(Counter?)Public Sphere

The concept 'Counterpublic Sphere' is an example of negative ontology as it stands for the absences in Habermasian Public Sphere. In this frame of analysis, 'Public Sphere' controls the conceptual understanding of 'Counterpublic Sphere.'  Moreover, the very notion of public sphere becomes possible only through the bracketing out of private sphere. 

The concept of 'public sphere' has been a pertinent point of debate and discussion in critical theories since the publication of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) by Jurgen Habermas. Habermas' concept of the bourgeois public sphere presents an idealized vision of a space where private citizens engage in rational discourse, yet it simultaneously exposes the power dynamics and exclusionary practices that shaped the very fabric of Enlightenment-era democracy. 

Over time, significant critiques of Habermas's concept of the public sphere began to take shape, leading to the rise of Counterpublic Studies, spearheaded by scholars like Rita Felski and Nancy Fraser. This new direction challenged the limitations of Habermas's framework, offering fresh perspectives on marginalized voices and alternative public spaces.Rita Felski contributed to the discussion through the conceptualising of feminist counterpublics in her work Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change (1989). Nancy Fraser reconceived the term 'counterpublic' as 'subaltern counterpublic', bringing together the notion of the subaltern theorised by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and counterpublic proposed by Rita Felsi, in her essay "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy" (1992).

The conceptualization of the subaltern counterpublic sphere as a challenge to the Habermasian public sphere requires careful examination. The term "counter" inherently suggests opposition. While Felski and Fraser challenge the Habermasian idea of the public sphere, they largely maintain its structure. Their theorization involves creating an oppositional space that counters the exclusionary nature of the existing public sphere, yet still operates within the same foundational framework established by Habermas.

Thus counterpublic sphere is an instance of negative ontology as it is the absences in habermasian public sphere that define the former term. Hence counterpublic sphere also invariably repeats the Habermasian distinction between public sphere / private sphere. A deeper theoretical analysis reveals the fragility of this distinction for two key reasons: (1) the human subject is not an autonomous entity but a cultural construct shaped by language, value systems, laws, and social institutions; and (2) the boundaries between self and other, public and private spheres, and real versus virtual realms are increasingly blurred and unsustainable. 

A comprehensive understanding of social structures depends on framing of new concepts that examine experiences and issues in all spheres of life beyond the public/private divide.