Public Sphere, Postmodernism and Polemic

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3677288
AutoresJames Johnson (0000-0001-7109-4575), James Turner Johnson (0000-0003-3555-169X, University of Rochester), Dana Villa (Amherst College), Dana R Villa
Año1994
Volumen88
Número2
Páginas427-433
Fecha de publicación1994-06-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAmerican Political Science Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0003-0554 • E-ISSN: 1537-5943
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2944714
OpenAlexW2230131285
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas16

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

Argument (complex analysis · Coercion (linguistics · Critical theory · Epistemology · Political science · Politics · Postmodernism · Public sphere · Realm · Sociology · Critical Theory and Philosophy · Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism