You are on page 1of 28

Citizenship and Norms of Publicity: Wide Public Reason in Cosmopolitan Societies Author(s): James Bohman Source: Political Theory

, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 176-202 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: . 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 . 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 . . 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

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.


normbuta clusterof them. 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.too.Deliberationaboutthem requiresa "wider"notion of publicity to guide effective citizenship and problemsolving. 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. The guiding conception of publicity in deliberativedemocracyremains basically Kantian.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 177 they light of theirpreferred meaning. deliberativedemocracyhas made the notion of the public use of reason centralto the prospectsof democraticreform.they or the social circumstancesthatlead to its disappearance to its is easy to dismiss the publicsphereas essentiallyEuropean and publicity with it as a norm with little problem-solving capacity.publicityis expressedin "theverdictof free and equal citizens.For Kant. In the next section.In responseto manyof the social phenomena mentionedabove. Such skepticism is neitherempiricallynor normatively justified."who put everythingto the test of "free and open examination. A more practicalinterpretation publicity is not necessarily more optimistic:the problems democraciesface may not be easily solved. .Unless it modifies and expandsits guidingnotion of publicity. meaning or practicalsiglicity as a univocal conception with one particular eitherbemoanor applaud nificance. AND PUBLICITY INCLUSION.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. Without such an appreciationfor empiricalvariation.deliberativedemocracy.such examinationrequiresa certain process of social abstractionfor substantiveroles and identities. ABSTRACTION.Empiricalresearchalso supportsthis approachby showing thatvariantsof the normof publicity are effective in a varietyof circumstancesand societies and have theirown particular normativeand practical virtues.globalization.and differentiation.categoricalskepticismaboutthe applicabilityof the normof circumstancesthatI havejust enumerated may be publicityto contemporary Defendersand critics of democracyalike too often think of pubmisplaced."'Placed in the context of Kant's analysis of the progressiveeffects of publicity as a universallyacknowledgednorm.

sortof reasonsthat can be introducedare subjectto normativeconstraints. particular But the same personcan publicly criticize the very same opinions and practices thathe defends as a cleric.Such the "thin" publicitynarrows rangeof acceptablypublicreasons. but obey!" Kantexplicatesthe meaningof this maxim throughvariousroles and audiencesimplied in public communication. This particularinterpretation publicity has specific practical conseof quences.the clergy do not publicly use their reason.each personspeakswithoutassuminghis social role that "nonpublic" reasonsoughtto be excludedfromdemocraticdeliberationanddebate. who attemptto remove the culturally"thick"features of theirsocial identitiesin orderto achieveequalstandingandto solve the problem of "the perplexity of opposing claims" to authority. self-regarding interests. When speaking from this abstractidentity and impartialpoint of view. all of whom requirethat publicity no longer merely have indirecteffects but solve conflicts in political deliberation. When addressingthe members of their congregations.and particular and ethnic identities. This logic of "abstract" publicity is aimed at solving a particularset of endemicto problems:the conflicts of interestandthereligiousdisagreements modernsocial life.which in turn can be widenedonly if publicityonce againbecomes socially dense andcontouredwithout losing the virtuesof democraticequality.2The social space so created is a space inhabited by abstractpersons. abstraction this fromsocial roles still guidesthe ideals of public reasonoperativein deliberativedemocratsas diverseas Rawls and Habermas.citizenshiprequiresadoptinga particular role and point of view. social role who is investedwith the they speak as a person with a particular moralauthorityof the church(and subjectto its authorityin turn).Expressing one's opinionsunderthese conditionsestablishesa logic for makingandcriticizing claims publicly:the opinionsof privatepersonscan be criticizedfor failing to of and The meet the requirements abstraction a "private or herparticular person"whose opinions thanthe convictionsthey can awakenin otherprivate have no more authority persons. . In one formor another.The requirements such abstraction of religious explain the peculiar duality of Kant's injunctionof public reason: "Criticize. which abstractsfrom all contingentfeatures of oneself. Rather.or Guttmanand Thompsonand Cohen and Arato."in a social space thattherebyestablishesconditionsof equalitybetween "the sons and from all social by daughtersof shopkeepersand the aristocracy" abstracting roles and identities. by adoptingthe abstractrole of speakingto public opinion and by addressingan indefiniteand cosmopolitanaudience. one participatesin the "publicsphere of privatepersons. It mightalso be refinedinto a moredirectlypoliticalform.Whenspeakingas a critic.178 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 Underthis versionof publicity. such as social and institutionalroles.

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. served to create only a very specific connection of the public sphereto democpolitics via the formalpowers assigned to citizens in representative racy. to equal opportunityin employment and health care. few examples. The undesirabilityof both horns of this dilemma shows the need for a thicker. Guttmanand Thompsonmove in this directionby making centraldeliberationon "middlepolitics" the stuff of ordinarypolitical debate aboutspecific issues andpolicies. to the Kant's"thin" conception insulatedthe public spheresfrom all forms of identityotherthanparticipant in the public sphere. increasingly substantive rights expanded the logic of publicity to many different areas of participationin social life: in access to schools.andmoredirectlypoliticalnotionof publicityfor deliberation.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. While this logic of inclusion continues on in a wider conception of public reason. Not only did the Kantianconceptionproveto be too specific as the public of private.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. of publicity in the literatureon deliberativedemocracy do not adequately Considera resolve this Kantianconfusionbetweeninclusionandabstraction.This specific "politicalpublic sphere"is consistentwith the separation of citizenshipfromotherformsof social identity.Kant'spublic sphereis a bourgeoispublic sphereof private and literatepersons. The "coreof the . the process of abstractionis no longer useful in solving the Recentconceptions problemsof culturalpluralismandsocial differentiation.and literatecitizens.bourgeois.3 Moreover.the creationof a form of citizenshipthatabstractsfrominequalitiesof statusand role. and much more.wider.The specifically political public spherehas two consediscussions of deliberativepolitics. it also provedto lack a clear connection to democraticpolitics. 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 the means of public communication. The solutionto the problemof specificity. Such deliberationinvolves the persistentmoraldisagreementsthatcharacterizemoderndemocraticsocieties.

butseveral. then one cannotaccept as a reasonwithinthatsame process that some are worthless thanothersor thatthe interestsof one groupare to count for less thanothers.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.In such a politicalculturepublicreason"is not one."7 publicity is thatit depends on an underPerhapsthe problemwith "thin" of developedanddichotomousaccountof the social organization democracy below the level of the constitutionalstate. 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.and accountabilityas well as the inevitabilityof moral disagreementas a fact of social life. On the more "inclusive"and "wide view of public reason" without the ex ante limitations on publicity that Rawls previously defended in reasonablepluralism.the formerconstrainsthe latter. For example. citizens in effect accept the limits of "reasonablepluralism"on deliberationwhere the conciliatory features of publicity are constrainedby the requirementsof reciprocity. the justification of policies and decisions througha process of arrivingat "mutuallyacceptablereasons"for those who will be boundby them. Joshua Cohen has put it this way: "If one accepts the democratic process. process: the kind of reason that should be given. on their view. more or less without exception. On a wider account of publicity.To thinkotherwiseis to denythatopen access to the public sphereis a requirement publicity."6 argument This appliesto the public sphereas well. ForGuttmanandThompson.andaccountability.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.Thereis also an issue of freeof dom of expression.180 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 process of deliberation"is.publicity. agreeing that adults are.A more developedaccountwould . and agents to whom they should be given." substantiveprincipleof reciprocitybegins to look very muchlike the liberalprecommitment constitutional to essentials."4 accepting In these constraintsof reciprocity.thereis room for the use of religious reasons in "wide political culture" without restriction as to how they are expressed. "Eachaddressesan aspectof the reason-giving publicity. the forum in which they should be given. The achievementof such fair agreements when agentsdisagreerequiresthreemutuallylimitingprinciples:reciprocity. to have access to it."5 excludingreligious reasons as of In the "unreasonable.

CohenandAratohavearguedthatno social ing anddistribute of the democraticorganizationof society can do withoutthe mediattheory ing category of civil society between state and economic institutions.since these areprocesses thatareindependentof the emergence of the public sphere.WhereasGuttpluralism man and Thompson provide too many restrictionsupon the public reason.however.8Such a distinction for makes publicity irrelevant solving the problemsof pluralizationand leaves open exactlyhow channelsof communication across social and institutionalboundariesareto be establishedandregulated by the democraticnorms. 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.differentiation.and globalization. largescale.9 licity and makes its problem-solvingcapacity indirect:the informalpublic spherecan only influence the agendaand "poolof reasons"on which formal debatein the legislaturedraws.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.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. but must enter the public sphere with all their . and complex societies. Under currentsocial circumstances.Indeed. membersof civil society cannot now be anonymous.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. civil society alone cannot bearthe weight of pluralism.then. as both a larger public sphere encompassing all of civil society and a "politicalpublic sphere"organized institutions.indeed. 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.On the basis of these same social facts of moder. the public sphere resides in civil society.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.According to this view.representsan even more abstractform of publicity that leaves to other institutionalmeans the formulationof solutions to the problems of pluralism.Such anonymity.

"thicker" createthe conditionswherethe force of publiccommunication createsthe ity reasonableexpectation of responsiveness.In both cases.the social differencesin the distributionof knowledge make it unavoidablethat participantsin the public sphereenterinto publicdebatewith theirepistemicroles andlocation intact.I turnto two specific examples of thick and socially structured public spheres.I firstshowhow the problemof pluralism and becomes more tractablewith a "wide"conceptionof the public spherethat allows for many differentforms of publicity.First.such that the expansion of perspectives is possible.andsocial positions. .epistemicresources."Whereas for abstractor thin publicity this means "what all may accept"(qua citizen and memberof the public sphere).182 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 identities and roles intact in order to solve the problems of inclusive democracy. for wide and thick publicityit means "whateach may accept"(andthus is answerableto aftera formsof publicprocess of free andopen discussion). opening up new practicalpossibilities of cooperative action.'? Differentforms of publicity unpackwhat it means to communicatea solution to a problemthat "all may accept.but with the capacities of each to engage the otherfrom within its own cultural perspectives.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 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. Publicity now serves to regulate exchanges across the expert/lay and agent/principaldivides that are typical in functionallydifferentiatedsocieties. But ratherthan leading to such skepticism.The distinctiveforce of such "cosmopolitan publicity"residesin the creationof new conditionsof responsiveness and accountability:emerging from a differentset of social problems.Before turningto the problems of differentiation globalization. After examiningthe varietyof formsof publicityandtheiruses in problem solving and political criticism. Next. the problemof culturaldifferencedemandsthe always difficult taskof negotiatingandcrossingthemoralboundaries dividegroupsfrom that each other. the public use of reasonis no longer dependenton the successful abstraction each groupwithin theirparticular of identity."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.

normative distinctivenesslies in its realizationof two conditions.or it could be participants within the public institutionsor transnational civil society.only if the conception of the public sphereis rid of the residueof historicalspecificity can it be broadenough to be empiricallygeneraland culturallyinclusive. or even defend a specific type of public sphere as best the approximating normativeideal of publicity.We may develop the contoursof a specific conceptionof the public sphererelative to a purpose. Very much like Kant'speculiareducatedand literatepublic who simultaneously "Criticizebut obey!" Confucian scholars in late imperial .It is a location for social and culturalcriticismand a distinctiveform of communicationaimed at an indefiniteaudienceacrossmanydimensionsof social difference. 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. these publicityon the institutional norms have been criticized for their culturaland historical specificity.Such communication. it could be a "bourgeois" public sphere of privatepersons.might only involve representatives in either the modernor the absolutistsense.howeverdefined.Rather.While this descriptionfavors wider over narrower membershipconditions.13 Recent transcultural researchconfirmsa wide varietyof forms of publicin various societies and historical periods.However. mas's historical analysis of the emergence and developmentof the modem public sphere seems to supportsuch a claim to historicaluniqueness.However.howeverindefiniteits audience. spheres of representative For all theirdifferences. or it could be a public sphere of educated and literatepersonsor scholars.the variantforms of the public spheremust have some minimal featuresin common for the term"publicity" have any norto mativesignificance.The audienceimpliedby each variant."12 privatepersons"fromthe premodern the significance of the distinctlymodem public sphereconsists neitherof its its membershipnorof the historicalprocessof its emergence. and the interactionand communicationthat goes on in it should be such thatit enables social andculturalcriticismin the context of those institutionsandsocial relationsthathelp makeup the public.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. must be an indefiniteone.Haberpeanandmodernandthusculturallylimitedin its application.At the same time. I shall here only cite a few ity examples.he carefullydistinguishesthe modernandbourgeois"publicmadeup of form of a "representative But public.

