Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 36 This conceptualization of reciprocity subsumes three views of discourse expected to be produced in the idealized public sphere: practical, complex and what can be termed “reflective.” Practical discourse is discussion among equals about the general interest that transcends private interests and values (McCarthy 1992, McCarthy 1978). McCarthy suggests that Habermas has come to rely on “the variegated multiplicity of spontaneously formed publics engaged in informal discussions of issues of public interest” to form the “core of the democratic public sphere,” (McCarthy 1992, McCarthy 1978, 78) given the unlikelihood of reforming statesponsored institutions to reflect democratic values. An important challenge to Habermas’s conception of practical discourse is made by McCarthy, calling into question the necessity of a desire for rational consensus as a “presupposition of argumentative discourse.” Habermas suggests that “rationally motivated agreement” is possible only in the cases of “strategically motivated compromise of interests” and “argumentatively achieved consensus on validity.” McCarthy, however, sketches out two additional scenarios in which political debate might “provide an alternative to open or latent coercion as a means of social coordination.” The first scenario, in which individuals have disagreements about the common good, participants disagree on what is in the general interest, rather than the competing particular interests. McCarthy suggests this is the case “in the multitude of situations where the preservation of traditional values conflicts with economic expansion.” For example, in a discussion about the granting of a new liquor license to an applicant, the underlying discussion may be less about the qualifications of the specific applicant and more about the character of the neighborhood, the morality of alcohol consumption and other questions concerned with the common good. In such cases, while Habermas would maintain that participants in political discussion would have to suppose that, in principle, it would be possible to convince or be convinced by good reason, McCarthy proposes that participants would merely have to realize that, should the lack of consensus on the common good become clear, rational argument would nevertheless make a significant contribution to the ultimate conclusion reached: Rationally motivated agreement as a moral-political alternative to coercion may well involve elements of conciliation, compromise, consent, accommodation, and the like. Argument, including argument about what is in the general interest, can play a role in shaping any and all of them. And thus the expectation that they will figure in the outcome of political debate, as well as consensus in Habermas’s strict sense, can itself give sense to participants’ argumentative practices. The only supposition that seems necessary for the
CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 37 genuine give and take of rational discourse is that the force of the better argument can contribute to the final shape of whatever type of agreement is reached (McCarthy 1992, 67). In the second type of dispute described by McCarthy, participants disagree on the morality of norms; that is, at least one party argues that a specific action or state is binding on all human beings [as opposed to the first case, in which the dispute centered on what was good for a particular and specific political community]. McCarty cites as examples disputes concerning abortion, euthanasia, pornography and animal rights. “For example, what one party considers to be a moral issue, another party may regard as a pragmatic issue or as a question of values open to choice or as a moral issue of another sort, or the opposing parties may agree on the issue but disagree as to the morally correct answer.” McCarthy questions the likelihood of agreement in the democratic public sphere on these types of issues, claiming instead that disagreements are “likely to be a permanent feature” of discourses “not resolvable by strategic compromise, rational consensus or ethical self-clarification.” Under Habermas’s model, there is no discursive resolution possible, and another form of coercion is necessary. McCarthy “rescues” the possibility of rationally motivated agreements in the cases of moral disputes by suggesting that participants might, under conditions in which the disputatious party accepts the justness of the basic political arrangements, rationally enter into debate and ultimately agree to what they regard as an immoral solution in the hopes that they will, in the future, “be able to use the same [discursive] resources eventually to change them.” Another aspect of reciprocity includes what Barber (1984) might have termed “reflective” political talk. Barber postulates a hierarchy of political talk functions, ranging from those associated with what he termed “thin” democracy to those more likely to be found in conversations supportive of “strong” democracies: (T)alk is not mere speech. Talk has been at the root of the Western idea of politics since Aristotle identified logos as the peculiarly human and peculiarly social faculty that divided the human species from animals otherwise defined by similar needs and faculties. (Political talk) always involves listening as well as speaking, feeling as well as thinking, and acting as well as reflecting (Barber 1984, 178). Barber’s functions of political talk include the notions of exploring mutuality, affection and affiliation, maintaining autonomy, witness and self-expression, reformulation and reconceptualization, and community building. Exploring mutuality
Page 1 and 2: Expanding the Public Sphere through
Page 3 and 4: Contents Acknowledgements 7 1 Compu
Page 5 and 6: List of Figures 3.1 Structure of a
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements When one takes eig
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER 1. COMPUTERS, CONVERSATION
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 15 2.1
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 17 Sch
Page 19 and 20: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 19 sta
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 21 or
Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 23 own
Page 25 and 26: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 25 new
Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 27 com
Page 29 and 30: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 29 Hab
Page 31 and 32: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 31 pub
Page 33 and 34: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 33 the
Page 35: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 35 ori
Page 39 and 40: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 39 pub
Page 41 and 42: CHAPTER 2. THE PUBLIC SPHERE 41 By
Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3 Technology & the Public S
Page 45 and 46: CHAPTER 3. TECHNOLOGY & THE PUBLIC
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 4 Abortion Discourse in the
Page 59 and 60: CHAPTER 4. ABORTION DISCOURSE IN TH
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 5 Measuring the Public Sphe
Page 71 and 72: CHAPTER 5. MEASURING THE PUBLIC SPH
Page 77 and 78: CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
Page 87 and 88:
CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORT
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 7 The Expanding Public Sphe
Page 103 and 104:
CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPH
Page 105 and 106:
CHAPTER 7. THE EXPANDING PUBLIC SPH
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix A The talk.abortion newsgr
Page 109 and 110:
APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix B Density Scores Table B.1
Page 165 and 166:
APPENDIX B. DENSITY SCORES 165 Tabl
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix C Supplemental Analysis 16
Page 169 and 170:
APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 Best, Michael L. 1
Page 179 and 180:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 Fisher, Bonnie, Mi
Page 181 and 182:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 Hiltz, Starr Roxan
Page 183 and 184:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 Mansbridge, Jane.
Page 185 and 186:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 Pateman, Carole. 1
Page 187 and 188:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 187 Savicki, Victor, D
Page 189:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 189 U. S. Congress, Of
show all

Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?