Jürgen Habermas

Holub, Robert C.

doi:10.4324/9780203314968

Cited by 305 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…German sociologist Jürgen Habermas (born 1929) most famously expounded on the public sphere in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1989 [1962]). Treating the public sphere as an historical category, Habermas viewed it as ‘a realm in which individuals gather to participate in open discussions’ (Holub, 1991: 3). Identifying the attributes of the classical Graeco-Roman public sphere in 17th-century Great Britain and 18-century France, Habermas discussed different categories of public spheres – the bourgeois public sphere (the locus of his book), the literary public sphere, the political public sphere and the plebeian public sphere – based on their historical context and the topics that were discussed.…”

Section: Public Sphere: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Habermas’ account of the development and decline of the public sphere has some limitations as well, with one critic claiming that Habermas’ work was ‘marred by a typically male and Western overestimation of “reason” itself’ (Elliott, 2009: 162). Furthermore, Robert C. Holub (1991) argues that after including countries such as the United States and Japan in his analysis, Habermas had to narrow down the scope of his definition of the public sphere, particularly in the aspects regarding family and welfare state. Holub sees this narrowing of scope as a major shortcoming compounded by Habermas’ oscillation between normative concepts and historical accounts of the public sphere.…”

Section: Public Sphere: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tamil talk shows: Maintaining tradition in the new public sphere

Pongiyannan

Pugsley

2016

Global Media and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The popular Indian television talk show, Neeya? Naana? ( You? or Me?), offers a public platform for open discussion of important issues facing citizens in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. Through its inclusive nature and open discussion format, the programme demonstrates the gendered involvement of citizens from all sections of society, including the socially disadvantaged castes and classes. While this suggests that Indian television provides a new site for an emerging public sphere, we contend that the public sphere in India can be historicized to the third millennium BC. In our analysis of Neeya? Naana?, we establish a relationship between Habermasian notions of the public sphere, India’s argumentative tradition and the ancient Sangam literature of South India. We further interrogate the concept of the public sphere by asserting that while India’s television talk shows offer the suggestion of an open democratic forum, they instead reinforce conservative cultural values.

show abstract

Section: Public Sphere: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Public Sphere: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tamil talk shows: Maintaining tradition in the new public sphere

Pongiyannan

Pugsley

2016

Global Media and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The means to achieve this are highly significant. Modern communication techniques are not simply a medium of thought and argument but also a potential source for power, domination and oppression (Holub, 1991; Negt and Kluge, 1993; McLaughlin, 1993; Fraser, 1992). Some contemporary theorists go as far as to say that the bourgeois public sphere arose as a response to the ambivalent, expressive and effectual practices of the Other; practices which the bourgeois public sphere sought to contain (Hetherington, 1997; Peters, 1993).…”

Section: Practical Criticisms Of Habermasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

Roberts¹,

Crossley²

2004

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

of the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1989). This was published in English translation in 1989, after many of the important studies for which Habermas had become well-known in the English speaking world. It was originally published in Germany in 1962, however, long before those studies. The lateness of the translation undoubtedly posed obstacles to the understanding of Habermas' work in the anglophone context. It was not untimely, however. Structural Transformation has increased rather than decreased in relevance. Furthermore, it anticipates and thus, for the late reader, rejoins many of the key themes explored by the later Habermas. It could have been written much more recently. And it is important from the point of view of Habermas exegesis because it fills in important sociological gaps in his oeuvre, affording a much more concrete feel to his conception of society. In contrast to many of Habermas' works, which tend to operate on the plane of 'pure theory' or philosophy, at a high level of abstraction, Structural Transformation weaves philosophical and empirical (historical and sociological) detail together in a tight and coherent texture.The book makes two central claims. The first is that a variety of social changes during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Germany, France and Britain, gave rise for a short period to an effective bourgeois public sphere. That is to say, over a relatively brief period social conditions provoked and facilitated a situation in which large numbers of middle class men, qua private individuals, came together to engage in reasoned argument over key issues of mutual interest and concern, creating a space in which both new ideas and the practices and discipline of rational public debate were cultivated. Furthermore, the emergence of this new public space, which effectively formed a zone of mediation between the state and the private individual, shaped and was shaped by the emergence of a philosophical concept and consciousness of 'publics' and their importance. This is reflected in the work of many key philosophers of the day, including Tocqueville, Mill, Kant, Hegel and Marx, each of whom Habermas briefly discusses. The second key claim of the book is that conditions effectively served to undermine this public space almost the moment it had come into being, such that the public space of the twentieth century-now we might add the twenty-first-is riven with contradictions and conflicting tendencies and characteristics. The ideals and theorization (in political theory and philosophy) of publics remain intact but the reality is a pale imitation of these ideals. From Habermas' point of view this leaves a gap ripe for imminent critique. Modern democracies fall short of adequacy even when measured against the yardstick of their own ideals and values.The dates and precise details of the 'rise and fall' of the public sphere differ between the three national contexts studied by Habermas. The general picture, however, is the same in each case. One of the key historical changes facilitat...

show abstract

“…The reason is that the current mass media are operated with the basis on the rationale for state intervention and economic matters. Corporation of mass media results in 'a "refeudalization" of the public sphere, where representation and appearances outweigh rational debate [9]'.…”

Section: The Discourse Of the Public Spherementioning

confidence: 99%