Public sphere

1
Public sphere
A coffeehouse discussion
The public sphere (German ffentlichkeit, f) is an area in social life
where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify
societal problems, and through that discussion influence political
action. It is "a discursive space in which individuals and groups
congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to
reach a common judgment."
[1]
The public sphere can be seen as "a
theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted
through the medium of talk"
[2]
and "a realm of social life in which
public opinion can be formed".
"The public sphere was coextensive with public authority". "The
private sphere comprised civil society in the narrower sense, that is to
say, the realm of commodity exchange and of social labor."
[3]
Whereas
the "Sphere of Public Authority" dealt with the State, or realm of the police, and the ruling class, the public sphere
crossed over both these realms and "through the vehicle of public opinion it put the state in touch with the needs of
society."
[4]
"This area is conceptually distinct from the state: it [is] a site for the production and circulation of
discourses that can in principle be critical of the state." The public sphere 'is also distinct from the official economy;
it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating
rather than for buying and selling." These distinctions between "state apparatuses, economic markets, and democratic
associations...are essential to democratic theory." The people themselves came to see the public sphere as a
regulatory institution against the authority of the state.
[5]
The study of the public sphere centers on the idea of
participatory democracy, and how public opinion becomes political action.
The basic ideal belief in public sphere theory is that the government's laws and policies should be steered by the
public sphere, and that the only legitimate governments are those that listen to the public sphere. "Democratic
governance rests on the capacity of and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate". Much of the debate
over the public sphere involves what is the basic theoretical structure of the public sphere, how information is
deliberated in the public sphere, and what influence the public sphere has over society.
Definitions of the public sphere
What does it mean that something is public? Jrgen Habermas says, We call events and occasions public when
they are open to all, in contrast to closed or exclusive affairs
This notion of the public becomes evident in terms such as public health, public education, public opinion or public
ownership. They are opposed to the notions of private health, private education, private opinion, and private
ownership. The notion of the public is intrinsically connected to the notion of the private.
Habermas stresses that the notion of the public is related to the notion of the common. For Hannah Arendt, the public
sphere is therefore the common world that gathers us together and yet prevents our falling over each other.
Habermas defines the public sphere as a society engaged in critical public debate. Conditions of the public sphere
are according to Habermas:
The formation of public opinion
All citizens have access.
Conference in unrestricted fashion (based on the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association, the freedom to
expression and publication of opinions) about matters of general interest, which implies freedom from economic
and political control.
Public sphere
2
Debate over the general rules governing relations.
Jrgen Habermas: bourgeois public sphere
Main article: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
Most contemporary conceptualizations of the public sphere are based on the ideas expressed in Jrgen Habermas'
book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, which
is a translation of his Habilitationsschrift, Strukturwandel der ffentlichkeit:Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der
brgerlichen Gesellschaft. The German term ffentlichkeit (public sphere) encompasses a variety of meanings and it
implies a spatial concept, the social sites or arenas where meanings are articulated, distributed, and negotiated, as
well as the collective body constituted by, and in this process, "the public". The work is still considered the
foundation of contemporary public sphere theories, and most theorists cite it when discussing their own theories.
The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together
as a public; they soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities
themselves, to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically
privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor.
[6]
Through this work, he gave a historical-sociological account of the creation, brief flourishing, and demise of a
"bourgeois" public sphere based on rational-critical debate and discussion: Habermas stipulates that, due to specific
historical circumstances, a new civic society emerged in the eighteenth century. Driven by a need for open
commercial arenas where news and matters of common concern could be freely exchanged and
discussed accompanied by growing rates of literacy, accessibility to literature, and a new kind of critical
journalism a separate domain from ruling authorities started to evolve across Europe. "In its clash with the arcane
and bureaucratic practices of the absolutist state, the emergent bourgeoisie gradually replaced a public sphere in
which the rulers power was merely represented before the people with a sphere in which state authority was publicly
monitored through informed and critical discourse by the people".
