The Transformation of the Public Sphere: Political Authority, Communicative Freedom, and Internet Publics

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498725.005

4 - The Transformation of the Public Sphere: Political Authority, Communicative Freedom, and Internet Publics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2009

James Bohman

Edited by

Jeroen van den Hoven and

John Weckert

Show author details

James Bohman: Affiliation:
Danforth Professor of Philosophy Saint Louis University in the United States
John Weckert: Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Two relatively uncontroversial social conditions that have long been widely identified across many different modern theories of democracy: namely, the need for a rich associative life of civil society, and for the technological, institutional, and communicative infrastructure that permits the expression and diffusion of public opinion. Historically, the public sphere as a sphere of public opinion and communication has developed in interaction with a relatively unified structure of political authority: the state and its monopoly powers. Indeed, citizens of modern polities came to regard themselves as members or participants in various publics primarily through the attempts of states to censor and restrict public communication. Along with many other complex factors, the emergence of rights of communication and the democratization of state authority have emerged hand-in-hand. With the advent of new forms of political authority that directly impact the structure of communication across borders, new forms of publicity have also emerged and with them new public spheres.

If new forms of communication and structures of publicity do indeed exist across borders, this would give special salience to deliberation as an important basis for democratization, as well as for transnational institutional design. Given the differences between democratic arrangements that presuppose a singular demos and decentered ones that organize demoi, we should not expect that all democracies have exactly the same communicative infrastructure. This means that transnational civil society and public spheres face different difficulties with regard to independently constituted political authority from those faced by ‘strong,’ or state, public spheres.

Type: Chapter
Information: Information Technology and Moral Philosophy , pp. 66 - 92

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498725.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arrow, K. 1985. The economics of agency, in Pratt, J. and Zeckhauser, R. (Eds.), Principals and agents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. 1996. Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 590–607.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bohman, J. 2004. Expanding dialogue: The public sphere, the Internet, and transnational democracy, in Roberts, J. and Crossley, N. (Eds.), After Habermas: Perspectives on the public sphere. London: Blackwell, pp. 131–155.Google Scholar

Cohen, J., and Sabel, C. 2003. Sovereignty and solidarity: EU and US, in Zeitlin, J. and Trubek, D. (Eds.), Governing work and welfare in the new economy: European and American experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, R. 1999. Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic's view, in Shapiro, I. and Hacker-Cordón, C. (Eds.), Democracy's edges. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dewey, J. 1988. The public and its problems, in John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1927 (Vol. 2). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. 1991. Liberalism and social action, in John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1927 (Vol. 11). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dorf, M., and Sabel, C. 1996. The constitution of democratic experimentalism. Columbia Law Review, 98, 2, 267–473.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. 1996. Democracy in capitalist times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ewig, C. 1999. Strengths and limits of the NGO Women's Movement Model, Latin American Research Review, 34, 3, 75–102.Google Scholar

Fraser, N. 1989. Rethinking the public sphere, in Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109–142.Google Scholar

Froomkin, M. 2003. [email protected]: Towards a critical theory of Cyberspace. Harvard Law Review, 116, 3, 751–873.CrossRef Google Scholar

Garnham, N. 1995. The mass media, cultural identity, and the public sphere in the modern world. Public Culture, 5, 243–271.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hurley, S. 1989. Natural reasons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hurley, S. 1999. Rationality, democracy, and leaky boundaries, in Shapiro, I. and Hacker-Cordón, C. (Eds.), Democracy's edges. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hutchings, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kymlicka, W. 1999. Citizenship in an era of globalization, in Shapiro, I. and Hacker-Cordón, C. (Eds.), Democracy's edges. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lessig, L. 1999. Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Llewellyn, K. 1930. Agency, in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume I. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, A. 1995. Explaining international human rights regimes: Liberal theory and Western Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 2, 157–189.CrossRef Google Scholar

O'Donnell, G. 1994. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5, 55–69.CrossRef Google Scholar

Page, B. 1995. Who deliberates?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Pettit, P. 2000. Democracy, electoral and contestatory, in Shapiro, I. and Macedo, S. (Eds), Designing democratic institutions. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Ruggie, G. 1996. Constructing the world polity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sabel, C., and Cohen, J. 1998. Directly-deliberative polyarchy, in Private governance, democratic constitutionalism, and supranationalism. Florence: European Commission, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar

Sassen, S. 1998. Globalization and its discontents. New York: New Press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, A. 1999. The control revolution. New York: New Century Books.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. 1987. The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 3, 623–658.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, J., and Smythe, E. 2001. Globalization, citizenship and technology: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment meets the Internet, in Webster, F. (Ed.), Culture and politics in the age of information. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Soysal, Y. 1994. Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, J. 1995. Media and modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar