Dr. Adnan Sabeeh Thamer / Researcher specializing in the anthropology of discourse
The essence of the social and political system in countries is shaped on the basis of its discourse, and on the basis of its nurturing of that discourse. Social and political discourse is nurtured in different ways depending on the structure of the political and social system, and the relationships representing these two systems. If the relationships are built on direction and guidance, with a centralized connection based on the authority of a few people over other individuals, the discourse of authority (social and political) therein deals with individuals on the basis of “instrumental consciousness.”
On the other hand, if the relationships are based on democratic dialogue, partnership, and contribution to decision-making, where authority belongs to everyone, then decisions and the context of discourse are made on the basis of “communicative consciousness.” The public discourse of society and the state is formed by a number of sustaining factors, the most important of which is state discourse, which is considered the first formulation of political discourse, as state discourse affects the other factors, namely: (the public sphere, the private sphere, elite discourse).
Thus, if state discourse is based on “instrumental consciousness,” the discourse of the public sphere is shaped in an instrumental manner. However, if it is unclear, the discourse of the public sphere becomes muddled. And if it remains silent and fails to produce discourse at times that require explanatory discourses for events, the private sphere hastens to compensate for the silence by seizing control of the public sphere; thereby, the private sphere becomes the public sphere, and the characteristics of the private dominate the public.
This paper proceeds from the hypothesis that the public sphere in Iraq has transitioned from the stage of “spontaneous formation” to the stage of “organized colonization.” According to Jürgen Habermas, the public sphere is supposed to be a space for “communicative action” aimed at mutual understanding and formulating the general will (in the sense of Jean-Jacques Rousseau). However, the Iraqi reality has revealed a dangerous slide toward “instrumental action,” where public rhetoric has transformed from a tool for persuasion into a means of control and coercion. We attempt to investigate the causes that create a discursive vacuum during crises in Iraq, and how state discourse served as a catalyst for private spheres to dominate the public sphere, in addition to the absence of the elite’s role in communication, debate, and dialogue. Attempting to cross from the stage of theorization to empirical work, we examine the views of a number of theorists, including the German thinker Jürgen Habermas in the theory of the “Public Sphere” and his updated interpretations of Weberian rationality.
