This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 176-202 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191828 . Accessed: 17/02/2011 18:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.
CITIZENSHIP AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Wide Public Reason in Cosmopolitan Societies
JAMESBOHMAN Saint Louis University
F ORALL OF THEIRMANY RECENTACHIEVEMENTS, democratic institutionsnow face increasinglystrongandoften contradictory culturaland social pressures.Even as the pressuresof social movementshavewidenedthe membershipof democraticcommunitiesand the scope of democraticpractices of governance,the attemptsto recognizeall the diversityamongcitizens often seem to producenew and sometimes deeper conflicts. While greater inclusion in wider rights of citizenship has been achieved, social and economic inequalitiesseem to have widened,andthe scope of politicaldecision making seems to have narrowedas the effectiveness of the availableregulatorymechanismsfor self-rulenow seems less likely to bringthe processes of globalizationand technoscienceundercontrol.Ratherthanconstitutingdistinct trends, my argumenthere aims at showing why these contradictory influences on democracyare two sides of the same coin and point to a common set of solutions. Although quite diverse in origin and character,their in unavoidableproblemspoint towardthe need for transformations the logic of publicityunderlyingthe role of democraticcitizenshipin complex, pluralare istic, and global societies. These transformations as fundamentaland wide reachingas those of the eighteenthcenturyout of which democracyand the modernpublic sphereemerged.The challenges of pluralization, globalization, and differentiationmean that a new form of publicity must emerge thatpreservesthe democraticvirtuesof the olderuniversalistic interpretation and increases its problem-solvingpower. By a "logic"of publicity,I meanthe politicalrole it has in establishingthe space for the exercise of citizenship, or more precisely, its usefulness as a norm that solves social and political problemswhile maintainingthe bases for cooperationandsolidarity. publicityis not Althoughoftencounterfactual, historical force is also used in particular only a regulativeideal;its normative and institutionalproblems.If normshave social contexts to solve particular differentpracticalconsequences dependingon the circumstancesin which
Vol. 27 No. 2, April 1999 176-202 POLITICALTHEORY, 1999 Sage Publications,Inc.
Deliberationaboutthem requiresa "wider"notion of publicity to guide effective citizenship and problemsolving."'Placed in the context of Kant's analysis of the progressiveeffects of publicity as a universallyacknowledgednorm.deliberativedemocracy."who put everythingto the test of "free and open examination.categoricalskepticismaboutthe applicabilityof the normof circumstancesthatI havejust enumerated may be publicityto contemporary Defendersand critics of democracyalike too often think of pubmisplaced. .and differentiation. it allows us to see muchcontemporary skepticismaboutdemocfocuses on specific norms of publicity and ideals of public reason that racy are no longer adequateto emerging circumstances.For Kant.too. meaning or practicalsiglicity as a univocal conception with one particular eitherbemoanor applaud nificance.they or the social circumstancesthatlead to its disappearance to its degeneration. The guiding conception of publicity in deliberativedemocracyremains basically Kantian.Unless it modifies and expandsits guidingnotion of publicity.in light of theirpreferred meaning. AND PUBLICITY INCLUSION.such examinationrequiresa certain process of social abstractionfor substantiveroles and identities.Empiricalresearchalso supportsthis approachby showing thatvariantsof the normof publicity are effective in a varietyof circumstancesand societies and have theirown particular normativeand practical virtues.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 177 they areapplied. Nonetheless.globalization. deliberativedemocracyhas made the notion of the public use of reason centralto the prospectsof democraticreform. is underminedby the consequences of pluralization. Without such an appreciationfor empiricalvariation.publicityis expressedin "theverdictof free and equal citizens. I show why the contemporary discussions of demochave not developeda democracyin particular racyin generalanddeliberative rich and diverse enough notion of the public sphere to occupy the place between the democratic state and civil society that is necessary for any vibrantdeliberativedemocracy. Such skepticism is neitherempiricallynor normatively justified. A more practicalinterpretation publicity is not necessarily more optimistic:the problems democraciesface may not be easily solved.both sides of Even if publicityis not one particular the debate often overestimateits ideal status at the price of its problemof solving role. ABSTRACTION.it is easy to dismiss the publicsphereas essentiallyEuropean and publicity with it as a norm with little problem-solving capacity.In responseto manyof the social phenomena mentionedabove. In the next section. normbuta clusterof them.
abstraction this fromsocial roles still guidesthe ideals of public reasonoperativein deliberativedemocratsas diverseas Rawls and Habermas.Such the "thin" publicitynarrows rangeof acceptablypublicreasons.as a "private or herparticular person"whose opinions thanthe convictionsthey can awakenin otherprivate have no more authority persons.each personspeakswithoutassuminghis social role andidentity. particular But the same personcan publicly criticize the very same opinions and practices thathe defends as a cleric.so that "nonpublic" reasonsoughtto be excludedfromdemocraticdeliberationanddebate. This particularinterpretation publicity has specific practical conseof quences. which abstractsfrom all contingentfeatures of oneself. sortof reasonsthat can be introducedare subjectto normativeconstraints.2The social space so created is a space inhabited by abstractpersons. such as social and institutionalroles. When speaking from this abstractidentity and impartialpoint of view.which in turn can be widenedonly if publicityonce againbecomes socially dense andcontouredwithout losing the virtuesof democraticequality."in a social space thattherebyestablishesconditionsof equalitybetween "the sons and from all social by daughtersof shopkeepersand the aristocracy" abstracting roles and identities.Expressing one's opinionsunderthese conditionsestablishesa logic for makingandcriticizing claims publicly:the opinionsof privatepersonscan be criticizedfor failing to of and The meet the requirements abstraction impartiality. It mightalso be refinedinto a moredirectlypoliticalform. all of whom requirethat publicity no longer merely have indirecteffects but solve conflicts in political deliberation. Rather.178 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 Underthis versionof publicity.The requirements such abstraction of religious explain the peculiar duality of Kant's injunctionof public reason: "Criticize. but obey!" Kantexplicatesthe meaningof this maxim throughvariousroles and audiencesimplied in public communication.citizenshiprequiresadoptinga particular role and point of view. self-regarding interests.and particular and ethnic identities. who attemptto remove the culturally"thick"features of theirsocial identitiesin orderto achieveequalstandingandto solve the problem of "the perplexity of opposing claims" to authority. social role who is investedwith the they speak as a person with a particular moralauthorityof the church(and subjectto its authorityin turn).or Guttmanand Thompsonand Cohen and Arato. one participatesin the "publicsphere of privatepersons.the clergy do not publicly use their reason. . In one formor another. When addressingthe members of their congregations. by adoptingthe abstractrole of speakingto public opinion and by addressingan indefiniteand cosmopolitanaudience.Whenspeakingas a critic. This logic of "abstract" publicity is aimed at solving a particularset of endemicto problems:the conflicts of interestandthereligiousdisagreements modernsocial life.
to equal opportunityin employment and health care. The solutionto the problemof specificity.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 179 as when Rawls arguesthatthe public use of reasonhas to do with the role of citizens who can appealonly to the constitutionalessentials thatmake up the overlapping consensus of reasonable pluralism.to the means of public communication. served to create only a very specific connection of the public sphereto democpolitics via the formalpowers assigned to citizens in representative racy.as Kant's"thin" conception insulatedthe public spheresfrom all forms of identityotherthanparticipant in the public sphere.wider. It restrictsthe quences for contemporary of publicityin ways thatareinconsistentwith deliberativedemocracy: scope either it results in an overly strongdistinctionof the public sphereand civil society or it gives the conceptionof publicityan overlyrestrictivecontentthat makesit less useful for solving the problemsof complex andpluralisticsocieties.andmoredirectlypoliticalnotionof publicityfor deliberation. increasingly substantive rights expanded the logic of publicity to many different areas of participationin social life: in access to schools.Kant'spublic sphereis a bourgeoispublic sphereof private and literatepersons. Guttmanand Thompsonmove in this directionby making centraldeliberationon "middlepolitics" the stuff of ordinarypolitical debate aboutspecific issues andpolicies. The undesirabilityof both horns of this dilemma shows the need for a thicker.the creationof a form of citizenshipthatabstractsfrominequalitiesof statusand role. and much more.Its results have not only been a wider membershipof personsin the political communitybut also the expansionof political claims so as to include social and economic rights as part of the claims of full citizenship. to the courts. While this logic of inclusion continues on in a wider conception of public reason. Such deliberationinvolves the persistentmoraldisagreementsthatcharacterizemoderndemocraticsocieties.and literatecitizens. of publicity in the literatureon deliberativedemocracy do not adequately Considera resolve this Kantianconfusionbetweeninclusionandabstraction.ParsonsandMarshallhave shown thatthe achievement of abstract citizenshipwas a long andpainfulprocessby which political values and norms were generalized. The problem was that in practice it was actually much more specific and much less abstractthan its proponentsthought. the process of abstractionis no longer useful in solving the Recentconceptions problemsof culturalpluralismandsocial differentiation. few examples.3 Moreover.The specifically political public spherehas two consediscussions of deliberativepolitics. The "coreof the . it also provedto lack a clear connection to democraticpolitics.This specific "politicalpublic sphere"is consistentwith the separation of citizenshipfromotherformsof social identity. Not only did the Kantianconceptionproveto be too specific as the public of private.bourgeois.
