Politics, publicity and social movements in the works of J. Habermas and P. Bourdieu

Kopaliani Violetta Postgraduate student, Department of History and Theory of Sociology, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Leninskie Gory, 1, Sotsiologicheskii fakul'tet violettakopaliani@gmail.com

The analysis of social movements, regardless of their place of origin, involves consideration of the public sphere, as well as the role of mass media in the dissemination and coverage of demonstrations and protests. Social movements have existed throughout the history of the development of society, on the one hand being a consequence, and on the other hand the cause of social crises. Despite similar manifestations of social activity of participants in social movements, the dynamics of the mobilization of protests and the causes of mass social movements may differ greatly from each other, which requires a sociological analysis of these differences.

Since the study of social movements involves the consideration of the historical, political and national context against which they arise, it is more convenient in this article to confine ourselves to social movements in France, which have been particularly pronounced recently. If the events of May 1968 provoked the emergence of new social movements, then at the present stage social movements have gone the way of radical transformations. Both the organization and the style of self-expression of modern social movements have undergone changes, which now differ from traditional social movements in the agenda and structure that has developed, including under the influence of new communication technologies. New communication technologies and the public sphere have transformed the organization of social movements and the way participants are mobilized. Modern social movements in France differ from traditional social movements in that the participants of the actions mainly rely on social networks for mobilization. As part of the study, it is necessary to demonstrate the influence of the public sphere on the formation and implementation of social movements in modern France. 

In this regard, this article proposes to consider the public sphere as a socio-cultural environment for the formation and functioning of modern social movements, based on the work of Yu. Habermas and P. Bourdieu, who made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the public sphere, and also considered French society in their works.

Transformation of the public sphere and social movementsYu.

Habermas examines how the public sphere of European states, primarily France and England, has historically transformed. According to Yu . Habermas, along with the formation of a confrontation between public administration and society, the problem of the participation of the broad masses in the exercise of state power arises. During the formation of the public sphere in the XVIII and XIX centuries, citizens of European countries were in conditions of bourgeois freedom, while the possibility of participation in political power was excluded for them. "The state as an organization of domination in a certain sense stood within itself, that is, sociologically it relied on the king, the bureaucracy and the army, and partly also on the nobility, and as such it was organizationally and institutionally "separated" from society." ^{[1, pp. 19-20]}. However, with the integration of the state and society, the public sphere undergoes a structural change associated with an increase in sales, quality and consumption of book products. These historical processes give impetus to the beginning of public policy discussions in public places and the formation of public opinion. The distribution of newspapers and printed materials has made it possible to form a public sphere, which becomes a space for public debate, making demands, as well as for the representation of various social movements. The spread of electronic mass media has become a new impetus for the transformation of the public sphere.

The power of mass media has led to the fact that the modern public sphere has transformed into an arena where topics, news and articles become tools for the struggle for influence and control of communication flows. The public sphere today appears as a network uniting several systems that represent public opinion ^[2]. The mass fact remains the general mediatization of political life, culture and various aspects of social life, to which is added the mass dissemination of information and communication technologies. Today, the mass media play the role of an interpreter, through whom relations with the world are mediated today ^[3]. That is why social movements cannot be considered outside the existing public sphere. Let us turn here to the work of Homo Academicus by P. Bourdieu, in which he attributes to a "critical event" the function of synchronizing latent crises in various social spheres ^[4]. For the events of May 1968, such a synchronizing event was the "Night of the Barricades" (May 10-11), during which students occupied the Latin Quarter after a peaceful demonstration. The actions of the students attracted the attention of the mass media, as a result of which the influence of the social movement increased, news of the protests spread beyond the capital, which led to demonstrations in the periphery ^[5]. This example demonstrates how important the media is for those who do not have regular access to the political system. It is thanks to the public sphere that protesters can hope to be recognized as legitimate representatives of the public and have the opportunity to influence political decisions. However, access to the media arena is difficult due to the regulation of journalists' activities and the specifics of the media space. From this point of view, demonstrations are one of the ways not only to get media coverage, but also to recognize the right to interfere in the political process. The chances of covering social movements and demonstrations largely depend on their novelty, the number of people involved, the nature of the actions and the scale of the events. Over the past few years, in France, the number of one million participants has become a clear goal, an indicator of success, and sometimes a minimum condition for getting a reaction from the authorities ^[6].

