Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the

Transcription

Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy
Author(s): Nancy Fraser
Source: Social Text, No. 25/26 (1990), pp. 56-80
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466240 .
Accessed: 09/10/2013 17:51
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 support@jstor.org.
.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 138.87.151.140 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:51:08 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thePublicSphere:
Rethinking
A Contribution
to the Critiqueof ActuallyExisting
Democracy'
NANCY FRASER
Introduction
of
Todayin theU.S. we heara greatdeal ofballyhooabout"thetriumph
liberaldemocracy"
andeven"theendofhistory."
Yet thereis stilla great
deal toobjecttoinourown"actuallyexistingdemocracy,"
andtheproject
of a criticalsocial theoryof thelimitsof democracyin late capitalist
societiesremainsas relevantas ever.In fact,thisprojectseemsto me to
haveacquireda newurgency
at a timewhen"liberaldemocracy"
is being
toutedas theneplus ultraofsocial systemsforcountries
thatare emergstatesocialism,LatinAmericanmilitary
dictatoring fromSoviet-style
Africanregimesofracialdomination.
ships,and southern
Those of us whoremaincommitted
to theorizing
thelimitsof democHabermas
racyin late capitalistsocietieswill findin theworkofJiirgen
an indispensableresource.I meantheconceptof "thepublic sphere,"
originallyelaborated in his 1962 book, The StructuralTransformation
of
thePublicSphere,andsubsequently
resituated
butneverabandonedinhis
laterwork.2
The politicalandtheoretical
ofthisidea is easyto explain.
importance
Habermas'sconceptofthepublicsphereprovidesa wayofcircumventing
thathaveplaguedprogressive
someconfusions
social movements
and the
politicaltheoriesassociatedwiththem.Take,forexample,thelongstandto
ing failurein thedominant
wingof thesocialistand Marxisttradition
betweentheapparatuses
ofthe
appreciatethefullforceofthedistinction
state,on theone hand,and publicarenasofcitizendiscourseand associthatto
ation,on theother.All too oftenit was assumedin thistradition
subjecttheeconomyto thecontrolof thesocialiststatewas to subjectit
to thecontrolofthesocialistcitizenry.
Ofcoursethatwas notso. Butthe
conflation
of thestateapparatuswiththepublicsphereof discourseand
associationprovidedballast to processeswherebythe socialistvision
in an authoritarian
becameinstitutionalized
statistforminsteadof in a
democratic
form.Theresulthasbeentojeopardizethevery
participatory
idea of socialistdemocracy.
A secondproblem,
albeitonethathasso farbeenmuchless historically
momentousand certainlyless tragic, is a confusion one encountersat
56
NancyFraser
57
timesin contemporary
I meana confusionthatinvolvesthe
feminisms.
use oftheverysameexpression"thepublicsphere,"butin a sensethatis
less preciseand less usefulthanHabermas's.This expressionhas been
usedbymanyfeminists
torefertoeverything
thatis outsidethedomestic
or familialsphere.Thus,"thepublicsphere"in thisusage conflatesat
leastthreeanalytically
distinctthings:thestate,theofficial-economy
of
and arenasofpublicdiscourse.3
Now,it shouldnotbe
paid employment,
thattheconflation
of thesethreethingsis a "merelytheoretical"
thought
issue. On thecontrary,
it has practicalpoliticalconsequences,forexamculturalrepresentaple, whenagitationalcampaignsagainstmisogynist
tions are confoundedwithprogrammes
forstatecensorship,or when
to deprivatizehousework
and childcare are equatedwiththeir
struggles
In boththesecases,theresultis tooccludethequestion
commodification.
to subjectgenderissuesto thelogic ofthemarketor theadminwhether
istrative
stateis topromotetheliberation
of women.
The idea of "thepublicsphere"in Habermas'ssense is a conceptual
resourcethatcan helpovercomesuchproblems.
in
It designatesa theater
modernsocietiesin whichpoliticalparticipation
is enactedthrough
the
mediumof talk.It is thespace in whichcitizensdeliberateabouttheir
commonaffairs,hence,an institutionalized
arenaof discursiveinteraction.This arenais conceptually
distinctfromthestate;it a site forthe
and circulation
of discoursesthatcan in principlebe critical
production
of thestate.The publicspherein Habermas'ssenseis also conceptually
distinctfromtheofficial-economy;
it is notan arenaof market
relations
butratherone of discursiverelations,
a theaterfordebatingand deliberatingratherthanforbuyingand selling.Thus,thisconceptof thepublic
betweenstateapparaspherepermitsus to keepin view thedistinctions
and democratic
that
tuses,economicmarkets,
associations,distinctions
are essentialto democratic
theory.
For thesereasons,I am goingto takeas a basic premiseforthisessay
thatsomething
likeHabermas'sidea ofthepublicsphereis indispensable
tocriticalsocial theory
andtodemocratic
politicalpractice.I assumethat
no attemptto understand
the limitsof actuallyexistinglate capitalist
can succeedwithout
in somewayoranothermakinguse ofit.
democracy
I assumethatthesame goes forurgently
neededconstructive
efforts
to
modelsof democracy.
projectalternative
If you will grantme thatthe generalidea of the public sphereis
indispensableto criticaltheory,thenI shall go on to argue thatthe
specific formin which Habermas has elaborated this idea is not wholly
satisfactory.On the contrary,I contend that his analysis of the public
and reconstructionif
sphere needs to undergosome criticalinterrogation
it is to yield a categorycapable of theorizingthe limitsof actually
existingdemocracy.
58
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
Let me remindyou thatthesubtitleofStructuralTransformation
is "An
Inquiryintoa Categoryof BourgeoisSociety."The objectof theinquiry
is therise and declineof a historically
specificand limitedformof the
which
Habermas
calls
the
"liberalmodelofthebourgeois
publicsphere,
The
aim
is
to
the
publicsphere."
identify conditionsthatmadepossible
thistypeofpublicsphereand to charttheirdevolution.
The upshotis an
under
altered
conditions
of
late
twentieth
"welfare
that,
argument
century
state mass democracy,"the bourgeoisor liberalmodel of the public
sphereis no longerfeasible.Some newformofpublicsphereis required
andtoinstitutionalize
to salvagethatarena'scriticalfunction
democracy.
Oddly,Habermasstops shortof developinga new,post-bourgeois
modelof thepublicsphere.Moreover,
he neverexplicitly
problematizes
somedubiousassumptions
thatunderliethebourgeoismodel.As a result,
we are leftat theendof Structural
Transformation
a conception
without
of thepublicspherethatis sufficiently
distinctfromthebourgeoisconceptionto servetheneedsofcriticaltheory
today.
That,at anyrate,is thethesisI intendto argue.In orderto makemy
case, I shallproceedas follows:I shallbegin,in sectionone,byjuxtapostransformation
of the public
ing Habermas'saccountof the structural
to
an
alternative
account
that
can
be
fromsome
sphere
piecedtogether
recentrevisionist
I
shall
four
Then,
historiography.
identify assumptions
thebourgeoisconceptionof publicsphere,as Habermasdeunderlying
scribesit,whichthisnewerhistoriography
renderssuspect.Next,in the
I
four
inturn.
shall
examine
each
oftheseassumptions
sections,
following
some strandsfrom
Finally,in a briefconclusion,I shall drawtogether
thesecriticaldiscussionsthatpointtowardan alternative,
post-bourgeois
conceptionof thepublicsphere.
Thepublicsphere:Alternative
histories,
conceptions
competing
Let mebeginbysketching
somehighlights
ofHabermas'saccountofthe
structural
transformation
of thepublicsphere.Accordingto Habermas,
theidea of a publicsphereis thatof a bodyof "privatepersons"assembled to discussmatters
of "publicconcern"or "commoninterest."
This
idea acquiredforceandrealityin earlymodern
Europein theconstitution
of "bourgeoispublics spheres"as counterweights
to absolutiststates.
Thesepublicsaimedto mediatebetween"society"and thestatebyholdAt firstthismeant
ingthestateaccountableto "society"via "publicity."
aboutstatefunctioning
be madeaccessibleso
requiringthatinformation
thatstate activities would be subject to critical scrutinyand the force of
the considered "general
"public opinion." Later, it meant transmitting
interest"of "bourgeois society" to the state via formsof legally guaranteed freespeech, freepress,and freeassembly,and eventuallythroughthe
parliamentaryinstitutionsof representativegovernment.
59
NancyFraser
Thus,at one level,theidea of thepublicspheredesignatedan institutionalmechanismfor"rationalizing"
by rendering
politicaldomination
At anotherlevel, it desigstatesaccountableto (some of) thecitizenry.
Here thepublic sphere
nateda specifickindof discursiveinteraction.
rationaldiscussionof publicmatters.
connotedan ideal of unrestricted
The discussionwas to be open and accessible to all; merelyprivate
wereto be inadmissible;
interests
inequalitiesof statuswereto be brackwere
discussants
to
deliberate
as peers. The resultof such
and
eted;
be
in
the
discussionwould "publicopinion"
strongsenseof a consensus
aboutthecommongood.
Accordingto Habermas,the fullutopianpotentialof the bourgeois
conceptionofthepublicspherewas neverrealizedin practice.The claim
thebourgeois
was notmadegood.Moreover,
to openaccess in particular
conceptionof thepublicspherewas premisedon a social orderin which
fromthe newlyprivatizedmarket
the statewas sharplydifferentiated
it
was
this
clear
economy;
separationof "society"and statethatwas
form
to
a
of publicdiscussionthatexcluded"private
supposed underpin
erodedas nonbourgeois
strata
interests."
But theseconditions
eventually
came
"the
social
to
access
to
the
question"
gained
publicsphere.Then,
the fore;societywas polarizedby class struggle;and thepublic fraginterest
mentedintoa massof competing
groups.Streetdemonstrations
back
brokered
and
room,
replaced
compromises
amongprivateinterests
reasonedpublicdebateaboutthecommongood.Finally,withtheemersocietyand thestatebecame
genceof "welfarestatemassdemocracy,"
inthesenseofcriticalscrutiny
ofthestate
intertwined;
mutually
publicity
stageddisplays,and the
gave way to public relations,mass-mediated
ofpublicopinion.
manufacture
and manipulation
Now,letmejuxtaposetothissketchofHabermas'saccountan alternative accountthatI shall piece togetherfromsome recentrevisionist
scholarslikeJoanLandes,MaryRyan,andGeoff
Briefly,
historiography.
that
Habermas's
accountidealizestheliberalpublicsphere.
contend
Eley
the
of publicityand accessibility,
that
rhetoric
Theyarguethat,despite
indeed
was
constituted
rested
officialpublicsphere
on,
by,a
importantly
ofsignificant
number
exclusions.ForLandes,thekeyaxis ofexclusionis
gender;she arguesthattheethosof thenewrepublicanpublicspherein
in deliberate
Francewas constructed
oppositionto thatofa morewomanfriendlysalon culturethatthe republicansstigmatizedas "artificial,"
a new,austerestyleof
and "aristocratic."
"effeminate,"
Consequently,
was
deemed"rational,"
behavior
a
and
promoted,
style
public speech
"virtuous,"and "manly."In thisway, masculinistgenderconstructswere
built into the veryconception of the republicanpublic sphere, as was a
logic thatled, at the heightof Jacobinrule, to the formalexclusion from
political life of women.4Here therepublicansdrewon classical traditions
and publicityas oxymorons;the depthof such tradithatcast femininity
60
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
tionscan be gaugedin theetymological
connection
between"public"and
"pubic,"a graphictraceofthefactthatin theancientworldpossessionof
a penis was a requirement
forspeakingin public. (A similarlink is
in
the
connectionbetween"testipreserved,incidentally,
etymological
and
mony" "testicle.")5
GeoffEley contendsthatexclusionary
ExtendingLandes's argument,
were
essential
to
liberal
operations
publicspheresnotonlyin Francebut
also in Englandand Germany,and thatin all thesecountriesgender
exclusionswerelinkedto otherexclusionsrootedin processesof class
In all thesecountries,
formation.
he claims,thesoil thatnourishedthe
liberalpublicspherewas "civil society,"theemerging
newcongeriesof
associationsthatsprungup in whatcame to be knownas "the
voluntary
age of societies."But thisnetworkof clubs and associations-philanand cultural-wasanything
butaccessibleto
civic,professional,
thropic,
it was thearena,the trainingground,and
everyone.On the contrary,
eventuallythe powerbase of a stratumof bourgeoismen,who were
as a "universalclass" and preparing
to assert
comingto see themselves
theirfitnessto govern.Thus,theelaborationof a distinctive
cultureof
civil societyand of an associatedpublic spherewas implicatedin the
itspracticesandethosweremarkers
processofbourgeoisclass formation;
inPierreBourdieu'ssense,6waysofdefining
of"distinction"
an emergent
from
it
off
the
older
aristocratic
it
was
intenton
elites
elite, setting
on
the
one
and
from
thevariouspopularand plebeian
hand,
displacing,
stratait aspiredto rule,on theother.Thisprocessof distinction,
moreofsexismcharacteristic
oftheliberal
over,helpsexplaintheexacerbation
and a
publicsphere;new gendernormsenjoiningfeminine
domesticity
ofpublicandprivatespheresfunctioned
as keysignifiers
sharpseparation
frombothhigherand lowersocial strata.It is a
of bourgeoisdifference
measureoftheeventualsuccessofthisbourgeoisprojectthatthesenorms
laterbecamehegemonic,
sometimes
embraced
imposedon,sometimes
by,
broadersegments
of society.7
Now,thereis a remarkable
ironyhere,one thatHabermas'saccountof
the rise of the public spherefails fullyto appreciate.sA discourseof
and thesuspensionof status
publicitytoutingaccessibility,
rationality,
hierarchies
is itselfdeployedas a strategy
ofdistinction.
Ofcourse,inand
ofitself,thisironydoesnotfatallycompromise
thediscourseofpublicity;
thatdiscoursecan be, indeedhas been,differently
deployedin different
and contexts.Nevertheless,
circumstances
it does suggestthattherelationshipbetweenpublicityand statusis morecomplexthanHabermas
thatdeclaringa deliberative
arenato be a space whereextant
intimates,
statusdistinctionsare bracketedand neutralizedis not sufficientto make
it so.
Moreover,the problemis not only thatHabermas idealizes the liberal
public sphere but also that he fails to examine other,nonliberal,non-
NancyFraser
61
it is preciselybecausehe
bourgeois,competing
publicspheres.Orrather,
failsto examinetheseotherpublicspheresthathe endsup idealizingthe
liberalpublicsphere.9
thevariety
ofwaysin which
MaryRyandocuments
nineteenthcenturyNorthAmericanwomen of various classes and
ethnicities
access routesto publicpoliticallife,evendespite
constructed
theirexclusionfromtheofficialpublicsphere.In thecase of eliteboursocietyofalternative
geoiswomen,thisinvolvedbuildinga counter-civil
and moral
associations,includingphilanthropic
woman-only
voluntary
reformsocieties;in somerespects,theseassociationsaped theall-male
societiesbuiltby thesewomen'sfathersand grandfathers;
yetin other
sincetheycreatively
usedthehererespectsthewomenwereinnovating,
toforequintessentially
and motherhood
"private"idiomsof domesticity
forpublicactivity.Meanwhile,forsomeless
preciselyas springboards
in
privilegedwomen,access to public life came through
participation
rolesin male-dominated
class protestactivities.Still
supporting
working
otherwomenfoundpublicoutletsin streetprotests
and parades.Finally,
women'srightsadvocatespubliclycontestedbothwomen'sexclusion
fromtheofficialpublicsphereandtheprivatization
of genderpolitics.10
in
shows
even
the
absence
formal
of
that,
Ryan'sstudy
politicalincorthere
were
a
of
porationthroughsuffrage,
variety ways of accessing
life
and
a
of
arenas.
Thus,theviewthatwomen
public
multiplicity public
wereexcludedfromthepublicsphereturnsoutto be ideological;itrests
on a class- and gender-biased
notionof publicity,
one whichacceptsat
face value the bourgeoispublic's claim to be the public. In fact,the
ofRyanandothersdemonstrates
thatthebourgeoispublic
historiography
was neverthepublic.On thecontrary,
withthe
virtually
contemporaneous
includbourgeoispublictherearosea hostofcompeting
counterpublics,
ing nationalist
publics,popularpeasantpublics,elite women'spublics,
and workingclass publics.Thus,therewerecompeting
publicsfromthe
start,not just fromthe late nineteenthand twentiethcenturies,as
Habermasimplies."
of competing
Moreover,notonlyweretherewerealwaysa plurality
but
the
relationsbetweenbourgeoispublicsand otherpublics
publics
were always conflictual.Virtuallyfromthe beginning,counterpublics
contestedthe exclusionary
normsof the bourgeoispublic,elaborating
alternative
normsof public
stylesof politicalbehaviorand alternative
and despeech.Bourgeoispublics,in turn,excoriatedthesealternatives
As Eley putsit, "the
liberatelysoughtto block broaderparticipation.
emergenceof a bourgeoispublic was neverdefinedsolely by the struggle
against absolutismand traditionalauthority,but...addressedthe problem
of popular containmentas well. The public spherewas always constituted
by conflict."'2
In general,thisrevisionisthistoriography
suggestsa muchdarkerview
of thebourgeoispublic spherethantheone thatemergesfromHabermas's
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
62
study.The exclusionsandconflictsthatappearedas accidentaltrappings
in therevisionists'
fromhis perspective,
view becomeconstitutive.
The
resultis a gestaltswitchthatalterstheverymeaning
of thepublicsphere.
We can no longerassumethatthebourgeoisconceptionof thepublic
spherewas simplyan unrealizedutopianideal; it was also a masculinist
an emergent
tolegitimate
formofclass
ideologicalnotionthatfunctioned
rule.Therefore,
moralfromthestory:theofficial
Eleydrawsa Gramscian
vehiclefora majorhistorical
bourgeoispublicsphereis theinstitutional
inthenatureofpoliticaldomination.
transformation
Thisis theshiftfrom
a repressivemodeof domination
to a hegemonicone, fromrulebased
on acquiescenceto superiorforceto rulebased primarily
on
primarily
withsomemeasureofrepression."The important
consentsupplemented
like theolderone,
pointis thatthisnew modeof politicaldomination,
securestheabilityof one stratum
of societyto ruletherest.The official
siteforthe
publicsphere,then,was-indeed, is-the primeinstitutional
construction
of the consentthatdefinesthe new,hegemonicmode of
domination.14
Now,whatconclusionsshouldwe drawfromthisconflictofhistorical
Shouldwe concludethattheveryconceptof thepublic
interpretations?
is
a
comideology,so thoroughly
sphere
piece of bourgeoismasculinist
it
no
shed
no
on
limits
that
can
critical
the
of
genuinely
light
promised
we
should
the
that
conclude,
Or,
rather,
actuallyexistingdemocracy?
was not realized in
public spherewas a good idea thatunfortunately
In
retains
some
but
that
force?
short,is theidea of
practice
emancipatory
thepublicspherean instrument
ofdomination
or a utopianideal?
I contendthatbothof those
Well,perhapsboth.But actuallyneither.
andunsuppletodo justicethematerialI have
conclusionsaretooextreme
been discussing.15
Insteadof endorsingeitherone of them,I wantto
I shall arguethatthe revisionist
proposea morenuancedalternative.
neitherundermines
nor vindicates"the conceptof the
historiography
butthatitcalls intoquestionfourassumptions
publicsphere"simpliciter,
thatare centralto a specific-bourgeois masculinist-conception of the
publicsphere,at leastas Habermasdescribesit.Theseare:
1. theassumption
ina publicsphere
thatitis possibleforinterlocutors
to bracketstatusdifferentials
and to deliberate"as if' theyweresocial
thatsocietalequalityis nota necessary
therefore,
equals; theassumption,
conditionforpoliticaldemocracy;
2. theassumption
thattheproliferation
ofa multiplicity
of competing
publics is necessarilya step away from,ratherthantoward,greater
democracy,and that a single, comprehensivepublic sphere is always
preferableto a nexus of multiplepublics;
3. the assumptionthatdiscourse in public spheresshould be restricted
to deliberationabout the commongood, and thatthe appearance of "private interests"and "privateissues" is always undesirable;
NancyFraser
63
4. theassumption
thata functioning
democratic
publicsphererequires
betweencivil societyandthestate.
a sharpseparation
Let meconsidereach of thesein turn.
andsocialequality
Openaccess,participatory
parity,
Habermas'saccountof the bourgeoisconceptionof the public sphere
stressesitsclaimtobe openandaccessibletoall. Indeed,thisidea ofopen
access is one ofthecentralmeaningsofthenormofpublicity.
Of course,
we know,bothfromtherevisionist
andfromHabermas'saccount,
history
thatthe bourgeoispublic's claim to full accessibilitywas not in fact
wereexcludedfromofficial
realized.Womenofall classesandethnicities
preciselyon thebasis of ascribedgenderstatus,
politicalparticipation
whileplebeianmenwereformally
excludedby property
qualifications.
ofall
Moreover,in manycases, womenand menofracializedethnicities
classes wereexcludedon racialgrounds.
factofthenon-realization
Now,whatare we to makeofthishistorical
in practiceof thebourgeoispublicsphere'sideal of open access? One
sinceit is
approachis toconcludethattheideal itselfremainsunaffected,
in
in
to
these
overcome
exclusions.
it was
And,
fact,
possible principle
of
a
matter
time
before
formal
exclusions
based
on
only
gender,
property,
and racewereeliminated.
This is convincingenoughas faras it goes, but it does not go far
remainder
enough.Thequestionofopenaccess cannotbe reducedwithout
tothepresenceorabsenceofformalexclusions.It requiresus tolookalso
at theprocessof discursiveinteraction
withinformally
inclusivepublic
arenas.Herewe shouldrecallthatthebourgeoisconception
ofthepublic
This
of
status.
sphererequiresbracketing
inequalities
publicspherewas
wouldsetaside suchcharacteristics
to be an arenain whichinterlocutors
inbirthandfortune
as differences
andspeaktooneanother
as iftheywere
social and economicpeers.The operativephrasehereis "as if."In fact,
thesocial inequalitiesamongtheinterlocutors
werenoteliminated,
but
bracketed.
only
Butweretheyreallyeffectively
Therevisionist
bracketed?
historiograwere
not.
withinthe
Rather,discursiveinteraction
phy suggeststhey
bourgeoispublicspherewas governedbyprotocolsofstyleanddecorum
of statusinequality.These
thatwerethemselves
correlatesand markers
tomarginalize
functioned
womenandmembers
oftheplebeian
informally
classes and to preventthemfromparticipating
as peers.
Here we are talkingabout informalimpedimentsto participatory
parity
that can persist even aftereveryone is formallyand legally licensed to
participate.That these constitutea more serious challenge to the bourgeois conceptionof thepublic spherecan be seen froma familiarcontemporaryexample. Feministresearchhas documenteda syndromethatmany
of us have observed in facultymeetingsand othermixed sex deliberative
64
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
womenmorethanwomeninterrupt
bodies: mentendto interrupt
men;
menalso tendto speakmorethanwomen,takingmoreturnsand longer
aremoreoftenignoredornotresponded
turns;andwomen'sinterventions
to thanmen's.In responseto thesortsofexperiencesdocumented
in this
an important
strandoffeminist
hasclaimedthat
research,
politicaltheory
deliberationcan serve as a mask fordomination.Theoristslike Jane
havearguedthat"thetransformation
of 'I' into'we' brought
Mansbridge
about throughpoliticaldeliberationcan easily mask subtleformsof
control.Even thelanguagepeople use as theyreasontogether
usually
favorsone way of seeing thingsand discouragesothers.Subordinate
groupssometimescannotfindtherightvoice or wordsto expresstheir
and whentheydo, theydiscovertheyare notheard.[They]are
thoughts,
silenced,encouragedtokeeptheirwantsinchoate,andheardto say 'yes'
whenwhattheyhave said is 'no.''""6Mansbridge
notesthatmany
rightly
into
of thesefeminist
in
which
deliberation
can serveas a
insights ways
mask fordomination
extendbeyondgenderto otherkindsof unequal
relations,likethosebasedon class or ethnicity.
Theyalertus to theways
in whichsocial inequalitiescan infectdeliberation,
even in theabsence
ofanyformalexclusions.
HereI thinkwe encounter
a veryseriousdifficulty
withthebourgeois
of
the
the
Insofar
as
of social ineconception
publicsphere.
bracketing
in
deliberation
means
if
as
whenthey
don't
exist
qualities
proceeding they
this
not
foster
does
suchbrackdo,
participatory
parity.On thecontrary,
etingusuallyworkstotheadvantageofdominant
groupsinsocietyandto
of subordinates.
In mostcases, itwouldbe moreapprothedisadvantage
inequalitiesin the sense of explicitlythematizing
priateto unbracket
them-a pointthataccordswiththespiritofHabermas'slater"communicativeethics."
The misplacedfaithin theefficacy
ofbracketing
suggestsanotherflaw
inthebourgeoisconception.
Thisconception
assumesthata publicsphere
is orcan be a spaceofzerodegreeculture,
so utterly
bereft
ofanyspecific
ethosas to accommodate
withperfectneutrality
andequal ease interventionsexpressiveof anyand everyculturalethos.But thisassumption
is
and
for
not
reasons
that
are
In
accidental. stratified
counterfactual,
merely
social groupstendto developunequally
societies,unequallyempowered
valuedculturalstyles.Theresultis thedevelopment
ofpowerful
informal
thecontributions
of members
of subordinated
pressuresthatmarginalize
groupsbothin everydaylife contextsand in officialpublic spheres.7
Moreover, these pressures are amplified,ratherthan mitigated,by the
peculiar political economyof the bourgeoispublic sphere. In this public
sphere,the media thatconstitutethe materialsupportforthe circulation
of views are privately owned and operated for profit. Consequently,
subordinated social groups usually lack equal access to the material
NancyFraser
65
meansofequal participation.'"
Thus,politicaleconomyenforcesstructurallywhatcultureaccomplishesinformally.
If we take theseconsiderations
seriously,thenwe shouldbe led to
entertainseriousdoubtsabout a conceptionof the public spherethat
tobracket,
rather
thantoeliminate,
social inequalities.
structural
purports
We shouldquestionwhether
it is possibleeveninprincipleforinterlocutorsto deliberateas if theywere social peers in speciallydesignated
discursivearenas,whenthesediscursivearenasare situatedin a larger
relationsofdominance
and
societalcontextthatis pervadedbystructural
subordination.
Whatis at stakehereis theautonomy
of specifically
politicalinstitutions
thesurrounding
societalcontext.Now,one salientfeature
vis-,i-vis liberalismfromsomeotherpolitical-theoretical
thatdistinguishes
orienof thepoliticalin a very
tationsis thatliberalismassumestheautonomy
strongform.Liberalpoliticaltheoryassumesthatit is possibleto orgaformofpoliticallifeon thebasisofsocio-economic
nizea democratic
and
thatgeneratesystemicinequalities.For liberals,
socio-sexualstructures
becomestheproblemof howto insulate
then,theproblemofdemocracy
orpre-potobe non-political
politicalprocessesfromwhatareconsidered
forexample,of theeconomy,the
liticalprocesses,thosecharacteristic,
life.Theproblemforliberals,thus,is how
andinformal
family,
everyday
thebarriersseparatingpoliticalinstitutions
to strengthen
thatare suprelationsof equalityfromeconomic,cultural,and
posed to instantiate
socio-sexualinstitutions
thatare premisedon systemicrelationsof insuggeststhatinordertohavea
equality.'9Yettheweightofcircumstance
can deliberateas peers,it is not
public spherein whichinterlocutors
sufficient
merelyto bracketsocial inequality.Instead,it is a necessary
conditionforparticipatory
paritythatsystemicsocial inequalitiesbe
Thisdoes notmeanthateveryonemusthaveexactlythesame
eliminated.
income,butit does requirethesortof roughequalitythatis inconsistent
relationsof dominanceand subordination.
withsystemically-generated
Pace liberalism,then,politicaldemocracyrequiressubstantivesocial
equality.20
ofthepublic
So far,I havebeenarguingthatthebourgeoisconception
is
as
it
insofar
that
social
supposes
equalityis not a
sphere inadequate
in
for
condition
necessary
participatory
parity publicspheres.Whatfollows fromthisforthecritiqueof actuallyexistingdemocracy?
One task
forcriticaltheoryis torendervisiblethewaysin whichsocietalinequalinclusiveexistingpublicspheresandtaintsdiscursive
ityinfectsformally
interactionwithinthem.
and multiplepublics
Equality,diversity,
So farI have been discussing what we mightcall "intrapublicrelations,"
thatis, thecharacterand qualityof discursiveinteractionswithina given
66
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
publicsphere.Now I wantto considerwhatwe mightcall "interpublic
ofinteractions
relations,"thatis, thecharacter
amongdifferent
publics.
Let mebeginbyrecallingthatHabermas'saccountstressesthesinguofthepublicsphere,itsclaimtobe the
larityofthebourgeoisconception
in
the
In
arena
hisnarrative
tendsinthisrespect
addition,
public
singular.
to be faithfulto thatconception,castingthe emergenceof additional
tobe readunderthesignfragmentation
and
publicsas a latedevelopment
decline. This narrative,then,like the bourgeoisconceptionitself,is
informed
evaluativeassumption,
by an underlying
namely,thattheinstitutionalconfinement
ofpubliclifeto a single,overarching
publicsphere
is a positiveand desirablestateofaffairs,
whereastheproliferation
of a
ofpublicsrepresents
a departure
rather
thanan advance
from,
multiplicity
It is thisnormative
thatI now wantto
toward,democracy.
assumption
scrutinize.In thissection,I shall assess the relativemeritsof single,
comprehensive
publicsversusmultiplepublicsin twokindsof modern
societies-stratified
societiesand egalitarian
multi-cultural
societies.21
First,let meconsiderthecase of stratified
societies,by whichI mean
societieswhosebasic institutional
framework
generatesunequalsocial
in
structural
of
relations
and
I have
dominance
subordination.
groups
in
that
such
full
of
in
societies, parity participation public
alreadyargued
debateanddeliberation
is notwithinthereachofpossibility.
The question
to be addressedhere,then,is: whatformof publiclifecomesclosestto
will best help
approachingthatideal? Whatinstitutional
arrangements
narrowthegap in participatory