Thereis also an issue of freeof dom of expression. Joshua Cohen has put it this way: "If one accepts the democratic process. For example.and accountabilityas well as the inevitabilityof moral disagreementas a fact of social life. to have access to it.A more developedaccountwould . on their view. On a wider account of publicity.publicity. and agents to whom they should be given. The achievementof such fair agreements when agentsdisagreerequiresthreemutuallylimitingprinciples:reciprocity."4 accepting In these constraintsof reciprocity.To thinkotherwiseis to denythatopen access to the public sphereis a requirement publicity. citizens in effect accept the limits of "reasonablepluralism"on deliberationwhere the conciliatory features of publicity are constrainedby the requirementsof reciprocity.Shouldcitizens (especiallyreligiousones) reasonablyacceptsuchex anteconstraints on the expression of public reasons? The problem with this view is that it confuses the abstractquality of acceptablereasons in fair procedurewith the inclusiveness of a democratic public.In such a politicalculturepublicreason"is not one.the formerconstrainsthe latter.andaccountability.reciprocitycannotregulatepublicity to such an extent that some participants' reasons are worth less than others particular andthustakenless seriously."5 excludingreligious reasons as of In the "unreasonable. agreeing that adults are. butseveral." substantiveprincipleof reciprocitybegins to look very muchlike the liberalprecommitment constitutional to essentials. ForGuttmanandThompson. process: the kind of reason that should be given. "Eachaddressesan aspectof the reason-giving publicity. the constraintto reciprocity underminesclaims of in religious fundamentalists Tennesseenot to havetheirchildrenreadvarious books: "The parents'reasoning appeals to values that can and should be rejected by citizens of a pluralistsociety committedto protectingthe basic liberties and opportunities all citizens. the justification of policies and decisions througha process of arrivingat "mutuallyacceptablereasons"for those who will be boundby them. more or less without exception.180 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 process of deliberation"is."7 publicity is thatit depends on an underPerhapsthe problemwith "thin" of developedanddichotomousaccountof the social organization democracy below the level of the constitutionalstate."6 argument This appliesto the public sphereas well.thereis room for the use of religious reasons in "wide political culture" without restriction as to how they are expressed. the forum in which they should be given. On the more "inclusive"and "wide view of public reason" without the ex ante limitations on publicity that Rawls previously defended in reasonablepluralism. then one cannotaccept as a reasonwithinthatsame process that some are worthless thanothersor thatthe interestsof one groupare to count for less thanothers.thereby making it self-defeatingfor some to participatein such an exclusive public sphere.
representsan even more abstractform of publicity that leaves to other institutionalmeans the formulationof solutions to the problems of pluralism.On the basis of these same social facts of moder. anonymityprovidestoo little: here no one will have the reasonableexpectation of access to influenceor effective inclusionin politicaldeliberationeven if the public sphereof this type were functioningwell in supplyinga richpool of public reasons.The problemwith this account within and aroundparliamentary its is thatfor all its multidimensionality attemptto avoid "dedifferentiation" maintainsan overly strongseparationof the pluralismof civil society from the abstractnessand generality of the public sphere.8Such a distinction for makes publicity irrelevant solving the problemsof pluralizationand differentiation. civil society alone cannot bearthe weight of pluralism. the public sphere resides in civil society.Such anonymity.then.Whatnormsareup to this taskif the publicsphereis anonymous and the role of the democratic state is to maintain such boundaries? Current conceptionsof the publicspherethattakeinto accountthe facts of and differentiation seem to founderon a dilemma. Habermasarguesthatthe only feasible form of deliberationoccurs in the interactionbetween formally organized institudebates tional decision-makingmechanismsandinformaland "anonymous" This interactionlimits the scope of pubanddiscussion in the public sphere. as both a larger public sphere encompassing all of civil society and a "politicalpublic sphere"organized institutions.and globalization.WhereasGuttpluralism man and Thompson provide too many restrictionsupon the public reason.indeed.however.CohenandAratohavearguedthatno social ing anddistribute of the democraticorganizationof society can do withoutthe mediattheory ing category of civil society between state and economic institutions.differentiation.since these areprocesses thatareindependentof the emergence of the public sphere.Civil society representsan autonomoussphere of "self-organizingassociations" that introducesprecisely the element missing in the more narrowlyKantian roles as citiroles andthe "public" dichotomyof individualsin their"private" zens or membersof the universalliterateaudience.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 181 have to include more thanjust a unifiedpublic sphereof citizens and the formal organizationsspecified by the constitutionthat organizedecision makpoliticalpower.Indeed.it leaves open exactlyhow channelsof communication across social and institutionalboundariesareto be establishedandregulated by the democraticnorms. and complex societies. membersof civil society cannot now be anonymous. largescale.According to this view.9 licity and makes its problem-solvingcapacity indirect:the informalpublic spherecan only influence the agendaand "poolof reasons"on which formal debatein the legislaturedraws. but must enter the public sphere with all their . Under currentsocial circumstances.
epistemicresources.The problemfor deliberative democracyis now to elaborateandopen possibilitiesfor a new formof wide publicity. . opening up new practicalpossibilities of cooperative action. Publicity now serves to regulate exchanges across the expert/lay and agent/principaldivides that are typical in functionallydifferentiatedsocieties.but with the capacities of each to engage the otherfrom within its own cultural perspectives. for wide and thick publicityit means "whateach may accept"(andthus is answerableto aftera formsof publicprocess of free andopen discussion).I firstshowhow the problemof pluralism and becomes more tractablewith a "wide"conceptionof the public spherethat allows for many differentforms of publicity."In this way.each with its own normative force in establishingcooperationand solving problems. these new social circumstancesgive the public use of reason a new task:it now mustnavigateacrossthese same social andculturalboundaries. Next.andsocial positions.the social differencesin the distributionof knowledge make it unavoidablethat participantsin the public sphereenterinto publicdebatewith theirepistemicroles andlocation intact.such that the expansion of perspectives is possible.182 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 identities and roles intact in order to solve the problems of inclusive democracy. "thicker" createthe conditionswherethe force of publiccommunication createsthe ity reasonableexpectation of responsiveness.'? Differentforms of publicity unpackwhat it means to communicatea solution to a problemthat "all may accept. the problemof culturaldifferencedemandsthe always difficult taskof negotiatingandcrossingthemoralboundaries dividegroupsfrom that each other.Before turningto the problems of differentiation globalization."Whereas for abstractor thin publicity this means "what all may accept"(qua citizen and memberof the public sphere).The distinctiveforce of such "cosmopolitan publicity"residesin the creationof new conditionsof responsiveness and accountability:emerging from a differentset of social problems.In both cases. This dilemmaof abstractness inclusion might make us thinkthat the and normof publicityhas lost its usefulnessin solving problemsin such a socially mapped and contouredspace for politics.First. After examiningthe varietyof formsof publicityandtheiruses in problem solving and political criticism. the public use of reasonis no longer dependenton the successful abstraction each groupwithin theirparticular of identity.I turnto two specific examples of thick and socially structured public spheres. But ratherthan leading to such skepticism.new and emergentforms of publicity are successful to the extent thatthey establishnew formsof cooperationthatsolve problemsin ways that are agreeableto each of the partiesfromits own perspectiveas broadenedby its interactionwith othersin the public sphere.
