We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Within sociology, public and private spheres are thought of as two distinct realms in which people operate on a daily basis. The basic distinction between them is that the public sphere is the realm of politics where strangers come together to engage in the free exchange of ideas, and is open to everyone, whereas the private sphere is a smaller, typically enclosed realm (like a home) that is only open to those who have permission to enter it.
Key Takeaways: Public and Private Spheres
- The distinction between public and private spheres dates back thousands of years, but the key contemporary text on the topic is a 1962 book by Jürgen Habermas.
- The public sphere is where the free discussion and debate of ideas occurs, and the private sphere is the realm of family life.
- Historically, women and people of color have often been excluded from participation in the public sphere in the United States.
Origins of the Concept
The concept of distinct public and private spheres can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, who defined the public as the political realm where the direction of society and its rules and laws were debated and decided upon. The private sphere was defined as the realm of the family. However, how we define this distinction within sociology has changed over time.
Sociologists' definition of the public and private spheres is largely a result of the work of the German sociologist Jürgen Habermas, a student of critical theory and the Frankfurt School. His 1962 book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, is considered the key text on the matter.
According to Habermas, the public sphere, as a place where the free exchange of ideas and debate happens, is the cornerstone of democracy. It is, he wrote, "made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state." From this public sphere grows a "public authority" that dictates the values, ideals, and goals of a given society. The will of the people is expressed within it and emerges out of it. As such, a public sphere must have no regard for the social status of the participants, be focused on common concerns, and be inclusive-all can participate.
In his book, Habermas argues that the public sphere actually took shape within the private sphere, as the practice of discussing literature, philosophy, and politics among family and guests became a common practice. As men started engaging in these debates outside of the home, these practices then left the private sphere and effectively created a public sphere. In 18th century Europe, the spread of coffeehouses across the continent and Britain created a place where the Western public sphere first took shape in modern time. There, men engaged in discussions of politics and markets, and much of what we know today as laws of property, trade, and the ideals of democracy were crafted in those spaces.
On the flip side, the private sphere is the realm of family and home life that is, in theory, free of the influence of government and other social institutions. In this realm, one's responsibility is to oneself and the other members of one's household, and work and exchange can take place within the home in a way that is separate from the economy of the greater society. However, the boundary between the public and private sphere is not fixed; instead, it is flexible and permeable, and is always fluctuating and evolving.
Gender, Race, and the Public Sphere
It's important to note that women were almost uniformly excluded from participating in the public sphere when it first emerged, and so the private sphere, the home, was considered the woman's realm. This distinction between the public and private spheres can help to explain why, historically, women had to fight for the right to vote in order to participate in politics, and why gender stereotypes about women "belonging in the home" linger today. In the United States, people of color have been excluded from participating in the public sphere as well. Though progress in terms of inclusion has been made over time, we see the lingering effects of historical exclusion in the over-representation of white men in the U.S. congress.
- Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence, MIT Press, 1989.
- Nordquist, Richard. “Public Sphere (Rhetoric).” , 7 Mar. 2017. public-sphere-rhetoric-1691701
- Wigington, Patti. “The Cult of Domesticity: Definition and History.” , 14 Aug. 2019. cult-of-domesticity-4694493
Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D.