[7]
In his historical analysis, Habermas points out three so-called "institutional criteria" as preconditions for the
emergence of the new public sphere. The discursive arenas, such as Britains coffee houses, Frances salons and
Germanys Tischgesellschaften "may have differed in the size and compositions of their publics, the style of their
proceedings, the climate of their debates, and their topical orientations", but "they all organized discussion among
people that tended to be ongoing; hence they had a number of institutional criteria in common":
[8]
1. Disregard of status: Preservation of "a kind of social intercourse that, far from presupposing the equality of
status, disregarded status altogether. [...] Not that this idea of the public was actually realized in earnest in the
coffee houses, salons, and the societies; but as an idea it had become institutionalized and thereby stated as an
objective claim. If not realized, it was at least consequential." (loc.cit.)
2. Domain of common concern: "... discussion within such a public presupposed the problematization of areas that
until then had not been questioned. The domain of common concern which was the object of public critical
attention remained a preserve in which church and state authorities had the monopoly of interpretation. [...] The
private people for whom the cultural product became available as a commodity profaned it inasmuch as they had
to determine its meaning on their own (by way of rational communication with one another), verbalize it, and thus
state explicitly what precisely in its implicitness for so long could assert its authority." (loc.cit.)
3. Inclusivity: However exclusive the public might be in any given instance, it could never close itself off entirely
and become consolidated as a clique; for it always understood and found itself immersed within a more inclusive
public of all private people, persons who insofar as they were propertied and educated as readers, listeners,
and spectators could avail themselves via the market of the objects that were subject to discussion. The issues
discussed became general not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able
to participate. [...] Wherever the public established itself institutionally as a stable group of discussants, it did not
equate itself with the public but at most claimed to act as its mouthpiece, in its name, perhaps even as its educator
Public sphere
3
the new form of bourgeois representation" (loc.cit.).
Habermas argued that the bourgeois society cultivated and upheld these criteria. The public sphere was well
established in various locations including coffee shops and salons, areas of society where various people could
gather and discuss matters that concerned them. The coffee houses in London society at this time became the centers
of art and literary criticism, which gradually widened to include even the economic and the political disputes as
matters of discussion. In French salons, as Habermas says, "opinion became emancipated from the bonds of
economic dependence". Any new work, or a book or a musical composition had to get its legitimacy in these places.
It not only paved a forum for self-expression, but in fact had become a platform for airing ones opinions and
agendas for public discussion.
Parliamentary action under Charles VII of France
The emergence of bourgeois public sphere was particularly supported
by the 18th century liberal democracy making resources available to
this new political class to establish a network of institutions like
publishing enterprises, newspapers and discussion forums, and the
democratic press was a main tool to execute this. The key feature of
this public sphere was its separation from the power of both the church
and the government due to its access to a variety of resources, both
economic and social.
As Habermas argues, in due course, this sphere of rational and
universalistic politics, free from both the economy and the State, was
destroyed by the same forces that initially established it. This collapse
was due to the consumeristic drive that infiltrated society, so citizens
became more concerned about consumption than political actions.
Furthermore, the growth of capitalistic economy led to an uneven
distribution of wealth, thus widening economic polarity. Suddenly the media became a tool of political forces and a
medium for advertising rather than the medium from which the public got their information on political matters. This
resulted in limiting access to the public sphere and the political control of the public sphere was inevitable for the
modern capitalistic forces to operate and thrive in the competitive economy.
Therewith emerged a new sort of influence, i.e., media power, which, used for purposes of
manipulation, once and for all took care of the innocence of the principle of publicity. The public
sphere, simultaneously prestructured and dominated by the mass media, developed into an arena
infiltrated by power in which, by means of topic selection and topical contributions, a battle is fought
not only over influence but over the control of communication flows that affect behavior while their
strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as possible.
Counterpublics, feminist critiques and expansions
Although Structural Transformation was (and is) one of the most influential works in contemporary German
philosophy and political science, it took 27 years until an English version appeared on the market in 1989. Based on
a conference on the occasion of the English translation, at which Habermas himself attended, Craig Calhoun (1992)
edited Habermas and the Public Sphere
[9]
a thorough dissection of Habermas bourgeois public sphere by scholars
from various academic disciplines. The core criticism at the conference was directed towards the above stated
"institutional criteria":
1. Hegemonic dominance and exclusion: In Rethinking the Public Sphere, Nancy Fraser offers a feminist revision
of Habermas historical description of the public sphere, and confronts it with "recent revisionist historiography".
