dahlberg- the habermasian public sphere
Post on 14-Apr-2018
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 1/27
The Habermasian Public Sphere: Taking Difference Seriously?Author(s): Lincoln DahlbergSource: Theory and Society, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 111-136Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501718 .
Accessed: 14/10/2013 16:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 2/27
TheoryndSociety2005)34:111-136 @Springer005
The Habermasianpublic sphere:Takingdifference eriously?
LINCOLNDAHLBERG
Wellington,ewZealand
Abstract.Thepublic phere onceptionontinueso holdcentertage ndebates nd
visionsofradical emocraticociety, ndJiirgenHabermas' ork ontinuesobe the
mostpopulartarting oint ordevelopinghisconception. owever,heHabermasian
public phere asalsocomeunderpowerfulndsustainedriticismrommanyquar-ters.Here concentratepon hecritiquesf a groupof theoristso whom referasdifference emocrats.examinehe hree eyargumentsfthese ritics:hat hepublic
sphereonceptionnvolves heexclusion f aesthetic-affectiveodesof communica-
tionandhence hevoicesof certain roups;hattassumeshatpower anbeseparatedfrompublicdiscourse,whichmasks xclusion nddomination;nd hat tpromotesconsensus sthepurpose f deliberation,hichmarginalizesoices hatdonotread-
ily agree.Against hese claimsI showthat he Habermasianublicsphere an be
read smaximizinghe nclusion f differencendeliberativexchange.demonstrate
how heconceptionxtensivelyccommodatesesthetic-affectiveodesofdiscourse,how taccounts orbothnegative ndpositive ormsof powerndiscourse,ndhowit promotesheprocessovertheend-point f rational iscoursen publicopinionformation.
Many ocialandpoliticalheorists ontinueoarguehat trong emoc-
racyrequires public phere f informal itizendeliberationnablingthe formation f rational ublicopinionhatcancritically uidepolit-icalsystems.'JiirgenHabermasemains hestarting oint ora largeproportionf thesetheorists' nderstandingsf thepublic pherebe-causehe continuesoprovidehe mostsystematicallyevelopedriti-caltheory ftheconcept owavailable.Habermas escribeshepublic
sphere s an"intersubjectivelyharedpace" eproducedhroughom-municativeationality.2uchrationality,lso referred o as rational-criticaldiscourse rargumentation,s whereparticipations coordi-natedhroughctsofreaching nderstanding,atherhan hrough go-centric alculationsf success.HabermasirstdevelopedhedetailsofthisconceptionntheStructural ransformationf thePublicSphere(STPS)whereheundertooknhistoricalnalysis f the ateseventeenth
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 3/27
112
andeighteenthenturyEuropean ourgeoispublicsphere.3He hassince abandonedhis flawed exclusionary)nstance f publicness s
thebasis ordemocraticdealsand urnedothemethod f formal rag-matics.Formal ragmaticsllows heidentificationndexplicationfnormative onditions f argumentationresupposed y participantsengagedncommunicativenteraction.4heseconditionsnclude he
thematizationnd reasoned ritiqueof problematic alidityclaims,
reflexivity,dealrole aking combiningmpartialityndrespectfulis-
tening), incerity,ormalnclusion, iscursivequality,ndautonomyfromstateandcorporatenterests.5 ogetherheyconstitute n ide-
alized or normativeonception f the publicsphere,usefulfor theevaluation f the democraticuality f everyday iscursive ractices.
Whilemanysocialandpolitical heorists greewith Habermas on-
cerningheimportancef citizendebate orstrongdemocracy,manyarealsocritical fHabermas'pecificpublic phereormulation.riti-
cismcomes romavariety f theoreticalndpolitical ositions, angingfromrational hoice theorists o communitarianso postmodernists.HereI focusupon hesignificant hallengeo theconception'segiti-
macyput orwardyarange fcriticswhom groupogether ndreferto as difference emocratsueto their ocusonmaximizingnclusioninpoliticaldiscourse.
Difference emocrat riticsof Habermas' arlierSTPSbasedunder-
standing f thepublic phere rguedhat t drewa homogenizingnd
exclusionary oundaryround singularnd opicallyensitive ublicsphere.These hinkersrguedhat hisunderstandingasexclusionary
becausetdeemed omematterse.g.,domestic ffairs) s off limits oconsideration.6owever, ith hemove o the heory f communicative
action,Habermaseemsto havenegated r at leastsidesteppedhese
criticisms;hepublic pheres now definedbya formof communica-
tion andnotby a particularontent.Thepublicspheres constituted
wherever ndwhenever nymatter f livingtogetherwithdifferenceis debated.When alking f thepublic phere,Habermassnottalkingabout homogenous,pecificpublic,butabouthewholearray fcom-
plexnetworksfmultiple ndoverlappingublics onstitutedhroughthecritical ommunicationf individuals,roups, ssociations,ocial
movements,ournalisticnterprises,nd othercivic institutions. ythepublicsphere,Habermass also referringo the universalpub-lic appealedo in moral-practicallaimsaboutustice.Furthermore,thepublicsphererefers o the idealized ormof the conceptionas
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 4/27
113
derived rom hepresuppositionsf communicativeationality,s out-linedabove.
However, ifference emocratslsoquestionhe democraticalidityof thisnotionof a communicativelyonstitutedublicsphere.Theyargue hatthe promotion f a singulardealized ormof thepublicsphereasnormativectstopromote articularoiceswhilemarginal-izingothers.7nthisarticle, explore hreepowerful nd nterlinked
aspectsof thatcritique:he exclusionof aesthetic-affectiveodesofcommunicationndhencecertain roups' oices; heassumptionhat
poweranbe
separatedrom
publicdiscourse,whichmasksexclusion
anddomination;nd hepromotionf consensus s thepurpose f de-
liberation,whichmarginalizesoicesthatdo notreadily gree. nallthreecases thepublicspheredealizations criticized orbeing deo-
logical:heclaim hat t stands s a normof rational-criticaliscourseobscures ts bias towards he voices of particular roups. examinethisthree-prongedritiqueo determinehedemocraticalidityof theHabermasianublic pherentermsof accommodatingifference. odothis,I brackethepost-metaphysicaletcritical tatus laimed or
theconception nd ts derivationhroughormalpragmatics,nd n-stead ocusupon hewayin which hepublicsphere riteria peratein relationo includingmultiple oicesin rational-criticaliscourse.
AlthoughnplacesdisagreeingwithHabermas'articularmphasis,myargument evelopsa strongdefenseof thepublicsphereas con-ceived hroughhe heory f communicativeationality.showhow he
communicativelyonstitutedublic phere an be readso as to offera conceptionensitiveo difference ndappropriates a standardor
informal emocraticontestationf diversepositions.
The form of discourse
Thepublicsphereconception ositsa reflexive,mpartial,easoned
exchangeof validityclaimswhereonlythe force of betterargument"winsout."Difference emocratsrguehat heserequirementsrivi-legeaparticular"rationalist"ormof discourse, nethatencouragesrepresentationalccuracy,ogicalcoherence,nda dispassionatedis-embodied)ontestation f opinion.8This formof discourse eems odrawdirectly pon hestyleof communicationalorizedwithinmod-ernWestern hilosophy ndrealized n the abstruse cademic tyleof argument f modernscholasticactivityandlegal adjudication.9Thisrationalisttyle,accordingothesecritics,s defined gainst ndto the exclusionof its "other":hose "aesthetic-affective"tylesof
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 5/27
114
expression,which includemultiplemodes of everyday ommunica-tionsuchasrhetoric,myth,metaphor,oetry,heatre,ndceremony.'0
These formsof speakingareseparatedromrationaldiscourseanddefined snon-rationalrprivate.
Theexclusionof aesthetic-affectiveodesof everyday ommunica-
tion, romwhat sdefined s the egitimateationalormofdemocratic
discourse,s seenbycritics sprivilegingomegroups' oicesoveroth-ers.More pecifically,hepublic phere onceptions seen as system-aticallymarginalizinghevoices of womenandnon-Westernersons.As Iris
Young rgues,women
andnon-Westernersonsmorereadily- thanwhite,middleclass men- employaesthetic-affective peaking
styles; heir"speech ulture"ends o be "more xcitedandembodied,morevaluing he expression f emotions, heuse of figurativean-
guage,modulationn tone of voice,andwidegesture."''ncontrast,white,middleclassmen's"speechculture"endsto be "morecon-
trolled,without ignificant esture ndexpressionf emotion," hichmeans uchpersonsaregenerallymoreat easewiththedidactic,dis-
embodied,onfrontationaltyle hat,accordingocritics,sprivilegedbyHabermas.hus,asEylaRabinovitchrgues, public pherehat sbasedonrational-criticaliscourseworks o devalue ndexclude hemodesof expression,nd hus hevoicesandpositions, f womenand
marginalizedroups.12Furthermore,he conceptions assimilation-ist andnormalizingecause heonly wayformarginalizedroups o
gain egitimate ntry o thepublic pheres byadoptingheprivilegedmodeofcommunication.13 yhiding xclusion nddominationehinda claim oneutralityndrationality,heconceptioncts deologicallyo
promotehe nterestsfalready owerfulocialgroups.Allthisclearlyunderminesheconception'salidityas a democraticorm.
