On 7/3/08, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>If news, ideas, viewpoints etc are made known to the readers, viewers or > listeners through a medium then it can not constitute a public sphere, even > when there is a public who gather around that medium however discretely in > space and time. > > > It may not be the case if you take an Andersnian position and tries to look > at nation as a constituted public sphere. And in the vein of McLuhan, can't > utter "Medium is the message and massage".. > > the wonderful thing about Habermasian public sphere is that it assumes an > ideal *space for freedom of expression.* the medium itself need not, but > the way it extend human senses does the magic, perhaps >
Renju,' It would also be worth noting that Habermas himself has critiqued the very concept of "public sphere" in his work structural tranformation of public sphere. In one of the last chapter of this work on "Transformation of Public Sphere's Political Function", he is excplicit not only about the limits of the term but how the *manipulated public sphere is taken over by an acclamation-prone mood that predominates and result is that an opinion climate subsumes public opinions. (* Structural Transformation of Public Sphere, Polity Press, 1989) Habermas also points to the penetration of state and society with each other that brings forth a *middle sphere of semipublic*. (P231, ibid) The State-aligned NGOs are succesful in establishing such semi public spheres were the *urgency to consensus and immediacy to conclude on areas which contravene the entreched understanding* whether it be science, politics, secularism or any sort of trivia. Habermas further states that the politically influential representatives of cultural and religious forces the entreching of private interests in the face of the 'neomercantilism" which leads to *refedualization".* *The apparently progressives in society in the wake of a emergent popular radical politics retreats to the refedualize the public sphere*. Habermas concerns perhaps with the delimits and contravening forces within the modernity. But let us also think critically how the self-proclaimed semi public spheres are shaped in contexts familiar to us. *Public Sphere* from the inception of the term like Communism is a *social fantasy- and *hence* ahistorica*l. But like the impulsivity of historical materialism to locate Communism outside history, Habermas suitably finds a locale and period for claiming the historical specificity. Like the several 'idealized' *semi public spheres of our times, we find the supposedly 'ideal space' as discriminatory*. Habermas and *all those who still adores* the fantasy of 'public sphere" never saw or rather failed *to see the exclusion of different voices - - woman, dalit, muslim, sexual minorities- minoirty voices with a difference*. damodar PS: am also compelled go think of a kerala model public sphere, which could be artificially correct but politically wrong. But now; later. (let me rethink . this s just a first response. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