She refers to other scholars, like Joan Landes, Mary P. Ryan and Geoff Eley, when she argues that the bourgeois
public sphere was in fact constituted by a "number of significant exclusions." In contrast to Habermas assertions
Public sphere
4
on disregard of status and inclusivity, Fraser claims that the bourgeois public sphere discriminated against women
and other historically marginalized groups: "... this network of clubs and associations philanthropic, civic,
professional, and cultural was anything but accessible to everyone. On the contrary, it was the arena, the
training ground and eventually the power base of a stratum of bourgeois men who were coming to see themselves
as a universal class and preparing to assert their fitness to govern." Thus, she stipulates a hegemonic tendency of
the male bourgeois public sphere, which dominated at the cost of alternative publics (for example by gender,
social status, ethnicity and property ownership), thereby averting other groups from articulating their particular
concerns.
2. Bracketing of inequalities: Fraser makes us recall that "the bourgeois conception of the public sphere requires
bracketing inequalities of status". The "public sphere was to be an arena in which interlocutors would set aside
such characteristics as difference in birth and fortune and speak to one another as if they were social and
economic peers". Fraser refers to feminist research by Jane Mansbridge, which notes several relevant "ways in
which deliberation can serve as a mask for domination". Consequently, she argues that "such bracketing usually
works to the advantage of dominant groups in society and to the disadvantage of subordinates." Thus, she
concludes: "In most cases it would more appropriate to unbracket inequalities in the sense of explicitly
thematizing them a point that accords with the spirit of Habermas later communicative ethics".
3. The problematic definition of "common concern": Nancy Fraser points out that "there are no naturally given,
a priori boundaries" between matters that are generally conceived as private, and ones we typically label as public
(i.e. of "common concern"). As an example, she refers to the historic shift in the general conception of domestic
violence, from previously being a matter of primarily private concern, to now generally being accepted as a
common one: "Eventually, after sustained discursive contestation we succeeded in making it a common concern".
A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North
Carolina, satirical drawing of a women's counterpublic
in action in the 1775 tea boycott.
Nancy Fraser identified the fact that marginalized groups are
excluded from a universal public sphere, and thus it was
impossible to claim that one group would in fact be inclusive.
However, she claimed that marginalized groups formed their own
public spheres, and termed this concept a subaltern counterpublic
or counterpublics.
Fraser worked from Habermas' basic theory because she saw it to
be "an indispensable resource" but questioned the actual structure
and attempted to address her concerns. She made the observation
that "Habermas stops short of developing a new, post-bourgeois
model of the public sphere". Fraser attempted to evaluate
Habermas' bourgeois public sphere, discuss some assumptions
within his model, and offer a modern conception of the public
sphere.
In the historical reevaluation of the bourgeois public sphere, Fraser
argues that rather than opening up the political realm to everyone,
the bourgeois public sphere shifted political power from "a
repressive mode of domination to a hegemonic one". Rather than
rule by power, there was now rule by the majority ideology. To
deal with this hegemonic domination, Fraser argues that repressed
groups form "Subaltern counterpublics" that are "parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social
groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests,
and needs".
Benhabib notes that in Habermas' idea of the public sphere, the distinction between public and private issues
separates issues that normally affect women (issues of "reproduction, nurture and care for the young, the sick, and
Public sphere
5
the elderly")
[10]
into the private realm and out of the discussion in the public sphere. She argues that if the public
sphere is to be open to any discussion that affects the population, there cannot be distinctions between "what is" and
"what is not" discussed.
[11]
Benhabib argues for feminists to counter the popular public discourse in their own
counterpublic.
The public sphere was long regarded as men's domain whereas women were supposed to inhabit the private domestic
sphere. A distinct ideology that prescribed separate spheres for women and men emerged during the industrial
revolution.
The concept of heteronormativity is used to describe the way in which those who fall outside of the basic
male/female dichotomy of gender or whose sexual orientations are other than heterosexual cannot meaningfully
claim their identities, causing a disconnect between their public selves and their private selves. Michael Warner
made the observation that the idea of an inclusive public sphere makes the assumption that we are all the same
without judgments about our fellows. He argues that we must achieve some sort of disembodied state in order to
participate in a universal public sphere without being judged. His observations point to a homosexual counterpublic,
and offers the idea that homosexuals must otherwise remain "closeted" in order to participate in the larger public
discourse.
[12]
Rhetorical public sphere
Demonstration against French nuclear tests in
1995 in Paris "This interaction can take the form
of ... basic "street rhetoric" that "open[s] a
dialogue between competing factions."
Gerard Hauser proposed a different direction for the public sphere than
previous models. He foregrounds the rhetorical nature of public
spheres, suggesting that public spheres form around "the ongoing
dialogue on public issues" rather than the identity of the group engaged
in the discourse.
[13]
Rather than arguing for an all inclusive public sphere, or the analysis of
tension between public spheres, he suggested that publics were formed
by active members of society around issues. They are a group of
interested individuals who engage in vernacular discourse about a
specific issue. "Publics may be repressed, distorted, or responsible, but
any evaluation of their actual state requires that we inspect the
rhetorical environment as well as the rhetorical act out of which they
evolved, for these are the conditions that constitute their individual
character". These people formed rhetorical public spheres that were
based in discourse, not necessarily orderly discourse but any
interactions whereby the interested public engages each other. This
interaction can take the form of institutional actors as well as the basic "street rhetoric" that "open[s] a dialogue
between competing factions." The spheres themselves formed around the issues that were being deliberated. The
discussion itself would reproduce itself across the spectrum of interested publics "even though we lack personal
acquaintance with all but a few of its participants and are seldom in contexts where we and they directly interact, we
join these exchanges because they are discussing the same matters." In order to communicate within the public
sphere, "those who enter any given arena must share a reference world for their discourse to produce awareness for
shared interests and public opinions about them". This world consists of common meanings and cultural norms from
which interaction can take place.
Public sphere
6
Political Graffiti on the South Bank of the
Thames in London 2005, "even though we lack
personal acquaintance with all but a few of its
participants and are seldom in contexts where we
and they directly interact, we join these
exchanges because they are discussing the same
matters."
The rhetorical public sphere has several primary features:
1. it is discourse-based, rather than class-based.
2. the critical norms are derived from actual discursive practices.
Taking a universal reasonableness out of the picture, arguments
are judged by how well they resonate with the population that is
discussing the issue.
3. intermediate bracketing of discursive exchanges. Rather than a
conversation that goes on across a population as a whole, the
public sphere is composed of many intermediate dialogs that
merge later on in the discussion.
The rhetorical public sphere was characterized by five rhetorical norms
from which it can be gauged and criticized. How well the public sphere
adheres to these norms determine the effectiveness of the public sphere
under the rhetorical model. Those norms are:
1. permeable boundaries: Although a public sphere may have a
specific membership as with any social movement or
deliberative assembly, people outside the group can participate
in the discussion.
2. activity: Publics are active rather than passive. They do not
just hear the issue and applaud, but rather they actively engage
the issue and the publics surrounding the issue.
3. contextualized language: They require that participants adhere to the rhetorical norm of contextualized
language to render their respective experiences intelligible to one another.
4. believable appearance: The public sphere must appear to be believable to each other and the outside public.
5. tolerance: In order to maintain a vibrant discourse, others opinions need to be allowed to enter within the
arena.
In all this Hauser believes a public sphere is a "discursive space in which strangers discuss issues they perceive to be
of consequence for them and their group. Its rhetorical exchanges are the bases for shared awareness of common
issues, shared interests, tendencies of extent and strength of difference and agreement, and self-constitution as a
public whose opinions bear on the organization of society."
The media and the public sphere
Habermas argues that the public sphere requires specific means for transmitting information and influencing those
who receive it
Habermas argument shows that the media are of particular importance for constituting and maintaining a public
sphere. Discussions about the media have therefore been of particular importance in public sphere theory.