We may develop the contoursof a specific conceptionof the public sphererelative to a purpose.While this descriptionfavors wider over narrower membershipconditions. must be an indefiniteone. mas's historical analysis of the emergence and developmentof the modem public sphere seems to supportsuch a claim to historicaluniqueness.Such communication. Very much like Kant'speculiareducatedand literatepublic who simultaneously "Criticizebut obey!" Confucian scholars in late imperial . it does notdecide in advancehow reasonmay be publiclyused orexactlywhatpossible forms of communicationand interactionfit this description. It is often claimedthatthe veryconceptionof the public sphereis by natureEuroIndeed.At the same time. and the interactionand communicationthat goes on in it should be such thatit enables social andculturalcriticismin the context of those institutionsandsocial relationsthathelp makeup the public.However.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 183 THE VARIETY OF THEPLURALITY FORMSOF PUBLICITY: OF OF REALIZATIONS AN IDEAL The appealof the abstractnotion of publicityis thatit bases the effects of force of universalnorms. or even defend a specific type of public sphere as best the approximating normativeideal of publicity. I shall here only cite a few ity examples. normative distinctivenesslies in its realizationof two conditions.13 Recent transcultural researchconfirmsa wide varietyof forms of publicin various societies and historical periods. spheres of representative For all theirdifferences. these publicityon the institutional norms have been criticized for their culturaland historical specificity.Rather.howeverdefined.However.howeverindefiniteits audience.might only involve representatives in either the modernor the absolutistsense. it could be a "bourgeois" public sphere of privatepersons.only if the conception of the public sphereis rid of the residueof historicalspecificity can it be broadenough to be empiricallygeneraland culturallyinclusive."12 privatepersons"fromthe premodern the significance of the distinctlymodem public sphereconsists neitherof its its membershipnorof the historicalprocessof its emergence.the variantforms of the public spheremust have some minimal featuresin common for the term"publicity" have any norto mativesignificance.The audienceimpliedby each variant.Haberpeanandmodernandthusculturallylimitedin its application.or it could be participants within the public institutionsor transnational civil society.It is a location for social and culturalcriticismand a distinctiveform of communicationaimed at an indefiniteaudienceacrossmanydimensionsof social difference.he carefullydistinguishesthe modernandbourgeois"publicmadeup of form of a "representative But public. or it could be a public sphere of educated and literatepersonsor scholars.
16These and other nonWesternpublic spheresmeet the requirements the "general" of conceptionof the public sphere: they create a public space and form of communication addressedto an indefinite(albeitlimited)andliterateaudience. the conception of publicity has to be generalizedto such an extentthatit becomes an elementaryandpervasive form of social actionthatis foundin every culture. However.Such a generalizatoo tion avoidsanimmediatedifficultyof empiricalapplication: demandinga of publicityleaves us with the starkcontrastbetweenculturesthat conception have it andthose withoutit.and political criticism and to to challenge authorityso as to makeit accountable public opinionandneeds. Social acts arepubliconly if theymeet two basicrequirements.recent modificationsof Islamiclaw to the specific circumstances Indonesianculof turetook the formof an inclusiveprocess of public deliberation based on the ideal of consensus among the scholarlycommunity. cultural. In what follows. a public sphereemergedfrom the separationof religious andpolitical authority: religious authorities exercisingtheirpublicrole could criticizedecisions of the monarchby addressinghim as a fellow Muslim.14 Similarly. andthusa dichotomythatdivides along the lines cultures. Recognizing these differentlevels broadensits rangeof applicabilityanddelimits the room for culturalspecificity and variability in each of them.even if communication thatsocibe public in certain contexts.in which participantsare able to engage in social. I note thatgreaterculturalspecificity permitsa morenormativelystructured public space.they are not only directed to an indefinite audience but also offered with some .At the same time. in the sense that all other forms of publicity presupposeit. the open communicationof criticismat least establishes the possibility that the reasons for such decisions must be ones that could be addressedacross such social boundaries.'5Moreover. First.Publicityat the level of social action and of European non-European is most basic. hierarchical While the generalconditionsof publicitydo notmakepossible directpoliticalcontrolby membersof a public over decisions thataffect them.184 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 China were committedto the ideal of "purediscussion"and free discourse.it must also be said thatnot every society has a specific location in or space for social andculturalcriticism. The norm of publicity thus may be ety may applied at differentlevels. I organizethese levels in an ascending orderfroma lesser to a greaterdegreeof culturalspecificityandthusfrom a greaterto a lesser degree of empiricalgenerality. How can we developa conceptionof the publicspherethatcan accommodate as much pluralismas possible? First of all. solve particular of accountability the presenceof particular in They problems relationsof powerandauthority. and exercisedboth by publishinga newspaperin which "pureminded scholars"could criticize the royal court.in some Islamic societies.
one is now accountable to their objections and answerable to demandsto recognize theirconcerns. requirementsof equal standing.dependingon the requirements backnormsandstyles groundknowledgeor the presenceor absenceof egalitarian of social interaction.besides speakingto an indefinite audience. we may speakonly of a "publicspace" in (ratherthan a public sphere). higher levels of publicity require two further nested features: first.The space of mutualaccountabilitythatis in opened up has a more egalitarianstructure: a public sphere.at this level. not just the expectation of a to response. availablesocial roles."9 recognitionof equal standingas The citizens in a political communityis one form that egalitarianpublicity has taken.especially with regardto interpretability justiThe descriptionof the second generalfeatureof publicity is domifiability."which might include a wide varietyof practicesfrom to is performancesto demonstrations writingin which participation open to those who have masteredsome basic conventions. the contextof a more socially structured often institutionalsettingthanis and availableby means of communicativeaction alone.and second.which can be broaderor narrower comparison with othersin termsof topics. Entering into any such social of space may be more or less difficult.Some arguethatwe may call this aspectof basic publicity a "publicculture. This reciprocityof roles introducesfurtheregalitarianfeaturesto audience-orientedcommunication:participationin the public sphere now means thatone mustbe responsiveto others. as the social contexts of communicationare enlargedwith the numberof relevant speakersand audience."17 However. formsof expression.as Habermas "space"for interaction putsit.butactualresponsivenessandaccountability others. A specifically egalitarian expansionof the public sphererequiresa more elaboratedinstitutionalstructure to supportit (such as that achievedby the moderndemocraticstate).18 Beyond this generalandelementarylevel of publicityas a featureof some social actions and the space generatedby them. nated by spatial metaphors:public actions constitute a common and open with indefiniteothers.When such contextsincreasethe scale of public interactionand include more participants. and so on.Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY 185 and expectationof a response. publicity in this broadestsense is simply "thesocial space generatedby communicative action.Or. communicativeaction alone cannot fully constitute or control the contours of the social space which it .communicative exchangessuspendthe sharpdistinctionof audienceandparticipants and allow exchange of speakerand hearerroles across all social positions and identities. With respect to responsiveness. Expanding and structuring such a social space for communication requires embedding it in a wider social context. higherlevels of publicitymust do more thanpresupposethatone is addressingan indefiniteaudience.
