know if a dispute is for the sake of heaven or not? How do we know which dispute is helpful and which is destructive?

Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz (1690–1764) in his book Ya’arot Devash, suggested this:

"בזאת יוודע אי המחולקים ובעלי ריבות הם זולת הדבר שנחלקו בו ומנגדים זה לזה הם אוהבים גמורים בלב ונפש זהו אות שמחלוקתם לשם שמים אבל אם הם אויבים ונוטרים שנאה זה לזה ע"י מחלוקת. זהו שלא לשם שמים ויתייצב השטן בתוכם."

"By this it will be known that those who are divided and have quarrels are not for anything other than the thing they are divided about and oppose each other. They love each other completely in heart and soul. This is a sign that their disagreement is for the sake of Heaven. But if they are enemies and harbor hatred for each other through disagreement, this is not for the sake of Heaven and Satan will establish himself among them."

Here Rabbi Eybeschutz gives us a golden rule to use. If the dispute occurs between friends it is for the sake of heaven, if it is between enemies, it is not. At first glance this may seem obvious but in fact it is a lot more profound.

Getting back to Habermas’ Public Sphere, Habermas suggests something incredibly similar. As an example for the ideal arena for public debate, Habermas brings up the salons of the 17th and 18th centuries in central Europe and states:

““In the salon, the club, the coffeehouse, or wherever else the public gathered, there was in principle no distinction between nobleman and commoner. The only hierarchy was that of reason itself.” 

For Habermas, the ideal arena for public debate is one which has the following characteristics:

Inclusivity: Access is open to all citizens, regardless of status 

Rational-Critical Debate: Discussions are based on reason, evidence, and argumentation, not coercion or manipulation.

Equality: Participants are treated as equals, with no hierarchies based on wealth, power, or privilege.

Focus on Common Good: Deliberations aim at general societal interests, not private or factional agendas.

Autonomy: The public sphere is independent of state control and economic pressures.

According to Habermas, when people come into a debate which stems from their particularity, meaning their status, class, identity or political agenda, they are unable to conduct a fruitful debate, like Eybeschutz states, and unless we remove those obstacles we are not having a dispute  for the sake of heaven.

One of course begs the question, does our newfound digital arena provide for that utopian vision?

The answer is of course complicated. While we did solve the access issue, public opinion fell victim to other forces such as polarization, misinformation, and algorithmic bias.

This brings me to think about Der Nister, as perhaps Habemas’ salon where equality ensues, and dialogue is free, open and rational. Habermas suggested that arenas such as this are crucial for the development of healthy and strong Democracy. Let us create many more such arenas and together we might be able to do just that.