Two decades in public sphere

By Artchil B. Fernandez

This week marks the twentieth anniversary of this column. It first appeared on July 23, 2004. Two hundred forty months and 1,025 articles later, it celebrates two decades of engagement in the public sphere.

The public sphere, a concept developed by sociologist Jürgen Habermas, is defined as a social space “made up of private people gathered together as a public while articulating the needs of society with the state” (1991). According to Habermas, the bourgeois citizen of the 18th century emerged as a political actor in the public sphere to “engage in a debate over general rules governing relations… the medium of this political confrontation… people’s public use of their reason” (1991).

In modern society, the public sphere is an arena where people come together to discuss public issues and concerns, thereby influencing public policy and state action. Through public discourse, the public sphere produces opinions and attitudes on social issues, steering the affairs of the state and society. Public opinion generated by the public sphere can shape state actions and serve as an effective force for social change.

The press plays a pivotal role in the development of the public sphere. Habermas contends that the public sphere must have “specific means for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it” (1989), and the media fulfills this role, especially the press. Citizens active in the public sphere utilize the press to disseminate public opinion, reach the broadest audience, and mobilize them to engage the state on pertinent issues. In a democratic society, this is essential for holding those in power accountable for their decisions and actions.

“Hot & Spicy” was chosen as the name of this column to reflect its raison d’être. The column was born out of a desire to be involved in the public sphere. In the Habermasian context, the purpose of this space is to actively participate in public life, articulating, discussing, interrogating, and probing social issues and problems that affect society, with the goal of shaping public opinion. It takes a stand on the burning issues of the day and invites readers to engage by forming their own views and positions.

An informed citizenry is the lifeblood of a democratic society. Citizens aware of issues that impact their lives can make informed decisions and take concrete actions. This is only possible with a vibrant and animated public sphere. However, a dynamic and spirited public sphere requires media (both traditional and digital), particularly a press that is not afraid to speak truth to power. A co-opted, cowed, or castrated media has no place in the public sphere in the Habermasian sense.

Citizens can only become active agents in social transformation with a critical press operating in the public sphere. The public can only be involved in societal affairs if equipped with information, knowledge, views, and perspectives on social issues. “Hot & Spicy” aims to contribute to this effort by articulating its stance on crucial and vital issues of the day. Hence, “hot” for current burning topics and “spicy” for making firm, acerbic, and strong positions.

Neutrality is never an option for this column. It is absurd to ask readers to form their own stand when it does not make one. “Hot & Spicy” must walk the talk. “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented,” Holocaust victim Elie Wiesel declared. This column fully agrees.

Over the last twenty years, spanning four administrations (Arroyo, Aquino II, Duterte, and Marcos II), this column has taken critical and strong positions on various national issues. It often gives a voice to the voiceless and those with no access to opportunities to air their grievances. This column does so at great peril.

Take, for instance, Duterte’s war against illegal drugs. With “fear and trembling,” to borrow a phrase from Søren Kierkegaard, this column was among the first to object and oppose the gory bloodbath. In article after article until Duterte’s exit from power, “Hot & Spicy” relentlessly condemned the senseless slaughter of thousands of Filipinos who still cry out for justice. It was a dangerous time to express such sentiments under the rule of a ruthless, cruel, and vindictive populist autocrat. Questions like “Who will speak for the victims?” and “How can one face oneself when this is over?” constantly haunt this space. “Bahala na si Batman!”

Silence is never and is not the way to engage in the public sphere. Democracy ends when everyone keeps silent.

This column could have opted for safe and comfortable topics. Instead of addressing the burning issues of the day, “Hot & Spicy” could have focused on “human interest” or stale topics that do not disturb the status quo, or on self-aggrandizement to inflate ego. But how can the public make informed and responsible decisions on existential matters that affect their lives if they are shielded or blinded from these issues? A public sphere, after all, is “a domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed” (Habermas 1989) and “wherein citizens are able to reflect critically upon themselves and the practices of the state” (Pasco 2007).

In celebration of its twentieth year, “Hot & Spicy” remains committed to engaging in the public sphere as a critic of society, social conscience, and the voice of the marginalized and those in the periphery.