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