The media as actor in the political public sphere
According to Jrgen Habermas, there are two types of actors without whom no political public sphere could be put to
work: professionals in the media system and politicians. For Habermas, there are five types of actors who make their
appearance on the virtual stage of an established public sphere:
(a) Lobbyists who represent special interest groups;
Public sphere
7
(b) Advocates who either represent general interest groups or substitute for a lack of representation of
marginalized groups that are unable to voice their interests effectively;
(c) Experts who are credited with professional or scientific knowledge in some specialized area and are invited
to give advice;
(d) Moral entrepreneurs who generate public attention for supposedly neglected issues;
(e) Intellectuals who have gained, unlike advocates or moral entrepreneurs, a perceived personal reputation in
some field (e.g., as writers or academics) and who engage, unlike experts and lobbyists, spontaneously in
public discourse with the declared intention of promoting general interests.
Limitations of media and the internet as a public sphere
Some, like Colin Sparks, note that a new global public sphere ought to be created in the wake of increasing
globalization and global institutions, which operate at the supranational level.
[14]
However, the key questions for him
were, whether any media exists in terms of size and access to fulfil this role. The traditional media, he notes, are
close to the public sphere in this true sense. Nevertheless, limitations are imposed by the market and concentration of
ownership. At present, the global media fail to constitute the basis of a public sphere for at least three reasons.
Similarly, he notes that the internet, for all its potential, does not meet the criteria for a public sphere and that unless
these are overcome, there will be no sign of a global public sphere.
The public sphere and the information age
Jrgen Habermas mentions in 'Further Reflections on the Public Sphere' about the information age:
"Many of the features of our Information Age make us resemble the most primitive of social and
political forms: the hunting and gathering society. As nomadic peoples, hunters and gatherers have no
loyal relationship to territory. They, too, have little sense of place; specific activities are not totally
fixed to a specific physical settings. The lack of boundaries both in hunting and gathering and in
electronic societies leads to many striking parallels. Of all known social types before our own, hunting
and gathering societies have tended to be the most egalitarian in terms of the roles of males and females,
children and others, and leaders and followers."
Mediated publicness
John Thompson criticises the traditional idea of public sphere by Habermas, as it is centred mainly in face-to-face
interactions. On the contrary, Thompson argues that modern society is characterized by a new form of mediated
publicness, which main characteristics are:
Despatialized (there is a rupture of time/space. People can see more things, as they do not need to share the same
physical location, but this extended vision always has an angle, which people do not have control over).
Non dialogical (unidirectional. For example, presenters on TV are not able to adapt their discourse to the
reactions of the audience, since they are visible to a wide audience but that audience is not directly visible to
them. However, internet allows a bigger interactivity).
Wider audiences (the mediated characteristic allows to reach a wider range of people in different contexts. The
same message can reach people with different education, different social class, different values and beliefs, and so
on).
This mediated publicness has altered the power relations in a way in which not only the many are visible to the few
but the few can also now see the many:
"Whereas the Panopticon renders many people visible to a few and enables power to be exercised over
the many by subjecting them to a state of permanent visibility, the development of communication
media provides a means by which many people can gather information about a few and, at the same
Public sphere
8
time, a few can appear before many; thanks to the media, it is primarily those who exercise power,
rather than those over whom power is exercised, who are subjected to a certain kind of visibility".
However, Thompson also acknowledges that media and visibility is a doubled-edged sward meaning that even
though they can be used to show an improved image (by managing the visibility), individuals are not in full control
of their self-presentation. Mistakes, gaffes or scandals are now recorded therefore they are harder to deny, as they
can be replayed by the media.
The public service model
Examples of the public service model include BBC in Britain, and the ABC and SBS in Australia. The political
function and effect of modes of public communication has traditionally continued with the dichotomy between
Hegelian State and civil society. The dominant theory of this mode include the liberal theory of the free press.
However, the public service, state-regulated model, whether publicly or privately funded, has always been seen not
as a positive good but as an unfortunate necessity imposed by the technical limitations of frequency scarcity.