The public's self-identification a publicconcernedwith free and open communicationpushes the public spheretowardan egalitarianplateau of inclusive andgeneralizedformsof publicity. Forexample. To returnto the metaphorsthat I used in the introduction. themselves as a publicwho developsandextendsexisting forms of publicity. social space analopublic spherenot only emergesout of some differentiated to civil society. primarilyin citizens' demandsfor mutualaccountability. it requiresthatparticipants ary public sphere.ModernEuropean of societies with public spheres have been characterized a specific type of social differentiaby tion:centralizedadministrative institutions(the state). it also develops by interactingwith other."Continuing the spatial that metaphor dominatesthinkingaboutpublicity.In differentiatedsocieties (in whateverinstitutional form). Thus.publishinstitutionsof a litering houses. they become more structured and thanless. the very existence of a distinctpublicsphererequiresa certaindegreeof social complexity.186 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 generates. a developing public sphere respondsto and changes variousinstitutionaland social supporting and structures cannotexist withoutthem:coffeehouses.First of all.typically in the differentiation social spheres.rather in which citizenshipis exerciseddependson a framework particular of prinand proceduresestablishedin a specific constitution.anda separatesphereof autonomousassociationsand economic activity (or civil society).it is now no longer a flat andabstractspace. a public sphererequiresnot only a social space for communicationto an indefiniteaudiencebut also thatdiversemembersof a society interactin distinctiveways and therebycome to regardthemselves as a public which is concernedwith each other's opinions and endorses some explicit norms of as publicity. Thus. In societies characterized social differentiation. rights.But the otherside of this generalizationhas to be recognized as well: such a generalizationis necessary precisely because the public spherehas become less socially and culturally into homogeneousandmore internallydifferentiated diversenormativeperspectives and social positions.universities.Such a ciples. As public spheresemerge anddevelop. It is with the differentiation society that we begin to see the emerof gence of what is specifically "the public sphere. one role of the distinctivecommunicationthat goes on in the public sphereis to raise topics or expressconcernsthatcut across social spheres:it not only circulates informationabout the state and the economy but also of establishesa forumfor criticismin which the boundaries these spheresare crossed. on the other.on the one hand. but one with more social andculturalcontoursandboundariesthatneed to be crossed apparent . culturallyspecific. andnewspapersaresome of the supporting become conscious of Second.thepublicspherebecomes a space "inbetween"the stateandcivil society.the publicsphere thusmore.largersocial gous structuressuch as the state and the market.the political by space forpublicityis delimitedin relationto othersocial domainsandinstitutions.
patient. forms of publicity. Such entryrequirements place new andmore demandingepistemic and norin mativeconstraintson participation the existing public sphere.Besides the normative constraints of reciprocity (which include accountabilityto all other membersin the public).20 also know thatreflexive forms of public communicademands.Both seem dependenton the same consequences of abstractionand impartialityto form an inclusive social space. actorsare forcedto acquireabilitiesfor communicationandtranslation thatexpandthe scope of publicreason. introduceasymmetriesin public communication thatseem to underminethe equal standingof all to initiateand test contributions to public debate. andthe epistemicdivision of laborbeyondthe roles of These roles (such as scientist. science and democracygo handandhand.social roles.institutions. which in turndemandsgreaterknowledgeof such background conditions. In a thickly structured ence and democracyare competing." minority) may. however. a functioningpublic spheremakes epistemic Given these increasedepistemic demandson the reflexivityof participants. is mitigatedby protectionsof speakIn ers from culturalbiases andrestrictionsthataffect theirparticipation. this way.cultural "private person"and"citizen. if not conflicting. the public sphere becomes more mapped with cultural identities.While it culturalspecificitydoes not disappear.This specificity consists not only in background generalandcommon culturalknowledgebutalso in the capacityto employ a varietyof conventions. Such a public now develops in new social contexts. have certainentryrequirements in a particular publicculture.21 . however egalitarianand best fulfilled by participation wide in scope.participants tion require complex institutional mediation (such as legal protections). the core democraticnorm of abstractpublicity. EXPERTISE AND THESOCIALORGANIZATION OF PUBLICITY: AND CITIZENS AGENTS.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 187 to maintainthe sense of self-identificationand standingin a public.Ratherthanbecominga more abstract and neutral space.PRINCIPALS.as well as highly developed abilities among public sphereparticipants that are needed to cross the many boundariesof such a complex social world. For institutionalconditionsset by "abstract" publicity and its citizenship role.andmedia for communicativepurposes. internaldifferentiationrequireseven more of the public: engaging in such requiresthe developmentof a comcomplex acts of reflexivecommunication plex set of critical abilities and practices.sci"republic"of science. which. Even given such a public supportedby sufficientinstitutionalstructures. some of which may even be transnational. by contrast.
the participants which have nothing of substantiveto say about issues of scientific work. in ratherthanas citizens. If this understanding be inadmissiblein the publicsphereof equalcitizens. equal standingis only if participantsmeet certain epistemic presuppositionsthat acquired The wider and require a large investmentof training and apprenticeship. agentsmustideally cooperateby engagingin inquiryas ajoint venture:for all to know more.then suchroles would seem to chy. independentactions of each of them are necessary. If they were to participate the largerpublic sphere with their social roles intact.However information it is notthepublicitydemanded is. I wantto show thatthis inferenceis too hasty. Economists distinguish with regardto specific who areresponsibleto "principals" between "agents" to of interests(as whenwe routinelyassignthe assurance the safety of aircraft roles they generallysee as in a relationof hierarspecific agents/inspectors). Dewey was amongthe firstto considerthe problemof the effects of expertise on the civic public sphere.This epistemicdeferencereintroduces asymthe metricsocial roles andthusundermines conditionsfor egalitarian publicon ity. were to be accepted.some of their opinions shouldthenbe owed deference.and these actions may not be monitoredby the others without loss of knowledge or . poses thatthe largerpublic sphereexcludes socially distributed in Scientists then participate their own subpublicsphereas privatepersons.22 division of labor recognizes these cognitive limitations of individualagents and providesa way to overcomethem to a certain degree by specializationthatreduces costs of acquiringinformationfor the whole.188 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 Neitherview denies thatexpertsare organizedinto theirown wider and narin rower subpublicswith high entry requirements: them. But so thatall collectively may know more thaneach membersingly. each of the membershas to know everythingthatthe groupas a whole knows and thus all become "omnicompetentindividuals"criticized by Walter Lippmann. But the image of lay/expertinteraction this model is flawed. This sort of scientific publicityis certainlywidespread. the more asymmetricthe condiof tions of the social distribution knowledgebecome (especially if the opinions under scrutinyare ones based on contingentempiricalknowledge not had by everyone). open to view such asymmetric exercise the when citizens enter the public sphere where some participants roles that they acquire in the division of labor.We may wish to dismiss the problemand simply separate science fromthe largerpublic sphere. more inclusive the public spherebecomes.basedas it is on the model of the one-way disseminationof informationfrom expertto lay public. then they all know less than a group characterized the epistemic by The division of labor. But this picture presupknowledge.embracingits necessity in light of scarcecogIf nitiveresourcesas well as its valuein creatingsocial interdependence.it is sometimes argued.
to conduct structural make safety checks of elevators. Thereis.it also enlists the aid of many differentgroupsandoccupations. What is unique to expertise is that others may not be in a position to monitorand scrutinizethe experts even if there were the opportunity.23 Nonetheless. Most expertsmay not be able to judge the findings of Thus. however.alreadya social space for suchcommunication thus and for democraticnegotiationwithin scientific practice. der medical diagnoses.and not merely in the broader political arena. the epistemicdivision of labor expertsoutside of theirown subfields. The prolifby eration of such agent/principal relationshipsin modernsocieties may actually work to underminethe putativeadvantagesof the division of labor for democracy. These asymmetriesfilterinto many situationsof ordinary life. to test the purityof food and drugs before ingesting tests of skyscrapersbefore enteringthem.all of whom arenecessaryparticipants a in large collective project.The publicdebatesspurred theiractivismhadverymuchto by . the important point of the activismwas not to challengeexpertiseor the division of labor."25 These tasksareleft to the assessmentsof experts:herelaboris not dividedby simply delegatinga taskwe could do ourselvesat the cost of time.creatingthe potentialfor a passive citizenryof principals/clients deferringto agents/expertsthe control over vast areasof social life.or airplanesbefore embarking on them.The case of AIDS activismin the UnitedStatespresents a particularly rich example of this process of democraticinquiry. sort that is quite pervasivein all cooperativeenterprises.automobiles.it challengedthe advantagesof expertsin defining the of cooperativeenterprise producingknowledgeaboutAIDS. The advantageof the division of laboris to makeeach social actor dependenton the actionsof manyothers.Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY 189 efficiency. butrather giving overa taskto othersthatwe could not do at all. from stepping on an elevatorto takingprescription drugs. Moreover.Science is effective not only because it can use the impersonalforces of natureand machines. the case of expertsmakesspecial demandson cooperatorsin the cognitively organizedgroup.It is a case of the relationbetween an emergentpublic of those affected by AIDS and a set of institutionsthatwere not initially responsiveto them. However.what is particularlyinterestingin this context is thatAct-Up and other organizations challengedexpertson their own ground.so thatthe outcomeof the collective enterprisedependson the necessaryactionsof othersthatcannotbe immediThis situationrequirestrustof the ately controlledorpredictedwith certainty.The problemis not only in access to informationbut also in interpreting since most of us are "unableto renit.24 creates pervasive asymmetries of competence and access to information.Rather. or to them.The division of labor andexpertknowledgewithinit has a largersocial context-the contextof science as a large-scale social enterpriseinvolving more than simply professional scientists and experts.
In the absence of the converginginterestsamong agents andprincipals that made the conflicts in the AIDS case resolvable.we cannotimprovethe quality of our deliberationby rejectingexpertauthoritytout court or by refusingto participatein decision makingthatmakes us dependenton socially derived maximofjudging accordingto knowledge.and expertknowledge can enterinto the public process of defining such situations and their feasible solutions. In this case.The demandfor accountability may over into democratic control.but ratherthose specific norms of cooperationnecessary for the division of labor. if the democratic process change breaks down and the basic norms of cooperationon which the division of labor is based are once again up for public debate." however.it is because the political institutionsin which it is embeddedareno longer open to the publicsthatareaffectedby them. continuedcooperationon acceptabletermsto both is patientsandresearchers the outcomeof a wide use of publicreasonacross social roles and epistemic boundariesin which democraticaccountabilityis exercised."27 an analysisshows why expertauthority deliberativedemocracyareconsistentwith each other.we can shift the burdenfromexpertsto instipragmatically tutions(except for those cases in which expertknowledgeno longer works). If expert authorityis a problem. tions. but rathercan only be solved case by case. As in the pragmatist's rejectionof skepticism. by not taking other drugs or treatmentssimultaneously)gave activists the leverage of a credible threat sufficient to challenge the nonpublicagenda setting of medical researchby expertsalone. of such scrutiny:it does not simply reject the legitimacy of all epistemic authority.However. such as the necessary The measuresof statisticalsignificance for tests of drug safety. and Such of criticalscrutiny. . upon publicly deliberating about epistemic norms.It is consistentwiththe pragmatic calls a "limited suspension of consequences to adopt what Mark Warren situaissues or in particular judgment"aboutexpert authorityon particular context derivesfrom "abackground in such "trust authority. the One possible responseto this difficultyis to be thoroughlypragmatic: of the democraticdivision of labor do not requirea general soluproblems tion. Public deliberationbegins with problematicsituations. The fact that patientsmust cooperatein trials (for example. the feasible requirementfor public deliberationbecomes accountabilityto ratherthan directcontrolby the democraticprocess. however.26 continued and betweenresearchers theirpublicdepended.perhapssurpriscooperation ingly. In this inspiredsolution.any such scrutiny into mustextendto testingof the veryepistemicnormsthatbackauthority the The wide use of public reasonidentifiesthe natureand scope public sphere.190 THEORY/ April 1999 POLITICAL do with epistemic criteriaand experimentalvalidity.
By defining expert activity throughits social consecan quences. it can be a publicgood: thatis.with varyingdegreesof success. Still. when even beneficial. If expertsdo not incorporatesuch public definitions of their activities. Cooperatorsseek to redefine the practicalrelevanceof experts'knowledge when it comes to their own activities and consent.The question for the democraticdivision of laboris how to establishcredibilityacross such communities. For the epistemic division of laborto be democratic.it is precisely the definitionof knowledgethatmust be open to the inputof the public.it is creating communication across divergent frameworks and interests among experts and the lay public ratherthan embeddingexpertise in larger social contexts of informalinteractionor civic engagement. however. But what makes it distinct as a shared resourceis thatthe character knowledgeitself can be definedin a cooperaof tive way.they can resolve their cooperativeconflicts by . the normsof which providethe culturalbasis for scientific inquiry. It also has some featuresof whatHirschman calls a moralresource. lay participants shapethe very knowledgethatis producedand make it a sharedresource. Social movements in the public sphere are now doingjust that. in thatit is not exhaustedby use. one thatis accessible to all andmade use of by all.crises which have become more andmore typical in the age where the results of science are not always seen as collectively beneficial or. that Knowledgehas particular properties makeit a plausiblecandidatefor a sharedresource. systems of relevanceand conflicting criteriaof judgment.but nonidentical. to all those involvedandaffected.each with its own interestsand intersecting. the pragmaticanswer leaves entirely open how crises in expertauthorityareto be resolved.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 191 in It is important this contextto recallthatthe social distribution knowlof is itself a solution to a problem:the limitationsof resourcesandhuman edge cognition. But knowledgeis sharedas the outcomeof a cooperative and collective process. that is. While actors or groups of actors can bargainfor better positions in the enterprise. such interactionis often limited to the professionalcommunities.Arrivingat the definitionof such knowledge often takesthe form of negotiatingthe basis for cooperationamongdifferent social actors. Such communicationcan only be repairedby creating situationsof public dialogue in which the cooperative basis for the division of laborcan become an issue.Such crises signal the breakdownin communicationmediatedthroughthe public sphere between experts and affected citizens. the social basis for their knowledge becomes more and more uncertain.Expertinstitutionsare alreadyembedded within their own patternsof informal social interaction.Underthe properconditionsof free andopen communication. not widely available. The problemof cooperation here is one of maintainingcredibilityandlegitimacymorethantrust.
Analogous to the suspicion that science is thereis also anuneaseabouteverhigherlevels of govinimicalto democracy. therehave been few institutionalopportunities in which to exercise this role. In a public spherein which the boundariesbetween expertand lay personsandagentandprincipalsarebridgedandnormsof cooperationnegotiated and established. cosmopolitanismhas even become a derogatoryterm. publicspherecan thereforebe socially structured by the cognitive division of labor withoutlosing equal standingin deliberation needed for democracy.even if Even if this sort of public use of reason depended differentiallydistributed.In Cosmopolis. The main problemfor the public is to gain access to the relevantforumsin which such definitions and termsarenegotiatedanddiscussed.they makethe knowledgeso gainedgenuinelysocial andshared.As in the case of expertiseand the division of labor.192 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 challenging the legitimacy of underlyingnorms.obvious social trendsseem to obviate the role of publicity andcitizenshipon the globalscale andto demandmuchof citizens'capacities to translateacross social boundaries.they were initiallyclosed to patientactivists in ourexample.The wide use of public reason has as its subject all normsthatarethe basis for ongoing practicesof cooperativeinquiry.for example.28 COSMOPOLITAN PUBLICITY AND CULTURAL PLURALISM Globalizationandexpertisemay seem to havelittle to do with each other. on the credible threatsof nonexpertcooperatorsto change the characterof scientific institutions.these movementsexemplify the public use of reason neededto cross social andepistemicboundaries functionallydifferentiated in societies. StephenToulmin identifies cosmopolitanism as a hidden and essentially oppressive . both have similar effects on citizenship and publicity and create similar problems for applying existing norms of publicity. criticisms ernanceandforcedunificationreflectedin the manycontemporary For of "cosmopolitanism. However. Globalization usefulnessof abstract publicityandits narrow clearlyundermines conception As of citizenshipin the "politicalpublic sphere. there is no need for hierarchyor for deference to Such a "thick" authority." manyof its political critics." in the case of religious conflict. the potential for cultural conflicts over standards of justification demandsa "wideview" of public reason.including sometimes even epistemic norms when they must be negotiatedfor the accountabilityof experts.Challengesby the publicto expertcredibilityor to expert definitions of the epistemic enterprisedo more than make experts accountable.While the ideal of the "citizen of the world"is as old as the Stoics.