Theexclusion f aesthetic-affectiveodesof discourses also seenbycriticsas linked o anattempt yHabermasoblockunconsciousro-cesses thathe sees as inhibitingnter-subjectiveommunication.heunconscious eedsto be repressedn order o enableself-reflection,
autonomy,nd rational ommunication. hisattempto exclude he
unconsciousspectsrom ommunicativeationalityuggests, ccord-
ing o PeterDahlgren,aneFlax,andYoung, failureobreakwithwhatJacquesDerridaeferso asthe"metaphysicsfpresence."'4hemeta-
physicsofpresences whereunityand, hus, ransparencyimmediacyandunmediatedness)f meanings assumed chievedn speechacts,which gnoresbothdifference nddeferraln communication. om-municativeationalityainscoherence,ritics rgue, yprivileginghe
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 6/27
115
rationalityide of thebinary ystemreason/desire, ind/body,on-
scious/unconscious,tc. With heexclusion fthenon-rational,ean-
ingis contained nd ransparencychieved.Withransparency,directtransferencef meaning etween peaker nd istener akesplace hatenablesmutual nderstanding.
However, s manytheoristsattest, he unconscious-bodily-affectiveaspectsof communicationannot e removedo revealpurely ational
processesandtruemeaning.15 abermas' nderstandingf rational-critical iscourse,ccordingoYoung,ails o take ntoaccounthefactthat
meaningsalways
nexcessof what anbeunderstoodiscursively,spillingoutbeyondhesymbolic.16Thesymbolic r discursivespects
of communicationassociatedwithreason)cannotbe separatedutfrom hesemioticorfigural spectsof utterancesassociatedwiththe
unconscious,hebody, ndaffect),whichmakesHabermas'onceptionof communicativeationalityeemnotonlynaivebutan instantiationof themetaphysicsf presence.'7Young rgueshat:
Theres noplace n his[Habermas']onceptionf linguisticnteractionorthe eelinghat ccompaniesndmotivatesllutterances.nactual ituations
of discussion,oneofvoice, acialexpression,esture,heuseof irony, n-derstatementrhyperbole,ll serve ocarrywith hepropositional essageoftheutterancenotherevelofexpressionelatingheparticipantsn terms
of attractionrwithdrawal,onfrontationr affirmation.peakersotonly
saywhat heymean,but heysay texcitedly,ngrily,na hurtoroffendedfashion ndsoon,andsuchemotionalualities f communicationontextsshouldnotbethought f asnon-orprelinguistic.I8
Thus, hepublicsphere onception implycannot xcludeaesthetic-affective spectsof interaction,venthoughts formulation aysug-gest his.However,ccordingo differenceemocrats,ts formdoesacttosuppressesthetic-affective odesbydevaluinghem.Thisdevalu-
ingof aesthetic-affective odesof communicationotonlymarginal-izes or excludes hosegroupswhoexpress hem,as seenabove,butlimits the resourcesavailable or achievinggreaterunderstanding.This is because heaesthetic-affectivespectsof interactionctuallycontributen variouswaysto democratic ommunication. akepas-sion, for instance.Passion s not only inseparablerompolitics,as
MichaelWalzer emonstrates,utpositivelyontributesodemocraticcommunication.19s HoggettandThompson ointout,passion,andtheexpression f emotionn general, an be verybeneficial or rea-sonedargumentndunderstanding:
The nterpenetrationf reason ndpassiondoesnotnecessarilyinderhe
operationfreason;nfact t can acilitatetjustaswellas it can rustratet.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 7/27
116
Reasonwithout assions reasonwithoutnergy rdynamism.or xample,if cutoff fromaggression,eason acksbite andsharpness. he construc-tiveuse of
aggression nderpinshe
capacityocut
through uperfluousr
misleadingetailandgetto the heartof anissue, heability o getholdof
anargumentndcritically issect t,and heabilityo holdontenaciouslyto a vitaltruthwhencounter-argumentsreflyingaround.Moregenerallyhuman motions uchashate, ove,andhopefulnessontributenormouslyto ourcapacitiesoth o understandnd obeunderstoodytheother.20
Differencedemocratsonvincingly rgue hatwe must embracehe
aesthetic-affectiveodesof communicationnorderoadvance emo-
craticculture.They
alsoargue
hatsuchmodesof discourse re nottaken nto accountn Habermas'onception f communicativeatio-
nality,whichendsupmarginalizingertain oicesand imitingunder-
standing.However,want o show hat his s notanecessaryeading f
Habermas'onception.willmakemycaseby focusing n the nextri-
cable inkbetweenhesymbolic nd hesemiotic,eavingheproblemof theoverflowfmeaning nd ubsequentimitationnunderstandingto thefollowing ectionof this article.
The dea hat hepublic phere fcommunicativeationalityxcludes rsuppressesesthetic-affectiveodesof discourses baseduponapar-ticularly arroweading f theconception.This"rationalist"eadingdoesnotsimply esultrompoor tylizationsf theconceptionycritics
attemptingoilluminateheirownpositions,21ut s alsosupportedyHabermas'wnpersonal ntipathyowards esthetic-affectiveodesof communicationn politics.22Thisreadingof thepublicsphere s
furtherncouraged ya recentAmerican,iberal train f deliberativedemocratic
heoryhatdoes ndeed
promote stronglyationalistense
ofpolitical ommunication.23
In contrasto sucha reading,hepublicsphereconception as set
out in the conditions have outlinedabove- does make roomfor
aesthetic-affectivespects fdiscourse,whichclearly annot, ndneed
not,be whollyseparatedromrational ommunication.herequire-mentsof the conceptionhat are seen as mostexclusionary f the
aesthetic-affectiveodes reflexivity,mpartiality,ndthe reasoned
contestationfvalidity laims arenotonlycomplementedy require-ments hatembrace ifferenceinclusion,quality,mutualespect) utin themselves onot exclude heaesthetic-affectiveimensionsf in-
teraction.First,reflexivity houldnot be limited o systematic, na-
lyticalreflection,ndcertainly ot todry,dispassionate,elf-analysis.Reflexivity hould nclude,as ScottLashemphasizes, estheticand
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 8/27
117
hermeneuticimensions;s well aslogical elf-monitoring,eflexivityinvolves ntuition nd magination, hichdrawonfeeling.24 econd,
theassumptionhat mpartialityromotes on-emotional,bstracted,disembodiedialogues alsomistaken.mpartialityndicates,sSelyaBenhabib otes,an ethic of "fairness"ather hana non-empathetic,disembodied,udgment.25 ccordingo SimoneChambers,rawinguponKant's olitical hilosophy,mpartialityspartof therequirementof idealrole aking, emandinghat atherhanparticipantsbstractingthemselves,heyattemptoput hemselvesnthepositionofthe"con-creteother"and assess the situation romthe other'sperspective.26
Impartialitys
complementedn this
processbythe condition f re-
spectful istening hat urtherinkscognitive ndaffectiveaspectsofinteraction. fcourse, ttaining nderstandingnd mpartialudgmentisalwaysimited ndpartialnpractice ivencontext ependentubjectpositioning.But thepointhere s that heattempto take hepositionof theconcrete thernorderojudgeproblemsmorempartiallys notbereftof feeling.Third,hereciprocalontestation f validity laimsdoesnot limitexchangeothedispassionatetyleof interrogationnd
analysis ften oundnmodernawand cience.Theexchange f valid-
ityclaimsandreasons houldnotsimplybeequatedwith"dry ogic."Positionsworth efending illusually earticulatednd easonedwitha degreeof passionandcommitment.
Toillustrate hisargumenturther, will examine hepublicsphereof communicativeationalityn relation o threemodesof aesthetic-affective mbued xpressionhatYoungdentifies s notonly impor-tantbut necessary o democratic iscourse: reeting,rhetoric,and
storytelling.27reetingrpublicacknowledgment
nvolves"gesturesof respectandpoliteness"hatactto signifythatpartieswill listen
to one another nd takeeach others'positions eriously.28s such,greetingresonatesnot onlywith the differencedemocrats'oncernwithrecognitionf theidentity f theother,butalso withtherequire-ments orrational eliberationnthepublic phere.Greeting elpsgetdeliberationsnderway. s Young ays,
Greetingasa very mportantlace .. in situationsf communication
amongpartieswhohavea problem rconflict,andtryto reach ome so-lution hrough iscussion.. Thepolitical unctions f suchmoments f
greetingareto assertdiscursivequality nd establish rre-establishhetrustnecessaryfor discussionto proceedin good faith ... [W]ithoutsuch
spokenmomentsfpoliteness,eference,cknowledgementftheparticularperspectivef others,heirgoodwillandcontributionothecollective, is-cussion tselfwouldoftenbreakdown.29
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 9/27
118
Thusgreetings complementaryodeliberations,etting hestage orrational eliberationveroftenstronglydisputedssues.Storytelling
or narrative lso contributeso communicativeationality.t does sobyfostering understandingmongmembers f apolitywithverydif-ferentexperiences rassumptionsboutwhat s important."30torytellingfacilitates ommunicativeationalityn various evels.First,it helpsto makeclaimsvisibleas significantoncerns orpublicde-batewhentheymayotherwise ot be recognizedwithina particularhegemonic iscursive rderbecauseof "pre-understandings"f whatis legitimate.Storytellingangive a generalaccountof whya par-ticular
problemonstitutes n
injusticeneedingpublicattention,nd
morespecifically,t can contributeo the developmentf a sharednormativeanguagehatallowsapreviously n-namednjusticeobe
spoken.31 oungrecallshow sexualharassmentame to be named,andsubsequentlyebated,nthe1970sand1980sas a resultof story-telling:"Asa resultof women ellingstories o eachotherandto thewiderpublicsabouttheir treatmentby men on thejob ... a problemthathadno namewas graduallydentified ndnamed,anda socialmoraland egaltheoryabout heproblem eveloped."32econd, nce
a problems namedandrecognized s an injustice, torytellingancontributeo rational ommunicationyhelpingo"explainmeaningsandexperiences hengroupsdo notshare remises ufficientlyopro-ceed [or continue]with an argument."33s such,storytelling elpsin the takingof the other'sperspectives.t helps groups o counter
prejudices ndstereotypes, nd to come to someunderstandingftheexperiences,eeds,andconcerns f differentlyituated roups.34Third, torytellingan be centralo the communicativeractices f"local" r"counter"r
"diasporic"ublics,helpingdevelopdentities
andpositionsbeforeclaimsandreasonsarethematizedn thelargerpublic.35 torytelling ften worksat thesethree evels at once. For
example,RobertGoodin ells of the democraticole of fiction,and
particularlyf theautobiographicalccountsof freedslaves.36Nar-rativehelpedslavesto clarifytheir ownsituation, ain recognitionfor theirclaims ojustice,andbetter ommunicateheirexperiences,identities, ndpositions. n herfascinating ase studyof Canadian
Aboriginalandclaims,AngeliaMeanssimilarlydemonstratesow
narrativemay be used to gain recognitionor, and understandingof, otherwise silencedpositionswithin inter-cultural rgumentation.37
Hence, storytelling, like greeting, can strongly enhance acts of
communicationaimed at understandingthat constitute the public
sphere.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 10/27
119
Attheheart f aesthetic-affectiveodesof communicationsrhetoric.Rhetorics abouthowsomethings said, heaffective, mbodied,nd
stylisticaspectsof communication.38tis about heuse of languageopersuade,ndsome deliberativeheoristsncludingHabermaso seeit as a threato rational eliberation. hambersrgueshat nterlocu-torsmustonlybe addressedn termsof theirrational apacity:heymustbe "convinced"y theforceof reason ather han"persuaded"byrhetoricalerformance.39owever,hetoricimplycannotbe sep-aratedromcommunication.s shown arlier, anydiscursive ontentandarguments embodied n situated tyleandrhetoric."40rguingthata certain ormof communicationoesnotcontain hetorics sim-
plynaive about he rhetoricalorce nvolvedn thatparticularorm,
includingntheform hat s signified snon-rhetorical.hecontrolledand measured xpressionhat is often usedin politicsinvolves herhetoricalrickof gainingattention ndauthority y drawing n so-cial codesof rationalitynd mpartiality,eflecting ttentionrom he
partialitynvolved.41
Notonlyis rhetoric lwaysa partof communication,utrhetoric an
makeapositive ontributiono communicativeationalityy enablinggroupso address articularublicsappropriatelyndeffectively,hus
aiding hethematizationndexplanationf claims.42Whilerhetoriccan be deployedo win supportordominant ositions, t mayalsobe usedto drawattentiono marginalizedoncerns.43This wasthecasewiththe rhetoric eployedn the CivilRightsmovementn theUnitedStatesnthe1960s.44 twasalsothecase,asMauriceCharland
explains,with he"impious"etcivil rhetoric f MockParliamentsntheCanadian oman's
uffrageampaign: Througharodic peeches- such as debatingwhy men should not have the vote - they [the
suffragettes]olitelysought o produceaughter gainstheir nstitu-tionalised xclusion.""45ockParliamentsnabledwomenofficiallyexcludedrom hedominantolitical phereoargueheir ase npub-lic. Suchrhetorics a formof civicprotest.Some"rationalist"elib-erativedemocratsmaywishto excludeprotestrom hepublic pherebecause f itsconnotationsfuncivility.However,rotestsverymucha communicativectwhenundertakeniththeaimof raisingssues
for deliberationather han o coerce.Theuse of signsandbanners,streetdemonstration,uerrillaheatre, anceandsong,offlineandon-linesit-ins,cyber-parody,raffiti ndposters, tc.utilizecreative ndsometimes disruptive"ormsofrhetorichroughwhichmarginalizedgroups angaina hearingortheirvoices andcallintoquestionmore
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 11/27
120
dominantositions. sYoungotes, owdy emonstrations,ramatic
performances,nd ven"disorderliness,"an allattentionotheargu-
ments f excludedoicesandmake thersustifyheir ositionsmorethoroughly.46
Eachof theseaesthetic-affectivembuedmodesof communicationcancontributeowardshecommunicativeeasoninghat onstitutesthepublic phere.However,ot all formsof communicationon-tributeorationaleliberation,ndsomemustberepressedn orderto maximizenclusion.Wemustbewary f certainmanifestationsfaesthetic-affectivend
"dispassionate"ommunicative
tyles.Justas
narrowubduedeliberativeormsmay quashifference,otoomightstronglyassionatetyles.47 distinctionan,andmust, e made e-tweenorms fdiscoursehat ontributeogreater nderstandingndonesthatarecoercive.Richard ortyopposesucha distinction.
agreewithRortyhatwe shouldhink f reasonsimplystheprocessof reaching greementy persuasion,"hichmeans hat he "stan-dardPlatonic ndKantianichotomyf reason nd eelingbeginsofadeaway."48owever,disagreehatweneeda"blurringfthe ine
betweenhetorical anipulationndgenuine alidity-seekingrgu-ment" or discourse o be more nclusiveof difference.49This "blur-
ring"s notwise.Recent istory learly emonstratesowrhetoriccanbe used o dominatendexclude. ome ortof "line"mustbe"drawn"etweenhetoricalanipulationnd hetoricalersuasionnorderomaximizeifference.50his s whathepublic phereequire-ments o.Theyudgen favor f forms fdiscourse,hetherbstract
logicorstronglyassionatetorytelling,otheextenthathey nhancedemocratic
articipationimed t
reachingnderstanding.he riteria
of idealrole aking ctto exclude rrepressoerciveorms f dis-course uchaspropaganda,eception,trategizing,ogmaticanting,andemotionallackmail.heapplicationf such ulesof discourse,althoughereposed s idealizationsorcriticalvaluation,avebeenfoundnpracticeo benecessaryo sustainnclusive eliberationsnd"containffect,"ndhaveprovenuccessfulvennthemostvolatilesituationsnvolvingtrong ifferencenddisagreement.51
Thus,hepublicpheresdefinedyrational-criticaliscourse,formofcommunicationhatdoesnotdevalue esire ndpassion utrathersets hecriteriaor heir ommunicativexpression.52sDanielHallinargues:Reasonnthis ense s notopposedopassion,ut otraditionand uthority,ocoercion,ndinally-becauseearedealingerewithcommunicativendnot nstrumentalationalityit isopposedothe
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 12/27
121
strategicursuit f ends hatare hemselvesubjectodialogue."53hedemocraticalidityof political ommunication,o matterwhat orm
that ttakes, anbejudgedaccordingo thepublic phereequirementsunderstoodnterms ftheexpansive eadinghavegiven.However,he
argumenthatsome formsof communicationhouldbe excludedorrepressed)romdeliberationrings s back o the ransparencyhargesintroduced arlier.The exclusionof formsof discourse hat nvolvecoercion mplies hatpowercan be readily dentified ndexcluded,whichsomecriticsargues bothnaiveanddangerous.willnowturnto anexaminationf thisargument.
