1. The Public and its Problems

2. Habermas
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, 1962 (1989)

3. Rise of the Public Sphere
“Bourgeois Public Sphere” in 1700s and early 1800s Europe
Came from “traffic in commodities and news created by early capitalist long-distance trade” (Habermas 15)
Separate from the State
Emergence of public opinion
Decline came when “rational-critical debate” was replaced with “consumption”

4. Habermas’s Argument 1) Bracketing of Differences
2) Single sphere based on “Rational-Critical Debate”
3) Deliberate on issues of the “common good”
4) Distinct from state/church

5. Fraser’s Critique Fraser: Habermas “idealizes the public sphere” (59)
The public sphere is defined more by who is left out than who is allowed in
Gender (59)
Status (60)
Some people accessed the public sphere specifically not through deliberation and discussion (61)
Fraser doesn’t want to do away with this theory entirely, but wants to find a “nuanced alternative” (62).

6. Habermas’s Four Flawed Assumptions
1) In the public sphere people can set aside their differences in social status and deliberate as equals (63-65)
2) A single, comprehensive public sphere is the best way to ensure “rational-critical debate” (65-70)
3) The public sphere should be debating public issues of the common good, not private issues or private interests (70-74)
4) A public sphere requires a distinct line between the state and civil society (74-77)

7. Google DOC

8. Conclusions
Fraser argues we need a new theory of public spheres that 1) acknowledges how social difference taints deliberation, 2) makes room for multiple publics, 3) re-imagines lines between public and private to determine what counts as public good, and 4) makes room for strong and weak publics (77)