it must also be said thatnot every society has a specific location in or space for social andculturalcriticism.even if communication thatsocibe public in certain contexts.Publicityat the level of social action and of European non-European is most basic. andthusa dichotomythatdivides along the lines cultures. a public sphereemergedfrom the separationof religious andpolitical authority: religious authorities exercisingtheirpublicrole could criticizedecisions of the monarchby addressinghim as a fellow Muslim.14 Similarly. First. I organizethese levels in an ascending orderfroma lesser to a greaterdegreeof culturalspecificityandthusfrom a greaterto a lesser degree of empiricalgenerality. cultural. and exercisedboth by publishinga newspaperin which "pureminded scholars"could criticize the royal court.At the same time. the conception of publicity has to be generalizedto such an extentthatit becomes an elementaryandpervasive form of social actionthatis foundin every culture. in the sense that all other forms of publicity presupposeit.Such a generalizatoo tion avoidsanimmediatedifficultyof empiricalapplication: demandinga of publicityleaves us with the starkcontrastbetweenculturesthat conception have it andthose withoutit. However. Recognizing these differentlevels broadensits rangeof applicabilityanddelimits the room for culturalspecificity and variability in each of them.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) some Islamic societies.184 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 China were committedto the ideal of "purediscussion"and free discourse. I note thatgreaterculturalspecificity permitsa morenormativelystructured public space.and political criticism and to to challenge authorityso as to makeit accountable public opinionandneeds. the open communicationof criticismat least establishes the possibility that the reasons for such decisions must be ones that could be addressedacross such social boundaries. hierarchical While the generalconditionsof publicitydo notmakepossible directpoliticalcontrolby membersof a public over decisions thataffect them. In what follows.'5Moreover. Social acts arepubliconly if theymeet two basicrequirements. The norm of publicity thus may be ety may applied at which participantsare able to engage in social.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.they are not only directed to an indefinite audience but also offered with some . 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.

as Habermas "space"for interaction putsit.besides speakingto an indefinite audience.Some arguethatwe may call this aspectof basic publicity a "publicculture. Entering into any such social of space may be more or less difficult. A specifically egalitarian expansionof the public sphererequiresa more elaboratedinstitutionalstructure to supportit (such as that achievedby the moderndemocraticstate).which can be broaderor narrower comparison with othersin termsof topics. the contextof a more socially structured often institutionalsettingthanis and availableby means of communicativeaction alone."which might include a wide varietyof practicesfrom to is performancesto demonstrations writingin which participation open to those who have masteredsome basic conventions.communicative exchangessuspendthe sharpdistinctionof audienceandparticipants and allow exchange of speakerand hearerroles across all social positions and identities. one is now accountable to their objections and answerable to demandsto recognize theirconcerns.The space of mutualaccountabilitythatis in opened up has a more egalitarianstructure: a public sphere.Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY 185 and expectationof a response.When such contextsincreasethe scale of public interactionand include more this level.dependingon the requirements backnormsandstyles groundknowledgeor the presenceor absenceof egalitarian of social interaction.butactualresponsivenessandaccountability others. and so on. as the social contexts of communicationare enlargedwith the numberof relevant speakersand audience. requirementsof equal standing.18 Beyond this generalandelementarylevel of publicityas a featureof some social actions and the space generatedby them. not just the expectation of a to response. we may speakonly of a "publicspace" in (ratherthan a public sphere). Expanding and structuring such a social space for communication requires embedding it in a wider social context. publicity in this broadestsense is simply "thesocial space generatedby communicative action.and second. nated by spatial metaphors:public actions constitute a common and open with indefiniteothers. higherlevels of publicitymust do more thanpresupposethatone is addressingan indefiniteaudience."17 However. This reciprocityof roles introducesfurtheregalitarianfeaturesto audience-orientedcommunication:participationin the public sphere now means thatone mustbe responsiveto others."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. availablesocial roles. With respect to responsiveness. formsof expression. communicativeaction alone cannot fully constitute or control the contours of the social space which it .Or. higher levels of publicity require two further nested features: first.

culturallyspecific.on the one hand.Such a ciples.thepublicspherebecomes a space "inbetween"the stateandcivil society. To returnto the metaphorsthat I used in the introduction.the publicsphere thusmore. they become more structured and thanless. social space analopublic spherenot only emergesout of some differentiated to civil society. the very existence of a distinctpublicsphererequiresa certaindegreeof social complexity. 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 is now no longer a flat andabstractspace.186 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 generates. Thus.universities. In societies characterized social differentiation.largersocial gous structuressuch as the state and the market.anda separatesphereof autonomousassociationsand economic activity (or civil society).typically in the differentiation social spheres. themselves as a publicwho developsandextendsexisting forms of publicity. andnewspapersaresome of the supporting become conscious of Second. Forexample. but one with more social andculturalcontoursandboundariesthatneed to be crossed apparent .First of all.ModernEuropean of societies with public spheres have been characterized a specific type of social differentiaby tion:centralizedadministrative institutions(the state). Thus.rather in which citizenshipis exerciseddependson a framework particular of prinand proceduresestablishedin a specific constitution. a developing public sphere respondsto and changes variousinstitutionaland social supporting and structures cannotexist withoutthem:coffeehouses."Continuing the spatial that metaphor dominatesthinkingaboutpublicity.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.the political by space forpublicityis delimitedin relationto othersocial domainsandinstitutions. As public spheresemerge anddevelop. on the other. it also develops by interactingwith other. rights. primarilyin citizens' demandsfor mutualaccountability. it requiresthatparticipants ary public sphere.publishinstitutionsof a litering houses.The public's self-identification a publicconcernedwith free and open communicationpushes the public spheretowardan egalitarianplateau of inclusive andgeneralizedformsof publicity.In differentiatedsocieties (in whateverinstitutional form). 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.

internaldifferentiationrequireseven more of the public: engaging in such requiresthe developmentof a comcomplex acts of reflexivecommunication plex set of critical abilities and practices.This specificity consists not only in background generalandcommon culturalknowledgebutalso in the capacityto employ a varietyof conventions. however egalitarianand best fulfilled by participation wide in scope. which in turndemandsgreaterknowledgeof such background conditions.patient. have certainentryrequirements in a particular publicculture.While it culturalspecificitydoes not disappear. which.andmedia for communicativepurposes. Even given such a public supportedby sufficientinstitutionalstructures.participants tion require complex institutional mediation (such as legal protections).Besides the normative constraints of reciprocity (which include accountabilityto all other membersin the public).PRINCIPALS.sci"republic"of science. science and democracygo well as highly developed abilities among public sphereparticipants that are needed to cross the many boundariesof such a complex social world. Such entryrequirements place new andmore demandingepistemic and norin mativeconstraintson participation the existing public sphere. some of which may even be transnational. forms of roles. andthe epistemicdivision of laborbeyondthe roles of These roles (such as scientist.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 187 to maintainthe sense of self-identificationand standingin a public. if not conflicting. however. EXPERTISE AND THESOCIALORGANIZATION OF PUBLICITY: AND CITIZENS AGENTS. is mitigatedby protectionsof speakIn ers from culturalbiases andrestrictionsthataffect theirparticipation. For institutionalconditionsset by "abstract" publicity and its citizenship role. In a thickly structured ence and democracyare competing. this way. actorsare forcedto acquireabilitiesfor communicationandtranslation thatexpandthe scope of publicreason. the public sphere becomes more mapped with cultural identities. a functioningpublic spheremakes epistemic Given these increasedepistemic demandson the reflexivityof participants. Such a public now develops in new social contexts. the core democraticnorm of abstractpublicity.institutions.Both seem dependenton the same consequences of abstractionand impartialityto form an inclusive social space.cultural "private person"and"citizen.20 also know thatreflexive forms of public communicademands. introduceasymmetriesin public communication thatseem to underminethe equal standingof all to initiateand test contributions to public debate." minority) may.21 .Ratherthanbecominga more abstract and neutral space. by contrast.

But so thatall collectively may know more thaneach membersingly. more inclusive the public spherebecomes. independentactions of each of them are necessary.188 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 Neitherview denies thatexpertsare organizedinto theirown wider and narin rower subpublicswith high entry requirements: them.and these actions may not be monitoredby the others without loss of knowledge or . 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. I wantto show thatthis inferenceis too hasty. If they were to participate the largerpublic sphere with their social roles intact.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. This sort of scientific publicityis certainlywidespread.embracingits necessity in light of scarcecogIf nitiveresourcesas well as its valuein creatingsocial interdependence.However information it is notthepublicitydemanded is. 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. were to be accepted. then they all know less than a group characterized the epistemic by The division of labor.This epistemicdeferencereintroduces asymthe metricsocial roles andthusundermines conditionsfor egalitarian publicon ity. each of the membershas to know everythingthatthe groupas a whole knows and thus all become "omnicompetentindividuals"criticized by Walter Lippmann.some of their opinions shouldthenbe owed deference. If this understanding be inadmissiblein the publicsphereof equalcitizens. in ratherthanas citizens. But this picture presupknowledge. Dewey was amongthe firstto considerthe problemof the effects of expertise on the civic public sphere.basedas it is on the model of the one-way disseminationof informationfrom expertto lay public.the participants which have nothing of substantiveto say about issues of scientific work. But the image of lay/expertinteraction this model is flawed.We may wish to dismiss the problemand simply separate science fromthe largerpublic is sometimes argued. 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). poses thatthe largerpublic sphereexcludes socially distributed in Scientists then participate their own subpublicsphereas privatepersons. the more asymmetricthe condiof tions of the social distribution knowledgebecome (especially if the opinions under scrutinyare ones based on contingentempiricalknowledge not had by everyone).

The case of AIDS activismin the UnitedStatespresents a particularly rich example of this process of democraticinquiry.all of whom arenecessaryparticipants a in large collective project. the case of expertsmakesspecial demandson cooperatorsin the cognitively organizedgroup.what is particularlyinterestingin this context is thatAct-Up and other organizations challengedexpertson their own ground.24 creates pervasive asymmetries of competence and access to information. from stepping on an elevatorto takingprescription drugs. Thereis. What is unique to expertise is that others may not be in a position to monitorand scrutinizethe experts even if there were the opportunity.automobiles.The problemis not only in access to informationbut also in interpreting since most of us are "unableto renit. or to them. The advantageof the division of laboris to makeeach social actor dependenton the actionsof manyothers. to test the purityof food and drugs before ingesting tests of skyscrapersbefore enteringthem. the important point of the activismwas not to challengeexpertiseor the division of labor.alreadya social space for suchcommunication thus and for democraticnegotiationwithin scientific challengedthe advantagesof expertsin defining the of cooperativeenterprise producingknowledgeaboutAIDS.creatingthe potentialfor a passive citizenryof principals/clients deferringto agents/expertsthe control over vast areasof social life.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. butrather giving overa taskto othersthatwe could not do at all.It is a case of the relationbetween an emergentpublic of those affected by AIDS and a set of institutionsthatwere not initially responsiveto them.23 Nonetheless. The prolifby eration of such agent/principal relationshipsin modernsocieties may actually work to underminethe putativeadvantagesof the division of labor for democracy. However.Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY 189 efficiency."25 These tasksareleft to the assessmentsof experts:herelaboris not dividedby simply delegatinga taskwe could do ourselvesat the cost of time. Moreover.or airplanesbefore embarking on them. These asymmetriesfilterinto many situationsof ordinary life.The publicdebatesspurred theiractivismhadverymuchto by . however. the epistemicdivision of labor expertsoutside of theirown subfields. sort that is quite pervasivein all cooperativeenterprises. der medical diagnoses. Most expertsmay not be able to judge the findings of Thus.and not merely in the broader political arena.Science is effective not only because it can use the impersonalforces of natureand machines. to conduct structural make safety checks of also enlists the aid of many thatthe outcomeof the collective enterprisedependson the necessaryactionsof othersthatcannotbe immediThis situationrequirestrustof the ately controlledorpredictedwith certainty.

we can shift the burdenfromexpertsto instipragmatically tutions(except for those cases in which expertknowledgeno longer works). the One possible responseto this difficultyis to be thoroughlypragmatic: of the democraticdivision of labor do not requirea general soluproblems tion.and expertknowledge can enterinto the public process of defining such situations and their feasible solutions.However. continuedcooperationon acceptabletermsto both is patientsandresearchers the outcomeof a wide use of publicreasonacross social roles and epistemic boundariesin which democraticaccountabilityis exercised. however.any such scrutiny into mustextendto testingof the veryepistemicnormsthatbackauthority the The wide use of public reasonidentifiesthe natureand scope public sphere.26 continued and betweenresearchers theirpublicdepended.we cannotimprovethe quality of our deliberationby rejectingexpertauthoritytout court or by refusingto participatein decision makingthatmakes us dependenton socially derived maximofjudging accordingto is because the political institutionsin which it is embeddedareno longer open to the publicsthatareaffectedby them. If expert authorityis a problem.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. such as the necessary The measuresof statisticalsignificance for tests of drug safety." however.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. In this inspiredsolution. and Such of criticalscrutiny. of such scrutiny:it does not simply reject the legitimacy of all epistemic authority.190 THEORY/ April 1999 POLITICAL do with epistemic criteriaand experimentalvalidity. In the absence of the converginginterestsamong agents andprincipals that made the conflicts in the AIDS case resolvable."27 an analysisshows why expertauthority deliberativedemocracyareconsistentwith each other. As in the pragmatist's rejectionof skepticism. . In this case.The demandfor accountability may over into democratic control.perhapssurpriscooperation ingly. The fact that patientsmust cooperatein trials (for example. the feasible requirementfor public deliberationbecomes accountabilityto ratherthan directcontrolby the democraticprocess. upon publicly deliberating about epistemic norms. but rathercan only be solved case by case. tions. Public deliberationbegins with problematicsituations. 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.

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.crises which have become more andmore typical in the age where the results of science are not always seen as collectively beneficial or. Cooperatorsseek to redefine the practicalrelevanceof experts'knowledge when it comes to their own activities and is creating communication across divergent frameworks and interests among experts and the lay public ratherthan embeddingexpertise in larger social contexts of informalinteractionor civic engagement.Underthe properconditionsof free andopen communication.The question for the democraticdivision of laboris how to establishcredibilityacross such is precisely the definitionof knowledgethatmust be open to the inputof the public. While actors or groups of actors can bargainfor better positions in the enterprise. to all those involvedandaffected. lay participants shapethe very knowledgethatis producedand make it a sharedresource. the normsof which providethe culturalbasis for scientific inquiry.Such crises signal the breakdownin communicationmediatedthroughthe public sphere between experts and affected citizens. But what makes it distinct as a shared resourceis thatthe character knowledgeitself can be definedin a cooperaof tive way. If expertsdo not incorporatesuch public definitions of their activities.with varyingdegreesof success. But knowledgeis sharedas the outcomeof a cooperative and collective process.each with its own interestsand intersecting.but nonidentical. not widely available. For the epistemic division of laborto be democratic.By defining expert activity throughits social consecan quences. Such communicationcan only be repairedby creating situationsof public dialogue in which the cooperative basis for the division of laborcan become an issue. that Knowledgehas particular properties makeit a plausiblecandidatefor a sharedresource. It also has some featuresof whatHirschman calls a moralresource. that is. The problemof cooperation here is one of maintainingcredibilityandlegitimacymorethantrust.Arrivingat the definitionof such knowledge often takesthe form of negotiatingthe basis for cooperationamongdifferent social actors. one thatis accessible to all andmade use of by all. in thatit is not exhaustedby use.Expertinstitutionsare alreadyembedded within their own patternsof informal social interaction.they can resolve their cooperativeconflicts by . Social movements in the public sphere are now doingjust that. systems of relevanceand conflicting criteriaof judgment. such interactionis often limited to the professionalcommunities. it can be a publicgood: thatis. Still. when even beneficial. the social basis for their knowledge becomes more and more uncertain. however.

they makethe knowledgeso gainedgenuinelysocial andshared. criticisms ernanceandforcedunificationreflectedin the manycontemporary For of "cosmopolitanism. In a public spherein which the boundariesbetween expertand lay personsandagentandprincipalsarebridgedandnormsof cooperationnegotiated and established.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.even if Even if this sort of public use of reason depended differentiallydistributed. The main problemfor the public is to gain access to the relevantforumsin which such definitions and termsarenegotiatedanddiscussed. Analogous to the suspicion that science is thereis also anuneaseabouteverhigherlevels of govinimicalto democracy.obvious social trendsseem to obviate the role of publicity andcitizenshipon the globalscale andto demandmuchof citizens'capacities to translateacross social boundaries. therehave been few institutionalopportunities in which to exercise this role.As in the case of expertiseand the division of labor.In Cosmopolis. on the credible threatsof nonexpertcooperatorsto change the characterof scientific institutions. Globalization usefulnessof abstract publicityandits narrow clearlyundermines conception As of citizenshipin the "politicalpublic sphere." manyof its political critics. both have similar effects on citizenship and publicity and create similar problems for applying existing norms of publicity.28 COSMOPOLITAN PUBLICITY AND CULTURAL PLURALISM Globalizationandexpertisemay seem to havelittle to do with each other. there is no need for hierarchyor for deference to Such a "thick" authority. publicspherecan thereforebe socially structured by the cognitive division of labor withoutlosing equal standingin deliberation needed for democracy.they were initiallyclosed to patientactivists in ourexample.these movementsexemplify the public use of reason neededto cross social andepistemicboundaries functionallydifferentiated in societies." in the case of religious conflict.192 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 challenging the legitimacy of underlyingnorms. However.The wide use of public reason has as its subject all normsthatarethe basis for ongoing practicesof cooperativeinquiry. cosmopolitanismhas even become a derogatoryterm. 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. StephenToulmin identifies cosmopolitanism as a hidden and essentially oppressive .for example.

Moreover.withoutsurrendering basis for cooperative and peaceful expandthe limits of ourpreviousideals and institutionsand to producewider variationsof them than are currently well as differentand often contradictory responsesto globalizationwithinthe public spheresof various cultures. For example. conflicts for which it might be very difficultfor all to agreeeven to the methodsandprocedures which to adjuby dicate them.As the largestpoliticalcommunity.Michael Walzer with no place for universalism" identifies cosmopolitanismwith an "abstract pluralismor local 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.Some of those public spheresare cosmopolitan. Amy Guttmanopposes multiculturalism "the cosmopolitanview of most people sharinga similarmixtureof culturesthatassimilates everyone into one cosmopolitanculture. such as the effects of the mass media on local culturalvalues.However.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.Such an expansionrequiresfirst and foremostextendingthe ideal of publicity to include many possible variants. difficultpracticalissues of multiculturalism social complexand ity remain. .cosmopolitanpolitics mustface the possibility of deep conflicts among these groupsand societies.both of which challenge the very idea of unprecedented democraticregulationoversocial processes. Critics of globalizationoften contrastcosmopolitanismsharplywith pluralto ism.The forms of agreementthathold it together the would haveto be suitablypluralistic.globalizationis not a Newtonianprocess.First.31 Even if the termcosmopolitanismcan be reclaimedfor this type of pluralist politics. exerted by sovereign agency throughthe operationof central This centralforce or apex of power is primarilythe modernnation force.the communityof worldcitizens would be characterized many cross-cuttingand potentiallyconflictby ing allegiances and obligations.globalizationasks us to be morallyandpolitically innovative. The next step is to show thatthis revised andthick formof publicitysolves problemsof effective citizenship in cosmopolitancontexts as well."29 state.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 193 by political agendaof modernity"dominated the Newtonianimage of massive power.Othercriticisms of the conskip all intermediary sequences of globalizationfor democraticpolitics see it as overly unifyingin other ways."30 Similarly.such a society faces problems of size andcomplexity.

