Many people didn’t have the option for participation in the public sphere. Marginalized groups were rarely, sometimes never, given the time or space to attend meetings and participate. A lot of the first meeting places for the public sphere were coffeehouses. Coffeehouses were intended to be easily accessible to anyone, as long as they had one penny to pay the entrance fee (NYU Press). In German coffeeshops from 1680-1730, which Habermas focused on, this wasn't possible for many people. Not only did it exclude those who didn’t have the funds to access the space, it nearly always excluded women from participation. Women were welcome to be servers or assist in management of the businesses their husbands owned, but were unwelcome in participating in political conversation. Marginalized voices were ignored from conversation in this version of the public sphere - the German coffeehouse - as well as many other iterations, including town meetings inaccessible to those who were poor, bars for Black people and queer people at different times, and, more recently, bathrooms for transgender individuals. 

Prominent philosopher and feminist Nancy Fraser notes that, “members of subordinated groups - women, workers, people of color, and gays and lesbians - have repeatedly found it advantageous to constitute alternate publics (Charles 5).” These alternate publics she refers to as “subaltern counterpublics.”

A very important counterpublic that was very popular in the United States in the 1970s was a feminist counterpublic. There was a drastic increase of spaces where feminists could meet to discuss the same matters men in 1700s Germany were discussing - politics, ethics, and concerns.  These spaces included “bookstores, publishing companies, film and video distribution networks, lecture series, research centers, academic programs, conferences, conventions, festivals, and local meeting places (Charles 5).”  

Like women, racial minorities have also had the experience of being excluded from the general public sphere and creating a counterpublic to discuss relevant political concerns. The exclusion of racial minorities from participation in the public sphere perpetuates social injustices and contributes to an inaccurate representation of voices in the public sphere. For Black people in the United States, this has led to the creation of many new public spheres (Fraser). 

Michael Dawson explains a Black public sphere as “a set of institutions, communication networks, and practices which facilitate debate of causes and remedies to the current combination of political setbacks and economic devastation facing major segments of the Black community and the creation of oppositional formations and sites (Charles 6).” Dawson also notes that Black public spheres have been around since as far back as the 1860s. The Black public sphere included the Negro Women’s Club Movement, various journals, meetings and activities of civil rights organizations, literary cycles, debates between Black academics, and Black churches. An important distinction exists, however, between the Black public sphere and Black public commons. Black public commons are spaces meant for Black people to gather for leisure and pleasure, while the Black public sphere remains a place for Black people to gather to discuss political matters, especially in the context of political agency education discourse and social change organization (Johnson 43).

Critiques of Habermas' public sphere lie in the fact that many marginalized groups were denied access and therefore didn’t have their voices heard. When coffeehouses became frequented by the wealthy, including politicians, it gave the affluent population a chance to discuss political matters with change makers, while those who couldn’t gain access to this public sphere were excluded. Other concerns included the public sphere reinforcing prejudices and social hierarchies and failing to address social injustices.  

Today’s public sphere deals with mass media, something Habermas criticized deeply. Habermas claimed, “that mass media, and commercial mass media in particular, do not further deliberation (Schäfer 2).” There is certain validity in this critique, considering mass media is created for a specific audience, encouraging more exclusion of marginalized groups, but also that certain word limits exist, preventing entire narratives to be known by the public. Other considerations of today’s more digitized public sphere include the benefits of a more open public sphere with easier accessibility, more spaces for marginalized voices to make themselves heard in public conversations, and potential production of new communication methods; and the concerns of exclusion in the public sphere for those who aren’t comfortable online or don’t have access to the internet, diversity in online spaces being compromised by targeted algorithms, and fears of disrespectful communication taking place in the digital public sphere (Schäfer 5).

Through social movements throughout history, we’ve seen how crucial it is to have a space for open discussion. From the Civil Rights Movement, to the second-wave feminist movement of the 1960s-80s, the more recent Black Lives Matter Movement, spaces to converse and share ideas have been critical. As the public sphere expands from just in person communication to digital, opening up the number of people we communicate with and our methods of communicating, it’s critical to ensure that we strive for a diverse, inclusive environment while remembering the importance of a kind and civil public sphere. The adaptations of marginalized people prove there’s an advantage to dedicated spaces for certain communities, altering our common public sphere to be a safe, comfortable space and encouraging the sharing of ideas will allow a more diverse and understanding society.  

Berlant, Lauren and Michael Warner. 1998. “Sex in Public.” Critical Inquiry. 24(2). (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344178)

Calhoun, Craig. 2010. “The Public Sphere in the Field of Power.” Social Science History. 34(3). (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40927615)

Charles, Guy-Uriel and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer. 2015. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and the Creation of a Racial Counterpublic.” Michigan Journal of Race and Law. 21(1). (https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol21/iss1/1) 

Fraser, Nancy. 1985. “What’s Critical about Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender.” New German Critique. 35. (https://doi.org/10.2307/488202) 

Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere (Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit). Berlin, Germany: Auflage, Neuwied.

Holub, Robert C. 1994. “Habermas Among the Americans: Modernity, Ethics, and the Public Sphere.” German Politics & Society. 33(1-22). (http://www.jstor.org/stable/23736244)

Johnson, Stephanie Anne. 2019. “Education, Art, and the Black Public Sphere.” Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies. 12(10). (https://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/vol12no9/AJPAS_BLM_Johnson_%20Art%20Education%20Public%20Sphere_18%20Mar%202019_Article%204_III.pdf) 

Pae, K. Christine and James W. McCarty. 2012. “The Hybridized Public Sphere: Asian American Christian Ethics, Social Justice, and Public Discourse.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics. 32(1). (http://www.jstor.org/stable/23562890)

Polletta, Francesca and Pang Ching Bobby Chen. 2013. “Gender and Public Talk: Accounting for Women’s Variable Participation in the Public Sphere.” Sociological Theory. 31(4). (http://www.jstor.org/stable/43187342) 

Schäfer, Mike. 2015. "Digital Public Sphere". The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. DOI: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc087.