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.

5 Rita Felski (1989) has developed a similar notion of a feminist counterpublic, one based on shared gender identity. I find Fraser's understanding more useful, however, because it acknowledges differences among women as well as among feminists at the outset.

6 We might set the dates of university secularization in the United Kingdom between 1719, when Edinburgh created a new chair for civil history, and 1877, when Oxford officially abandoned its religious (Anglican) and celibacy restrictions for fellows (Rudy, 1984).

7 The figures for women faculty have been surprisingly constant over the course of the century. Consider that there were 19% women faculty in 1931.

8 Dorothy Smith (1987) cites Goldberg's empirical study of the evaluation of academic papers, controlled for gender, which showed that those with male names attached were consistently rated higher on a number of criteria, such as writing style and profundity. Sue Basow (1994) also notes that women are judged by a double standard. Unlike men who are only expected to conform to their own gender stereotypes, women are expected to exhibit both stereotypically male behaviour such as competence as well as stereotypically female behaviour like availability and warmth.

9 Searle (1993) actually applies the term ``defender'' more narrowly to those on the political right who stick by the established canons while he himself wants to admit more ``quality'' works by women and other status minorities. He thus positions himself as a middle path between the right and the left. But when he comes to actually naming quality works, they are not only from the existing European canon, they are Anglo-American: Joyce and Hemingway. D'Souza (1991) adopts a similar rhetorical strategy when he positions himself as the middle path between bigots on the one hand and supporters of ``reverse discrimination'' on the other.

Baldwin, John W., & Goldthwaite, Richard A. (Eds.). (1972). Universities in politics: Case studies from the late Middle Ages and early Modern period. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Basow, Susan. (1994). Student ratings of professors are not genderblind. Teaching at SFU update, 6(3), 1-3.
Benhabib, Seyla. (1992). Situating the self. New York: Routledge.
Bynum, Caroline. (1987). Holy feast and holy fast. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Calhoun, Craig. (1992). Introduction. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caplan, Paula. (1993). Lifting a ton of feathers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dagg, Anne Innis, & Thompson, Patricia. (1988). MisEducation. Toronto: OISE Press.
D'Souza, Dinesh. (1991). Illiberal education. New York: Free Press.
Ehrenreich, Barbara, & English, Deirdre. (1973). Witches, midwives, and nurses: A history of women healers. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.
Eley, Geoff. (1992). Nations, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the nineteenth century. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 289-339). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Felski, Rita. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foucault, Michel. (1980). Truth and power. In Colin Gordon (Ed. & Trans.), Power/knowledge (pp. 109-133). New York: Pantheon Books.
Fraser, Nancy. (1985, Spring-Summer). What's critical about critical theory? New German Critique, 35, 97-131.
Fraser, Nancy. (1992, Spring). Sex, lies, and the public sphere: Some reflections on the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. Critical Inquiry, 18, 595-612.
Fraser, Nancy. (1993). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Bruce Robbins (Ed.), The phantom public sphere (pp. 1-32). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. (1970). Toward a rational society (Jeremy Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere (Thomas Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1962)
Habermas, Jürgen. (1993). The public sphere. In Chandra Mukerji & Michael Schudson (Eds.), Rethinking popular culture (pp. 398-404). Berkeley: University of California Press.
hooks, bell. (1989). black and female: reflections on graduate school. In talking back. Boston: South End Press.
Innis, Harold. (1946). Political economy in the modern state. Toronto: Ryerson.
Lie, Suzanne Stiver, & O'Leary, Virginia. (1990). Storming the tower. London: Kogan Page.
Light, Beth, & Parr, Joy. (1983). Canadian women on the move, 1867-1920. Toronto: New Hogtown and OISE Presses.
Piccone, Paul. (1989, Fall). The reuniversalization of the university. Telos, 81, 122-129.
Robbins, Bruce. (1993). The public as phantom. In Bruce Robbins (Ed.), The phantom public sphere (pp. vii-xxvi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rudy, Willis. (1984). The universities of Europe, 1100-1914. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.
Schiebinger, Londa. (1989). The mind has no sex? Women in the origins of modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Searle, John. (1972). The campus war: A sympathetic look at the university in agony. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Searle, John. (1993). Is there a crisis in American higher education? Partisan Review, 60(4), 693-709.
Segal, Lynne. (1990). Slow motion: Changing masculinities, changing men. London: Virago.
Smith, Dorothy. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tannen, Deborah. (1990). You just don't understand. New York: Morrow.
Wernick, Andrew. (1991). Promotional culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wollstonecraft, Mary. (1975). The vindication of the rights of women (Miriam Kramnick, Ed.). London: Penguin.

    devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()