The change in the public sphere has undoubtedly influenced politics. As Yu correctly noted . Habermas, if initially glasnost guaranteed the relationship of public debate with the justification of domination, with supervision over the manifestation of power, now glasnost is to some extent imposed from above, its tasks are manipulating public opinion and ensuring the legitimacy of power ^[7]. Using the example of the "yellow vests" movement, which manifested itself most vividly in 2018-2019, one can observe the main feature of modern social movements in France – the rejection of any organization, whether trade union or political. This indicates distrust and disillusionment in the current parties and political forces. Despite the fact that the "yellow vests" received support from the media, which sought to convey the demands of the protesters, the participants of the protest actions themselves showed aggression towards all representatives of the press, who, in their opinion, distorted their image and represented the interests of the state. The merit of the "yellow vests" is that they make an attempt to resist the official mass media as channels through which publicity is deployed from above.

Special attention Yu. Habermas pays attention to PR, widely used by politicians and political parties, which also unfolds in the public sphere. Y. Habermas notes that the addressee of public relations is public opinion. At the same time, the PR client usually hides his commercial intentions and acts as a person interested in the public good. Thus, the functions of publicity are used in the competition of private interests. PR goes beyond advertising by using methods of promotion and mastering, it interferes with the process of public opinion, using informational reasons to attract attention. In this regard, new symbols and authorities are being formed, which are gaining universal recognition. As a result, there is a reorientation of public opinion. The public sphere becomes an arena where someone's prestige unfolds before the public, instead of being in the field of its criticism. However, at the time of writing the work "Structural transformation of the public sphere", modern means of communication, for example, social networks, had not yet been created and distributed, which in many ways influenced not only the change in communication practices, but also the polarization of opinions in the public space. PR has become part of the algorithms and technologies that govern the functioning of all digital platforms. On the one hand, social media platforms facilitate the unification of individual users, on the other hand, they do not contribute to the formation of organizational structures ^[8]. While in traditional media, content is promoted by newspaper and magazine editorial offices, algorithms play an important role on the Internet. It is the algorithms that are mainly developed by educated segments of the population that distribute, prioritize and make publications visible or invisible to other users. New technological tools that allow anyone to easily broadcast political information to a large number of citizens can lead to intense pluralistic public debates. In addition, the platforms provide a voice to those who seek to manipulate the political agenda for their own financial or political interests ^[9].

Yu. Habermas is undoubtedly right that politics itself is changing under the influence of the transformation of the public sphere. Speaking about parliamentary meetings, Y. Habermas notes that if earlier, during meetings and public discussion, individuals sought to convince each other with arguments of the correctness of maintaining a particular decision, now parliament becomes a place of presentation of government policy. Thanks to radio and television, the people are also involved in this public sphere, but they do not have a direct influence on it. In conditions of expanded publicity, parliamentary meetings resemble television shows, where publicity acquires a demonstrative function. Since public opinion is being defined, the presentation of a political leader and his team needs "the right market design and beautiful packaging," Yu believes. Habermas ^{[1, p. 296]}. Precisely because the public of citizens is excluded from the media arena, they use social media platforms as their own media to regain their right to interfere in the public sphere. News published on social networks has several advantages over traditional media. Firstly, news spreads and is published faster than in newspapers or magazines. Secondly, there is no need to pay for the published content. Thirdly, each user of the network can be both a reader of news and their creator. However, there are also disadvantages associated with the use of social networks as the main media. First of all, the content is not edited or verified by anyone, which often leads to the spread of fake news. It is also noted that a lot of information sources interfere with the perception of information and leads to increased radicalization of public discourse. It is quite important that the rules of communication in the social network are created by developers and managers of digital platforms. This means that the behavior of users in the network during online and then offline mobilizations depends on them.

