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 Dahlberg Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 111-136 Published 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 [email protected]. . 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 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/27/2019 DAHLBERG- The Habermasian Public Sphere...
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 [email protected].
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Toillustrate hisargumenturther, will examine hepublicsphereof communicativeationalityn relation o threemodesof aesthetic-affective mbued xpressionhatYoungdentifies s notonly impor-tantbut necessary o democratic iscourse: reeting,rhetoric,and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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-
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
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-
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
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
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
imbuedwith and hataremerely o be rediscovereds the will of thecommonsubject.Deep-seateddifferenceand strongdisagreementarepartof pluralistocieties hatmustbe taken nto accountn anylegitimatemodelof strongdemocracy.
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
Differencedemocrat riticsof thepublicsphereconception s con-ceivedthroughHabermas'heoryof communicativeationalityave
arguedhat t supportsxclusivepoliticaldiscourseorthreereasons:it promotesa rationalistorm of discoursehatdevaluesaesthetic-affective tylesof interaction,hichresultsncertain roups'waysof
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
racy:Representingifferences,"n SelyaBenhabib, ditor,DemocracyndDifference:Contestingthe Boundariesof the Political (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1996),