Power,ransparency,ndthesubject
This differentiationf persuasionrom coercion eads somecritics,
particularlyhose nfluencedyFoucault'snalysis f power,o arguethatHabermasonceivesheoperationfpowerasnegative,ranspar-ent,andable o beremovedrom ommunication.notherwords,he isseenasassuminghat n theprocess fcommunicationnsincerity, a-
nipulation,oercion,domination,tc. can be exposedandsummarilyremoved ndhenceunderstandingchieved.54 riticsargue hat hisideaof power s naiveat best.DrawinguponFoucaultn particularandpoststructuralismngeneral, heyarguehatpower annot efullyidentified ndremovedromdiscourse, ndthat t actspositivelytoconstituteubjects) swellasnegatively.nfact,by calling orthe re-movalof power,Habermas'onception f communicativeationalitymayact deologically yobscuringhepower elationstcontains. venif we
accepthe
argumentmade nthe
previousectionof this
article- that hediscursiveormof theconceptionmaximizesnclusion nd
equalityhusminimizing omination ndexclusion we stillhave oadmit hat heconception emands ertain ehaviorromparticipants.Criticsnterprethesedemands stheoperationfpositive,disciplinarypower.DanaVillaargueshat hepublic pherenormativeriteriaep-resents nexemplaryormof whatFoucaulthowed stheoperationfmodemdisciplinary ower,whichreliesnotuponhierarchical,sym-metricaldominationutupon hesubjugationf selvesthroughub-
jectification. [T]henormalizingharacterf communicativection"mustbe admitted:the elf-surveillancef thecivically irtuous itizen
(whohas nternalizedhehegemoniconceptionf thepublicgood)or
communicativelyational gent whohasintemrnalisedhehegemonicconception f whatconstitutesthe betterargument').""'hepublicsphere onceptionnforces normalizing,isciplinarymechanism,
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 13/27
122
positivedisciplining ower, onstitutingubjectss "rational"ommu-nicators.Theargumentf critics ikeJean-Franqoisyotard, hantal
Mouffe, ndVilla s that"toactaccordingo anormstobenormalizedin somesense."56
Thisdisciplinings instrong ontrasto Habermas'laim hat nargu-mentationubjectsreelyputforward ndrationally hallenge orma-tiveconditions.However,ritics espondhat hisclaimsimply howsthatHabermasontinuesorelyupona modernistationalubject,ur-ther einforcinghesuspicionhatcommunicativectionsbasedupona
simplistic ransparencyheory.Youngargueshat
despitehis insis-
tenceupona breakwithsubject-centeredeason,Habermaseassertsa rational, bstractedubject.57 e presumes unified,ranscendent
subjectwhostandsnahighlyreflective elationohis orher nterests,values,andfeelings,and in relation o othersandthe worldat large.JohnPeters rgueshat"Habermas'itizens esembleRousseau'sde-natured' itizensperceivinghegeneralwill or Kant'sworld-citizens
purged f all 'particularnterests' r JohnRawls'citizens emporarilyignorantf theirownparticularities."58arkPoster oesevenfurther
in emphasizinghisdecontextualization,tatinghat:"thesubject orHabermasemains re-given, re-linguistic.""59hus, ettingcommu-nicative ationalitys the norm or democratic ulturedemandsub-
jectswhocanseparateeasonromunreason,ruthromies,persuasionfromcoercion, tc.Difference emocratsparticularlyorepostmod-ern nfluencednes)stressnsteadhesociallyconstitutedelf,whichis embedded,ragmentedndmultiplied,ndis thusunable o standoutsideof andobjectivelyritiqueelf,othersandthe worldatlarge,
includinghe
operationfpower.
Ibelieve hiscritique fpower, ransparency,nd hesubjects largelybasedupona poorcharacterizationf Habermas'osition.Therearethreemainmisunderstandingshatneed to be cleareduphere,to dowithpoweras negative,as able to be easilyremoved, nd as ableto
be clearly dentified.First,Habermas oesnot definepoweras sim-
ply negative ndas therefore eeding o be summarilyemovedrom
the public sphere.Thepublicspherenormcalls for "coercion-free
communication"ndnotpower-freeommunication. abermasm-phasizes hepositivepowerof communicativenteraction ithin he
publicsphere hroughwhichparticipantssewords o do thingsandmake hingshappen.60ommunicativeationalityraws nthe "forceof better rgument"oproducemoredemocraticitizens, ulture, ndsocieties.Subjects re ndeedmoldedhroughhisconstitutingower,
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 14/27
123
but heir ransformationstowardsreedomndautonomyatherhantowardsubjugationndnormalization.sJeffreyAlexanderoints
out, o actaccordingo a normsnot hesame s tobenormalized.61Thepublicspherenormprovidesa structurehroughwhichcriticalreflectionnconstrainingrdominatingocialrelations ndpossibili-ties for reedom an akeplace.As Chambersrgues,ational iscoursehere s about"theendlessquestioningf codes,"hereasoned ues-
tioningof normalization.62his s theverytypeof questioningriticslikeLyotard,Mouffe,and Villa areengagedn despiteclaiming he
normalizingndrepressive ower fcommunicativeationality.hesecriticshave
yetto
explain dequatelyow
heyescapehis
performativecontradiction,lthoughheymaynotbe too concernedoescape t.63
Theformof power hat s to be excluded romdiscoursen thepub-lic sphere s thatwhich imitsanddisablesdemocraticarticipationand eads o communicativenequalities. oercion nddominationre
(ideally)excluded romthepublicsphere,whichincludes ormsofdominationesultingrom hemaldistributionf material ndauthor-itative esourceshat eadtodiscursivenequalities. hisemphasis n
the idealexclusionof coercion ntroduceshe secondpointof clari-fication,hat he dominationreepublicspheres an idealizationorthepurposes f critique.Habermassmore hanaware f thefact hat,as NancyFraser,Mouffe,andYoungremindus, coercive ormsof
power,ncludinghose hatresult romsocial nequality,anneverbe
completelyeparatedrom hepublic phere.64laimshat uchpowerhasbeenremovedromanyreally-existingeliberativerena anonlybe madeby ignoring rhiding heoperationf power.However,hisdoesnot mean hata reductionncoercion nddominationannotbeachieved.ndeed,his is preciselywhata democraticoliticsmustdo.Toaid hisproject,hepublic phere onceptionetsa critical tandardforevaluationfeverydayommunication.hambersuts hisnicely:
Criticismequires normativeackdropgainstwhichwe criticize.Crit-
icizingthewayspowerand dominationlaythemselves ut in discourse
presupposesconceptionf discoursen which here s no[coercive] oweranddomination.notherwords,o defend hepositionhat heres amean-
ingfuldifference etweenalking nd ighting, ersuasionnd oercion,nd
byextension,eason ndpowernvolvesbeginningwith dealizations.hatis, it involvesdrawing picture f undominatediscourse.65
However,his discussion f theidealizingtatusof thenormdoes notanswer laims hat t invokesa transparencyheoryof knowledge.wouldargue hatsuchclaimsnotonlyfallprey o another erforma-tive contradictionof presupposinghat he use of rational iscourse
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 15/27
124
canestablishhe mpossibilityf rational iscourseevealingruth nd
power butarealsobasedona poorreading f Habermas'heoryof
communicativeationality. his is the thirdpointof clarification.ncontrasto themetaphysicsf presence,he differentiationf persua-sion fromcoercionnthepublic pheredoesnotposita naive heoryof thetransparencyf power,andmeaningmoregenerally.Thepub-lic sphere onception s baseduponcommunicativeationality oesnot assumea Cartesianautonomous,isembodied,econtextualized)subjectwho canclearlydistinguishetweenpersuasionndcoercion,
good and badreasons, rue and untrue laims,and thenwhollyre-movethemselves nd heircommunicationsromsuch nfluence.For
Habermas,ubjectsare alwayssituatedwithinculture.The publicspheres positedupon ntersubjectiveatherhan ubject-centereda-
tionality. t is throughheprocessof communicativeationality,ndnot via a Cartesianubject,hatmanipulation,eception, oorreason-
ing, andso on, are identified ndremoved, ndby whichmeaningscan be understoodndcommunicated.n otherwords, t is throughrational-criticalommunicationhatdiscoursemovesaway romcoer-cionornon-publiceason owardsreaterationalommunicationnd
a stronger ublicsphere.Thecircularityereis not a problem, s itmayseem,but s infacttheveryessenceof democratization:hroughthepractice f democracy,emocraticractices advanced.
Thisdemocratizingrocesscanbe furtherllustratedn theimportantandchallengingaseof social nequalities. emocraticheoristsbothdeliberativenddifference)enerally gree hatsocial nequalitiesl-
waysleadto somedegreeof inequalitiesn discourse.Thus, heide-alized
public phereof full discursivenclusion nd
equality equiresthat ocial nequalitieseeliminated. ethow s social nequalityo be
fully dentified,etaloneeliminated?he dealizationeemswholly n-
adequateivencontemporaryapitalist ystemsandassociated ocial
inequality. owever,t is intheveryprocessof argumentation,ven f
flawed,hat he dentificationndcritique f social nequality,nd hus
of communicativenequality,s able o develop. ndeed, ublic pheredeliberationftencomes ntoexistencewhenandwherepeoplebecome
passionate bout ocialinjustice ndpublicly hematize roblems f
social nequality. hus he"negative ower" f social nequality aswith other ormsof coercion is broughto lightandcritique ythe
very discourse t is limiting.
This s not osay hat ubjects remerely ffectsofdiscourse,hat hereareno critical ocialagentsacting ntheprocess. t is not to saythat
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 16/27
125
subjectswithindiscourse annot hemselvesdentify egativeormsof
power, annot eflexivelymonitor heirownarguments,annot atio-
nallycriticize therpositions, ndso on.Theycan,and npractice o,despiteheinstabilityf meaning.Thepoint s that hisreasoningnd
understandings (provisionally)chievedhroughhesubject'situat-ednessndiscourse atherhanvia apre-discursivebstractubject.AsKennethBaynesargues,t is through iscoursehat ubjects chievea
degreeof reflective istancewhatwe couldcallautonomy)rom heir
situations, enablinghem o revise heirconceptionsf what s valu-ableorworthy fpursuit,and]o assessvarious ourses f actionwith
respecto thoseends."66emocraticiscourse
eneratesivic-oriented
selves, nter-subjective eanings ndunderstandings,nddemocratic
agreementshatcan be seen as the basisof publicsovereignty. ow-
ever, he ideaof communicativelyroduced greements, hich nthe
publicsphereareknownaspublicopinions,has also comeunder x-tensive riticismntermsof excluding ifference,riticism hat wanttoexplorenthe nextsection.