In addition, in modern France, in conditions when the French are in the "permanent presidency" mode thanks to reports, news channels and publications in the media, and political discourse is built around speeches and speeches of the head of state, as well as important political decisions, the role of parliament is increasingly being pushed into the background ^[10]. Thus, two processes intersect in the public sphere: the communicative production of legitimate power and the manipulative use of mass media power to create public loyalty to systemic imperatives.

Describing the influence of the media on the modern public sphere, Y. Habermas argues that today the discussion itself takes the form of consumer goods. Previously, people paid for a ticket to a concert or theater, but the discussion of what they saw was free. Now the conversation itself is controlled, and the debate turns into a show for which you can buy a ticket. The discussion takes the form of a commodity, while anyone can take part in the conversation thanks to the dissemination of information on social networks ^[11]. Y. Habermas points out that modern media contribute to the impersonal consumption of emotional states, such as irritation or excitement, which help to relax. Radio and television destroy the distance that the reader had to observe in relation to the printed word. The division between fact and fiction is becoming increasingly implicit. Meanwhile, a detached attitude to what was read in order to make one's own judgment made possible the emergence of the public sphere. However, with the advent of new media, communication began to be carried out on the principle of "exchange of tastes" between consumers, and "statements about what is consumed become part of consumption itself" ^{[1, p. 296]}. Y. Habermas comes to the disappointing conclusion that "the world generated by the media only seems to be a public sphere" ^[12]. If earlier the press could only contribute to the discussions of individuals, now the discussion is formed by the mass media. Unfortunately, the modern public sphere continues to function on the basis of the same principles. In addition to algorithms that influence the dissemination of information on social networks, emotions also contribute to the indirect dissemination of information through social networks ^[13]. W. Brady found that the inclusion of "moral and emotional" words in messages on three politically polarizing issues (gun control, same-sex marriage and climate change) made this information more viral for distribution on a social network ^[14]. It is with this phenomenon that the spread of fake news can be associated, when "people are not able to resist the information flow and are more willing to believe invented, mimicking the news, dubious reports than the news of "solid" publications, or at least to doubt and check the sources" ^[15]. A multitude of information sources "creates a situation in which sensational, emotionally colored false information spreads at an extraordinary speed" ^[16].

How, in such conditions, is the existence of social movements possible? Y. Habermas writes that in the modern public sphere, the public of citizens is so mediatized by publicistic means that, on the one hand, it becomes suitable for legitimizing political compromises, and, on the other hand, it is unable to participate in the development of effective solutions or simply to participate. Indeed, the "yellow vests" movement, which clearly manifested itself in France in 2018-2019, could not formulate a single list of requirements, which indicates the impossibility of consolidating opinions in a mediatized space ^[17].  Participants in social movements use digital platforms to disseminate information, mobilize the masses and create a discursive space. Of course, digital platforms provide an opportunity to discuss a particular problem. However, they contribute to the polarization of opinions, which can lead to digital noise, which often drowns out certain aspects of multifaceted social problems ^[18].

To correct the current situation, a fragmented public of individuals, according to Yu. Habermas, should be replaced by a public of organized individuals. Only such a public could become an effective participant in public communication, through which it is possible to legitimize the achievement of political compromises. It is obvious that it is much more difficult for public opinion to form today because of the accumulation of moods and unclear opinions spread through various media channels. Unfortunately, the current state of the public sphere in France suggests the impossibility of any organization of opinions due to the great fragmentation and polarization of opinions. New means of communication and social media platforms play an important role in these processes.

