Graduate studies at Western
Social Philosophy Today 22:89-102 (2006)
|Abstract||Since seminal essays like Adorno’s ‘The Culture Industry’ and Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,’ the mass media has been of central concern for Critical Theory. Yet Critical Theorists have produced relatively little in the way of systematic analysis of the concrete institutions of mass communication. Early on, Habermas seemed to be headed in this direction, especially with the publication of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. However, in Habermas’s later years, this concern is eclipsed, on the one hand by an ideal theory of communication which says relatively little about non-ideal institutions that “systematically distort” communication, and on the other hand by an increasing focus on properly “political” institutions and the formal structure of law, exemplified by his later work Between Facts and Norms. In this essay, I will show how the colonization of public space by private interests, via technological media, remains sorely under-theorized in Habermas’s work, and that this is not just a peripheral oversight but a central problem that Habermas fails to resolve. I will then give some preliminary suggestions as to how one might expand and develop the critique of systematically distorted communication in more fruitful directions by developing the idea of a politics of meaning. My argument is located within the extensive discussion generated by the relatively recent translation of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere into English, which has produced many useful and important criticisms|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Drew Pierce (unknown). Toward a Critique of Systematically Distorting Communication Technology: Habermas, Baudrillard, and Mass Media. :89-102.
Hsin-I. Liu (2006). The Impossibility of the Public. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 2:119-124.
Mark Whipple (2005). The Dewey-Lippmann Debate Today: Communication Distortions, Reflective Agency, and Participatory Democracy. Sociological Theory 23 (2):156-178.
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.
Andrew Feenberg (1996). Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology. Inquiry 39 (1):45 – 70.
Weidong Cao (2006). The Historical Effect of Habermas in the Chinese Context: A Case Study of the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. [REVIEW] Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (1):41-50.
Pauline Johnson (2001). Distorted Communications: Feminism's Dispute with Habermas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 27 (1):39-62.
Agnes S. Ku (2000). Revisiting the Notion of "Public" in Habermas's Theory-Toward a Theory of Politics of Public Credibility. Sociological Theory 18 (2):216-240.
Paul Jones (2000). Democratic Norms and Means of Communication: Public Sphere, Fourth Estate, Freedom of Communication. Critical Horizons 1 (2):307-339.
Piet Strydom (1999). Triple Contingency: The Theoretical Problem of the Public in Communication Societies. Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (2):1-25.
Charles Turner (2009). Habermas' Offentlichkeit: A Reception History. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 12 (2):225-241.
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 (2007). How Is Communication Possible? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:51-56.
David Randall (2011). The Prudential Public Sphere. Philosophy and Rhetoric 44 (3):205-226.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads1 ( #292,879 of 740,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?