The endsof discourse: ublicopinionormation
Thestarting ointof discoursesdisagreementverproblematicalid-
ityclaims.However, certain mount f agreement,rat leastmutual
understanding,s presupposedhen nterlocutorsngage nargumen-tation.All communicationresupposesmutualunderstandingn the
linguistic ermsused- that nterlocutorsse the same terms n thesameway.67 urthermore,n undertakingational-criticaliscourse,
accordingo Habermas'ormal
pragmaticeconstruction,nterlocu-
tors also presupposehe same formalconditions f argumentation.These sharedpresuppositionsnablerational-criticaliscourse o beundertaken. owever, s seenabove,meanings never ixedandun-
derstandingsalways artial.Understandingndagreementntheuseof linguisticermsand of what t means o be reasonable,eflexive,sincere, nclusive,non-coercive,tc. takesplacewithindiscourse ndis anongoingpoliticalprocess.
There s one more mportantense of agreementhat s presupposedby participantsundertakingargumentation: onsensus upon moral-
practicalclaims,which meansagreementon claims thatimplicatethe
values and practicesof all persons in a community.For Habermas,
moral-practicallaims,unlike ethical orpragmatic laims,presuppose
general agreementdue to their universal nature. When referringto
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 17/27
126
discoursenthepublic phere, atherhan nofficialdecision-making,thisconsensuss what s knownas (rational-critical)ublicopinion
(which s centralo strongdemocracy ecausenecessaryo hold de-cisionmakers ccountable). owever,manydifference emocrats re
vehemently pposedo the ideaof consensus eingsetas thegoalof
political ommunication.68hese heorists mphasizeheirreducibil-
ityof differencendarguehatpublicopinionntheformofconsensusin pluralist ocieties s not possiblewithoutdomination nd exclu-sion. Consensus,heyargue,canonlyresultfrom a disciplining fdifferencehatsuppresseshe "true"gonisticnature f politics.Con-sensus
hroughiscourses
"equatedithacollective
ubjectivityhat
is inherentlyotalitarian"r "a ypeof disciplinaryction consensualdisciplines) imedattamingandbringing rder o a worldof unrulydifference."69laims o rationally erived onsensus ctto hide this
disciplining.
Ibelieve hat his s apoorreading f Habermas'deaof agreement,tleastintermsof the formation f publicopinionnthepublicsphere(c.f. inofficialdecision-making).want opointouttwomainreasons
whyIbelieve his sso,whichwillhelp urtherlarifyhepublic phereconception.First,Habermas oes notnaivelycelebrate ndpromoteconsensus.He sees "false" onsensus esultingrom"distortions"n
democratic ommunication.alseconsensusmayarisefromexplicitcoercion, omination,ndexclusion.This s soin thecaseofthe hreatsandbribeshatareusedby powerful roupsobuildcoalitionsnsup-portofvariousmilitary ndeconomic bjectives. alseconsensus lsooccursna moresubtleway, hroughhedominancef certainunder-
standingsnd
practiceshatcloseoff
critiquenddiscussion f alter-
nativepositions.This is thecasewhere radition oesunquestioned,thussupportinghestatus uosocialrelations.t s alsowhatHabermasrefers o whenspeaking f instrumental-strategicationalitynvadingandcolonizinghepublicsphere, urning easoning way romques-tions ofjusticeto technocraticuestions f means.70 or nstance,n
consumerocietyquestioningargely evolves roundwhatare hebestchoicesbetweenproductsn the market or individual eedsatisfac-tion. Another xamples given by the so-called"waron terrorism."
In this case discussion in the mainstreampublic spherehas revolvedaroundhetechnical-strategicuestions f howto eradicate theen-
emy,"atherhan eflexive ngagement ith hemoral-practicalssues
underlyingheconflict, uchasthepoliticalandeconomicnsecurityfeltinmany egions f theworlddue o Westernconomic ndculturaldominance. alseconsensus, sYoungpointsout,is alsodeveloping
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 18/27
127
in the UnitedStatesandelsewhere roundmajor ocial andenviron-mentalproblems,uchas thecausesandcuresof povertyandgreen
housegases.71Despitevigorousdebate,hestatusquosocialsystemof capitalist roductionndconsumptionoes unquestionedecausemodelsofhuman rganizationhat adicallyhallengehepresent ys-temhavebeen argely xcludedrompublic rgument,hich s focusedon individual-consumernd echnical-marketolutions.
Some democraticheoriesdopromote onsensuswithoutadequatelyconsideringuch"distortions."ouffe s right o criticizehosecon-sensusmodelsof third
waytheorists ndmorerationalist eliberative
democratshat laim nclusionwhileattemptingoriddecisionmakingof confrontationetweentrong deological ositions.72et,Mouffe s
wrong olumpall so-calleddeliberativeemocratsntogether.Ratio-nalist"deliberativeemocratsocusonproceduresf democraticea-
soning,often ailing oaccount or herelations fpowernvolved.73n
contrast,ritical eliberativeemocratsikeBenhabib ndJohnDryzek
proposea publicspherediscoursenvolvingboth confrontationnd
respectful istening.74Moreover,hesetheoristsollowHabermasn
acknowledginghatdistortionsnevery-dayommunication ill leadto false consensus.Difference emocratsmayrespondhat herecanneverbe a "true"onsensusincepower annot eseparatedrom om-munication.However,s already oted, hepublic phere onceptionis an idealizationhatwill notbefullyrealizednpractice.tspurposeis to help identify, ritique, ndchallengeblockageso freeandcriti-cal communicationo thatwe can move owardshe idealizedpublicsphere ndrational ublicopinion.Thepublic pheredealizations acheck
againstalseconsensus.
Second, n Habermas' two-track"odel of deliberativeemocracypublicopinion ormationhroughommunicativeationalitynpublicspheresdistinctrom,although ltimatelyinkedo,formal rocessesof government.75nlike ormaldecision-making,n thepublic pherethere s nourgencyrexacting emandorafinaldecision.Participants,whenundertakingiscoursenvolvingmoral-practicallaims,presup-posethatreaching nderstandingragreementould"inprinciple"e
achieved.However, thephraseinprinciple' xpressesheidealizingproviso:f onlytheargumentationouldbeconductedpenlyenoughand continuedongenough."'76ational onsensus anonlybe non-
coercivelychievedfdiscourses continuedndefinitely.hus,tis notsuchaproblemhatundistortedonsensus anneverbefullyrealized.Inpractice,publicopinion s always n theprocessof formation.As
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 19/27
128
Chambersays:"Consensualgreement,f andwhen t doesemerge,emerges raduallynd s fragmentaryndpartial."77
It is theprocess hatcounts.Agreementmayultimatelymotivate is-
course,buttheprocess s more mportanthan he ends.Theprocessis one of Bildung romwhichrational nderstandings,itizens,and
publicopinionsdevelop.78 hambersxplainshisnicely:
Therationalityf publicopinionandwill formationn generaldoesnot
depend ncitizens eachingrationalonsensusn all ssues.Adiscursivelyformedpublicopinion anrepresent processof Bildung reducationn
whichcitizensbuildbetteroundationso theiropinionshrough iscursiveinteraction.hrough iscursiventeractionn variousssuesfromwho arewe?to the bestmeansof securing eficit eduction,itizensbecomemoreinformedbouthe ssues;heybecome ware fwhatothers hink nd eel;
they e-evaluateheir ositionsn ightof criticism ndargument;nshort, y
defendingheiropinionswithreason heiropinions ecomemore easoned.The resultof such interactions thatpublicopinionand the exerciseofdemocraticesponsibilityreembeddednreasonedonvictions,lthoughreasonedonvictionsonotalways eed o reflect consensus n an ssue.79
Private ndividuals re transformedntopubliccitizensthroughhelearningprocessf deliberation,eveloping ublicopinion(s)hatcanholdgovernmentccountable.gain, his s a rational rocessbutnotone bereftof agonisticaspects.As Chambersrgues,"disagreement,conflict,dispute,argumentation,pposition,n short,naysaying, reessentialaspectsof the discourse rocess."80
This idea of public opinionas an ongoing process of rational
learning hroughargumentations
opposedo both the liberaland
communitarian odels of publicity,models that some critics ofHabermas'public sphere conceptioncome close to in theirown
theories.81 abermas,longwithothercriticaldeliberativeheorists,
stronglyrejectsthe liberalmodel of politicalcommunication nd
publicopinion.Political ommunicationnliberalismsreducedo the
strategictruggle etweennterest roupsor heattentionndsupportof anaudience f self-seeking nddividedprivatendividuals. ublic
opinionbecomes heaggregationf theprivately xpressed pinions
of isolatedpersons.82 t the sametime,rational ublicopiniondoesnot referto Rousseau's generalwill,"whichHabermas alls "thefalse model of a formationof will" because it is not based on respectfordifference.83nSTPSHabermasriticizesRousseau'sdemocracyof non-public pinion"becauseRousseau onceivesof the generalwill as a "consensusf hearts ather hanof argument."84abermas
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 20/27
129
rejectshiscivic-republicanrcommunitarianotionofhomogeneousbackgroundmoralconvictionshateachindividuals alwaysalready
imbuedwith and hataremerely o be rediscovereds the will of thecommonsubject.Deep-seateddifferenceand strongdisagreementarepartof pluralistocieties hatmustbe taken nto accountn anylegitimatemodelof strongdemocracy.