Thus, it can be concluded that after the transformation of the public sphere, its role in political processes has become nominal. Under the influence of this transformation, social movements are also changing, whose participants are forced to look for new ways of organizing and mobilizing through social networks. Citizens' distrust of official channels of information dissemination and the creation of their own information networks indicates, on the one hand, the loss of the public sphere of its functions, which Yu wrote about. Habermas, on the other hand, testifies to the impossibility of reaching a public consensus in an increasingly fragmented environment of opinions. This condition is strongly supported by modern means of communication.

Mass media, public opinion and the "reality effect"P. Bourdieu's arguments about publicity, which he builds in the works "Sociology of Politics", "On Television and Journalism", largely coincide, and also complement the theoretical positions of Yu.

Habermas. At the same time , if Yu . In his analysis of the public sphere, Haubermas comes to the disappointing conclusion that it does not exist as such, then P. Bourdieu in a sense continues his reasoning, and in his analysis directly criticizes the existing system of mass media, and also puts forward a bold thesis that public opinion does not exist.

P. Bourdieu introduces the concept of a political field, which becomes a place of competition between agents, as a result of which political products (programs, analyses, comments) arise. At the same time, citizens are assigned the role of consumers of such products, the interpretation of which is fraught with difficulties. The political field makes the space of political speeches finite, limits it ^[19]. It is in such a political field that social movements are forced to exist, which are very limited not only by the very specifics of this sphere, but also in the choice of means of influencing political decisions.

However, the political field imposes restrictions not only on social movements, but also on politicians themselves, who must take care of what P. Bourdieu calls the capital of a politician. People involved in politics are especially vulnerable to suspicion, slander, scandals that may contradict the current actions or statements of a politician. The capital of a politician can be preserved only at the cost of incessant labor to accumulate public trust and preserve it. Unfortunately, not all politicians manage to preserve this type of capital. For example, a survey of French voters (Enqu?te ?lectorale fran?aise – EnEF) during the presidential elections of 2022 showed that among the desired moral qualities of the president of France, his honesty dominates (65% of respondents answered this way) ^[20]. It can be assumed that the high demand for the honesty of the president was the result of political and financial affairs with two convicted presidents (J. Chirac and N. Sarkozy), as well as the blurring of differences between public and private life (N. Sarkozy and F. Hollande both went through the divorce procedure during presidential terms) ^[21]. The reduction of a politician's capital can lead to distrust on the part of citizens and voters, and as a result, leads to a weakening of authority and the loss of a politician's place in the political field. In addition, every presidential term since the reign of Nicolas Sarkozy in France has been marked by one or another social movement, turning into mass riots and clashes with the police, which indicates a weakening of the capital of a political figure among the last presidents of France.

As for the mass media, television and journalism are considered by P. Bourdieu as special social spaces associated with the production and dissemination of information. Persons or collectives and institutions operating in a certain field of practice are, in P. Bourdieu's terminology, agents of the field. At the present stage of the development of information and communication technologies, the agents of the field are not only journalists, reporters, media owners, but also digital social media platforms and their owners. Similarly, consumers of communication products participate in the formation of public discourse by filtering messages, activating everyday communication networks and making their choice among various media available for consumption ^[22].

The field is a historically formed space of the game, with laws of functioning peculiar only to this space. A specific capital in the field of mass media is the capital of fame and recognition of the authority of a particular publication, journalist. P. Bourdieu points to the paradox of modern mass media: "on the one hand, the media are gaining more and more power in society, becoming the most important factor in the political struggle, and on the other, they fall under the continuously growing influence and control of both politics (politicians) and the economy" ^[23]. Indeed, part of the distrust of the media lies in the fact that there is currently a connection between the media and political systems in France. Since the political system is extremely opaque, journalists who get close to politicians in an attempt to get information eventually form friendly relations with them and gain advantages. In addition, many of the richest people in the country have invested in the field of communication. B. Arnault and his family, F. Pinot and his family, P. Drai, the Dassault family, all of them own parts in one or more media holdings ^[24]. Thus, with the help of anonymous and invisible mechanisms, the existing symbolic order is maintained. And even the presence of social networks does not allow participants of social movements to avoid mechanisms that determine at least the rules of their existence on the platform, and at most the type and method of communication itself.

