Publics+and+Counterpublics

Warner's piece explores his definition of "publics" (and be extension counterpublics). The word "public" is used often in everyday language, but there is often disagreement in what is meant by its usage.
 * =Publics and Counterpublics= ||  ||
 * Michael Warner ||  ||
 * =2002= ||  ||
 * =Summary By Eddy= ||  ||

Warner begins be describing three senses of the word "Public." 1) In the sense of a National public, which is a totality (at least with respect to the nation in question). 2) As a physical audience at an event, such as a hockey game. 3) In relation to texts, such as by reading this summary you are the "public."

Warner's article focuses on this third sense of the word "Public"

Warner continues by identifying seven concepts fundamental for publics.

1) A public is self-organized Being a member of a public is a bottom-up organization. It cannot be imposed by the state, and is independent of state institutions and formal frameworks of citizenship.

2) A public is a relation among strangers By definition a public requires strangers.

3) The address of public speech is both personal and impersonal.

4) A public is constituted through mere attention

Publics exist only by virtue of being addressed.

5) A public is the social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse.

6) Publics act historically according to the temporality of their circulation.

7) A public is poetic world-making

Warner also discusses counterpublics. Warner sees these also as publics. They, however, never lose their sense of subordination. ||  ||
 * =Discussion points=

It has been suggested that scholars who chose to use complex jargon are doing so either because what they are saying is utterly ridiculous and the want to mask it under a cloak of incomprehensibility, or that their points are actually so simple that if they were to use regular language their work would not pass the "grandmother test." Discuss. ||  || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =