I finally got through all three sections of the Habermas' reading (pat on back). One thing I realize is that the last section of the reading seems to mirror the ideas of Adorno and Horkheimer.

In the second section, he details a public sphere that is composed of intellectuals engaged in critical debate. Rationality and reason are their tools which they use frequently in the salons and the coffeehouses. Eventually, their debates transfer over to the political sphere where they can be used to change society.

In contrast, the last section of the reading details a public that has given up on its autonomy. Habermas notes this as the refeudalization of society. They have given up their intellectual autonomy by drifting from rational debate to participating in leisure activities. People have now become dependent on the system to take care of them instead of them exhibiting control over the system.

Habermas appears to distrust the public as well seeing them as apathetic and basically unintelligent. Is he siding with A&H or are there differences?