such as the effects of the mass media on local culturalvalues. Critics of globalizationoften contrastcosmopolitanismsharplywith pluralto ism.31 Even if the termcosmopolitanismcan be reclaimedfor this type of pluralist politics.Moreover.noris it one thatcan be regulatedandcontrolledby any single apexthatcould be so powerfulas to processes and institutions. The first step in my argumentagainst more limited normsof publicityhas been to recognize the wide culturalvariations in forms of publicityandthen to see which forms arebest suitedto problems of intergroupcooperationand boundarycrossing. difficultpracticalissues of multiculturalism social complexand ity remain.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 193 by political agendaof modernity"dominated the Newtonianimage of massive power.the communityof worldcitizens would be characterized many cross-cuttingand potentiallyconflictby ing allegiances and obligations.The forms of agreementthathold it together the would haveto be suitablypluralistic.withoutsurrendering basis for cooperative and peaceful relations.as well as differentand often contradictory responsesto globalizationwithinthe public spheresof various cultures.Thus.First.As the largestpoliticalcommunity."30 Similarly. For example.Some of those public spheresare cosmopolitan.to expandthe limits of ourpreviousideals and institutionsand to producewider variationsof them than are currently available.Michael Walzer with no place for universalism" identifies cosmopolitanismwith an "abstract pluralismor local allegiances. The next step is to show thatthis revised andthick formof publicitysolves problemsof effective citizenship in cosmopolitancontexts as well.in which different problems emerge than can be solved by publicity created either by the to abstraction privatepersonsor by the restrictionof participation the pubto lic role and reasons of citizens.However.Such an expansionrequiresfirst and foremostextendingthe ideal of publicity to include many possible variants.globalizationis not a Newtonianprocess.both of which challenge the very idea of unprecedented democraticregulationoversocial processes.such a society faces problems of size andcomplexity.cosmopolitanpolitics mustface the possibility of deep conflicts among these groupsand societies.Othercriticisms of the conskip all intermediary sequences of globalizationfor democraticpolitics see it as overly unifyingin other ways.globalizationasks us to be morallyandpolitically innovative. Amy Guttmanopposes multiculturalism "the cosmopolitanview of most people sharinga similarmixtureof culturesthatassimilates everyone into one cosmopolitanculture. conflicts for which it might be very difficultfor all to agreeeven to the methodsandprocedures which to adjuby dicate them. exerted by sovereign agency throughthe operationof central This centralforce or apex of power is primarilythe modernnation force. ."29 state.
The addresseesof such anonymous communicationarean indefiniteaudiencein a purelyaggregativesense: it is not an idealized audiencethatis addressed. for example. for example.butthe aggregateaudienceof all it those who can potentiallygain access to the materialand interpret as they wish. But this access makes no strongnormativeand epistemic demandson the audience.who may not. the less likely it is thatits memberswill be ablereflexively to use theirpublicreasonin communicating with each other. This sort of anonymouscommunicationis not likely to increase understanding across various culturalboundaries.To the extent that they can exist at all under conditions of wide cultural diversity.butarein factworthyof recognitionin ways analogous to the recognitionof each otheras citizens. this type of audienceand its mode of distribution communication reproduce asymmetric features of the representativepublic sphere. Such an assumptionwould in fact mean that those others areno longer anonymous. The relatively high entry level of backgroundknowledge and competence common in most literary and discursive public spheres presents a particular. are very portableacrosscultures(such as those in large-budget are constructedprecisely so as not to challenge potentiallyconflicting they local interpretations leaving open.they producea different kind of public space and hence develop a form of publicitydifferentfrom a "cosmopolitan" public sphere.difficulty for higher levels of publicity. be conceivablyglobal in scope.194 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 While the mass and electronicmedia form the basis for global networks for the productionand distributionof information." both to each otherand to the producers of publicly conveyed messages.32 .see theiraccess to this public sphere as implying that the same access and standingbe grantedreciprocallyand equally to others. nonhomogeneous public spheres test formsof publicityfor culturalbarrirequirethatparticipants theircurrent ers by makingthem the theme of reflexive communication with diverse others. By employing new technological means and by lowering epistemic entry electronicmediacan createa mass audienceof such a size as to requirements. But the type of audienceso createdhas certain characteristics: more socially undifferentiated merely aggregathe and tive an audienceis.While many such images and in messages can be meaningfullyinterpreted manydifferentways and hence action films). who the villains may be (by and thus increasingthe potentialaggregateaudience). Thus. high-entryrequirementsmake it less likely that any memberof thataudiencewill also be a producerof such images or and messages.It is also more likely thatthe audienceconsists of passive consumersof images: given the costs of media productiontechnology. often working against them when they help to underminepublic accountabilityand responsiveness.The audienceis thereforemore likely to be "anonymous.if not paradoxical.
It is here that the spatialmetaphors thathave been used to describepublicitybegin to breakdown: ratherthan a space. They lack precisely the self-referentialfeatures that first emergedin the readingpublic andgiven normativeandinstitutionalstructure in the inclusive citizenship of democraticpublicity. such access can only be obtainedvia potential in or actualmechanismsof cooperationamong previouslyunrelatedactors.They are. Such culturally expansive.however.public spheres emerge as political institutionsandcivic associationsand includepreviously excludedgroups.as when translations and conferences create a cosmopolitanpublic spherein variousacademicdisciplines.much less the expectationthatothersinterpret themin a similarlypublic way. yet socially structured. The contrastbetweenanonymousandcosmopolitanpublicityhelps explicate the requirements new formsof publicityin multi-or transcultural of contexts.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 195 The featuresof anonymityand aggregationstructurea differentkind of social space thanis generatedin eitherof the two previousformsof publicity. any member of which may make a claim to publicity to which any other participantis accountable. global media create a network.Above all. By contrast. the public sphere generates a place for communicative exchange with an indefinite but differentiatedaudience.We might instead here think of any international airportas an of a segmentedand aggregativepublic space that is quite different example from a space for mutualaccountability. The limitationson media-generated publicity have clear implications in this respect: this means that globalizationvia these mechanismswill not producea public sphereandthatwe oughtnot use "theglobal public sphere" as a spatial category.a cosmopolitanpublicsphereis createdwhen at least two culturally rootedpublic spheresbegin to overlapandintersect.networksdo not have the expectationof responsiveness.Most of all. the formationof a cosmopolitanpublicrequires .a form of publicity without a public sphere for interaction. in which different issues regarding publicity (such as access and accountability)could be raised with regardto the networksof communication themselves. they do not create access to the social processes of globalizationthemselves that affect the participants this space.they were addressedin ways thatexpecteda responsein the variousliterarymedia for forming and expressingpublic opinion (such as newspapersorjournals).While participantsin early modern literary public spheres consumed the books that they read in solitary acts of reading. In contrastwith an aggregateand potentially global audience. Their inhibitself-referential formsof communicaanonymousand serialcharacter tion. The space generatedby communicativeaction opens up an indefinite space for interaction. whateveradvantagesof speed and scale that they may have. Anonymous networksof communicationmay sometimes interactwith public spheresthatarecritical.unlikelyto be locations for social criticism.
