Vanessa Hernandez Timothy Wood, Political Communication
October 1st, 2017 Reading Response I
Jürgen Habermas, proposed in his 1962 article, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, his epic idea of a “single dominant public sphere” where citizens gather in order to debate “common concern.” Due to the inevitability of marginalization, the realities of human nature, and the illusory ideal that citizens are equipped with the necessary knowledge to rationally debate what should be common concern, it is not desirable in a democracy to have a single dominant public sphere. The single public sphere is outrageous because within one single mass there stand numerous limitations. Firstly, a large public sphere facilitates …show more content…
Habermas’ ideal public sphere is the conversation that scholars have engaged in and critiqued because it allows for exclusion, self-interest advocation, and elitist political decision-making. Amongst all of the scholars whom we have studied, Nancy Fraser proposes the singlehandedly most convincing argument because she identifies where Habermas’ system fails; with precision, tact, and logic she finds that a single dominant public sphere not only ignores inequality but helps it endure through polarizing these counterpublics and their public-specific issues. Due to Fraser’s meticulous approach at dismantling Habermas’ public sphere and providing viable solutions to achieve a truly democratic government, I stand firm in attesting that it is not desirable to have a single dominant public sphere in which all citizens debate issues of “common” concern. In fact, advocating Habermas’ public sphere defies the purpose of the American Constitution because our ideal should be to form a perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and provide for the common defense of ALL the people of the United States of America, weaker, stronger, and counterpublics
October 1st, 2017 Reading Response I
Jürgen Habermas, proposed in his 1962 article, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, his epic idea of a “single dominant public sphere” where citizens gather in order to debate “common concern.” Due to the inevitability of marginalization, the realities of human nature, and the illusory ideal that citizens are equipped with the necessary knowledge to rationally debate what should be common concern, it is not desirable in a democracy to have a single dominant public sphere. The single public sphere is outrageous because within one single mass there stand numerous limitations. Firstly, a large public sphere facilitates …show more content…
Habermas’ ideal public sphere is the conversation that scholars have engaged in and critiqued because it allows for exclusion, self-interest advocation, and elitist political decision-making. Amongst all of the scholars whom we have studied, Nancy Fraser proposes the singlehandedly most convincing argument because she identifies where Habermas’ system fails; with precision, tact, and logic she finds that a single dominant public sphere not only ignores inequality but helps it endure through polarizing these counterpublics and their public-specific issues. Due to Fraser’s meticulous approach at dismantling Habermas’ public sphere and providing viable solutions to achieve a truly democratic government, I stand firm in attesting that it is not desirable to have a single dominant public sphere in which all citizens debate issues of “common” concern. In fact, advocating Habermas’ public sphere defies the purpose of the American Constitution because our ideal should be to form a perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and provide for the common defense of ALL the people of the United States of America, weaker, stronger, and counterpublics