Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T03:27:01.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Sphere, Postmodernism and Polemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

James Johnson  and
Dana R. Villa
James Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Dana R. Villa
Affiliation:
Amherst College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theories of the public sphere, as standardly formulated, aim to specify the minimal, necessary conditions for a discursive realm free of coercion or manipulation. In his article in this Review in September 1992, Dana Villa urged us to reconsider this standard account. He argued that when read in light of postmodernist theory, Hannah Arendt provides the basis for a revised conception of the public sphere that privileges plurality and difference over consensus. Jim Johnson suggests that Villa's analysis is a thinly veiled polemic against critical theory. Johnson argues that, as critique, Villa's argument is neither decisive nor encompassing, and that as polemic it blinds Villa to potentially fruitful disagreements with critical theorists. Villa replies that Johnson misses the synthetic thrust of the original article because he identified public realm theory too narrowly with Habermas. Thus, he misconstrues the dialogue Villa sought to facilitate between Arendt and postmodernism.

Type
Controversy
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 427 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1984. The Foucault Reader. Ed. Rabinów, Paul. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Garton Ash, Timothy. 1990. The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of '89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Goffman, Irving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1983. Philosophical-Political Profiles. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989a. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989b. The New Conservatism. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990a. “What Does Socialism Mean Today?” New Left Review 183:3–21.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990b. “Remarks on the Discussion.” Theory, Culture, and Society 7:127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews. Rev. Ed. Dews, Peter. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 1991. “Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action.” Political Theory 19:181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, James. 1993. “Is Talk Really Cheap?” American Political Science Review 87:74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, Richard. 1984. “Dialogue with Jacques Derrida.” In Dialogues with Contemporary Continental Thinkers, ed. Kearney, Richard. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1992. The Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1992. Ideals and Illusions. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Maclntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Tismanaenu, Vladimir. 1992. Reinventing Politics: Eastern Europe from Stalin to Havel. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Villa, Dana. 1992a. “Postmodernism and the Public Sphere.” American Political Science Review 86:712–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, Dana. 1992b. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Political Theory 20:274–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, Dana. 1993. Review of Political Theory and Postmodernism, by Stephen White. Political Theory 21:142–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Stephen. 1991. Postmodernism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1989. “Polity and Group Difference.” Ethics 99:250–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.