Habermas+and+the+Public+Sphere


 * =Title= || Habermas and the Public Sphere ||
 * =Author= || Craig Calhoun ||
 * =Date= ||  ||
 * =Summary By= || Ela Rossmiller and Sonja Kelly ||
 * =Summary= || Ela Rossmiller:


 * Calhoun, Craig. 1992. //Habermas and the Public Sphere.// Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.**


 * Central Question:** What conditions are necessary for reasoned deliberation over politics and public affairs?


 * Summary**

In //The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,// Habermas critiques Kantian conceptions of deliberation in the bourgeois public sphere while also picking out its grains of truth. “In a nutshell, a public sphere adequate to a democratic polity depends both on quality of discourse and quantity of participation” (522). Habermas first explains the development of the bourgeois public sphere. The economic and political transformations of modernity (capitalism, the emergence of a bourgeois class, the press, and widespread education and literacy, along with the development of a state apparatus distinct from the King, etc.) brought about a division between public and private life and the emergence of civil society marked by public discourse which employed critical reasoning to challenged state authority. Habermas discusses three main areas of transformation: Habermas traces the history of ideas regarding public discourse, citing various philosphers. Here are the highlights: The decline of the public sphere: The Solution:
 * //Social structure:// The family came to be seen as a refuge from the public sphere, independent from the market, offering autonomy to the head of the family, and human relations marked by interiority and intimacy. Meanwhile, social institutions such as coffee houses, salons, table societies, etc. offered forums for discussing literature, the news, and public affairs, where rational argument held sway over status.
 * //Political functions:// Various institutions and structures demarcated the private sphere from the public sphere (forums for public debate, the development of the rule of law, civil rights, etc.)
 * //Ideology:// Ideology began with the identification of male property owners as “universal human beings,” excluding others from reasoned discourse but masking this exclusion under the guise of false consciousness.
 * · Kant formulated public discourse as the use of critical reason in public to reconcile conflicting views. Implicit in this is a respect for the will of the people.
 * · Hegel was less optimistic about civil society, viewing public opinion as ideology, and believed in the need for domination.
 * · Marx viewed public opinion as an expression of bourgeois class interest.
 * · Over time, philosophers argued for an expansion of public discourse to include previously excluded persons. As membership expanded, more room was made for competition among conflicting ideas (as opposed to seeking consensus.)
 * · Over time, private organizations penetrated the public sphere, while government penetrated the private sphere.
 * · Social inequalities were discussed rather than bracketed in the public realm.
 * · Critical discourse about public affairs was replaced with apolitical sociability and passive consumption of mass culture.
 * · The net result is that the masses are politically immature. Parties and special interest groups dominate politics, manipulating the masses with PR campaigns.
 * · Democratize institutions (e.g. political parties, the media, parastatal organizations, etc.)
 * · Bring back genuine public discourse – public opinion analysis and publicity don’t count.
 * · Defend the personal “lifeworld” from the impersonal “system.”
 * · Promote social integration through communication (not money and power)

 Since Ela so nicely summarized the piece, I am going to try to pick out where I think Calhoun's perspective comes in, or, rather, show what the //significance// of Habermas is according to Calhoun: ||
 *  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **
 * Sonja Kelly: **
 * Many people interpret Habermas as moving from Hegelian-Marxism to Kantianism, whereas Calhoun asserts that there is an underlying unity to Habermas's work that transcends such an analysis.
 * The theory that Habermas brings is one that is grounded in the empirical, historical events of political life, but also has timeless, normative assertions as well (in some ways, Calhoun paints Habermas as anticipating the necessity of "humanizing" modernity, ala Toulmin). In so doing, Habermas does not do away with the universality of modernity, but rather contextualizes it.
 * According to Calhoun, Habermas was (and will continue to be) controversial, both within the scholarly community and among the political elite.
 * Calhoun brings Habermas into conversation with other contemporary scholars: Horkheimer and Adorno (522), Anderson and Hobsbawm (implied in 524), Arendt (524), showing his relevancy beyond the Frankfurt school.
 * He sees Habermas as holding a view of society almost as exemplary of the structure-versus-agency debate, where structure has been corrupted, and it is up to the agency of individuals (in the context of their classes, backgrounds, etc) to redeem it.
 * Calhoun asserts that the first half of //Structural Transformation//, where Habermas set up a narrative framework (see Ela's summary above) is more convincing than the second.
 * Calhoun wonders whether Habermas was unable to find the seeds for his normative critical project in existing society, holding that is why his philosophy looks more and more Kantian as time goes on.
 * Finally, Calhoun sees //Structural Transformation// as perhaps Habermas's most important work, with subsequent writings standing as further explanations of the second half of the book.


 * =Discussion points= || Ela Rossmiller:

- Historical developments aside, is the public/private split *conceptually* necessary for a modern-day practice of critical political discourse? · - Habermas seems to suggest that the democratization of institutions is the final frontier. To what extent has this project assumed a front-and-center place in political science scholarship?



Sonja Kelly:

= = = = = = = = = = = =
 * Calhoun's reading of Habermas places his work in context--historical, political, and intellectual. However, is Habermas's work clear enough to truly speak into a historical or political context?
 * Calhoun seems skeptical of Habermas' normative conclusions following his assessment of the corruption of the public sphere. Are his criticisms valid? Is he being fair to Habermas? Would Habermas be as important without the normative conclusions that he draws?
 * Calhoun shows how Habermas did not necessarily move from a Marxist to a Kantian framework, but rather that his philosophy has a great deal of unity, walking the line between universal applicability and careful historical contextualization. To me, this sounds a lot like Toulmin's project. Are there similarities between the two?
 * Accordingly, what challenges does Habermas pose to postmodernists? ||

= = = = = = = =

= =