Rethinking “Rethinking the Public Sphere”…

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.

(image from: http://publicsphere.worldbank.org/files/image/sphere.jpeg)

Do High School Cliques Ever Go Away?

We’re not in high school anymore, but are we still surrounded by high school cliques? In The Public Sphere, Jurgen Habermas writes about public spheres and how people join together to form a ‘public’. Habermas discusses how the public sphere is “… a domain of our social life in which such things as public opinion can be formed.” Hmmm, it may just be me, but I can say the same about cliques.

A clique is an exclusive group of people who share interest, views, and purposes of behavior. Specifically, a normative clique is often the “primary source of social intersection for the members of the clique, which can affect the values and beliefs of an individual” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/). We’ve been surrounded by cliques since the day we entered elementary school, but never more so than high school. No matter what city you went to high school in, no matter what decade you spent your high school years in, you where surrounded by cliques; you were part of a clique. There were the cheerleaders and jocks, the ‘Goth’ kids in the corner and the chess club members in the back. High school consists of a social class order, with the popular jocks as the elite and the loners at the bottom; and within all these cliques exist another order of power. Sitting atop the group was a leader; one looked up to for advice and knowledge, one who had the power to influence the opinions of those below them. The same, I argue, exists in a public sphere.

A public sphere is an area of social life where people can get together and freely discuss societal problems; there is one public for EACH public sphere. A public sphere can be the group of people that watch a specific news program, the group of people that discuss Grey’s Anatomy on a message board, and yes, even a high school clique. The public of each of these public spheres are influenced and manipulated by the ‘elite’ in their sphere, one whose voices and opinions are louder than the rest.

There are numerous ‘spheres’ that I take part in everyday, but the one media sphere that influences me more than the rest is a blog that I visit at least ten times a day for updates; perezhilton.com. The creator of the blog is the ‘leader’ of this public sphere, one whose opinions influence every reader to his website. But who is the public of this ‘PerezHilton sphere’? The blog receives millions of hits every day, but no group dominates the sphere more so than teenagers, specifically teenage girls. And PerezHilton knows this, that’s why he blogs about famous male actors/models and has ads for popular teenage clothing stores. These are just some ways that just one of the many public spheres in my life influence and manipulate me; what are the ways that manipulate you?

(image from: http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/breakfastclub01.jpg)

IS voting a right or an obligation as an American citizen?

I wonder how many Bentley students voted in the past presidential election; no matter what the exact number, I would place money on the fact that a far more number of students voted in the 2008 election than the 2004 one. But why did people finally see the light? What was it that made them realize that the event that happened just once every four years actually is important and should be taken more seriously? Was it because of our current economy downfall, or was it because this year, it was the popular thing to do?

“The Australian ballot shifted the center of political gravity from party to voter. Voting changed from a social and public duty to private right…” In his essay, Click Here for Democracy, Michael Schudson goes through the history of American elections. From a time when only the elite, white men could vote, to a time when it wasn’t about the person you voted for, but rather the cause they supported - to the present when campaigns need to be established to force people to vote. At a time when information is at one’s fingertips and one can know everything they need to know to make an informed decision, why is it that so many people simply don’t vote?

Many people vote for a number of reasons, but it’s only the people who have a passion for politics that truly study and research the beliefs, policies and history of the candidates. It seemed like many people were voting for President Obama because he was obviously the more popular choice. It’s not a flaw in people, it’s a characteristic and a part of people - to make choices and decisions based on the opinion of the majority. I asked many of my fellow Bentley students who they were voting for in the last election, but that was the easy question. The hard question was WHY? Many students were at a loss for words; and then I thought of the Bentley Class Cabinet elections, and elections is a debatably term. Nothing is more of a popularity contest than class elections. I honestly doubt that a single student asked a potential candidate what they hoped to achieve if they were elected. It didn’t matter how smart the student was, all that matter was that their name was well known and that their poster stood out from the rest.

In no past election has the role of the media and the role of celebrity play more of a role than in the ’09 election. Obama wasn’t a Senator, but rather he became a celebrity; for good or bad is yet to be seen. But at least this past election forced people, ones that normally don’t vote, to get out there and let their choice be heard.

Did you vote? If not, why did you allow for someone else to make one of the most important decisions of your life, all of our lives, to others? I just don’t understand why people who are old enough and American citizens, make the choice not to vote. I understand the old argument that “I’m only one vote; it won’t actually make a difference.” But imagine if everyone thought this. What if it was left for just the few, most determined people to vote? Would you let a small group of complete strangers make the choices that impact every aspect of our life?

The people, the places and the fallacies we fall for while creating the 'Pictures in our Heads'

“Looking back we can see how indirectly we know the environment in which nevertheless we live.” THE WORLD OUTSIDE AND THE PICTURES IN OUR HEADS by Walter Lippmann


How do Americans view people living half way around the world; a billion miles from the world that they know? But more importantly, if one has never experienced the unknown for themselves and with their own two eyes, how are our beliefs and thoughts formed? For everyone, it isn’t just one source or one person that helps to form these “pictures in our heads.” In Walter Lippmann’s, THE WORLD OUTSIDE AND THE PICTURES IN OUR HEADS, Lippmann remains us of a time when breaking news didn’t take more than five minutes to reach half the U.S population. A time when gossip didn’t spread through a school like wildfire; a world when people didn’t hear about life changing events for days, week, or even months. So in a time when one couldn’t Google pictures and maps of foreign lands and YouTube videos that had already been viewed by half a million people, Americans had to use whatever sources of information that they could get their hands onto. It didn’t matter what credentials they had or if what they were being told had any creditability, all that matter was that this information was helping them create an image in their minds of the things that were unfamiliar to them.


It may not be 1800 anymore and we may live in the era of technology, but just because we can get information far more quickly doesn’t mean that the info that we receive today, from which ever of the million possible sources, is better or more reliable than in 1800. Today people can chose from a countless number of sources and mediums that they want to get their news, facts from to develop those pictures in their minds.


“There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate.” AMERICA THE ILLITERATE by Chris Hedges


Who would have thought that America, the superpower of the world, would be the home of such an astonishing statistic? Chris Hedges argues that because of this fact Americans are being taken advantage of by the people that they are suppose to trust, the ones bringing them the news and the ones running their country as well. Do people know who they are getting their news from, the hidden agendas they have and how they might be trying to sway their opinion or even hide the truth? Because they cannot pick up a newspaper or book to read the facts for themselves, they need someone to read it for them and even interpret the meaning.


“Pictures in our Heads” – How do we develop these pictures, are they all different to each person? Who impacts the pictures we create? Are there wrong or right pictures, or can it just be how one person sees the world? Do people create these pictures through their eyes or through the things they read or hear?