128: The End of the Public?

One of the greatest myths of modernity is the idea of the public—a coherent, collective body engaged in rational discourse, bound by a shared reality, and capable of legitimizing authority through democratic means. But what happens when that public ceases to exist? What happens when common ground disappears, and all that remains are competing realities, each with its own moral code, its own version of authority, and its own exclusive sense of belonging?

We are witnessing the fragmentation of shared reality, an epistemic collapse that has been long in the making. This is not merely a function of digital media or disinformation, though those are accelerants. It is the structural result of capitalism’s assault on the public sphere, a process theorized by Jürgen Habermas decades ago and one that has only deepened with time.

The Public Sphere and Its Demise

Habermas, in his seminal work The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, outlined how the bourgeois public sphere emerged as a space for critical-rational debate, where legitimacy was conferred through discourse rather than inherited through divine right or sheer force. The public sphere, in theory, allowed for the contestation of power within a framework of shared norms and deliberative democracy. It was a site where meaning was negotiated, where legitimacy was generated, and where authority could be challenged.

But Habermas also warned of its decline. The commercialization of media, the rise of mass culture, and the colonization of public discourse by economic and political interests hollowed out this space. As capitalism expanded, it did not merely exploit the public sphere; it consumed it. The result is what we see today: a world where discourse is no longer a means of forging common ground but a battleground of irreconcilable perspectives.

As the public sphere collapses, what fills the vacuum? Parallel realities emerge, each with its own moral frameworks, its own truth claims, and its own criteria for legitimacy. The absence of shared meaning does not lead to a peaceful pluralism; it leads to a conflict over who defines reality itself. This is why seemingly basic questions—who belongs, who holds power, what is real—become sites of intractable struggle.

These parallel value systems manifest in ways that cut across traditional ideological divides. One faction may see itself as preserving national identity against an imagined threat, while another sees itself as resisting oppression and demanding justice. The conflict is not just about policies or facts; it is about the foundational legitimacy of authority itself. And when legitimacy is contested, authority turns to force.

Authoritarianism as a Reaction

The rise of authoritarianism is not simply a backlash against progressive social change or a reaction to economic hardship. It is a desperate attempt to impose coherence onto a fractured world. When legitimacy can no longer be derived from shared discourse, it is imposed through other means—violence, coercion, and suppression.

Authoritarians thrive in environments where no common ground exists. Their appeal is rooted in simplicity and certainty: they provide a clear enemy, a single narrative, and a promise to restore order by eliminating those who disrupt it. In this way, they capitalize on the very fragmentation that undermines public legitimacy in the first place.

Rebuilding the Public?

If the loss of the public sphere has led to this crisis, is there a way to reclaim it? Can we reconstruct a common ground from which authority can be meaningfully challenged and legitimized? The answer, if it exists, does not lie in nostalgia for an idealized past. It requires new forms of solidarity that are not dictated by markets, new spaces of deliberation that are not mediated by corporate algorithms, and a renewed commitment to the idea that truth is something forged collectively rather than dictated by power.

Capitalism’s war on the public has left us fractured, divided, and vulnerable to authoritarianism. Ignoring this has been our peril. But if we are to move beyond mere resistance—beyond simply reacting to the symptoms of this collapse—we must ask: what does it mean to build a public in an era where the very concept is disappearing?

The future of authority is not just about who rules, but about whether there is any foundation left for legitimacy at all. The end of the public is not just a crisis of governance—it is a crisis of meaning. And in the face of this crisis, the most radical act may be the creation of a new public, built not on the terms of capital, but on the principles of collective autonomy and shared reality.