nonhomogeneous public spheres test formsof publicityfor culturalbarrirequirethatparticipants theircurrent ers by makingthem the theme of reflexive communication with diverse others.It is also more likely thatthe audienceconsists of passive consumersof images: given the costs of media productiontechnology. Such an assumptionwould in fact mean that those others areno longer anonymous.they producea different kind of public space and hence develop a form of publicitydifferentfrom a "cosmopolitan" public sphere. be conceivablyglobal in scope. The relatively high entry level of backgroundknowledge and competence common in most literary and discursive public spheres presents a particular.butarein factworthyof recognitionin ways analogous to the recognitionof each otheras citizens.see theiraccess to this public sphere as implying that the same access and standingbe grantedreciprocallyand equally to others.194 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 While the mass and electronicmedia form the basis for global networks for the productionand distributionof information. But the type of audienceso createdhas certain characteristics: more socially undifferentiated merely aggregathe and tive an audienceis. high-entryrequirementsmake it less likely that any memberof thataudiencewill also be a producerof such images or and messages. who the villains may be (by and thus increasingthe potentialaggregateaudience). the less likely it is thatits memberswill be ablereflexively to use theirpublicreasonin communicating with each other. The addresseesof such anonymous communicationarean indefiniteaudiencein a purelyaggregativesense: it is not an idealized audiencethatis addressed.To the extent that they can exist at all under conditions of wide cultural diversity.who may not. for example." both to each otherand to the producers of publicly conveyed messages. Thus. this type of audienceand its mode of distribution communication reproduce asymmetric features of the representativepublic sphere.The audienceis thereforemore likely to be "anonymous. This sort of anonymouscommunicationis not likely to increase understanding across various culturalboundaries.difficulty for higher levels of publicity.if not paradoxical. are very portableacrosscultures(such as those in large-budget are constructedprecisely so as not to challenge potentiallyconflicting they local interpretations leaving open.32 . often working against them when they help to underminepublic accountabilityand responsiveness. But this access makes no strongnormativeand epistemic demandson the audience. By employing new technological means and by lowering epistemic entry electronicmediacan createa mass audienceof such a size as to requirements. for example.While many such images and in messages can be meaningfullyinterpreted manydifferentways and hence action films).butthe aggregateaudienceof all it those who can potentiallygain access to the materialand interpret as they wish.

The contrastbetweenanonymousandcosmopolitanpublicityhelps explicate the requirements new formsof publicityin multi-or transcultural of contexts. whateveradvantagesof speed and scale that they may have. in which different issues regarding publicity (such as access and accountability)could be raised with regardto the networksof communication themselves. 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.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.Above all. Their inhibitself-referential formsof communicaanonymousand serialcharacter tion. global media create a network. In contrastwith an aggregateand potentially global audience. Such culturally expansive. the public sphere generates a place for communicative exchange with an indefinite but differentiatedaudience.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 195 The featuresof anonymityand aggregationstructurea differentkind of social space thanis generatedin eitherof the two previousformsof publicity. yet socially structured.however.While participantsin early modern literary public spheres consumed the books that they read in solitary acts of reading. The space generatedby communicativeaction opens up an indefinite space for interaction. Anonymous networksof communicationmay sometimes interactwith public spheresthatarecritical.They are.networksdo not have the expectationof responsiveness. By contrast. they do not create access to the social processes of globalizationthemselves that affect the participants this when translations and conferences create a cosmopolitanpublic spherein variousacademicdisciplines.they were addressedin ways thatexpecteda responsein the variousliterarymedia for forming and expressingpublic opinion (such as newspapersorjournals). the formationof a cosmopolitanpublicrequires .much less the expectationthatothersinterpret themin a similarlypublic way.It is here that the spatialmetaphors thathave been used to describepublicitybegin to breakdown: ratherthan a space. such access can only be obtainedvia potential in or actualmechanismsof cooperationamong previouslyunrelatedactors. any member of which may make a claim to publicity to which any other participantis accountable.a cosmopolitanpublicsphereis createdwhen at least two culturally rootedpublic spheresbegin to overlapandintersect. They lack precisely the self-referentialfeatures that first emergedin the readingpublic andgiven normativeandinstitutionalstructure in the inclusive citizenship of democraticpublicity.public spheres emerge as political institutionsandcivic associationsand includepreviously excludedgroups.a form of publicity without a public sphere for interaction.unlikelyto be locations for social criticism.Most of all.

and the regulationof trade and financial markets. civil society only becomes a publicspherethroughthe emerInternational gence of institutionsaroundwhich the public sphereis organizedand which actorsin civil society can oppose or support. Many such agreements (which include generalprinciplesand rules as well as decision procedures) policy.which makes viothe knownto everyonearound globe.33 They are enforcedprimarily the powerof international by publicity.By fosteringcommunicative interaction." the extent with the differentlocationsin the globalization thatthey areformedby actors process. actorsin civil societies to have opportunities createegalitarianconditionsof access to and accountability in the social process. they at least raise the possibility of access to decisions concerning global processes in a cosmopolitanpublicsphere. the nationalstatecontinues to be a focus for a cosmopolitan public sphere even as publicity .As in the case of the emergence of the national public sphere discussed above. In theircurrent form.theirexistence alreadyrequiresa minimaldegreeof cosmopolitan To publicitybeyondthe model of "onenation. Tothe extent lationsof such agreements thatsuch publicityhas cooperation-inducing effects.Fornow. humanrights.Thus.existing vibrantpublic sphereswill expandandbecome open to andconnectedwith otherpublic spheres.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. againstthe interestsof those who are worstoff in the international However.such forms of publicity have already produced selfregulatingforms of cooperationamong those affected by global processes. Even in the absence of clear centralized institutions.On the basis of their common knowledge of violations of publicity. at least to some degree and on some issues.196 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 the developmentandexpansionof transnational civil society.their members will develop the capacitiesof publicreasonto cross andnegotiateboundaries anddifferencesbetweenpersons.andcultures.groups. the emergence of a vibrantandpotentialcriticalpublic sphererequiresa certaindegree of social differentiationand institutionalization. we can expect that underproper typical conditions andwith public sphere. The associative networkof societies with global economies is now transnational and includes various nongovernmental organizations and associations.comalreadyexist in areasas diverseas environmental munication.the cosmopolitan public out of interactionsamong variouscosmopolitan and local sphere develops public spheres based in an emerging internationaland transnationalcivil society.internationalagreecould be the outcomeof interacments or "regimes" aimingat accountability tions under the norms of cosmopolitan publicity.suchregimesarefarfromdemocraticandoften work economy. Certainly.

