Notes
1 This typifies Habermas' attempt to integrate philosophy and the empirical social sciences in order to give a critical-interpretative renewal to the latter. The lifeworld is a concept that comes from phenomenology. Husserl meant by the term the realm of ordinary consciousness that makes scientific knowledge possible, though in Habermas' linguistic framework it becomes the realm of non-coercive (in principle) communication. The notion of system is borrowed from Luhmann's systems theory to refer to self-regulating, cybernetic organizations that are indispensable to the management of complex modern societies.
2 The precursor to bourgeois public opinion on the ``lower'' hand had been the aggregate of common, unreasoned opinion (Habermas, 1989).
3 In a 1992 reply to his critics, Habermas admits he idealized the public sphere in the 1962 / 1989 book by conflating an ideal type with a descriptive historical account. He now admits historical contestation among competing publics, but he nonetheless maintains that the bourgeois public has a monopoly on critical reason (Calhoun, 1992).
4 In her most recent work in this area, Fraser (1993) emphasizes the first three features as well as Habermas' rigid boundary distinctions between civil society and the state. In an earlier piece (Fraser, 1985), she focuses on the fourth feature and Habermas' rigid distinctions between the family and the economy. I have taken the liberty of highlighting those aspects of her critique which dovetail with Habermas' articulation of the public sphere.
1 This typifies Habermas' attempt to integrate philosophy and the empirical social sciences in order to give a critical-interpretative renewal to the latter. The lifeworld is a concept that comes from phenomenology. Husserl meant by the term the realm of ordinary consciousness that makes scientific knowledge possible, though in Habermas' linguistic framework it becomes the realm of non-coercive (in principle) communication. The notion of system is borrowed from Luhmann's systems theory to refer to self-regulating, cybernetic organizations that are indispensable to the management of complex modern societies.
2 The precursor to bourgeois public opinion on the ``lower'' hand had been the aggregate of common, unreasoned opinion (Habermas, 1989).
3 In a 1992 reply to his critics, Habermas admits he idealized the public sphere in the 1962 / 1989 book by conflating an ideal type with a descriptive historical account. He now admits historical contestation among competing publics, but he nonetheless maintains that the bourgeois public has a monopoly on critical reason (Calhoun, 1992).
4 In her most recent work in this area, Fraser (1993) emphasizes the first three features as well as Habermas' rigid boundary distinctions between civil society and the state. In an earlier piece (Fraser, 1985), she focuses on the fourth feature and Habermas' rigid distinctions between the family and the economy. I have taken the liberty of highlighting those aspects of her critique which dovetail with Habermas' articulation of the public sphere.