Revisiting the notion of "public" in Habermas's theory-toward a theory of politics of public credibility
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Sociological Theory 18 (2):216-240 (2000)
There exist around the notion of the public three different yet overlapping dichotomies posed on different levels of analysis: public (sphere) versus private (sphere), public versus mass, and publicness versus privacy/secrecy. Habermas's book (1989) incorporates all the three sets of dichotomy without resolving the contradictory meanings and bridging the gaps among them. As a result, his conception of the public sphere becomes paradoxical in terms, and it undertheorizes the cultural property of publicness. This article proposes an alternative conception of the public that may encompass the structural, institutional, and cultural levels of theorization in a more precise and coherent way. It is argued that the public is an imagined category about citizen membership that is attached to both institutions of state and civil society. In political practices, a symbolic "public" is institutionalized through an open communicative space where it is called upon, constructed, and contested as the central source of cultural references. In this connection, a notion of public credibility is introduced as an attempt to bring forth a richer and more dynamic conception about the role of culture in democratic struggles than that of critical rationality by Habermas
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Codruţa Cuceu (2011). Milestones in the Critique of the Public Sphere: Dewey and Arendt. Journal for Communication and Culture 1 (2):99-110.
Hsin-I. Liu (2006). The Impossibility of the Public. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 2:119-124.
Agnes S. Ku (1998). Boundary Politics in the Public Sphere: Openness, Secrecy, and Leak. Sociological Theory 16 (2):172-192.
John S. Brady (2004). No Contest? Assessing the Agonistic Critiques of Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere. Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (3):331-354.
Matthew Weinshall (2003). Means, Ends, and Public Ignorance in Habermas's Theory of Democracy. Critical Review 15 (1-2):23-58.
Asaf Bar-Tura (2010). Arendt, Habermas and Facebook: Participation and Discourse in Cyber Public Spheres. Humanities and Technology Review 29:1-25.
D. Beybin Kejanlioğlu (2007). The 'Public Sphere' and the Problem of 'Information'. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:43-50.
David Randall (2011). The Prudential Public Sphere. Philosophy and Rhetoric 44 (3):205-226.
Michael C. Munger (2011). Self-Interest and Public Interest: The Motivations of Political Actors. Critical Review 23 (3):339-357.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #133,226 of 1,911,919 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #82,928 of 1,911,919 )
How can I increase my downloads?