andsubordinate
paritybetweendominant
groups?
I contendthat,in stratified
thataccommodate
societies,arrangements
contestation
of competing
amonga plurality
publicsbetterpromotethe
ideal ofparticipatory
overarchparitythandoes a single,comprehensive,
oftheprevioussection.There
ingpublic.Thisfollowsfromtheargument
I arguedthatit is notpossibleto insulatespecialdiscursivearenasfrom
theeffectsof societalinequality;and thatwheresocietalinequality
persists,deliberative
processesin publicsphereswill tendto operateto the
of subordinates.
advantageof dominant
groupsand to thedisadvantage
Now I wantto add thattheseeffectswill be exacerbatedwherethereis
only a single,comprehensive
public sphere.In thatcase, membersof
subordinated
groupswouldhaveno arenasfordeliberation
amongthemselvesabouttheirneeds,objectives,and strategies.
Theywouldhave no
venuesin whichto undertake
communicative
processesthatwerenot,as
it were, underthe supervisionof dominantgroups.In this situation,they
would be less likely thanotherwiseto "find the rightvoice or words to
express theirthoughts,"and more likely than otherwise"to keep their
wants inchoate." This, would renderthem less able than otherwise to
articulateand defendtheirinterestsin the comprehensivepublic sphere.
They would be less able thanotherwiseto expose modes of deliberation
NancyFraser
67
thatmaskdomination
by "absorbingtheless powerfulintoa false 'we'
thatreflectsthemorepowerful."
This argumentgains additional support from the revisionist
of the public sphere,up to and includingveryrecent
historiography
This
recordsthatmembers
of subordinated
social
developments. history
of
and
and
lesbians-have
workers,
color,
groups-women,
peoples
gays
foundit advantageous
to constitute
alternative
repeatedly
publics.I proto
call
these
in
subaltern
order
to
pose
counterpublics
signalthattheyare
discursive
arenas
where
of
members
social groups
subordinated
parallel
inventand circulatecounterdiscourses,
in
which turnpermitthemto
formulate
of theiridentities,
and
interests,
oppositionalinterpretations
needs.22Perhapsthemoststriking
exampleis thelate-twentieth
century
U.S. feminist
subaltern
withits variegatedarrayofjourcounterpublic,
netnals,bookstores,
publishing
companies,filmand video distribution
works,lectureseries,researchcenters,academicprograms,
conferences,
conventions,
festivals,and local meetingplaces. In thispublicsphere,
feminist
womenhave inventednew termsfordescribingsocial reality,
and"marital,
including"sexism,""thedoubleshift,"sexualharassment,"
date,and acquaintancerape."Armedwithsuchlanguage,we haverecast
ourneedsand identities,
the
thereby
reducing,
althoughnoteliminating,
in officialpublicspheres.23
extentof ourdisadvantage
I do notmeanto suggestthatsubaltern
Let me notbe misunderstood.
are alwaysnecessarilyvirtuous;someof them,alas, are
counterpublics
andanti-egalitarian;
andeventhosewithdemexplicitlyanti-democratic
ocraticand egalitarianintentions
are notalwaysabove practicing
their
own modesof informal
exclusionand marginalization.
Still,insofaras
thesecounterpublics
emergein responseto exclusionswithindominant
that
publics,theyhelpexpanddiscursivespace.In principle,
assumptions
will nowhave to be publicly
werepreviouslyexemptfromcontestation
of subalterncounterpublics
argued out. In general,the proliferation
meansa wideningof discursivecontestation,
and thatis a good thingin
stratified
societies.
I amemphasizing
thecontestatory
ofsubaltern
function
counterpublics
in stratified
societiesin partin orderto complicatetheissue of separatism.In myview,theconceptof a counterpublic
militatesin thelongrun
thatis publicist.
againstseparatismbecause it assumesan orientation
Insofaras thesearenasarepublicstheyare bydefinition
notenclaveswhichis notto denythattheyareofteninvoluntarily
enclaved.Afterall,
to interactdiscursivelyas a memberof a public - subalternor otherwise
- is to disseminateone's discourse intoever wideningarenas. Habermas
captureswell this aspect of the meaningof publicitywhen he notes that
however limited a public may be in its empirical manifestationat any
given time, its membersunderstandthemselvesas part of a potentially
widerpublic, thatindeterminate,
empiricallycounterfactualbody we call
68
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
"thepublic-at-large."
The pointis that,in stratified
societies,subaltern
havea dual character.
On theone hand,theyfunction
as
counterpublics
on the otherhand,theyalso
spaces of withdrawaland regroupment;
function
as bases and training
groundsforagitationalactivitiesdirected
towardwiderpublics.It is preciselyin thedialecticbetweenthesetwo
functions
thattheiremancipatory
resides.Thisdialecticenables
potential
to
subaltern
counterpublics
partially offset,
althoughnotwhollytoeradithe
ofdominant
cate, unjustparticipatory
privilegesenjoyedbymembers
in
social groups stratified
societies.
So far,I have been arguingthat,althoughin stratified
societiesthe
ideal of participatory
parityis not fullyrealizable,it is moreclosely
thatpermit
contestation
byarrangements
approximated
amonga plurality
of competing
publicsthanby a single,comprehensive
publicsphere.Of
discourse,contestation
amongcompeting
publicssupposesinter-public
cursiveinteraction.
such interaction?
How, then,shouldwe understand
GeoffEley suggestswe thinkofthepublicsphere[instratified
societies]
as "thestructured
where
and
cultural
contest
or negosetting
ideological
tiationamonga varietyof publicstakesplace."24This formulation
does
to
the
of
in
arenas
stratified
societies
justice
multiplicity public
by exthe
and
of
"a
of
presslyacknowledging presence activity
variety publics."
Atthesametime,italso doesjusticetothefactthatthesevariouspublics
are situatedin a single"structured
setting"thatadvantagessome and
others.Finally,Eley's formulation
doesjusticeto thefact
disadvantages
that,in stratified
societies,thediscursiverelationsamongdifferentially
as that
empowered
publicsare as likelyto taketheformof contestation
ofdeliberation.
Let me nowconsidertherelativemeritsof multiplepublicsversusa
societies.By egalitarian
singularpublic foregalitarian,multi-cultural
societiesI meannonstratified
societies,societieswhosebasic framework
does notgenerateunequalsocial groupsin structural
relationsof dominance and subordination.
are classless
Egalitariansocieties,therefore,
societieswithout
or
gender racialdivisionsof labor.However,theyneed
notbe culturally
On thecontrary,
homogeneous.
providedsuchsocieties
andassociation,theyare likelytobe inhabited
permitfreeexpression
by
social groupswithdiversevalues,identities,
andculturalstyles,henceto
be multi-cultural.
of culturaldiversity
My questionis: underconditions
in the absenceof structural
woulda single,comprehensive
inequality,
to multiplepublics?
publicspherebe preferable
To answerthisquestionwe needtotakea closerlookattherelationship
between public discourse and social identities.Pace the bourgeois conception,public spheresare notonlyarenas fortheformationof discursive
opinion; in addition,theyare arenas forthe formationand enactmentof
social identities.25
This means thatparticipationis not simplya matterof
able
to
state
being
propositionalcontentsthatare neutralwithrespectto
69
NancyFraser
formofexpression.
Rather,as I arguedin theprevioussection,participasimultationmeansbeingable to speak"in one's own voice," thereby
idiom
andexpressing
one's culturalidentity
through
neouslyconstructing
are
themselves
and style.26
Moreover,
as I also suggested,
publicspheres
form
to
notspacesofzerodegreeculture,
equallyhospitable anypossible
of culturalexpression.Rather,theyconsistin culturally
specificinstituvarious
social geogand
for
various
journals
tions-including, example,
as
understood
institutions
be
urban
These
of
culturally
may
space.
raphies
lensesthatfilterand altertheutterances
theyframe;
specificrhetorical
someexpressivemodesandnotothers.27
theycan accommodate
societiescannot
multi-cultural
It followsthatpubliclifeinegalitarian,
consistexclusivelyin a single,comprehensive
publicsphere.Thatwould
a
normsthrough
andstylistic
diverserhetorical
tofiltering
be tantamount
lens.Moreover,sincetherecan be no suchlens that
single,overarching
is genuinely
neutral,it wouldeffectively
privilegetheexpresculturally
sive normsof one culturalgroupoverothers,thereby
makingdiscursive
in public debate.The result
assimilationa conditionforparticipation
wouldbe thedemiseofmulti-culturalism
(andthelikelydemiseofsocial
In
can
we
conclude
thattheidea ofan egalitarian,
then,
equality). general,
if
ofpublic
makes
sense
we
multi-cultural
supposea plurality
societyonly
arenasin whichgroupswithdiversevaluesand rhetorics
participate.
By
ofpublics.
sucha societymustcontaina multiplicity
definition,
of an additional,more
However,thisneednotprecludethepossibility
morelimitedpublics
ofdifferent,
arenain whichmembers
comprehensive
our hypothetical
On thecontrary,
talkacrosslines of culturaldiversity.
debates
multi-cultural
societywouldsurelyhaveto entertain
egalitarian,
overpoliciesand issuesaffecting
everyone.The questionis: wouldparticipantsin suchdebatesshareenoughin theway of values,expressive
norms,and, therefore,
protocolsof persuasionto lend theirtalk the
at reachingagreement
of
deliberations
aimed
through
givingreaquality
sons?
In myview,thisis bettertreatedas an empiricalquestionthanas a
conceptualquestion.I see noreasontoruleoutinprinciplethepossibility
coexistwith
of a societyin whichsocial equalityand culturaldiversity
I certainly
hopetherecanbe sucha society.That
democracy.
participatory
it may
ifwe considerthat,howeverdifficult
hopegainssomeplausibility
is notin principle
acrosslinesof culturaldifference
be, communication
itwillcertainly
becomeimpossibleifone imagines
impossible-although
that it requires bracketingof differences.Grantedsuch communication
requires multi-culturalliteracy, but that, I believe, can be acquired
throughpractice. In fact,the possibilities expand once we acknowledge
the complexityof culturalidentities.Pace reductive,essentialistconcepstrands,and some of
tions,culturalidentitiesare woven of manydifferent
these strandsmay be common to people whose identitiesotherwisedi-
70
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
thatare mostsalient.28
Likewise,
verge,evenwhenit is thedivergences
underconditionsof social equality,theporousness,outer-directedness,
communicaof publicscouldpromoteinter-cultural
and open-endedness
a plurality
ofperspection.Afterall, theconceptofa publicpresupposes
withinit,thereby
tivesamongthosewhoparticipate
allowingforinternal
reifiedblocs.29In
differences
andantagonisms,
andlikewisediscouraging
of publics
addition,the unboundedcharacterand publicistorientation
in morethanone public,and
allows forthefactthatpeopleparticipate
of different
thatthememberships
publicsmaypartiallyoverlap.This in
turnmakesinter-cultural
communication
conceivablein principle.All
told,then,theredo notseemto be anyconceptual(as opposedtoempirical) barriersto the possibilityof a sociallyegalitarian,multi-cultural
Butthiswillnecessarily
be
societythatis also a participatory
democracy.
a societywithmanydifferent
publics,includingat least one publicin
whichparticipants
candeliberate
as peersacrosslinesofdifference
about
policythatconcernsthemall.
In general,I havebeenarguingthattheidealofparticipatory
parityis
betterachievedbya multiplicity
ofpublicsthanbya singlepublic.This
is trueboth forstratified
societiesand foregalitarian,multi-cultural
reasons.In neithercase is my argument
societies,albeit fordifferent
inthe
intended
as a simplepostmodern
celebration
ofmultiplicity.
Rather,
case of stratifiedsocieties,I am defendingsubalterncounterpublics
In theother
formedunderconditionsof dominanceand subordination.
case, by contrast,I am defendingthe possibilityof combiningsocial
andparticipatory
equality,culturaldiversity,
democracy.
Whatare theimplications
ofthisdiscussionfora criticaltheory
of the
we needa critical
publicspherein actuallyexistingdemocracy?
Briefly,
butunequal
politicalsociologyofa formofpubliclifein whichmultiple
Thismeanstheorizing
thecontestatory
of
interaction
publicsparticipate.
different
the mechanisms
thatrendersome of
publicsand identifying
to others.
themsubordinate
Publicspheres,
common
andprivateinterests
concerns,
I have arguedthatin stratified
societies,like it or not, subaltern
in
stand
a
to dominant
counterpublics
contestatory
relationship
publics.
of
One important
such
is theappropriate
contestation
object
interpublic
boundariesof thepublic sphere.Here the centralquestionsare, what
countsas a public matterand what,in contrast,is private?This bringsme
to a thirdset of problematicassumptionsunderlyingthe bourgeois conception of the public sphere,namely,assumptionsconcerningthe appropriatescope of publicityin relationto privacy.
Let me remindyou that it is central to Habermas's account thatthe
bourgeois public sphere was to be a discursive arena in which "private
persons" deliberatedabout "public matters."There are several different
NancyFraser
71
sensesofprivacyandpublicity
inplayhere."Publicity,"
forexample,can
mean1) state-related;
2) accessibleto everyone;3) of concernto everytoa commongoodorsharedinterest.
Each ofthese
one; and4) pertaining
to
a
sense
of
In
therearetwo
addition,
corresponds contrasting
"privacy."
othersensesof"privacy"hovering
below
the
surface
here:
5) pertainjust
ina market
tointimate
ingtoprivateproperty
economy;and6) pertaining
domesticorpersonallife,includingsexuallife.
I havealreadytalkedat lengthaboutthesenseof "publicity"as open
or accessibleto all. Now I wantto examinesomeof theothersenses,3O
beginningwith3) of concernto everyone.This is ambiguousbetween
whatobjectivelyaffectsor has an impacton everyone,
as seen froman
outsider'sperspective,on the one hand,and whatis recognizedas a
matterof commonconcernby participants,
on theotherhand.Now,the
idea of a publicsphereas an arenaof collectiveself-determination
does
notsitwellwithapproachesthatwouldappealtoan outsiderperspective
to delimitits properboundaries.Thus, it is the second,participant's
themselvescan
perspectiveis thatis relevanthere.Only participants
decide whatis and whatis notof commonconcernto them.However,
thereis no guarantee
thatall ofthemwillagree.Forexample,untilquite
intheminority
were
inthinking
feminists
thatdomesticviolence
recently,
women
a
matter
of
was
common
and thusa legitimate
concern
against
of
discourse.
The
of
topic public
greatmajority people consideredthis
issuetobe a privatematter
betweenwhatwasassumedtobe a fairly
small
number
of heterosexual
couples(andperhapsthesocial and legalprofessionalswhoweresupposedto deal withthem).Then,feminists
formeda
subaltern
fromwhichwe disseminated
a viewofdomestic
counterpublic
violenceas a widespreadsystemicfeatureof male-dominated
societies.
aftersustaineddiscursivecontestation,
we succeededin makEventually,
ingita commonconcern.
The pointis thatthereareno naturally
here.
given,a prioriboundaries
Whatwillcountas a matter
ofcommonconcernwillbe decidedprecisely
discursivecontestation.
It followsthatno topicsshouldbe ruled
through
offlimitsin advanceof such contestation.
On thecontrary,
democratic
of opportunities
forminorities
to
publicityrequirespositiveguarantees
convinceothersthatwhatin thepastwas notpublicin thesenseofbeing
a matter
of commonconcernshouldnowbecomeso."
as pertaining
toa commongood
What,then,ofthesenseof"publicity"
or sharedinterest?This is the sense thatis in play when Habermas
characterizes
thebourgeoispublicsphereas an arenain whichthetopic
of discussion is restrictedto the"commongood" and in whichdiscussion
of "privateinterests"is ruled out.
This is a view of the public sphere that we would today call civic
republican,as opposed to liberal-individualist.Briefly,the civic republican model stresses a view of politics as people reasoning togetherto
72
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
promotea commongood thattranscendsthe meresum of individual
The idea is thatthroughdeliberation
the membersof the
preferences.
to
or
can
come
discover
create
such
a
common
public
good.In theprocess
of theirdeliberations,
are
transformed
from
a collectionof
participants
individuals
into
a
self-seeking,
private
capapublic-spirited
collectivity,
ble of actingtogetherin the commoninterest.On this view,private
haveno properplace in thepoliticalpublicsphere.Atbest,they
interests
to be transformed
are thepre-political
and
starting
pointof deliberation,
in thecourseofdebate.32
transcended
Now,thiscivicrepublicanviewof thepublicsphereis in one respect
an improvement
overtheliberal-individualist
alternative.
Unlikethelatand identities
ter,it does notassumethatpeople'spreferences,
interests,
in advanceofpublicdiscourseanddeliberation.
are givenexogenously
It
thatpreferences,
and identities
areas much
rather,
interests,
appreciates,
outcomesas antecedents
of publicdeliberation,
indeedare discursively
in and through
constituted
it. However,as JaneMansbridge
has argued,
thecivic republicanview containsa veryseriousconfusion,
one which
bluntsitscriticaledge.This viewconflatestheideas ofdeliberation
and
the commongood by assumingthatdeliberationmustbe deliberation
about the commongood. Consequently,
it limitsdeliberationto talk
framedfromthestandpoint
of a single,all-encompassing
"we," thereby
and groupinterestout of order.Yet, this
rulingclaimsof self-interest
worksagainstone of theprincipalaimsof deliberation,
namely,helping
evenwhenthoseinterests
turnout to
participants
clarifytheirinterests,
conflict."Rulingself-interest
out of ordermakesit
[andgroupinterest]
harderforanyparticipant
to sortoutwhatis goingon. In particular,
the
less powerful
maynotfindwaysto discoverthattheprevailingsenseof
"we" does notadequatelyincludethem."33
In general,thereis no waytoknowin advancewhether
theoutcomeof
a deliberative
will
be
the
of
a
common
process
discovery
good in which
ofinterest
conflicts
as
thediscovery
or,rather,
evaporate merely
apparent
thatconflicts
ofinterests
arerealandthecommongoodis chimerical.
But
if theexistenceof a commongoodcannotbe presumedin advance,then
thereis no warrantforputtingany strictures
on whatsortsof topics,
andviewsare admissiblein deliberation.34
interests,
holdsevenin thebestcase scenarioof societieswhose
This argument
basic institutional
do notgenerate
frameworks
systemic
inequalities;even
in suchrelatively
in advancethat
we
cannot
assume
societies,
egalitarian
therewill be no real conflictsof interests.
How muchmorepertinent,
then, is the argumentto stratifiedsocieties, which are traversedwith
pervasive relationsof dominanceand subordination.Afterall, when social arrangementsoperateto the systemicprofitof some groupsof people
and to the systemicdetrimentof others,thereare primafacie reasons for
thinkingthatthe postulationof a commongood sharedby exploitersand
NancyFraser
73
Moreover,any consensusthat
exploitedmay well be a mystification.
to represent
thecommongood in thissocial contextshouldbe
purports
regardedwithsuspicion,since this consensuswill have been reached
deliberative
through
processestaintedby theeffectsof dominanceand
subordination.
In general,criticaltheory
needsto takea harder,
morecriticallook at
theterms"private"and "public."These terms,afterall, are notsimply
of societalspheres;theyare culturalclassistraightforward
designations
ficationsand rhetorical
labels. In politicaldiscourse,theyare powerful
termsthatare frequently
someinterests,
views,
deployedto delegitimate
and topicsand to valorizeothers.
This bringsme to two othersensesof privacy,whichoftenfunction
ideologicallyto delimittheboundariesof thepublicspherein waysthat
subordinate
social groups.These are sense5) pertaining
to
disadvantage
in a market
to intimate
privateproperty
economy;andsense6) pertaining
domesticorpersonallife,includingsexuallife.Each ofthesesensesis at