With regard to television, P. Bourdieu argues that it distributes information and facts that are worthless in order to cause a general consensus without affecting important topics. It is noted that the political danger of using television lies in the ability of an image to produce a "reality effect": television makes you believe what it shows ^[23]. Such a power of suggestion can generate a mobilization effect, creating ideas and ideas, as well as real social groups. Even a simple reportage implies a social construction of reality that can lead to both political mobilization and demobilization. If we talk in more detail about the coverage of the protests in the French media, L. Costello compares articles about the riots from four French newspapers and identifies discourses of nationalism that manifest themselves through the use of references to French history and political tradition ^[25]. She claims that the French press practices a special attitude towards immigrants from the suburbs, using the riots to strengthen the image of France as a divided country. These conclusions are similar to those of F. Darling-Wolf, who, when comparing the New York Times and Le Monde newspapers, found that the latter newspaper avoids considering the historical roots of the riots and general racial tension in French society ^[24]. Finally, in his study of the coverage of the riots by the French private TV channel TF1, J. Harsen defines racist discourse as dominant ^[26]. Most of these studies seem to confirm the hypothesis that the mass media tend to portray the protest negatively, while not covering the deep-rooted social and racial tensions in the country.

According to A. Melucci, the naive view that information reflects reality in itself is a relic of the past, and it is necessary to get rid of this idea ^[22]. Information in its various forms is a reality, at least in the sense that our experience is now completely mediated by the mass media. The cognitive frameworks and relationships that allow people to extract experiences from reality depend on the information available to them. Any topic in the public space can become dominant and central only when it is widely covered on television.

The most important remark cited by P. Bourdieu is related to public opinion and the denial of its existence. P. Bourdieu tried to analyze the functioning and purpose of public opinion polls. The scientist came to the conclusion that not all people have access to the production of opinions. In addition, the fact of summing up individual opinions leads only to the production of meaningless artifacts. And finally, there is no consensus in society regarding the issues of the questions being asked, in other words, not all questions deserve to be asked. Bourdieu argues that the problems of polls are related to the political situation and are subordinated to a certain type of social order. Public opinion polling is a tool of political action. In times of crisis, people find themselves in front of formed opinions that are supported by certain groups, which equates the process of choosing between opinions to the process of choosing between groups. P. Bourdieu writes that "opinions become forces, and the ratio of opinions — power conflicts between groups." Thus, P. Bourdieu indirectly confirms the position of Yu. Habermas, who writes that in modern society, publicity is imposed from above and serves to manipulate public opinion. In this context, public opinion polls become just one of the various tools for deploying publicity from above, which creates the appearance of an existing public space.

Of course, Y. Habermas and P. Bourdieu were not the only scientists who dealt with the problems of the functioning of the public sphere, but it is in the works of these scientists that the foundations for studying the existing public sphere are laid, which are relevant today. When considering social movements, the main focus is usually on the economic, political or social causes of discontent and protest actions, the novelty is to consider not only changes and reforms in the current legislation, politics, but to pay special attention to the role of the public sphere in the formation of social movements. Using the example of social movements in France, it can be concluded that not only political and economic factors become determinants of the causes of demonstrations and protest actions, but also the structure of the political field itself, as well as the impossibility of direct interference in political decision-making forces the French to seek solutions to problems within the framework of social movements.   

In conclusion, considering the positions of Y. Habermas and P. Bourdieu, I would like to note that in fact, the discourse constructed by the mass media is not only imposed on society, but also belongs to it. Each person (to varying degrees and with varying degrees of strength and awareness) contributes to its creation, and social media platforms play an important role in this. If public discourse is the result of the activity of many actors, then it is necessary to consider the possibility of interference in its construction. By abandoning the myth of transparency and linearity of the links that hold public discourse together, people will be able to strive for greater visibility in the decision-making processes that control the media and determine the political agenda.