The associative networkof societies with global economies is now transnational and includes various nongovernmental organizations and associations. In theircurrent form.one public sphere.As in the case of the emergence of the national public sphere discussed above. the nationalstatecontinues to be a focus for a cosmopolitan public sphere even as publicity . and the regulationof trade and financial markets. actorsin civil societies to have opportunities createegalitarianconditionsof access to and accountability in the social process. againstthe interestsof those who are worstoff in the international However.andcultures." the extent with the differentlocationsin the globalization thatthey areformedby actors process. Certainly.which makes viothe knownto everyonearound globe. at least to some degree and on some issues. we can expect that underproper typical conditions andwith supportinstitutions.their members will develop the capacitiesof publicreasonto cross andnegotiateboundaries anddifferencesbetweenpersons.groups. the emergence of a vibrantandpotentialcriticalpublic sphererequiresa certaindegree of social differentiationand institutionalization. humanrights. Even in the absence of clear centralized institutions.theirexistence alreadyrequiresa minimaldegreeof cosmopolitan To publicitybeyondthe model of "onenation.Thus.suchregimesarefarfromdemocraticandoften work economy. civil society only becomes a publicspherethroughthe emerInternational gence of institutionsaroundwhich the public sphereis organizedand which actorsin civil society can oppose or support.the cosmopolitan public out of interactionsamong variouscosmopolitan and local sphere develops public spheres based in an emerging internationaland transnationalcivil society.The creationof such a civil society is a slow and difficult process that requiresthe highly reflexive formsof communication boundary and crossingandaccountability of developed public spheres.196 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 the developmentandexpansionof transnational civil society.On the basis of their common knowledge of violations of publicity.Fornow. Tothe extent lationsof such agreements thatsuch publicityhas cooperation-inducing effects.33 They are enforcedprimarily the powerof international by publicity.such forms of publicity have already produced selfregulatingforms of cooperationamong those affected by global processes.existing vibrantpublic sphereswill expandandbecome open to andconnectedwith otherpublic spheres. they at least raise the possibility of access to decisions concerning global processes in a cosmopolitanpublicsphere.internationalagreecould be the outcomeof interacments or "regimes" aimingat accountability tions under the norms of cosmopolitan publicity. Many such agreements (which include generalprinciplesand rules as well as decision procedures) policy.By fosteringcommunicative interaction.comalreadyexist in areasas diverseas environmental munication.
thick public spheres. and functional boundaries. interThis national public sphere by matching the mass media with some system of democraticaccountabilityandthus a corresponding of regulatinginstituset tions. in which each public spherebecomes a location for the public use of reason in acts of criticism.such a projectionof the public sphereonto a is global scale is less the issue than new forms of social differentiationalong political institutions. it is easy to think of the global public sphereas little more thana "phantom public" in WalterLippmann'scritical phrase.In this respect.a cosmopolitanpublic spherewill emerge thatwill be wide and pluralistic. cultural.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 197 cooperation expandsbeyondit.too. As various institutionsemerge. can become the focus of a critical international civil society expandand maintainin public sphereas actorsin transnational their public interaction across various political. democraticinstitutionscan no longer fully regulate the larger contexts in which political decisions are made. the conditions of .they. "Democracy and democratizationmay be sought across The states as well as in the state andagainst the state.With the gradualprocess that involves the emergence of both transnationalcivil society and novel organizing and integratingpolitical institutions. globalization creates problems for public reason and democraticself-rule. At the same time. spill acrossits borders. If my argument correct. global scale. those affected by decisions made within its institutions. becauseof new possibilitiesfor international and agreement. and new. Ratherthanthinkingin the dualistictermsof a globalpublicsphererelated to centralizedglobal institutions."35 proposalseems to suggest creatinga wide.in which actorsorganizeagainstthe state or appeal to it when making violations of agreementspublic.not the thin and abstractpublic sphereof the eighteenthcentury imagination.and mutual accountability across boundaries.Given the currentlack of international institutionalstructures the nascentstateof transnational and civil society. Given their historical location in the nation state. As in the case of the cognitive division of labordiscussed above. cross-cutting associations."34 greatestimpetusfor arenalies in a vigorouscivil society conmoredemocracyin the international tainingoppositionalpublic spheres.translation. and thus with legitimateclaims to violations of its principleof publicity.it is betterto projectthe effects of globalization on publicitysomewhatdifferently:as the gradualtransformation local of civil society organizedinstitutionsas public spheres throughtransnational they emerge at differentlevels.This would seem to call for the creationof a public sphereof a new. The problemseems to demandthe creationof a with media systems of matchingscale thatoccupy public sphere "integrated the same social space as that over which economic and political decisions will have an impact.
CONCLUSION: CITIZENSHIP. so thatwe do nothave anything like the sort of accountabilitythat public access to global processes requires.inclusive civic public spheresthanthey are for cosmopolitanpublic spheres." meansforpoliticalproblem The normof publicityhas long beena primary in modernsocieties.it operates on the force of publicopinionandthroughdemocraticinstitutionsandpublic spheresthatat least for now exist on morelocal levels. Cosmopolitanpublicitycontributes the solutionto these problemsof to cooperation by creating conditions for democratic accessibility to the process of the formationof international regimesandultimatelynew institutions.the public sphere offered an attractive .therecan be no basis for accountabilityto transnational publics. In fact.Such accountabilityis not the same as political control. I have shownhow the normof publicity can be employedto solve problemsof citizenship:the social division of labor.Whatthese phenomenahave in common is thatthey point to trendsthatlead not only to social andculturaldifferentiation further beyondthe divisionsof the stateand and civil society butalso to differentiation pluralismwithinthe publicsphere. Withoutsuch accessibility. andI have arguedthatthe problemsto be solved solving are differentfor the abstract. ratherthan one with a wide variety of historical sphere realizations. the wide variationin culturaland historicalrealizationsof public spaces andspheresis due to the diverseproblems thatits normsaresupposedto solve.and second.Withthe emergenceof a society differentiated aroundstate and civic institutions. establishing the basis for suchcooperationin innovativeformsof publicityis an urgent task. Giventhe manyproblems thatrequirethe cosmopolitanuses of publicreason(fromglobal warming to economic regulationto wideningdisparitiesin well-being). thatthe normof publicity needs to be so idealized function in solving the very problems that its that it can have no particular critics see as leading to its demise.as well as problemsof culturalpluralismandglobalization. AND PUBLICITY of These examplesshow thatannouncements the deathof democraticcitiandthe identificationof cosmopolitanismwith oppressivepower are zenship Suchclaims rely on two unwarranted that assumptions: the public premature. DEMOCRACY. is a univocal ideal.198 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 cosmopolitanpublicityarestill being workedout. Citizens now use theirreasonpubliclyandsolve problemsin a socially structuredspace of interactionso long as they are "well informed"and "cosmopolitan.
the practicalconsequencesof increasingdivision of labor. In new culturallydiverseand socially mappedpublic work out new normsof publicityand forms of commuspheres. Inclusionoffered much the same ideal centered arounddiverse citizenry unifying themselves in a common public sphere. 65. "Introduction" paperbackedition of Political Liberalism(New York: to Columbia University Press. 6. Here I modify Cohen's argumentabout the "background condition of democracy"for restrictionson publicexpressionunderreasonablepluralism. 1969).UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.TheStructuralTransformation the Public Sphere(Cambridge. Ibid. J. 7. 3. NOTES 1. styles.MA: MIT Press. H. Citizenshipand Social Class (Cambridge. also Lawrence Solum. and normativelydifferentiated publics emerge and createnew forms.MA: HarvardUniversity Press. See Politics and Social Structure(New York:Free Press.functional and differentiation. andpoliticalinstitutionsaroundwhich more richly textured. 55. 42-8.See JoshuaCohen. ed. 1989).socially and culturallydiverse. The signs of success for these new forms of publicity will be found in eventual changes in scientific.MA: HarvardUniversityPress. Marshall. My argumentpresentsa variationon this theme with differentmechanismsfor value generalization than abstraction."San Diego Law Review 30 (1993): 729-62.Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY 199 ideal of a unity of opinions in a sphere of political discussion free from the growing power of the state.. economic. Rehg (Cambridge.in negotiatingthe conditionsof cooperationin the division of labor in the emergence of accessible and accountableinternational regimes. similarly. globalizationcreateproblemsthatthese forms of publicity cannoteasily solve. Bohman and W. These solutions are based on establishingand maintainingnew forms of cooperation. 418.Democracyand Disagreement(Cambridge. T. 1997). Rather. MA: of MIT Press. see O'Nora O'Neill. "Constructingan Ideal of Public Reason."Procedure and Substancein DeliberativeDemocracy. xlii-xlvii. For an excellent accountof the centralimportance this remarkfrom Kant's"Preface. 39. 1950).TalcottParsonsarguesthattheexpansionof citizenshipis the resultof the generalizationof values. The historical changes that I have indicated do not mean that these civic normsof publicity have lost theirproblem-solvingability in many contexts. 1996)." DeliberativeDemocracy:Essays on Reasonand Poliin tics. 1989). JiirgenHabermas. Constructionsof Reason (Cambridge.participants nication as they solve these new problemsand therebychange the natureof citizenship. 4 Amy GuttmanandDennis Thompson. John Rawls. 2. and locations for egalitarian and deliberativepolitics. 5." of to Critiqueof Pure Reason. 1997).across variousculturalboundariesin variousforms of publicity. Recent discussion of Rawls's .