Habermasejects hesesubject-centeredonceptions,he "transcen-
dentalego of the Critique f PracticalReasonor thepeopleof the
SocialContract"-hewill of the ndividualnd hewill of thecommu-nal
macrosubject.85orboth iberalism nd
communitarianism,emo-
cratic egitimacys derived rom the expression f already ormed
opinions, itherpre-discursiventerests rpre-given alues.Bothpo-sitionsarerooted nnotionsof a self-determiningubject,ndividualorcollective.Against hese,Habermasositsthediscursive pinion-andwill-formationf a reasoning ublic.Rather hana consensus f
pre-discursiveills orhearts, ublicopinionormation ccurshroughanongoing rocessof rational eliberationhatrespectsdifference.
Conclusion
Differencedemocrat riticsof thepublicsphereconception s con-ceivedthroughHabermas'heoryof communicativeationalityave
arguedhat t supportsxclusivepoliticaldiscourseorthreereasons:it promotesa rationalistorm of discoursehatdevaluesaesthetic-affective tylesof interaction,hichresultsncertain roups'waysof
speakingbeingprivilegedver
others;t assumes hat
powercan be
separatedromcommunication,hichmasksexclusionanddomina-
tion;and tpromotesonsensus s thepurpose f deliberation,hich
marginalizesoicesthatdonotreadily gree.However, havearguedthat hesecritiques re nfactbasedonlimited eadings f Habermas.
Mymoreexpansive eading f thepublic phere onceptionhows hatitdoes n factaccommodateesthetic-affectiveormsofdiscourse,hatit accounts or bothnegative ndpositive ormsof power n commu-
nication, nd hat tpromotesheprocess atherhan heend-point f
rational eliberationnpublicopinion ormation.
Infact,disagreementnddifference re hewholepointof thepublicsphere,which deallycombinesbothagonisticandrespectfulormsof argumentationna democraticontestationf position.Ontheone
hand,heinformal iscursiveublic phere llowsvoicesandconflicts
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 21/27
130
to be expressedn waysin whichthe more nflexible ormal nstitu-tions of democraticovernance o not allow.Ontheotherhand, he
discursive onditions ct to protectandnurture ifference.The con-ceptionworks omaximizenclusion, lthoughhis doesrelyupon he
exclusionof coercion nddomination. hisexclusionnotonlyworks
to definedemocraticommunication,utalso indicateshat hepublic
spheres a discursive rocesswithcontinuallyontested oundaries.
This is not to say the publicsphere dealizationwill be fullyreal-izedin practice, r that heconceptionwill notbe useduncritically,as "rationalist"eliberativeemocrats ftendo,or that t will not beusedcynically o maskpower,as JodiDeandemonstratess exten-
sivelybeingdoneby manyof those ndividualsndgroups mbracinginformationocietyrhetoric.86s an idealization,hepublicsphere
conceptions usefulnotonlyfor the critical valuationf the demo-
craticquality f actually xistingpublic ommunicativeractices,nd
thus forthinking bouthowtheycanbe madedemocratic,utalso
forhighlightingimitedandideologicalormsof publicity peratingin theinterests f dominantroups.Thus, orthosetheoristseeking
tocritique resentystemsofcoercion, omination,ndexclusion,heHabermasianublic phere emains legitimate emocraticorm.
Acknowledgments
Thisresearch asbeenundertakenith undingrom heNew ZealandFoundationor Research,Science,andTechnology. wouldlike to
thank he Theory ndSocietyEditorn chargeof thisarticleandtheanonymousefereesortheirhelpful omments.
Notes
1. See, or xample, ygmuntauman, iquidModernityCambridge,K:PolityPress, 000);
Zygmunt auman, ocietyUnderSiege(Cambridge,K:Polity, 002);SeylaBenhabib,"TowardDeliberative odel fDemocraticegitimacy,"nSelyaBenhabib,ditor, emoc-
racyand
Difference: ontestingheBoundaries
fthePolitical
Princeton,J:Princeton
Universityress,1996);SeylaBenhabib, heClaims f CulturePrinceton,J:Princeton
Universityress,2002);JamesBohman, ublicDeliberation:luralism,Complexity,nd
DemocracyCambridge, A:MIT,1996);JohnS. Dryzek,Deliberative emocracynd
BeyondOxford:OxfordUniversityress, 000); risM.Young,nclusionndDemocracy
(Oxford:OxfordUniversityress, 000).2. JiirgenHabermas,etween actsandNorms:Contributionso a DiscourseTheory fLaw
andDemocracy,rans.WilliamRehg Cambridge,K:PolityPress,1996),360-362.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 22/27
131
3. JiirgenHabermas,The StructuralTransformationf the Public Sphere:An Inquiryinto a
CategoryofBourgeois Society,trans.ThomasBurger Cambridge,MA: MITPress, 1989).4. Ratherthanattempting o derivecriticalnorms from specific historicalmoments, formal
pragmaticsaims to unearth hegeneralstructures f actionandunderstandinghat areintu-
itivelydrawnuponineverydaycommunicativepractice.The method sformalintheKantian
senseof attemptingoreconstructheconditionsofpossibilityof communicativenteraction.
This, as Maeve Cookeexplains,"contrastswith empiricalpragmaticresearch o the extent
that the latter s concernednot withthe reconstruction f generalcompetenciesbutwith the
descriptionandanalysisof specific elements of languageuse. It is pragmaticto the extent
that it focuses on the use of language,andhence, on speechacts or utterances,n contrast
to semantics(whichis concernedwith thepropertiesof isolatedsentences)."MaeveCooke,
Languageand Reason:A Study of Habermas'sPragmatics(Cambridge,MA: MITPress,
1994),3.
5. These conditionsarefullydetailed n LincolnDahlberg,"TheHabermasianPublicSphere:A Specificationof the Idealized Conditions of DemocraticCommunication," tudies in
Social and Political Theory,10, no. 2 (2004): 2-18. For this specificationI drawuponHabermas' heoriesof communicativeaction,discourseethics,and deliberativedemocracy.Inparticularrefer oJiirgenHabermas,TheTheory fCommunicativeAction,vol. 1,Reason
and theRationalizationofSociety, trans.ThomasMcCarthy Boston:BeaconPress, 1984),
1-26; Habermas,TheStructuralTransformationf the Public Sphere;JiirgenHabermas,Moral Consciousness and CommunicativeAction, trans. ChristianLenhardtand ShierryN. Weber(Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1990), 43-115; Habermas,Between Facts and
Norms, 267-387; JiirgenHabermas,"FromKant's Ideas'of PureReasonto the 'Idealizing'
Presuppositionsof CommunicativeAction:Reflectionson the Detranscendentalized Use
of Reason,"' in, William Rheg and JamesBohman,editors,Pluralism and the PragmaticTurn:TheTransformation f CriticalTheory Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2001).
6. Some of the morecomplex critiquesof thepublic/private ichotomycanbe foundin Seyla
Benhabib,Situatingthe Self- Gender,Communityand Postmodernismn ContemporaryEthics(Cambridge,UK:PolityPress,1992), 108-109;NancyFraser,"Rethinkinghe Public
Sphere:A Contributiono theCritiqueof ActuallyExisting Democracy,"n FrancisBarker,PeterHulmeandMargaret versen, editors,Postmodernism nd theRe-Readingof Moder-
nity, (Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress, 1992);Nancy Fraser,JusticeInterruptus:CriticalReflectionson the "Postsocialist"Condition New York:Routledge,1997);Anne
Phillips, "FromInequality o Difference:A SevereCase of Displacement?"New LeftRe-
view 224 (July/August1997):143-153; Iris M. Young,Justice and the Politicsof Difference
(Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1990). These theoristsdo not argue,as some
earlierfeministshave,that we should discard hisbinary altogether.All agreethat thepub-
lic/privatedistinctionmust be retained n some form. As Philips asserts, "wemightwant
to say thateverything s political,but this does not commit us to the view thatthere is no
difference betweenprivateandpublic life." See Philips, "FromInequality o Difference,"149. Theproblem or all thesetheorists s whereto draw he line betweenpublicandprivateand who shouldhave thepowerto dothedrawing.See, inparticular,Benhabib,Situating he
Self 18;Fraser, usticeInterruptus;Young,Justiceandthe PoliticsofDifference, 119-120.
7. Differencedemocrat riticsof Habermas'discourse heory,who aremostlyfeminist hinkers,
broadlyfall into two camps.Postmoderneaningcriticsofferagonisticandaestheticalter-
nativesto Habermas'conception.See, forexample,JodiDean,"CivilSociety: Beyondthe
Public Sphere," n David Rasmussen, editor,TheHandbookof Critical Theory(Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996); Jane Flax, "Is EnlightenmentEmancipatory?A Feminist Reading of'Whatis Enlightenment?"'n FrancisBarker,PeterHulme andMargaret versen, editors,PostmodernismndtheRe-readingofModernity Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,
1992); ChantalMouffe, "Democracy,Power,andthe 'Political,"' n Selya Benhabib,edi-
tor,Democracyand Difference(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1996);Chantal
Mouffe, The DemocraticParadox(London:Verso,2000); JudithSquires, "In Different
Voices:DeliberativeDemocracyandAestheticPolitics," n James Good andIrving Velody,
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 23/27
132
editors,ThePolitics fPostmodernityCambridge,K:Cambridgeniversityress,1998).More ympatheticriticsattempto develop, atherhandiscard,he Habermasianublicsphere.See,forexample, raser, RethinkinghePublicSphere";risM.Young, Impar-tiality nd heCivicPublic: omeImplicationsf Feminist ritiquesf Moral ndPolitical
Theory,"nSelyaBenhabibndDrucillaCornell, ditors, eminisms Critique:ssaysonthePolitics fGendernLate-CapitalistocietiesCambridge,K:PolityPress,1987);risM.Young, Communicationnd heOther: eyondDeliberativeemocracy,"nMargaretWilson ndAnnaYeatman,ditors,ustice nd dentity: ntipodeanracticesWellington:
BridgetWilliamsBooks,1995).Young,nclusion ndDemocracy;enhabib,TowardDeliberative odelof Democraticegitimacy";enhabib, heClaims fCulture.
