public sphere of politics, communicative theory, communicative pragmatics, distorted communication, anthropic dimension, perception of the other


Introduction. According to Jürgen Habermas, a contradiction between the system and the life-world signifies a need for a concept that would describe the projective space of a relaxed and undistorted human communicative activity. Communicative action as a societal basis of the public sphere links this concept to the pragmatic principles of human existence in modern society. The public sphere is important in the age of the cyber revolution and the rule of networking technologies and it gets an anthropological dimension in its definition of the modern individual. Reviewed from the view of the interdisciplinary scientific community the public sphere as a dimension of human identity that is manifested in standardized terms of communicative interactions. The paper suggests that the public sphere has lost its conflict mode in respect to power and the tech-savvy social system. Purpose. The paper aims to establish the specifics of the anthropological interpretation of the public sphere in the contemporary philosophical tradition. Methodology. General scientific and special methods of philosophical research are used for conducting this study. The author has used the descriptive method to define the subject area of the anthropic measurement of the public sphere of politics. The method of logical synthesis allows to combine the abstract and specific content of the anthropological dimension of publicity. A retrospective analysis allows to determine the temporal peculiarities of the anthropic meaning of the public sphere. The comparative method gives an opportunity to compare the empirical manifestations of social and political publicity and compare anthropological effects of the media and interpersonal communication activities of modern people. Theoretical basis and results. The article examines the anthropological content of the public sphere of politics as one of the key concepts of communicative theory paying attention to the modification of the nature of publicity under the conditions of the cybernetic revolution. The author argues that the public sphere is not only a collection of self-presentations but also a set of messages of general significance, both textual and verbal. In this regard, the selection of news, of any importance, stands in one respect as a means of the worldview matching technique but also as the orientation amidst the unlimited information flow. The public sphere acts not just as a medium of verbal or textual self-expression of the individual but also as a dimension of human presence in the lives of others and its adequate perception. The more the public sphere stands away from the counter-factual image drawn in communicative theory, the more it loses its anthropological features and acquires the content of the technological and production network since a mode of communication is changed to the mode of information transmission. The paper establishes priorities of personality representation in the public sphere and examines the need and motives of communicative-pragmatic relationships between individuals. Originality. In the anthropological dimension the public sphere is a source of promising prospects and the formation of defining constraints. Publicity becomes the leading quality of the modern individual because of its need to be realized in communication practices. The networking nature of communication links enforces the modern individual to produce a certain image for self-presenting to society. Conclusions The article draws a conclusion about the directions of the public sphere transformation in a global perspective.

Author Biography

O. A. Tretyak, Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University

Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University (Dnipro),


Nham, Sh., & Rinker, H. (Eds.). (2015). Applied Anthropology: Unexpected Spaces, Topics and Methods. Routledge. (In English)

Bazaluk, O. (2017). The Problem of War and Peace: а Historical and Philosophical Analysis. Philosophy and Cosmology, 18, 85-103. (In English)

Clammer, J. (2008). Decolonizing the Mind: Schwimmer, Habermas and the Anthropology of Postcolonialism. Anthropologica, 50(1), 157-168. (In English)

Hann, C. (2009). Poznań Manifesto: for a public anthropology in the European public sphere. EASA Newsletter, December, 6-9. Retrieved from (In English)

Haugerud, A. (2015). Public Anthropology in 2015: Charlie Hebdo, Black Lives Matter, Migrants, and More. American Anthropologist, 118(3), 585-601. (In English)

Hout, Van T. (2008). News Production Theory And Practice. Fieldwork Notes On Power, Interaction And Agency. Pragmatics, 18:1, 59-85. (In English)

Irfan, A. (2016). Between mourning and melancholia: Religion and politics in modern India. Journal of Religious and Political Practice, 2(3), 348-357. (In English)

Johannssen, D. (2013). Toward a Negative Anthropology. Anthropology & Materialism, 1, 1-14. doi: Date of Access: July 26, 2017. (In English)

Marais, I. E. (2016). Constraints to public sphere activity in Joubert Park, Johannesburg. Anthropology Southern Africa, 39(3), 173-186. doi: (In English)

Mead, M. (2004). Studying contemporary Western society: method and theory. New York: Berghahn Books. (In English)

Montero, P. (2014). Jürgen Habermas: Religion, Cultural Diversity and Publicity. Advances in Anthropology, 4(3), 199-208. (In English)

Eriksen, T. H. (2014). Norwegian Scholar Speaks «Anthropology in the Public Sphere». UMassAmherts, December 8. Retrieved from‘anthropology. (In English)

Pink, S. (undated). Media, anthropology and public engagement. Oxford : Berghahn. Studies in public and applied anthropology. (In English)

Poznań Manifesto: for a public anthropology in the European public sphere. Retrieved from (In English)

Beck, S., & Maida, C. A. (Eds). (undated). Public Anthropology in a Borderless World. NY Berghan. (In English)

Reddy, W. M. (1992). Postmodernism and the Public Sphere: Implications for an Historical Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 7(2), 135-168. (In English)

Rothenbuhler, E. W., & Coman, M (Eds). (undated). Media Anthropology. Webster University, Texas A&M University, University of Bucharest. (In English)

Thompson, E. C. (2010). This Is Our Culture: Anthropology and the Public Sphere in Malaysia Culture and politics are too often thought of as entirely separate in Malaysia (and elsewhere). American Anthropologist, 112(3), 462-463. (In English)

Ulin, R. C. (1991). Critical Anthropology Twenty Years Later. Modernism and postmodernism in anthropology. Critique of Anthropology, 11(1), 63-89. (In English)




How to Cite

Tretyak, O. A. (2017). THE PUBLIC SPHERE OF POLITICS: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL DIMENSION IN CONTEMPORARY COMMUNICATIVE THEORY. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (12), 62–71.