Brownellshows the odd locations ."A ReasonableLaw of Peoples." Universityof Chicago Law Review 94 (1997): 765-807. Foran informativediscussionof these issues in a transcultural context.see PhilipHuang. "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. "'PublicSphere'/'CivilSociety' in China:The ThirdRealmbetweenStateandSociety. Habermas. Civil Society and Political Theory(Cambridge. 63 ff.see James Bohman. See WangHui.which in turnprovidesa possiat ble basis for more. ratherthanless. On this criticismof Habermas. See Habermas.. Consultationhierarchiescharacterize"well-ordered societies. 1993).MA: MIT Press.3. moving Rawls from an "exclusive"to an "inclusiveview" which rejects Rawls's own previousargumentin Political Liberalismthatthereis "butone public reason"of citizens."in PerpetualPeace. 13.200 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 and reasonshave revolvedaroundthe problemof religious distinctionof "public" "non-public" expression. Farfromdemanding"dedifferentiation" the sake of democratizafor than tion. democratization the level of institutions.1996).BetweenFacts and Norms. 16. S.StructuralTransformation the Public Sphere.MA: MIT Press. Shuteand hierarchical S. ratherthan less. At the same time. 1996). 5 ff. For a Pogge."Isthe PublicSphereUnspeakable in Chinese?"Public Culture6 (1994): 603-4. "TheLaw of Peoples. Media and the Politics of Civil Society in the Islamic World. chap.Public Deliberation:Pluralism. BetweenFactsandNorms(Cambridge. D. it is still characterized a form of publicness. 12. 18."in PerpetualPeace. 431 ff. Lutz-Bachmann (Cambridge. 8. ed. TalalAsad. 2 (1993): 216-40. 17. 14.see Susan Brownell.Complexity Democracy(Cambridge.includinga "plebeianpublic sphere"(p. I am arguingthatpublic spherestoday are based on even more social differentiation createsconditionsfor Cohenand Arato'smodel suggests. Bohmanand M. Hurley(New York:Basic Books. Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. See John Bowen.ed. 15. Anderson (Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. xviii). 1994). chap."See Rawls. 11.MA: MIT Press. J. Lee Ou-fanLee. 179-200. no. See Rawls. Habermasalso concedes spheresin which "private thatthereare many otherpossible variants. For criticismsof this conception. Often such phenomenaindicate the presence of what John Rawls calls "consultationhierarchies"ratherthan genuine public spheres in my broadersense of the term. 1. such differentiation a more. democraticandinclusivepublic sphere.On these debates and an analysis of sportsas partof public culturein China.). See JamesBohman.while "representative publicness" does not have the presuppositionof "universal as accessibility"(p.the public spheredenotes a social space that emerges out of civil society and is outside of state control. "ThePublic Spheresof the WorldCitizen. "LegalReasoningand PublicDiscourse in IndonesianIslam. 1997)."in On HumanRights. 360. forthcoming).butwhatthey all havein commonis thatthey are personscome togetheras a public"(p.chap. and 10. 201-17. with MichaelFisher. 1989)."Philosophyand Public Affairs23 (1994): 214 ff. The term"publicculture"usually denotesthose aspectsof culturalidentityand symbols thatbecome the subjectmatterfor public debateandopinion. Furthermore. 27). 9. 1992). Jiirgen Habermas. On the possibilityof a transnational publicsphere. 178 ff.for the variantsof the of genesis of the Europeanliterarypublicspheres. see Thomas McCarthy."in New ed.8.see Thomas Law of Peoples. Trainingthe Bodyfor China(Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. "AnEgalitarian criticismbased on restrictionson the criticaluse of public reasonin such societies. Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato.see ibid. MA:MITPress. Eickelmanand J."in Modern China 19.
33. ThePublic and Its Problemsin JohnDewey: TheLater Works.1988)."in Principals and Agents. 1925-1953. 28.TheSocial Historyof Truth (Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press."Contractualism. Amy Guttman.ed." AmericanJournal of Sociology 93 (1987): 627. 194). For furtherdiscussion of the cognitive division of labor in deliberativedemocracy. 2 (Carbondale: Universityof SouthernIllinois University. BernardWilliams. 1996). 21. For empiricalconfirmation the explicit awarenessamongcitizens of the operativedisof tinctions between privateand public forms of discourse. 334. 1991). KennethArrow. 19 ff. For similar criticisms. For a competingpictureof early moder science to this standard abstract and Enlightenmentaccount. 37-51. ImpureScience: AIDS."TheChallengeof Multiculturalism PoliticalEthics. 20. 1987). 1993).see William Gamson. Such mutualresponsivenessor answerability othersis crucialto thejustificatoryforce of public agreements.ed."TheEconomics of Agency."Journalof Philosophy 88 (1991): 281-303. UK: Oxford University Press. BenjaminLee. 1985). 1-22." 29. Guttmansees cosmopolitanismas a "comprehensive universalism" which "overlookscases of moralconflict where no substantivestandardcan legitimately claim a monopoly on reasonablenessandjustification"(p. StephenToulmin. 209.Activism."Structural Causes and Regime Consequences. 19. Susan Shapiro.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 201 for publicity even in "statesaturatedsocieties. "GoingPublic. 25. TalkingPolitics (Cambridge."in InternationalRegimes.MA: Harvard Business School Press. Prattand R. 31.see StephenShapin. As Shapinhimself pointsout. 1988). JohnDewey. 32. 7. StephenEpstein. 1994).Cosmopolis:TheHiddenAgenda of Modernity(Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 243-50. 23. D. 150. 27.such a resolutionof moralconflicts has no normativeforce. see StephenKraser. 1996). S. "FormalStructuresand Social Reality. 1990). Zeckhauser(Cambridge. 30. 26. 1983)."Public Culture5 (1993): 165-277. See Michael Walzer'sdescriptionof "abstract universalism" seeking a "moralEspeas ranto" in Interpretationand Social Criticism (Cambridge. For a fuller descriptionof regimes." American Political Science Review 90 (1996): 58.the division of laborundermines this personaltrustand conversationallogic.see SamuelFreeman. But this is precisely the type of as responsivenessdemandedin "cosmopolitan publicspheres" I definethem:withoutsuch a normative expectation."TheSocial Controlof ImpersonalTrust. Mark Warren. J.NY: Cornell UniversityPress. John Dryzek.and the Politics of Knowledge(Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.For an elaborationof this formof justificationin relationto makingone's to actions "answerable" others."in Trust. Kraser(Ithaca." such as in criticisms of the Partyin Chinese sportsjournalism.ed. for whom the very contingencyof empiricalknowledgerequired judgmentsof the personalcredibilityof witnesses. 34. Gambetta (London:Basil Blackwell.MA: HarvardUniversity Press. The Media and Democracy (Cambridge. Democracy in Capitalist Times(Oxford."DeliberativeDemocracy and Authority. . to 19.and PracticalReason. 22.see AmericanJournalofPolitical Science 43 (1999): 590-607. Vol. see John Keene.UK: Polity."Philosophyand in Public Affairs 22 (1993): 184. 24.UK: CambridgeUniversityPress. MoralMotivation. my "Democracyas Social Inquiry.
1991). both with MIT Press.publicity.1996) and New Philosophyof Social Science: Problemsof Indeterminacy (MITPress. He is currentlywritinga book on how pluralismrequiresnew interpretations of democraticideals of equality.He is authorof PublicDeliberation: Pluralism. Nicholas Garnham. He has also recentlyeditedbooks titledDeliberativeDemocracy:Essays on Reason and Politics and PerpetualPeace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal.202 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 35.and the Public Sphere in the Modem World. CulturalIdentity.andfreedom." Public Culture5 (1995): 265. ."TheMass Media. James Bohman is Danforth Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University. ComplexityandDemocracy(MITPress.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.