According to Habermass concept of the public sphere, the strength of this concept is that it identifies and stresses the
importance for democratic politics of a sphere distinct from the economy and the State. On the other hand, this
concept challenges the liberal free press tradition form the grounds of its materiality, and it challenges the Marxist
critique of that tradition from the grounds of the specificity of politics as well.
From Garnhams critique, three great virtues of Habermass public sphere are mentioned. Firstly, it focuses on the
indissoluble like between the institutions and practices of mass public communication and the institutions and
practices of democratic politics. The second virtue of Habermass approach concentrate on the necessary material
resource base for ant public. Its third virtue is to escape from the simple dichotomy of free market versus state
control that dominates so much thinking about media policy.
Non-liberal theories of the public sphere
Oskar Negt & Alexander Kluge took a non-liberal view of public spheres, and argued that Habermas' reflections on
the bourgeois public sphere should be supplemented with reflections on the proletarian public spheres and the public
spheres of production.
Proletarian public spheres
The distinction between bourgeois and proletarian public spheres is not mainly a distinction between classes. The
proletarian public sphere is rather to be conceived of as the "excluded", vague, unarticulated impulses of resistance
or resentment. The proletarian public sphere carries the subjective feelings, the egocentric malaise with the common
public narrative, interests that are not socially valorized
"As extraeconomic interests, they exist precisely in the forbidden zones of fantasy beneath the surface of
taboos as stereotypes of a proletarian context of living that is organized in a merely rudimentary form."
The bourgeois and proletarian public spheres are mutually defining: The proletarian public sphere carries the
"left-overs" from the bourgeois public sphere, while the bourgeois public is based upon the productive forces of the
underlying resentment:
"In this respect, they " [i.e. the proletarian public spheres] " have two characteristics: in their defensive attitude
toward society, their conservatism, and their subcultural character, they are once again mere objects; but they
are, at the same time, the block of real life that goes against the valorization interest. As long as capital is
dependent on living labor as a source of wealth, this element of the proletarian context of living cannot be
extinguished through repression."
Public sphere
9
Public spheres of production
Negt and Kluge furthermore point out the necessity of considering a third dimension of the public spheres: The
public spheres of production. The public spheres of production collect the impulses of resentment and
instrumentalizes them in the productive spheres. The public spheres of production are wholly instrumental and have
no critical impulse (unlike the bourgeois and proletarian spheres). The interests that are incorporated in the public
sphere of production are given capitalist shape, and questions of their legitimity are thus neutralized.
Biopolitical public
By the end of the 20th century the discussions about public spheres got a new biopolitical twist. Traditionally the
public spheres had been contemplated as to how free agents transgress the private spheres. Michael Hardt and
Antonio Negri have, drawing on the late Michel Foucault's writings on biopolitics, suggested that we reconsider the
very distinction between public and private spheres. They argue that the traditional distinction is founded on a
certain (capitalist) account of property that presuppose clear-cut separations between interests. This account of
property is (according to Hardt and Negri) based upon a scarcity economy. The scarcity economy is characterized by
an impossibility of sharing the goods. If "agent A" eats the bread, "agent B" cannot have it. The interests of agents
are thus, generally, clearly separated.
However with the evolving shift in the economy towards an informational materiality, in which value is based upon
the informational significance, or the narratives surrounding the products, the clear-cut subjective separation is no
longer obvious. Hardt and Negri see the open source approaches as examples of new ways of co-operation that
illustrate how economic value is not founded upon exclusive possession, but rather upon collective potentialities.
Informational materiality is characterized by gaining value only through being shared. Hardt and Negri thus suggest
that the commons become the focal point of analyses of public relations. The point being that with this shift it
becomes possible to analyse how the very distinctions between the private and public are evolving.
[15]
References
[1] , p. 86, See also: G. T. Goodnight (1982). "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument". Journal of the American Forensics
Association. 18:214-227.
