Final answer:
Civil society encompasses non-governmental organizations and institutions representing citizens' interests and advocating for various causes, which could focus on government legitimacy but do not ignore public opinion. Habermas' public sphere is a separate arena for rational-critical debate and consensus building which influences political action. The difference lies in civil society's direct action and influence on the state versus the public sphere's focus on democratic discussion.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you've posed pertains to how civil society as a site of symbolic legitimation is different from Jürgen Habermas' view of the public sphere. Civil society is often seen as the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens. Civil society focuses on aspects such as advocacy for various causes, which might include government legitimacy, emphasizing grassroots movements, or prioritizing economic issues, but it is not accurate that civil society ignores public opinion. In fact, civil society is very much about channeling public opinion to influence political processes.
According to Habermas, the public sphere is the arena where individuals come together to discuss and identify societal problems, and which serves as a platform for criticizing and holding the state accountable. The public sphere is distinguished from the official economy and the state itself, and is considered independent. The discourse in the public sphere is aimed at consensus building through rational-critical debate, thus influencing political action. Therefore, the critical distinction between civil society and the public sphere, in the context of Habermas' theory, lies in civil society's role in marshaling action and influencing the state directly, as opposed to the public sphere's role in fostering democratic discussion and consensus among individuals.