"35 proposalseems to suggest creatinga wide. and functional boundaries."34 greatestimpetusfor arenalies in a vigorouscivil society conmoredemocracyin the international tainingoppositionalpublic spheres. those affected by decisions made within its institutions. it is easy to think of the global public sphereas little more thana "phantom public" in WalterLippmann'scritical phrase. globalization creates problems for public reason and democraticself-rule. and 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. global scale. interThis national public sphere by matching the mass media with some system of democraticaccountabilityandthus a corresponding of regulatinginstituset tions.In this respect. cultural.and mutual accountability across is betterto projectthe effects of globalization on publicitysomewhatdifferently:as the gradualtransformation local of civil society organizedinstitutionsas public spheres throughtransnational they emerge at differentlevels.a cosmopolitanpublic spherewill emerge thatwill be wide and pluralistic.Given the currentlack of international institutionalstructures the nascentstateof transnational and civil society. As various institutionsemerge. As in the case of the cognitive division of labordiscussed above.not the thin and abstractpublic sphereof the eighteenthcentury imagination.too. "Democracy and democratizationmay be sought across The states as well as in the state andagainst the state.translation. in which each public spherebecomes a location for the public use of reason in acts of criticism. democraticinstitutionscan no longer fully regulate the larger contexts in which political decisions are made. spill acrossits borders.With the gradualprocess that involves the emergence of both transnationalcivil society and novel organizing and integratingpolitical institutions.they. the conditions of . and thus with legitimateclaims to violations of its principleof publicity. Given their historical location in the nation state.such a projectionof the public sphereonto a is global scale is less the issue than new forms of social differentiationalong political institutions.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 197 cooperation expandsbeyondit. If my argument correct. cross-cutting associations. thick public spheres. can become the focus of a critical international civil society expandand maintainin public sphereas actorsin transnational their public interaction across various political. becauseof new possibilitiesfor international and which actorsorganizeagainstthe state or appeal to it when making violations of agreementspublic. At the same time. Ratherthanthinkingin the dualistictermsof a globalpublicsphererelated to centralizedglobal institutions.This would seem to call for the creationof a public sphereof a new.

inclusive civic public spheresthanthey are for cosmopolitanpublic spheres. Giventhe manyproblems thatrequirethe cosmopolitanuses of publicreason(fromglobal warming to economic regulationto wideningdisparitiesin well-being). is a univocal ideal." meansforpoliticalproblem The normof publicityhas long beena primary in modernsocieties. Cosmopolitanpublicitycontributes the solutionto these problemsof to cooperation by creating conditions for democratic accessibility to the process of the formationof international regimesandultimatelynew institutions. establishing the basis for suchcooperationin innovativeformsof publicityis an urgent task. DEMOCRACY. CONCLUSION: CITIZENSHIP. so thatwe do nothave anything like the sort of accountabilitythat public access to global processes requires. I have shownhow the normof publicity can be employedto solve problemsof citizenship:the social division of labor.the public sphere offered an attractive .and operates on the force of publicopinionandthroughdemocraticinstitutionsandpublic spheresthatat least for now exist on morelocal levels. Citizens now use theirreasonpubliclyandsolve problemsin a socially structuredspace of interactionso long as they are "well informed"and "cosmopolitan. the wide variationin culturaland historicalrealizationsof public spaces andspheresis due to the diverseproblems thatits normsaresupposedto solve.Such accountabilityis not the same as political control. 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. AND PUBLICITY of These examplesshow thatannouncements the deathof democraticcitiandthe identificationof cosmopolitanismwith oppressivepower are zenship Suchclaims rely on two unwarranted that assumptions: the public premature.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 well as problemsof culturalpluralismandglobalization. ratherthan one with a wide variety of historical sphere realizations.therecan be no basis for accountabilityto transnational publics. In fact.198 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 cosmopolitanpublicityarestill being workedout. Withoutsuch accessibility. andI have arguedthatthe problemsto be solved solving are differentfor the abstract.Withthe emergenceof a society differentiated aroundstate and civic institutions.

economic.socially and culturallydiverse.UK: CambridgeUniversityPress. Here I modify Cohen's argumentabout the "background condition of democracy"for restrictionson publicexpressionunderreasonablepluralism. xlii-xlvii." of to Critiqueof Pure Reason. Recent discussion of Rawls's . 2."San Diego Law Review 30 (1993): 729-62.across variousculturalboundariesin variousforms of publicity. NOTES 1. 55. Rehg (Cambridge. J. "Introduction" paperbackedition of Political Liberalism(New York: to Columbia University Press.TalcottParsonsarguesthattheexpansionof citizenshipis the resultof the generalizationof values. 7. see O'Nora O'Neill. styles. T. John Rawls. 418. and locations for egalitarian and deliberativepolitics.See JoshuaCohen. "Constructingan Ideal of Public Reason.TheStructuralTransformation the Public Sphere(Cambridge. 39. 1950). 1997). My argumentpresentsa variationon this theme with differentmechanismsfor value generalization than abstraction.functional and differentiation.. 5. 1969). Marshall." DeliberativeDemocracy:Essays on Reasonand Poliin tics. 4 Amy GuttmanandDennis Thompson. Ibid. ed. also Lawrence Solum. See Politics and Social Structure(New York:Free Press. Constructionsof Reason (Cambridge. andpoliticalinstitutionsaroundwhich more richly textured.MA: negotiatingthe conditionsof cooperationin the division of labor in the emergence of accessible and accountableinternational regimes. Rather. Citizenshipand Social Class (Cambridge. Inclusionoffered much the same ideal centered arounddiverse citizenry unifying themselves in a common public sphere.the practicalconsequencesof increasingdivision of labor. Bohman and W. similarly.participants nication as they solve these new problemsand therebychange the natureof citizenship. The signs of success for these new forms of publicity will be found in eventual changes in scientific. 42-8. In new culturallydiverseand socially mappedpublic work out new normsof publicityand forms of commuspheres. The historical changes that I have indicated do not mean that these civic normsof publicity have lost theirproblem-solvingability in many contexts.MA: MIT Press. 1989). 6. 1996). For an excellent accountof the centralimportance this remarkfrom Kant's"Preface.MA: HarvardUniversity Press."Procedure and Substancein DeliberativeDemocracy. 1989). 3. 1997). These solutions are based on establishingand maintainingnew forms of cooperation. MA: of MIT Press. globalizationcreateproblemsthatthese forms of publicity cannoteasily solve.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. 65. JiirgenHabermas.Democracyand Disagreement(Cambridge. and normativelydifferentiated publics emerge and createnew forms. H.

