<p>The theoretical discussion of how to define the public sphere relies on Jürgen Habermas’ analysis of the bourgeois public sphere. I the thesis I use two generalized models of both the bourgeois and the representative public sphere. I consider how well the two actors’ engagement in the public sphere fits the two models. By doing this it is possible to show that <i>both</i> models may be used, despite dealing with a time when, according to Habermas, the representative public sphere had disappeared and the bourgeois public sphere was in decline. </p><p>The two actors studied in this thesis emerged from state and society respectively, and therefore were governed by different circumstances in participating in public life. Despite these differences, I demonstrate that their strategies were very similar, and that largely the key issue for both was legitimacy, proven by their popularity, or in other words by their democratically public nature.</p><p>Thanks to a number of new activities, introduced within both organisations, the members became visible in a new way. One can describe it as form replacing content in both organisations, where the original core activities had to make way for new elements. In the thesis I argue for the value of studying <i>actions</i> in the public sphere rather than just models of it.</p><p>The need for these organisations to become, and preferably to remain, popular, arose from the changes that the public sphere itself underwent during the period, becoming what I choose to term a <i>popularised public sphere</i>. Participating in the public sphere then became a matter not only for striving for the right to criticise and influence public power, but equally well of demonstrating oneself to be a credible representative of the participants in public discourse. </p>

The theoretical discussion of how to define the public sphere relies on Jürgen Habermas’ analysis of the bourgeois public sphere. I the thesis I use two generalized models of both the bourgeois and the representative public sphere. I consider how well the two actors’ engagement in the public sphere fits the two models. By doing this it is possible to show that both models may be used, despite dealing with a time when, according to Habermas, the representative public sphere had disappeared and the bourgeois public sphere was in decline. The two actors studied in this thesis emerged from state and society respectively, and therefore were governed by different circumstances in participating in public life. Despite these differences, I demonstrate that their strategies were very similar, and that largely the key issue for both was legitimacy, proven by their popularity, or in other words by their democratically public nature. Thanks to a number of new activities, introduced within both organisations, the members became visible in a new way. One can describe it as form replacing content in both organisations, where the original core activities had to make way for new elements. In the thesis I argue for the value of studying actions in the public sphere rather than just models of it. The need for these organisations to become, and preferably to remain, popular, arose from the changes that the public sphere itself underwent during the period, becoming what I choose to term a popularised public sphere. Participating in the public sphere then became a matter not only for striving for the right to criticise and influence public power, but equally well of demonstrating oneself to be a credible representative of the participants in public discourse.