When people write, and especially when people write about criticism about other people’s writing, I generally assume that they have a clear argument in mind and intend to discuss their issues with the original work to the audience; maybe my assumption isn’t true for every author. After rereading Nancy Fraser’s piece, Rethinking the Public Sphere, for what seems like the hundredth time, I am still left wondering if she ever actually had a real argument in mind when she placed pen to paper or if she uses this piece as way to spill out every little debate about Jurgen Habermas essay on the ‘Public Sphere’.
I think the main problem I had with the reading the first time through was also something that I encountered in Habermas piece as well; what exactly is the “bourgeois concept” and do the authors believe that the public sphere goes along with it or does it defy it? In the reading, Fraser states that the concept was “a counterweight to absolutist states.” This, however, did help to clear up my confusion. When researching, I found out that “bourgeois” meant:
- A person belonging to the middle class.
- A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
- In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.
Just knowing what this one word meant (although I’m sure most of you already did) cleared up much of my confusion, except one; Does Habermas include this middle class in the public sphere, or does Fraser agree that he should have?
There is one aspect of Fraser’s essay that I think I understand; I believe that she argues that Habermas believed that there is but ONE public sphere, while she believes that there are many spheres that compete against one another. I agree with her on this point, and I see her argument here because it just seems like common sense that there could never be just one public sphere, just one place where all different people come together to reach common interests, concerns and opinions. This is simply impossible in our world, there are far too many people with far too many personal interests for everyone to be considered ‘one’.
I think I may understand some of the arguments that Fraser is making, but I don’t think that the structure and wording of her piece helps her cause. There are also far too many different arguments and points that she makes that just lead to confusion; I think if she stuck to one central dispute, we could more easily follow her thinking.
I think the main problem I had with the reading the first time through was also something that I encountered in Habermas piece as well; what exactly is the “bourgeois concept” and do the authors believe that the public sphere goes along with it or does it defy it? In the reading, Fraser states that the concept was “a counterweight to absolutist states.” This, however, did help to clear up my confusion. When researching, I found out that “bourgeois” meant:
- A person belonging to the middle class.
- A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
- In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; a capitalist.
Just knowing what this one word meant (although I’m sure most of you already did) cleared up much of my confusion, except one; Does Habermas include this middle class in the public sphere, or does Fraser agree that he should have?
There is one aspect of Fraser’s essay that I think I understand; I believe that she argues that Habermas believed that there is but ONE public sphere, while she believes that there are many spheres that compete against one another. I agree with her on this point, and I see her argument here because it just seems like common sense that there could never be just one public sphere, just one place where all different people come together to reach common interests, concerns and opinions. This is simply impossible in our world, there are far too many people with far too many personal interests for everyone to be considered ‘one’.
I think I may understand some of the arguments that Fraser is making, but I don’t think that the structure and wording of her piece helps her cause. There are also far too many different arguments and points that she makes that just lead to confusion; I think if she stuck to one central dispute, we could more easily follow her thinking.
Nicely discussed, Agatha. You pursued something you were unclear on and it gave you insight into the whole argument.
ReplyDelete