[2] [2] Also published in 1992 in
[3] [3] Habermas 1989, p.30
[4] [4] Habermas 1989, p.31
[5] [5] Habermas 1989, p.27
[6] [6] Habermas 1989, 27
[7] [7] Habermas 1989:xi
[8] [8] Habermas 1989, pp.36
[9] [9] Berdal 2004, p. 24
[10] [10] Benhabib 1992 pp. 89-90
[11] [11] Benhabib 1992, p. 89
[12] . Warner, Michael. 2002. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.
[13] [13] , pp. 46, 64
[14] [14] Sparks (2001), p 75
[15] [15] Hardt, Michael; Antonio Negri (2009), pp. vii-xiv
Public sphere
10
External links
Public Sphere Guide (http:/ / publicsphere. ssrc. org/ guide/ ), a research and teaching guide, and resource for the
renewal of the Public Sphere
Transformations of the Public Sphere (http:/ / publicsphere. ssrc. org/ ) Essay Forum
Jrgen Habermas, "The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article," New German Critique 3 (1974) (http:/ / www.
mtsu. edu/ ~dryfe/ SyllabusMaterials/ Classreadings/ habermas. pdf)Wikipedia:Link rot
Spark summary of Habermas' public sphere book (http:/ / www. sparknotes. com/ philosophy/ public/ )
Article Sources and Contributors
11
Article Sources and Contributors
Public sphere Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=620198490 Contributors: ALpHatheONE, Al Lemos, AlexR, Alitehrani, Andy Smith, Anniika, BMF81, Ballofstring,
Battocchia, Boeder, Bogey97, Burke4895, Byelf2007, Cayt723, Cliftoncoxellis, Cntras, Coffeepusher, CommonsDelinker, Ccero, Demoniccathandler, Ejvindh, ElKevbo, Em79, Ericbateson,
Erik Carson, Everyme, Fences and windows, Fossa, Fuchschristian, Gavb, Gimmetrow, Grumpyyoungman01, JBirken, Jahsonic, Jamileh100, Jelsova, Jinshuang, Jjshapiro, Jrk3150, Jummai,
JustAGal, KarlHeg, KathrynLybarger, Ken Gallager, Keurkoon, Lee M, LilHelpa, Lilorangecup, Lindsayt930, Lotje, Magioladitis, Manthone, Maurice Carbonaro, Mbc409, Mcdonnkm, Meclee,
Michael Allan, Mike Rosoft, Mild Bill Hiccup, Mirv, Mjdieter, Mmdye, MrOllie, Nihil novi, Noodleki, Oatmeal batman, Omnipaedista, Ot, Owen, P. S. Burton, Palthrow, Patrick, Pethr, Phil
Sandifer, Pinar, Piotrus, Pochsad, Practice, Pragmatismo, PrivateEye1, Publicy, Quintus314, RedWolf, Rexroad2, Rjwilmsi, Rmashhadi, Ryanx7, Saddhiyama, Sae1962, Scarpy, Schreiberella,
Sinn, Skyfaller, Smilo Don, Sonicyouth86, Staeiou, Stefanomione, SummerWithMorons, Sumtin fishy, Svlberg, Template namespace initialisation script, Tgeairn, The Vintage Feminist,
Tomsega, Tomwsulcer, Tony Fox, Trumpkinius, Vetenskapsmannen, Wikid77, Wikielwikingo, Woohookitty, Yccara, YorkU Agent99, Zhao8910, Zzuuzz, , , 114
anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
File:Kahvihuone.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kahvihuone.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: User:Infrogmation
File:Parlement-Paris-Charles7.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Parlement-Paris-Charles7.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: AnRo0002, Daigaz, Garitan,
Louis le Grand, Mel22
File:Edenton-North-Carolina-women-Tea-boycott-1775.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Edenton-North-Carolina-women-Tea-boycott-1775.jpg License: Public
Domain Contributors: Charles Matthews, Churchh, Ecummenic, Jacklee, Jarble, Ji-Elle, John Vandenberg, Lotje, Mu, Ranveig, TwoWings
File:StopEssaisManif.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:StopEssaisManif.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Contributors: Yann Forget
File:Sblondon-elecgraffiti05.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sblondon-elecgraffiti05.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Cathy Richards, Denniss,
MichaelMaggs, MykReeve, Nard the Bard, Pomeranian
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/