1996). 1992).MA: MIT Press. Habermasalso concedes spheresin which "private thatthereare many otherpossible variants. See Rawls.the public spheredenotes a social space that emerges out of civil society and is outside of state control."in New ed.StructuralTransformation the Public Sphere. Foran informativediscussionof these issues in a transcultural context. 2 (1993): 216-40. Bohmanand M.On these debates and an analysis of sportsas partof public culturein China. Lutz-Bachmann (Cambridge. Brownellshows the odd locations . 1."in On HumanRights. democratization the level of institutions. 63 ff. "ThePublic Spheresof the WorldCitizen. 178 ff.chap. 201-17.includinga "plebeianpublic sphere"(p. 431 ff. 5 ff. Hurley(New York:Basic Books. 13.1996). Jiirgen Habermas.see ibid. 360.which in turnprovidesa possiat ble basis for more. "TheLaw of Peoples. Farfromdemanding"dedifferentiation" the sake of democratizafor than tion. 8. For a Pogge. ratherthanless. 17.for the variantsof the of genesis of the Europeanliterarypublicspheres. see Thomas McCarthy. 11."in Modern China 19. democraticandinclusivepublic sphere. For criticismsof this conception. 1994). 1993).Complexity Democracy(Cambridge.see Thomas Law of Peoples. chap. The term"publicculture"usually denotesthose aspectsof culturalidentityand symbols thatbecome the subjectmatterfor public debateandopinion. Eickelmanand J.200 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 and reasonshave revolvedaroundthe problemof religious distinctionof "public" "non-public" expression. I am arguingthatpublic spherestoday are based on even more social differentiation createsconditionsfor Cohenand Arato'smodel suggests. Furthermore. Shuteand hierarchical S. "LegalReasoningand PublicDiscourse in IndonesianIslam.see Susan Brownell. At the same time.ed.Public Deliberation:Pluralism. See WangHui."Isthe PublicSphereUnspeakable in Chinese?"Public Culture6 (1994): 603-4. Trainingthe Bodyfor China(Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. 12.MA: MIT Press. such differentiation a more." Universityof Chicago Law Review 94 (1997): 765-807.). 1989). See Habermas. ed. no. 15.BetweenFacts and Norms. Lee Ou-fanLee. "AnEgalitarian criticismbased on restrictionson the criticaluse of public reasonin such societies. forthcoming). ratherthan less. On this criticismof Habermas. Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato. Civil Society and Political Theory(Cambridge.MA: MIT Press. J. Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. 9. S. it is still characterized a form of publicness. chap. "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. xviii). Often such phenomenaindicate the presence of what John Rawls calls "consultationhierarchies"ratherthan genuine public spheres in my broadersense of the term."in PerpetualPeace. 1997)."Philosophyand Public Affairs23 (1994): 214 ff. with MichaelFisher. 14.see PhilipHuang.see James Bohman.butwhatthey all havein commonis thatthey are personscome togetheras a public"(p.3."A ReasonableLaw of Peoples. moving Rawls from an "exclusive"to an "inclusiveview" which rejects Rawls's own previousargumentin Political Liberalismthatthereis "butone public reason"of citizens.while "representative publicness" does not have the presuppositionof "universal as accessibility"(p. 179-200. and 10. See JamesBohman. Consultationhierarchiescharacterize"well-ordered societies. BetweenFactsandNorms(Cambridge. D. See John Bowen. Media and the Politics of Civil Society in the Islamic World.."in PerpetualPeace. TalalAsad. MA:MITPress. On the possibilityof a transnational publicsphere. "'PublicSphere'/'CivilSociety' in China:The ThirdRealmbetweenStateandSociety. 16. Habermas. Anderson (Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.8."See Rawls. 18. 27).

MA: Harvard Business School Press. 2 (Carbondale: Universityof SouthernIllinois University."DeliberativeDemocracy and Authority.MA: HarvardUniversity Press. 31. 23. Amy Guttman.and PracticalReason."Structural Causes and Regime Consequences."in Trust."TheChallengeof Multiculturalism PoliticalEthics. For empiricalconfirmation the explicit awarenessamongcitizens of the operativedisof tinctions between privateand public forms of discourse. 27. 7. But this is precisely the type of as responsivenessdemandedin "cosmopolitan publicspheres" I definethem:withoutsuch a normative expectation. See Michael Walzer'sdescriptionof "abstract universalism" seeking a "moralEspeas ranto" in Interpretationand Social Criticism (Cambridge. 243-50. 19. TalkingPolitics (Cambridge. ImpureScience: AIDS. Democracy in Capitalist Times(Oxford. 21. 194). 1987).such a resolutionof moralconflicts has no normativeforce. 1990).UK: Polity."in Principals and Agents. 19 ff. Prattand R. 24. 34. 1988). 1996)."Philosophyand in Public Affairs 22 (1993): 184.NY: Cornell UniversityPress. 28. 150. 1996). 1993).see SamuelFreeman. 33. Zeckhauser(Cambridge.see AmericanJournalofPolitical Science 43 (1999): 590-607." 29. 32. see John Keene. 25. 20. For a fuller descriptionof regimes. For similar criticisms. BernardWilliams. for whom the very contingencyof empiricalknowledgerequired judgmentsof the personalcredibilityof witnesses. Guttmansees cosmopolitanismas a "comprehensive universalism" which "overlookscases of moralconflict where no substantivestandardcan legitimately claim a monopoly on reasonablenessandjustification"(p. Kraser(Ithaca. BenjaminLee. 1925-1953.UK: CambridgeUniversityPress. 1991).ed. 1-22." AmericanJournal of Sociology 93 (1987): 627. to 19. 22. UK: Oxford University Press. "FormalStructuresand Social Reality." American Political Science Review 90 (1996): 58."Journalof Philosophy 88 (1991): 281-303.TheSocial Historyof Truth (Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press."TheSocial Controlof ImpersonalTrust. 334."TheEconomics of Agency. "GoingPublic. StephenToulmin. 1994). As Shapinhimself pointsout."Contractualism."in InternationalRegimes. Mark Warren. John Dryzek.Activism. ThePublic and Its Problemsin JohnDewey: TheLater Works. 1985). JohnDewey. 209. 37-51.ed. 26. Vol. Gambetta (London:Basil Blackwell.1988). . J.see William Gamson. For a competingpictureof early moder science to this standard abstract and Enlightenmentaccount.AND NORMS OF PUBLICITY Bohman/ CITIZENSHIP 201 for publicity even in "statesaturatedsocieties. KennethArrow.ed.Cosmopolis:TheHiddenAgenda of Modernity(Chicago:University of Chicago Press. For furtherdiscussion of the cognitive division of labor in deliberativedemocracy. The Media and Democracy (Cambridge. 1983). see StephenKraser. Susan Shapiro. 30."Public Culture5 (1993): 165-277. D. StephenEpstein.For an elaborationof this formof justificationin relationto makingone's to actions "answerable" others. Such mutualresponsivenessor answerability othersis crucialto thejustificatoryforce of public agreements. S.the division of laborundermines this personaltrustand conversationallogic.and the Politics of Knowledge(Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. my "Democracyas Social Inquiry. MoralMotivation." such as in criticisms of the Partyin Chinese sportsjournalism.see StephenShapin.

CulturalIdentity. James Bohman is Danforth Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University.He is authorof PublicDeliberation: Pluralism. Nicholas Garnham.1996) and New Philosophyof Social Science: Problemsof Indeterminacy (MITPress. ComplexityandDemocracy(MITPress. 1991).andfreedom." Public Culture5 (1995): 265. .and the Public Sphere in the Modem World.202 POLITICAL THEORY/ April 1999 35. He is currentlywritinga book on how pluralismrequiresnew interpretations of democraticideals of equality. both with MIT Press.publicity. He has also recentlyeditedbooks titledDeliberativeDemocracy:Essays on Reason and Politics and PerpetualPeace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal."TheMass Media.