the centerof a rhetoricof privacythathas historically
been used to
restrict
theuniverseof legitimate
contestation.
public
The rhetoricof domesticprivacyseeks to excludesome issues and
frompublicdebatebypersonalizing
interests
and/orfamilializing
them;
it caststheseas private-domestic
in contraor personal-familial
matters
distinction
topublic,politicalmatters.
Therhetoric
ofeconomicprivacy,
in contrast,
seeksto excludesomeissuesandinterests
frompublicdebate
them;theissuesin questionhereare cast as impersonal
by economizing
market
oras "private"ownership
oras technical
imperatives
prerogatives
to public,
problemsformanagersand planners,all in contradistinction
In bothcases, theresultis to enclavecertainmatters
in
politicalmatters.
specializeddiscursivearenasand therebyto shieldthemfromgeneral
This usuallyworksto the advantageof
public debateand contestation.
dominant
and
and to thedisadvantage
individuals
of theirsuborgroups
If
wife
for
labelled
a
is
battering, example,
dinates.35
"personal"or
"domestic"matterand if public discourseabout this phenomenonis
canalizedintospecializedinstitutions
associatedwith,say,familylaw,
social work,and thesociologyand psychology
of "deviance,"thenthis
servesto reproducegenderdominanceand subordination.
Similarly,if
are labelled"economic"or "managequestionsof workplacedemocracy
rial" problemsand if discourseabout thesequestionsis shuntedinto
associatedwith,say,"industrial
relations"sociolspecializedinstitutions
labor
and
then
this
serves
toperpetuate
law,
ogy,
science,"
"management
class (and usually also genderand race) dominanceand subordination.
This shows once again thatthe liftingof formalrestrictionson public
sphere participationdoes not sufficeto ensure inclusion in practice. On
the contrary,even afterwomen and workershave been formallylicensed
to participate,theirparticipationmay be hedged by conceptions of eco-
74
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
nomicprivacyand domesticprivacythatdelimitthe scope of debate.
whichgenderand class
These notions,therefore,
are vehiclesthrough
and informally,
even
maycontinueto operatesubtextually
disadvantages
afterexplicit,formalrestrictions
havebeenrescinded.
weakpublics:On civilsociety
andthestate
Strongpublics,
and last assumption
thebourLet me turnnowto myfourth
underlying
of
the
the
namely,
public sphere,
assumptionthata
geois conception
a
ofcivil
democratic
functioning
publicsphererequires sharpseparation
This
two
and
the
state.
is
to
different
assumption susceptible
society
on howone understands
theexpression"civil
depending
interpretations,
If
that
to
a
one
takes
mean
privately-ordered,
capisociety."
expression
fromthestateis to defend
talisteconomy,thento insiston itsseparation
The claimwouldbe thata systemoflimitedgovernclassicalliberalism.
fora well
mentand laissez-fairecapitalismis a necessaryprecondition
functioning
publicsphere.
We can disposeof this(relativelyuninteresting)
claimfairlyquickly
I have already
on
some
of
the
sections.
by drawing
previous
arguments
is
shownthatparticipatory
essential
to
a
democratic
parity
publicsphere
and thatroughsocio-economic
ofparticipatory
equalityis a precondition
capitalismdoes notfoster
parity.Now I needonlyadd thatlaissez-faire
and
that
form
socio-economic
some
of
politicallyregulatedecoequality
is neededto achievethatend.
nomicreorganization
and redistribution
to "privatize"economicissues
Likewise,I have also shownthatefforts
withrespectto stateactivity
and to castthemas off-limits
impede,rather
thanpromote,
thesortoffullandfreediscussionthatis builtintotheidea
of a public sphere.It followsfromtheseconsiderations
thata sharp
of
civil
and
the
state
is
not
a necessary
separation (economic)
society
On
conditionfora wellfunctioning
the
andpace
publicsphere.
contrary,
itis preciselysomesortofinter-imbrication
of
thebourgeoisconception,
thatis needed.36
theseinstitutions
ofthe
However,thereis also a second,moreinteresting,
interpretation
thata sharpseparation
ofcivilsocietyandthestate
bourgeoisassumption
is necessaryto a workingpublicsphere,one whichwarrants
moreex"civil society"means the
tendedexamination.In this interpretation,
or "secondary"associationsthatare neither
nexusof nongovernmental
nor
We can best appreciatethe forceof the
economic
administrative.
in
that
civil
this
senseshouldbe separatefromthestateif
claim
society
we recall Habermas's definitionof the liberalpublic sphereas a "body of
privatepersons assembled to forma public." The emphasis here on "private persons" signals (among otherthings)thatthe membersof thebourgeois public are notstateofficialsand thattheirparticipationin thepublic
sphere is not undertakenin any officialcapacity. Accordingly,theirdiscourse does noteventuatein binding,sovereigndecisions authorizingthe
NancyFraser
75
use of statepower;on thecontrary,
it eventuatesin "publicopinion,"
criticalcommentary
on authorizeddecision-making
elsethattranspires
where.The public sphere,in short,is not the state; it is ratherthe
mobilizedbodyof nongovernmental
discursiveopinionthat
informally
can serveas a counterweight
tothestate.Indeed,inthebourgeoisconcepofthepublicsphere
character
tion,it is preciselythisextragovernmental
thatconfersan aura of independence,
and
autonomy, legitimacyon the
in
it.
"publicopinion"generated
Thus, the bourgeoisconceptionof the public spheresupposes the
of a sharpseparationof (associational)civil societyand the
desirability
state.As a result,it promoteswhatI shall call weakpublics,publics
inopinion-formation
whosedeliberative
and
practiceconsistsexclusively
does notalso encompassdecision-making.
Moreover,thebourgeoisconceptionseems to implythatan expansionof such publics' discursive
toencompassdecision-making
as wellas opinion-making
would
authority
threatenthe autonomyof public opinion-forthenthe public would
becomethestate,and thepossibilityof a criticaldiscursive
effectively
checkon thestatewouldbe lost.
of the
That,at least,is suggestedby Habermas'sinitialformulation
In
bourgeoisconception. fact,the issue becomesmorecomplicatedas
soon as we considertheemergenceof parliamentary
With
sovereignty.
inthehistory
thatlandmark
ofthepublicsphere,we encoundevelopment
tera majorstructural
since sovereignparliament
functransformation,
tionsas a publicspherewithinthestate.Moreover,
sovereign
parliaments
arewhatI shallcall strong
publics,publicswhosediscourseencompasses
bothopinion-formation
anddecision-making.
As a locus ofpublicdelibinlegallybindingdecisions(orlaws),parliament
erationculminating
was
to be thesite forthediscursiveauthorization
of theuse of statepower.
Withthe achievement
of parliamentary
theline
therefore,
sovereignty,
civil
is
and
the
state
blurred.
(associational)
separating
society
and the conseClearly,the emergenceof parliamentary
sovereignty
of the(associational)civil society/state
quentblurring
separationrepresentsa democratic
advanceoverearlierpoliticalarrangements.
This is
because, as the terms"strongpublic" and "weak public" suggest,the
"forceof publicopinion"is strengthened
whena bodyrepresenting
it is
to
such
into
translate
authoritative
At
decisions.
the
empowered
"opinion"
same time,thereremainimportant
the
between
about
relation
questions
parliamentary
strongpublics and the weak publics to whichtheyare
raise some
supposedto be accountable.In general,thesedevelopments
interestingand importantquestions about therelativemeritsof weak and
strongpublics and about the respective roles that institutionsof both
kinds mightplay in a democraticand egalitariansociety.
One set of questions concerns the possible proliferationof strong
publics in the formof self-managinginstitutions.In self-managedwork-
76
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
orresidential
forexample,intercommunities,
places,childcarecenters,
could
be
arenas
of
nal institutional
both
opinionformation
publicspheres
to constituting
This wouldbe tantamount
sitesof
and decision-making.
in
wherein
those
a
directorquasi-direct
all
collective
democracy
engaged
indeliberations
itsdesignand
wouldparticipate
todetermine
undertaking
this
would
still
leave
the
between
operation."However,
open relationship
such internalpublicspheres-cum-decision-making-bodies
and thoseexternalpublics to whichtheymightalso be deemedaccountable.The
becomesimportant
whenwe considerthat
questionof thatrelationship
in whichtheydo notdirectly
by an undertaking
peoplewhoare affected
as agentsmaynonetheless
havea stakein itsmodusoperandi;
participate
claimto a say,through
also havea legitimate
someother
theytherefore
in
its
institutional
(weakeror stronger)
publicsphere,
designand operation.
Herewe are againbroaching
theissueof accountability.
Whatinstitubest ensuretheaccountability
tionalarrangements
of democraticdecibodies(strongpublics)to their(external,
weakor,giventhe
sion-making
in
of
weaker
Where societyaredirect
cases,
) publics?38
possibility hybrid
called forand whereare representative
forms
democracyarrangements
moreappropriate?
How are theformer
withthelatter?
best articulated
Moregenerally,
whatdemocratic
bestinstitutionalize
coorarrangements
dinationamongdifferent
institutions,
includingamongtheirvariouscoas a strong
implicatedpublics?Shouldwe thinkof centralparliament
with
authoritative
discursive
over
basic
societal
super-public
sovereignty
rules
and
coordination
If
that
does
so,
ground
arrangements?
requirethe
of
a
external
addition
to,not
(in
assumption singleweak(er)
super-public
insteadof,variousothersmallerpublics)?In anyevent,giventheinesin theinternational
manifest
divisionof
capable globalinterdependence
laborwithina singlesharedplanetary
it
does
sense to
make
biosphere,
understand
thenationstateas theappropriate
unitof sovereignty?
I do notknowtheanswersto mostofthesequestionsandI am unable
to explorethemfurther
in thisessay.However,thepossibility
of posing
them,evenin theabsenceoffull,persuasiveanswers,enablesus to draw
one salientconclusion:anyconception
of thepublicspherethatrequires
a sharpseparation
between(associational)civilsocietyandthestatewill
be unableto imaginetheformsof self-management,
coordiinter-public
thatare essentialto a democratic
and
nation,andpoliticalaccountability
The
the
of
thereegalitariansociety. bourgeoisconception
publicsphere,
criticaltheory.Whatis needed,
fore,is notadequateforcontemporary
rather,is a post-bourgeois
conceptionthatcan permitus to envisiona
greaterrole for (at least some) public spheres than mere autonomous
opinion formationremovedfromauthoritativedecision-making.A postbourgeois conception would enable us to thinkabout strongand weak
publics, as well as about various hybridforms.In addition,it would allow
NancyFraser
77
us to theorizetherangeofpossiblerelationsamongsuchpublics,thereby
possibilitiesbeyondthe
expandingourcapacityto envisiondemocratic
limitsof actuallyexistingdemocracy.
Conclusion:
thepublicsphere
Rethinking
Let meconcludebyrecapitulating
whatI believeI haveaccomplishedin
this essay. I have shownthatthe bourgeoisconceptionof thepublic
sphere,as describedby Habermas,is notadequateforthecritiqueof the
limitsof actuallyexistingdemocracyin late capitalistsocieties.At one
undermines
thebourgeoisconceptionas a normative
level,myargument
ofthepublicsphere
thatan adequateconception
ideal.I haveshown,first,
the
the
of social
not
but
rather
elimination,
requires merely bracketing,
I
is
have
shown
that
a
of
Second,
inequality.
multiplicity publics preferable to a singlepublicspherebothin stratified
societiesand egalitarian
societies.Third,I have shownthata tenableconceptionof thepublic
nottheexclusion,buttheinclusion,of interspherewouldcountenance
ests and issues thatbourgeoismasculinist
ideologylabels "private"and
treatsas inadmissible.
conception
Finally,I haveshownthata defensible
wouldallowbothforstrong
publicsandforweakpublicsandthatitwould
theorizetherelationsamongthem.In sum,I have arguedagainstfour
constitutiveassumptionsof the bourgeoisconceptionof the public
somecorresponding
elements
sphere;at thesametime,I haveidentified
of a new,post-bourgeois
conception.
Atanotherlevel,myargument
taskson the
enjoinsfourcorresponding
criticaltheoryof actuallyexistingdemocracy.
First,thistheoryshould
rendervisible the ways in whichsocial inequalitytaintsdeliberation
withinpublicsin late capitalistsocieties.Second,it shouldshow how
affects
relationsamongpublicsin latecapitalistsocieties,how
inequality
and how some are
are
publics
empoweredor segmented,
differentially
enclaved
and
a criticaltheory
subordinated
to
others.
Next,
involuntarily
shouldexposewaysinwhichthelabellingofsomeissuesand interests
as
limits
of
the
and
of
to
range problems,
"private"
approaches problems,
thatcan be widelycontestedin contemporary
societies.Finally,our
should
how
the
ofsomepublicspheres
show
weak
character
overly
theory
in late-capitalist
societiesdenudes"publicopinion"ofpracticalforce.
In all theseways,thetheoryshouldexposethelimitsof thespecific
we enjoyin contemporary
formofdemocracy
capitalistsocieties.Perhaps
it can thereby
helpinspireus to tryto pushbackthoselimits,whilealso
cautioningpeople in otherpartsof theworldagainstheedingthecall to
install them.
Notes
withpermission
1. ONancy Fraser.Reprinted
fromHabermasand thePublic Sphere,ed. Craig
MA: M.I.T.Press,1991).1am grateful
forhelpfulcomments
fromCraigCalhoun,
Calhoun(Cambridge
JoshuaCohen,TomMcCarthy,
MoishePostone,BaukjePrins,DavidSchweikart,
andRianVoet.I also
78
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
andstimulation
fromtheinspiration
ofparticipants
intheconference
on "Habermasandthe
benefitted
PublicSphere,"University
ofNorthCarolina,ChapelHill,September
1989.
2. Jiirgen
Habermas,TheStructural
Transformation
ofthePublicSphere:AnInquiryintoa Category
Lawrence(Cambridge
MA: TheM. I. T. Press,
ofBourgeoisSociety,tr.ThomasBurgerwithFrederick
ofthepublicsphere,see Jiirgen
TheTheory
Habermas,
1989).ForHabermas'slateruse ofthecategory
andSystem:
A CritiqueofFunctionalist
Action,vol2, Lifeworld
Reason,tr.Thomas
ofCommunicative
discussionofHabermas'slateruse of
McCarthy(Boston:BeaconPress,1987).Fora iticalsecondary
theconcept,see NancyFraser,"What'sCriticalaboutCriticalTheory?The Case of Habermasand
Social Theory
Gender,in Fraser,UnrulyPractices:Power,Discourseand Genderin Contemporary
ofMinnesotaPress,1989).
(University
3. Throughout
thispaper,I referto paid workplaces,
creditsystems,
etc.as "official-ecomarkets,
nomicsysteminstitutions"
so as toavoidtheandrocentric
thatdomesticinstitutions
arenot
implication
also "economic."For a discussionof thisissue,see NancyFraser,"What'sCriticalAboutCritical
Theory?The Case ofHabermasandGender,"op. cit.
4. JoanLandes,Women
and thePublicSphereintheAgeoftheFrenchRevolution
(IthacaNY: Cornell
Press,1988).
University
5. For the"public"/'pubic"
see theOxfordEnglishDictionary(secondedition,1989),
connection,
for"public."Forthe"testimony"/"testicle"
see LucieWhite,"Subordination,
connection
Rhetorentry
ical SurvivalSkillsandSundayShoes:NotesontheHearingofMrs.G.,"Buffalo
Law Review,vol. 38,
no. 1 (Winter1990)p. 6.
6. PierreBourdieu,Distinction:
A Social CritiqueoftheJudgment
MA:
ofPure Taste(Cambridge,
HarvardUniversity
Press,1979).
7' GeoffEley, "Nations,Publics,and PoliticalCultures:PlacingHabermasin the Nineteenth
in Habermasand thePublic Sphere,ed. CraigCalhoun.See also LeonoreDavidoffand
Century,"
Catherine
Hall,FamilyFortunes:Men and WomenoftheEnglishMiddleClass, 1780-1850(Chicago:
ofChicagoPress,1987).
The University
8. Habermasdoesrecognize
thattheissueofgenderexclusionis connected
toa shift
fromaristocratic
to bourgeoispublicspheres,but,as I arguebelow,he failsto noticethefullimplications
of this
recognition.
9. I do notmeanto suggestthatHabermasis unawareoftheexistenceofpublicspheresotherthan
thebourgeoisone;onthecontrary,
inthe"Preface"toStructural
Transformation
(p. xviii),he explicitly
statesthathisobjectis theliberalmodelofthebourgeois
he willdiscuss
publicsphereandthattherefore
neither
"theplebeianpublicsphere"(whichhe understands
as an ephemeral
thatexisted
phenomenon
"forjust one moment"duringthe FrenchRevolution)nor "the plebiscitary-acclamatory
formof
in highlydevelopedindustrial
societies."My
regimented
publicspherecharacterizing
dictatorships
thattherewerealternative
he assumes
pointis that,althoughHabermasacknowledges
publicspheres,
thatitis possibletounderstand
thecharacter
ofthebourgeois
publicbylookingat italone,inisolation
fromits relationsto other,competingpublics.This assumption
is problematic.
In fact,as I shall
an examination
ofthebourgeois
toalternative
demonstrate,
challenges
public'srelations
counterpublics
thebourgeoisconception
ofthepublicsphere.
10. MaryP. Ryan,Women
inPublic:BetweenBannersandBallots,1825-1880(Baltimore:
TheJohn
Press,1990) and "Genderand PublicAccess: Women'sPoliticsin Nineteenth
HopkinsUniversity
America,"inHabermasand thePublicSphere,ed. CraigCalhoun.
Century
11. GeoffEley,"Nations,Publics,and PoliticalCultures."
12. GeoffEley,"Nations,Publics,andPoliticalCultures."
13. I am leavingaside whetherone shouldspeak here not of consenttoutcourtbut ratherof
or"something
as consent,"
or"something
as
constructed
consent,"
"something
approaching
appearing
consent"in orderto leave openthepossibility
ofdegreesofconsent.
14. The publicsphereproducesconsentvia circulation
of discoursesthatconstruct
the"common
theexisting
orderas natural
sense"ofthedayandrepresent
and/or
just,butnotsimplyas a rusethatis
thepublicspherein itsmatureformincludessufficient
and sufficient
imposed.Rather,
participation
ofmultiple
interests
andperspectives
topermit
mostpeoplemostofthetimetorecognize
representation
themselvesin itsdiscourses.People who are ultimately
of
disadvantaged
by thesocial construction
consentnonetheless
of their
manageto findin thediscoursesof thepublicsphererepresentations
andanxietiesthatarecloseenoughtoresonate
withtheirownlived
interests,
aspirations,
life-problems,
and feelings.Theirconsentto hegemonicruleis securedwhentheir
identities,
self-representations,
are takenup and articulated
withotherculturally
constructed
constructed
culturally
perspectives
inhegemonic
socio-political
projects.
perspectives
thatis sometimes
15. HereI wantto distancemyselffroma certainoverlyfacileline of argument
madeagainstHabermas.Thisis thelinethatideologicalfunctions
ofthepublicspheresinclasssocieties
thenormative
notionas an ideal.ThisI taketobe a nonsequitur,
sinceitis always
simplyundermine
andotherpervasive
say,theabolitionofclasses,genders,
possibleto replythatunderotherconditions,
axes of inequality,
the publicspherewouldno longerhave thisfunction,
butwouldinsteadbe an
of democratic
institutionalization
interaction.
as Habermashas himselfoftenpointedout,
Moreover,
even in existingclass societies,thesignificance
of thepublicsphereis notentirely
exhaustedby its
On thecontrary,
class function.
theidea ofthepublicspherealso functions
hereandnowas a normnn
of
democratic
interaction
we use tocriticizethelimitations
ofactuallyexistingpublicspheres.The point
NancyFraser
79
hereis thateventherevisionist
thatcauseus to doubtthevalueofthe
storyandtheGramscian
theory
onlypossiblebecauseofit.Itis theideaofthepublicspherethatprovides
publicspherearethemselves
theconceptualcondition
ofpossibility
fortherevisionist
realization.
critiqueofitsimperfect
16. JaneMansbridge,
"FeminismandDemocracy,"
TheAmerican
Prospect,no. 1 (Spring1990)p.
127.
theseprocessesin an illuminating
PierreBourdieuhas theorized
17. In Distinction
wayin termsof
theconceptof"classhabitus."
is exacerbated
withtheconcentration
ofmediaownership
in
18. As Habermasnotes,thistendency
societies.Forthesteepincreaseinconcentration
latecapitalist
intheU.S. in thelatetwentieth
century,
in
see Ben H. Bagdikian,TheMediaMonopoly(Boston:BeaconPress,1983).Thissituation
contrasts
withstate-owned
andoperatedtelevision.Buteventhereit is doubtful
somerespectswithcountries
thatsubordinated
groupshave equal access. Moreover,political-economic
pressureshave recently
ofmediain severalofthesecountries.
In part,thisreflects
theproblemsof
encouragedprivatization
statenetworks
share"withprivatechannelsairingU.S. producedmass
havingto competefor"market
entertainment.
aimed
19. This is thespiritbehind,forexample,proposalsforelectoralcampaignfinancing
reforms
theintrusion
of economicdominanceintothepublicsphere.Needlessto say,withina
at preventing
it is farbetterto have such reforms
thannotto have them.
contextof massivesocietalinequality,
effects
of dominanceand inequality
discussedabove,one
However,in lightof thesortsof informal
recentdefenseoftheliberalviewcomes
oughtnotto expecttoomuchfromthem.Themostthoughtful
fromsomeonewhoinotherrespects
is nota liberal.See MichaelWalzer,SpheresofJustice:
A Defense
ofPluralismandEquality(New York:Basic Books,1983).Another
veryinteresting
approachhasbeen
toan earlierdraft
ofthisessay,hearguedthatpoliciesdesigned
suggested
byJoshuaCohen.In response
of social movements,
to facilitate
theformation
and politicalpartieswould
secondaryassociations,
better
foster
thanwouldpoliciesdesignedtoachievesocialequality,
sincethelatter
participatory
parity
would requireredistributive
thatcarry"deadweight
losses." I certainly
efforts
supportthe sortof
as wellas hismoregeneralaimofan "associativedemocracy"--the
policiesthatCohenrecommends,
sectionsof thispaperon multiplepublicsand strongpublicsmakea case forrelatedarrangements.
However,I am notpersuadedbytheclaimthatthesepoliciescan achieveparticipatory
parityunder
ofsocialinequality.
oftheliberalviewoftheautonomy
conditions
variant
Thatseemstomebe another
of thepolitical,whichCohenotherwise
claimsto reject.See JoshuaCohen,"Commentson Nancy
thePublicSphere,"'(unpublished
Fraser's'Rethinking
at themeetingsof the
manuscript
presented
AmericanPhilosophical
CentralDivision,New Orleans,April1990).
Association,
20. My argument
drawson KarlMarx'sstillunsurpassed
critiqueofliberalismin PartI of"On the
JewishQuestion."Hence,theallusionto Marxinthetitleofthisessay.
is thissectionis deeplyindebtedto JoshuaCohen'sperceptive
21. My argument
on an
comments
earlierdraftofthispaperin"Comments
on NancyFraser's'Rethinking
thePublicSphere."'
usedwith
22. I havecoinedthisexpression
twotermsthatothertheorists
haverecently
bycombining
forpurposesthatareconsonant
withmyown.I taketheterm"subaltem"fromGayatri
verygoodeffects
ed. CaryNelsonand
ofCulture,
Speak?"inMarxismand theInterpretation
Spivak,"Can theSubaltern
ofIllinoisPress,1988)pp.271-313.I taketheterm"counterpubLarryGrossberg
(Chicago:University
lic" fromRitaFelski,BeyondFeminist
Aesthetics
MA: HarvardUniversity
Press,1989).
(Cambridge
ofoppositional
feminist
discourses
23. Foran analysisofthepoliticalimport
aboutneeds,see Nancy
overNeeds:Outlineofa Socialist-feminist
CriticalTheoryofLate-Capitalist
Political
Fraser,
"Struggle
in Fraser,UnrulyPractices.
Culture,"
24. GeoffEley,"Nations,Publics,and PoliticalCultures."Eley goes on to explainthatthisis
tantamount
to"extend[ing]
Habermas'sideaofthepublicspheretowardthewiderpublicdomainwhere
is notonlyconstituted
as rational
andlegitimate,
butwhereitstermsarecontested,
modified,
authority
andoccasionallyoverthrown
bysubaltemgroups."
25. It seemstomethatpublicdiscursive
arenasareamongthemostimportant
andunder-recognized
are constructed,
sitesin whichsocial identities
and reconstructed.
deconstructed,
My view standsin
tovariouspsychoanalytic
accountsofidentity
contrast
whichneglecttheformative
formation,
importanceof post-Oedipaldiscursiveinteraction
outsidethenuclearfamilyand whichtherefore
cannot
me as unfortunate
thatso muchof contemporary
feminist
shiftsovertime.It strikes
explainidentity
to
of socialidentity
has takenitsunderstanding
frompsychoanalytic
models,whileneglecting
theory
in relationto publicspheres.The revisionist
ofthepublic
construction
studyidentity
historiography
publicspheresas loci ofidentity
spherediscussedearliercan helpredressthebalanceby identifying
character
of socialidentity
anda critiqueofpsychoanForan accountofthediscursive
reconstruction.
see NancyFraser,"The Uses andAbusesofFrenchDiscourseTheoriesfor
alyticapproachto identity
FeministPolitics,"Boundary
2, vol. 17,no. 2 (1990).
ofthisposition,
26. Foranother
statement
see NancyFraser,
"Towarda DiscourseEthicofSolidarity,"
and
PraxisInternational,
vol. 5, no. 4 (January
1986)pp. 425-429.See also IrisYoung,"Impartiality
ofFeminist
theCivicPublic:SomeImplications
CritiquesofMoralandPoliticalTheory"inFeminism
ofMinnesota
as Critique,ed. SeylaBenhabibandDrucillaComrnell
TheUniversity
Press,
(Minneapolis:
1987) pp.56-76.
80
thePublicSphere
Rethinking
27. Foran analysisoftherhetorical
ofonehistorical
specificity
publicsphere,see MichaelWarner,
The Lettersof theRepublic:Publicationand thePublic Spherein Eighteenth
CenturyAmerica
MA: HarvardUniversity
Press,forthcoming).
(Cambridge
28. One could say thatat thedeepestlevel,everyoneis mestizo.The bestmetaphor
heremaybe
ideaoffamnily
ornetworks
ofcriss-crossing,
and
differences
resemblances,
Wittgenstein's
overlapping
no singlethreadof whichrunscontinuously
thewhole.For an accountthat
similarities,
throughout
stressesthecomplexity
of culturalidentities
and thesalienceof discoursein theirconstruction,
see
Politics."Foraccounts
NancyFraser,"TheUsesandAbusesofFrenchDiscourseTheoriesforFeminist
thatdraw on conceptsof mdtissage,see Gloria Anzaldda,Borderlands:La Frontera(1987) and
Voices:Race, Gender,Self-Portraiture
(Ithaca NY: Comell
FrangoiseLionnet,Autobiographical
Press,1989).
University
theconceptofa publicdiffers
29. Intheserespects,
from
thatofa community.
suggests
"Community"
a boundedand fairlyhomogeneous
group,and it oftenconnotesconsensus."Public,"in contrast,
discursive
interaction
is
that
in
unbounded
and
and
this
in turn
emphasizes
open-ended,
principle
of perspectives.
can
Thus,theidea of a public,betterthanthatof a community,
impliesa plurality
accommodate
anddebates.Foran accountoftheconnection
between
internal
differences,
antagonisms,
andplurality,
seeHannahArendt,
ofChicago
TheHumanCondition
publicity
(Chicago:TheUniversity
see IrisYoung,"TheIdealofCommunity
and
Press,1958).Fora critiqueoftheconceptofcommunity,
the Politicsof Difference"
in Feminismand Postmodernism,
ed. Linda J. Nicholson(New York:
Routledge,
ChapmanandHall, 1989)pp. 300-323.
30. In thisessay,I do notdirectly
discusssense1) state-related.
However,inthenextsectionofthis
essayI considersomeissuesthattouchonthatsense.
31. This is theequivalentin democratic
has arguedin the
theoryof a pointthatPaul Feyerabend
ofscience.See Feyerabend,
AgainstMethod(New York:Verso,1988).
philosophy
the liberal-individualist
32. In contrast,
model stressesa view of politicsas the aggregation
of
individualpreferences.
in thestrictsensedropsoutaltogether.
Deliberation
self-interested,
Instead,
andinbargaining,
individual
politicaldiscourseconsistsinregistering
lookingforformulas
preferences
thatsatisfy
as manyprivateinterests
as possible.Itis assumedthatthereis nosuchthingas thecommon
are the
good overand above thesum of all thevariousindividualgoods,and so privateinterests
stuff
ofpoliticaldiscourse.
legitimate
33. JaneMansbridge,
"Feminism
andDemocracy,"
p. 131.
34. This point,incidentally,
is in thethespiritof a morerecentstrandof Habermas'snormative
as opposedtothesubstantive,
whichstresses
theprocedural,
ofa democratic
definition
thought,
public
as an arenafora certain
notas
interaction,
sphere;here,thepublicsphereis defined
typeofdiscursive
an arenafordealingwithcertaintypesoftopicsandproblems.
on
Thereareno restrictions,
therefore,
whatmaybecomea topicofdeliberation.
See SeylaBenhabib'saccountofthisradicalproceduralist
strandof Habermas'sthought
andherdefenseof it as thestrandthatrendershis view of thepublic
toalternative
views.Benhabib,
"ModelsofPublicSpace: HannahArendt,
theLiberal
spheresuperior
andJiirgen
inHabermasand thePublicSphere,ed. CraigCalhoun.
Tradition,
Habermas,"
35. Usually,butnotalways.As JoshCohenhas argued,exceptions
aretheuses ofprivacyinRoe v.
and in JusticeBlackmun'sdissentin
Wade,the U.S. SupremeCourtdecisionlegalizingabortion,
stateanti-sodomy
laws.Theseexamplesshowthattheprivacyrhetoric
Bowers,thedecisionupholding
is multivalent
thanunivocally
rather
andnecessarily
On theotherhand,thereis no question
harmful.
butthatthe weightier
of privacyargument
tradition
has buttressed
debate.
by restricting
inequality
havearguedthateventhe"good"privacyuseshavesomeseriousnegative
Moreover,
manyfeminists
andthatgenderdomination
context
is better
challengedinthiscontexton
consequencesin thecurrent
otherdiscursivegrounds.Fora defenseof "privacy"talk,see JoshuaCohen,"Comments
on Nancy
Fraser's'Rethinking
thePublicSphere."'
36. Therearemanypossibilities
suchmixedformsas market
socialism.
here,including
37. I use theexpression
inordertosignalthepossibility
ofhybrid
formsof
democracy"
"quasi-direct
democratic
orplanners
held
the
of
involving
self-management
managers,
designation representatives,
to strictstandards
ofaccountability
forexample,recall.
through,
38. Byhybrid
I meanarrangements
ofrepresentative
verystrict
involving
accountability
possibilities
bodiestotheir
vetoandrecallrights.
external
Suchhybrid
forms
decision-making
might
publicsthrough
in some,thoughcertainly
notall, circumstances
be desirable.

Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the

Transcription

Similar documents

Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the

Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative

In the House of the Child

Mark Twain the Tourist: The Form of The Innocents Abroad

Sadowski

Evil and Omnipotence

Jeffrey L. Brudney and Robert E. England Source

Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political

The Phylogenetic Study of Adaptive Zones: Has Phytophagy

Publics and Counterpublics - Rhetorics-of-Social