8. See PeterDahlgren,Televisionndthe PublicSphere:Citizenship, emocracyndtheMediaLondon:age,1995),103; risM.Young, Communicationnd heOther: eyondDeliberativeemocracy"nSelyaBenhabib,ditor,DemocracyndDifferencePrinceton,NJ:Princeton niversityress,1996),123.
9. Bohman, ublicDeliberation:luralism, omplexity,ndDemocracy,5;Dahlgren, ele-visionand hePublicSphere; lax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"oung, Communi-cation nd heOther,"23.
10. See Dahlgren,Televisionndthe PublicSphere,101; Flax,"IsEnlightenmentmanci-
patory?"46-247;Fraser, RethinkinghePublicSphere,"24;JaneMansbridge,Self-Interest ndPoliticalTransformation,"nGeorgeE.MarcusndRusselL.Hanson, ditors,
Reconsideringhe Democratic ublic Pennsylvania:ennsylvaniaateUniversity ress,
1993), 9;Squires,InDifferent oices"; oung, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"1-73;
Young,ustice nd hePolitics fDifference,18;Young,nclusion ndDemocracy,9.11. Young, Communicationnd heOther,"23-124.12. EyalRabinovitch,Gender ndthe PublicSphere:Alternative ormsof Integrationn
Nineteenth-Centurymerica,"ociologicalTheory 9,no. 3 (2001):344-369.See also
Dean,"CivilSociety,"25-235.
13. Ibid.14. Dahlgren, elevisionnd hePublicSphere;lax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"oung,
Justice nd hePolitics fDifference.15. SeeDahlgren, elevisionndthePublicSphere; lax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"
PaulHoggettndSimonThompson,TowardsDemocracyftheEmotions,"onstellations
9,no.1(2002):106-126.16. Young, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"2.
17. Young raws ponKristeva'sheory f significationo illustratehecentralityf affectiveandbodilydimensions f meaning. orKristeva,veryutterance asboth"symbolic"nd
"semiotic"spects.By symbolic,Kristevameans he referentialunctionhatsituates
speakern termsof a reality utside f themselves. hissymbolic spects, accordingo
Young, hatHabermasalorizes. ut heresalsoa"semiotic"spectoevery tterancethe
unconscious,odily,ensuousspects futterancessuch srhythm,oneofvoice,metaphor,wordplayandgesture."eeYoung, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"1.Similarly,cott
Lash, rawing ponLyotard,mphasizeshatnallsignificationoth discourse"nd"figure"arepresent. he"discursive"the ormof communicationabermasrioritizes proceeds
bythe rulesandrational roceduresf theegoand unctionswithin heframeworkf the
reality rinciple.he iguralstheexpressionf desire nd temsrom heunconscious herethepleasure rinciple oldssway.Discourse nd igure re nterwovenn communicative
acts.See ScottLash,"Reflexivitynd tsDoubles: tructure,esthetics,Community,"n
UlrichBeck,AnthonyGiddensndScottLash, ditors,ReflexiveModernization:olitics,TraditionndAestheticsntheModern ocialOrderCambridge,K:PolityPress,1994).Alsosee, StevenBest andDouglasKellner, ostmodern heory:Critical nterrogations(London:MacMillan,991),149;Dahlgren, elevisionnd hePublicSphere, 10.
18. Young, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"3.
19. MichaelWalzer,Passion ndPolitics,"hilosophyndSocialCriticism8,no. 2 (2002):617-633. Of all the differencedemocrats,ChantalMouffechampionshe virtuesol
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 24/27
133
passion or democracymostardently, rguinghatby suppressingassion herational-ist normsof deliberationndermine emocraticolitics.See Mouffe,TheDemocratic
Paradox;ChantalMouffe,"Politics ndPassions:TheStakesof Democracy,"entreortheStudyof DemocracyUniversityf Westminster,002),http://www.wmin.ac.uk/csd/Politicsandpassions.pdf.
20. Hoggett ndThompson,TowardsDemocracyf theEmotions,"14.21. See, forexample,Mouffe, TheDemocraticParadox.
22. Habermas as neverhiddenhis distrust f the aesthetic-affectiveodesof expressionnrelation o practical iscourse.nSTPShe notonlyshowshow aesthetic-affectiveormscan be utilized nrepresentationalublicityinfeudalpompandmodempublic elations
exercises)omanipulateublic pinion, ut s"franklyostileotheatre,ourtlyorms, ere-
mony,hevisual, nd orhetoricmore enerally."ohnD.Peters, DistrustfRepresentation:Habermasn the PublicSphere,"Media,CulturendSociety15,no.4 (1993):541-571,at562. SinceSTPSHabermasascontinuedobesuspiciousf oratory isplay s well as
rhetoricwit, rony, aradox,llusion,metaphor)spossibly eceptivedistortionary)odesof communicativeaction. SeeHabermas,TheTheoryof Communicative ction,331;Jiirgen
Habermas,Further eflectionsn thePublicSphere,"nCraigCalhoun,ditor,Habermas
and hePublicSphereCambridge, A:MITPress,1992), 26-427.Inan nterviewiveninOctober998,Habermasxpressesisdeepdistrustf aesthetic-affectiveommunicationinthepolitical rena.Hebegins he nterviewyreferringo Germany'secently efeated
Chancellor, elmutKohl,as thesymbolof hisowngeneration'seaction o the aesthet-ics of Nazism.Kohlrepresented,eflectsHabermas,he "almost odilydisavowal"f the
"politicalesthetic"hathadbeencentralo "themonstrous ises-en-scinef NaziralliesortheChaplinesquenticsof ourfascistmountebanks.ertainly e oftengroaned t the
shapeless rovincialismfKohl'swords ndgestures. utI came oappreciatehedeflation
of sonorous acuities ndbanalizationf public eremonieshatwentwith t."Habermasconcludes y positinghe deal ormof therepublics one in which here s "adispositionwhichwassuspiciousfany hetoricf thehighor hedeep,which esistednyaestheticiza-tionofpolitics, utalsoguardedgainstrivializationherehe ntegritynd ndependenceof the ifeof themindwasatstake." eeJiirgenHabermas,There reAlternatives,"ew
LeftReview 31(September/October998):3-12, at4, 12.Yetdespitehisdeclared ver-sion otheaesthetic-affectiveodes fexpression, abermastilizes uch tyles nhisown
political rguments.or nstance,Best andKellner bserve hatHabermas'hilosophicalDiscoursefModernityemploysiteraryonstruction,opioushetoric,nd requent oralandpolitical assion."ee Best andKellner, ostmodernheory,50. Thisof course anbe readpositively,s ademonstrationf Habermas'cceptance,espite eservations,f the
roleof aesthetic-affectivespects fpublic phere iscourse. or uchareadingee JohnSBrady, Nocontest?AssessingheAgonisticCritiquesf JiirgenHabermas'sheory f thePublicSphere,"hilosophy& SocialCriticism0,no.3 (2004):331-354,at 348-349.
23. Thisstrain f deliberativeemocracys discussed ndcritiqued y Dryzekwhopoints oitsassimilation ith iberal onstitutionalismntheUnitedStates. eeDryzek,Deliberative
DemocracyndBeyond,0-30.IagreewithDryzekncallingora radical rcritical elib-erative emocraticheoryhatemphasizesheclashof meanings,dentities,ndpositionsinpublic phere(s)utside ormal olitical ecision-making.
24. Lash,"Reflexivitynd tsDoubles."25. Benhabib,TowardDeliberative odelof Democraticegitimacy,"2-83.26. SimoneChambers,ReasonableDemocracy:JiirgenHabermasand the PoliticsofDiscourse
(Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversity ress,1996),101.Idealroletaking equiresthatparticipantsakeonboth heposition fthegeneralizedabstract)ther nd hepositionof theconcreteparticular)ther.Formoreon howtheseconceptionsf the other anbe
synthesized ithina theoryof moraldiscourse,ee Benhabib,ituatingheSelf;Brenda
Lyshaug, Reciprocity,espect, ndDemocratic ngagement:heValueof Deliberation
in a HeterogeneousPublic;',"he American Political Science AssociationAnnualMeeting
(SanFrancisco,001).
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 25/27
134
27. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,57-77.
28. Ibid.,58,61.29. Ibid.,59-60.
30. Ibid.,71.31. Ibid.,72.32. Ibid.,72-73. Fora more n-depthreatmentf howexcludedwomen'sroups avegained
recognitionhrougharrativesn thepublic phereee Maria .Lara,MoralTextures:em-inist Narratives n thePublicSphere (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1998).
33. Young,InclusionandDemocracy,7.
34. Ibid.,73-74. See alsoBenhabib, heClaims fCulture,4.
35. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,73.
36. RobertE.Goodin, DemocraticeliberationWithin,"hilosophy&PublicAffairs, 9,no.1(2000):81-109 at95-97.
37. AngeliaK.Means, Narrativergumentation:rguing ithNatives," onstellations,,no.
2 (2002):221-245.38. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,65.
39. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy.40. Young,InclusionandDemocracy,64.
41. Ibid.,63-65.42. Ibid.,67-70.
43. Sometimesmarginalizedroupshave o takeon the formof rhetoric sedby dominant
groups n order o be recognized, hichmayinvolve"dispassionate"estern eliber-ativestyles.However,his does notnecessarilymeanassimilation ndnormalizing,s
Rabinovitchrguest does. SeeRabinovitch,Gendernd the PublicSphere,"48. The
voiceof thedominant aybe usedstrategicallyoargueoranexpansionnstyleofpublicdiscourse.
44. See Dryzek,DeliberativeDemocracyandBeyond,70.
45. MauriceCharland,ThePlaceof ImpietynCivicArgument,"avnost/Theublic8,no.3
(2001):35-50 at 48-49.
46. Young,Inclusion andDemocracy,47-51.
47. Forexamples f howstorytelling,reeting, ndrhetorican undermineeliberation,ee
Dryzek,DeliberativeDemocracyandBeyond,68-72; HoggettandThompson,"Towards
Democracyf theEmotions,"17-118;Young,nclusionndDemocracy,7-80.48. RichardRorty, Justice s a LargerLoyalty,"n RonBontekoe ndMarietta tepaniants,
editors, Justice and Democracy: Cross-CulturalPerspectives (Honolulu: University of
Honolulu ress,1997),18.
49. Ibid.50. Somepostmodernheorists elebrate ndpromote ifferencen andof itself.Others,uch
asMouffe, ccepthat norder o maximizenclusionwemayneed orestrict omevoices
andmodesof expression,nd hatconfrontationn a democraticublic phere eeds obe
"playedutunderonditionsegulatedyasetof deliberativerocedures."hile elebrating
passion nd mbracingheagonisticspects fpolitics, xplicitly ositioningerself gainsta deliberativeodel fdemocraticegitimacy,Mouffe rgueshatpassions eed o be tamed
"bymobilizinghem ordemocraticnds."Mouffe, Politics ndPassions,"-10. Also see
Mouffe, Democracy,ower,nd he Political,'"46.51. Hoggett ndThompson,TowardsDemocracyf theEmotions,"21.52. See Kenneth aynes, Communicativethics,he PublicSphere ndCommunication e-
dia,"Critical StudiesinMass Communication 1,no. 4 (1994): 315-326, at 317.
53. DanielC.Hallin, Introduction,"n DanielC.Hallin, ditor,WeKeepAmericanTop fthe
WorldLondon: outledge,994),9.54. See StevenBest, ThePolitics of Historical Vision:Marx, Foucault,Habermas(New York:
GuilfordPress,1995),194; Dean,"CivilSociety," 24-235; Mouffe,TheDemocratic
Paradox,142-146;DavidM. Rasmussen, eadingHabermasCambridge,MA: Basil
Blackwell, 990),51-54.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 26/27
135
55. DanaR. Villa, "Postmodernism ndthe PublicSphere,"AmericanPolitical Science Review
86,no.3 (1992):712-721,at715.56. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,233.
57. Young, Impartialitynd heCivicPublic,"0.58. Peters, Distrustf Representation,"64.59. MarkPoster,The Second MediaAge (Cambridge,UK: PolityPress, 1995),48.
60. Itis interestinghat ritics fHabermas'heory f communicativeationalityisagreeverwhether ehasoverestimatedrunderestimatedowerwithin iscourse.While number f
critics,ncludingMouffe, ee communicativectionasunderestimatinghepervasivenessof power,Lashbelieves hat t over-emphasizesower: itclaims o see powern placeswherepowerustisn't." eeMouffe,TheDemocraticaradox; ash,"Reflexivitynd ts
Doubles," 50.Similarly,riticsdisagree boutwhetherHabermas verestimatesr un-derestimateshecontestationaryature f democratic iscourse.WhileFlax andMouffecall for moreemphasis ponthe agonisticaspectsof politics,Young ees deliberative
democracys alreadyoo conflictual. deliberativeemocratic odelcontains oth hecontestationf positionsand the search ormutualunderstandinghroughhis contes-
tation:hetwo arebroughtogether ia thenormativeonceptionf thepublicsphere.SeeFlax,"IsEnlightenmentmancipatory?"hantalMouffe,TheReturn f thePolitical
(London:Verso,1993);Mouffe,TheDemocraticParadox;Young,"Inclusion ndDemocracy
Legitimacy."61. JeffreyAlexander,TheLongandWindingRoad:CivilRepairof Intimatenjustice,"
Sociological heory 9,no.3 (2001):371-400,at 374.Regardingorms, ormalizing,nd
Foucault, lexanderrgueshat
[t]he existenceof a norm,and its partial nstitutionalization,annot beequatedwith normalization, conceptconnoting deologicalhegemony,social conformity,nd de-individuation.oucault's ower-knowledgeexus
can envisononly normalization ecause t equatesculturalconformity
actingin accordancewith normative rescriptionsr ideals- with social
conformity.his s a fundamentalheoreticalrror, ne thathasplagued venthe mostsophisticatedheorizingromParsonsoBourdieu.hismistakeeads
not onlyto the empirical istortion f contemporaryife butalso to moral
pessimism.toftenproduces olitical rresponsibilitys well,forit denies he
possibilityhat herecan bejusticewithout adical upture, ithout everingthecarefully oven ilamentsfdemocratisingndmodernizingocieties.Ibid.)
62. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,233-234.
63. Foradiscussion f theperformativeontradictionebate etweenHabermasnd hepost-structuralistsee, MartinJay,ForceFields: Between IntellectualHistoryand CulturalCri-
tique NewYork:Routledge,993). want o thank he editors f TheoryndSocietyor
alertingmeto this ext.64. Habermas,etween actsandNorms, 25-326, 375-376;Fraser, Rethinkinghe Public
Sphere,"25; Mouffe,TheDemocraticaradox, 8-99;Young, Communicationnd he
Other,"23-124.
65. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,8.
66. Baynes, Communicativethics,"18.
67. See Habermas,TheTheoryof CommunicativeAction,307.68. See, forexample,Jean-Frangoisyotard,ThePostmodernCondition:AReportonKnowledge
(Manchester:anchesterniversityress,1984).CarolC.Gould, DiversityndDemoc-
racy:Representingifferences,"n SelyaBenhabib, ditor,DemocracyndDifference:Contestingthe Boundariesof the Political (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1996),
172-174;Mouffe,"Democracy,ower, nd he'Political,"'48; Flax,"IsEnlightenmentEmancipatory?"
69. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,157.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:38:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dahlberg-the-habermasian-public-sphere 27/27
136
70. This s notto deny heenabling ower f strategicnd nstrumentalctionwhen ntheir
proper lace.71. IrisM.Young, Activist hallengesoDeliberativeemocracy,"oliticalTheory9,no. 5
(2001):670-690,at 686-687.72. SeeMouffe,TheDemocraticaradox;Mouffe, Politics ndPassions."
73. This s alsoargued yDryzek,DeliberativeemocracyndBeyond; oung, Activist hal-
lenges o Deliberativeemocracy."74. SeeDryzek,DeliberativeemocracyndBeyond; enhabib,TowardDeliberative odel
of Democraticegitimacy."75. This wo-track odel s fullyoutlinednHabermas,etween actsandNorms.
76. Habermas,Theoryof CommunicativeAction,42.
77. SimoneChambers,DiscoursendDemocraticractices,"nStephenK.White, ditor,The
Cambridgeompaniono HabermasCambridge,K:Cambridgeniversityress,1995),250.
78. Jeremy hapiroxplainshat:"Bildungiterallymeans formation,'ut also 'education'
and cultural)cultivation.'nGermanhesenarrower eaningslways onnote n overall
developmentalrocess.Willensbildung,iterallyhe formationfwill,' .. [is]translateds
'decisionmaking.'Given hemeaning f Bildung,Willensbildungmphasizesheprocess(ofdeliberationnddiscourse)hroughwhicha decisionwas'formed,'otthemoment twhich twas'made."'eremy hapiro,Translator'sreface,"nJiirgenHabermas,oward
a RationalSociety:StudentProtest, Science, and Politics, trans.Jeremy Shapiro(Boston:BeaconPress,1970).
79. Chambers,DiscoursendDemocraticractices,"38-239.
80. Chambers,ReasonableDemocracy,158.
81. AsYoung otes,heagonisticmodel sproposedyMouffe an"come eryclose o a model
ofinterestroup ompetitionnwhich ggregated ightmakes ight." oung,nclusionnd
Democracy,51.
82. Habermas,BetweenFacts andNorms,362.
83. Habermas,FurthereflectionsnthePublicSphere,"45.
84. Ibid.85. Habermas,BetweenFacts andNorms, 103.
86. JodiDean,Publicitys Secret: The deologyof TechnocultureIthaca,NY:CornellUP,2002).
top related