1) what does speaking of the processes of publicity in terms of a counter public hide and reveal? what of gramsci’s subalterns: what does that hide or reveal? which provides a better vocabulary and what does that vocabulary help us understand? aren’t we still speaking of older forms (or, marginalized forms) of association and their relationship to newer forms of associations? need we more words?
1) a. fraser’s vocabulary focusses on group identity though it gets caught up in the spatializing aspects of the public sphere theory. the best she has to offer on the questions of justice is some mixture of socialism and deconstruction. it’s not a complete idea and lacks many definitions. might we be better of focussing on the modes of publicity? here one can utilize her argument to show how modes are constitutive of the politics of language/identity and economic access.
2) rise of a form of legitimacy and its processes is what we are speaking of. how do the turns taken by dewey and de certeau help to resolve the problems that typify group identity and its relationship to the State? why do i intuitively prefer them over most others?
2) a. with dewey its clear taht he helps to declutter the conversation on the topic and i agree with most of what he says and could attempt to exaplin it. with de certeau, the best i have to say is that he brings our attention make to dspositions, habits, dailyness and does so from a rhetorical standpoint.
3) i haven’t read habermas in a while so he is missing here along with mr. weber. does anyone else matter to me in this conversation?
Filed under: Dewey, Fraser, Legitimacy, Modalities, Publicity, de Certeau | Leave a Comment
No Responses Yet to “mostly about publicity: questions/thoughts for the day”