Andrea Carriquiry

The growth of the so-called “bad” civil society or “uncivil” society has turned into an increasingly problematic phenomenon in contemporary democracies, with implications both in practice and in theory that have gone so far as to jeopardize the very concept of civil society. This article is framed within a solid theory of democracy – the Habermasian theory – and draws, in particular, on one of the most widely accepted conceptualisations of civil society – that of Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato – towards identifying a way to distinguish uncivil society from civil society. To that end, this article proposes a criterion and two types of politics for classifying social movements based on the extent to which their actions contribute to either damage or strengthen the public sphere as such. This conceptual work pursues a double objective. On the one hand, it seeks to respond to the issue of how to deal with uncivil society, whether we should engage and debate with it, ignore it, or condemn it. And, on the other, it aims to identify how civil society could – in theory and in practice – continue to yield valuable elements for contemporary democracies.

In this article I analyze the digital public sphere qua public sphere, including tools from the author who coined such notion, Jürgen Habermas, and published a book in 2022 that discusses the digital public sphere. I analyze the phenomenon of fragmentation —an aspect that can occur associated with diversity in digital environments—; I examine the question of the positive or negative sign of the digital public sphere for democracy, and I propose, as a theoretical tool in line with deliberation, a conceptualization of the notion of toleration that draws on the work of Rainer Forst, articulates it with the above and expands it. En este artículo analizo la esfera pública digital qua esfera pública, incluyendo herramientas de quien acuñó dicha noción, Jürgen Habermas, y publicó en 2022 un libro donde trata la esfera pública digital. Analizo el fenómeno de la fragmentación —aspecto que puede darse asociado a la diversidad en entornos digitales—; examino la cuestión del signo positivo o negativo de la esfera pública digital para la democracia, y propongo, como herramienta teórica en línea con la deliberación, una conceptualización de la noción de tolerancia que abreva en el trabajo de Rainer Forst, lo articula con lo anterior y lo expande.

RESUMEN Este trabajo analiza la noción de privacidad relacionada con un público, o subjetividad orientada a un público, acuñada por Jürgen Habermas en su análisis de la esfera pública. Se propone una reconstrucción de dicha noción para esclarecer su alcance y potencial explicativo, y además se realiza una proyección hacia la esfera pública digital. El artículo propone que esta privacidad orientada a un público se puede postular teóricamente como un rasgo común relevante entre la esfera pública "original" y la esfera pública digital, y en ese sentido, constituye una herramienta conceptual que puede echar luz sobre esta última. ABSTRACT In this paper I analyze the notion of publikumsbezogene Privatheit (public-related privacy, or public-oriented subjectivity), coined by Jürgen Habermas in his analysis of the public sphere. I propose a reconstruction of the notion to clarify its scope and explanatory potential, and I make a projection towards the digital public sphere. I propose that this public-oriented privacy can theoretically be postulated as a relevant common feature between the "original" public sphere and the digital public sphere, and in that sense, constitutes a conceptual tool that can shed light on the latter.