POLS339

21.09.17
1.Constituents of Gezi more heterogenous
2.Experience of mutual learning process
3.Challange the public/private dichotomy
Acting in concert:Arendt’s term
Publics arequeer creature
Civil society is the market place. Exchange not only goods but also ideas. And that is where
public sphere emerge.
Public sphere=democracy
Political public spherehistorically public sphere
Oikos City
.despots(hierarchical) .free citizens Ancient Greek
.realm of necessity .freedom

Intimate Sphere Social Sphere State

.freedom .market relations .laws(to restrict) modern society(opposite
ofGreek)
.partial freedom .realm of necessity

28.09.17
All emancipatory movements since the French Revolution questioned the factual and
imaginary boundries between the public and private.
Contrast the value attached to private and public spheres in antiquity and in modern times.
Where is the private, the oikos, the household in antiquity is presumed as the realm of
necessities and the public sphere as the realm of freedom,the polis as realm of freedom. Exact
opposite is the true for the modern understanding of social spheres. Civil society understood
to be private domain, persuaded in our times as the realm of freedom, whereas politics, public
realm most frequently viewed or experienced as a necessary evilthat is the liberal ideology,
we conduct our lives freely in civil society as free from the state intervention and state is only
there to preserve the order which we can live peacefully.
Modern public spheres emerged from the civil society, they emerged in private meetings of
intellectual subjects of the enlightened monarchies of 18th century.
Intellectuals met at coffeshops and discuss mediations of newspaper. These intellectuals were
mostly aristocrats. Background: high bourgeois, aristocracy and newly educated middle class.
Powerfull rich women who has saloons provide space for free intellectual debate, prestige.
Sufferings of Young Werther- class conflict, depicting the relation b/w these new comers of
society and established aristocratic and higher bourgeoise class. It is the public who discuss in
saloons and coffehouses. The intimate/private sphere made public through mediation of
letter.
The New Sorrows of Young W.- against to Young Werther. Critique from perspective of East
Germany. Critique of East german style socialism.
Rousseau: The best example of educated intellectual, always remain outsider to these saloons,
everybody somehow recognized him but that recognition was not enough for him. Paronia.
He tries to get recognition and he can only get it within limits. Search for recognition
The public of man of letters was open to everyone who have taste for art, literature and
sciences; which means you have to be educated. Public opinion that found its expression there
was a qualified and elite public opinion. This elite public opinion was nevertheless an outcome
of public debate, where arguments exchanged openly and the force of the argument the
public use of reason was decisive in opinion forming. These not only helped the participants
of public debated, critical consciousness and consensual agreements but also dictated the
rules of such debates based on public use of reason. For the first time in that era people
started to talk about aesthetic taste, which you can be sure of only through public debate. You
needed to discuss in public. In a public debate participants had to learn to abstract from their
immediate desires, interests and needs, and give their critical thoughts the form of a
universality that reason require. Implicit rules (force of the argument or abstract from
immediate..) have been paradigmatic according to Habermas for the emergence of political
public sphere or what he call bourgeois public sphere. There are many public sphere but what
we are intrested in is the political one. Any public sphere can very easily turn into a political
public sphere.

Political public sphere and idea of republic and democracy The emergence of the public
sphere and modern idea of republic is interwind.
Man of letters:
-Didero-Rameau’s Nephew: First critique of Enlightenment though idea of what society has to
be. Hegel says French Revolution owes its existence to this book. Encyclopedia accumulated
knowledge of everything(until invention of the Internet), was very important ideology of
bourgeois to collect whatever existent.
-Voltaire-Candide: Critique of philosophical thought
-Rousseau but always outsider
According to Habermas the public sphere of man of letters played an important role in serving
as a model for the emerging bourgeois public sphere. They are the models.
Public debate: participants were considered/treated to be equals. New emerging public
debate in social and political realm. They all could abstract from their private interests and
brought arguments for regulations that would serve to the general interest of public in such a
way that anyone who could use his reason should be able to agree with. That’s the idea behind
the political public sphere. One could criticise the existing norms or more importantly existing
laws by making a public use of her reason. So any public can be characterize as social space
where participants are equal, the force of the argument rules and the outcomes of the debate
serve the general not the private. Public sphere modeled after the intellectual public
spheres that emerge in cafes.
Public reason could be use in order to make laws and at least in theory laws should express
and regulate the common interest of a society. But is that the case, wouldn’t this theoretical
account be ideological in the sense that laws in reality are made to serve particular interests
of a class? Rousseau recommend new social contract where laws should be understood as it
should be differently until so far. As universal applicable for all. Bec before Frenc rev three
estates. Different rule applying to these estates. Is Rousseau legal positivist?
All this talk about public sphere is nothing but ideologic. Considered this in addition, in a public
debate call it bourgeois or not nobody ever can sufficently abstract from her immediate
personal interests even if they wanted to. At best private interests are dressed disguise as
public concerns. The fact that people strive to give their arguments the apperance of
universality they are forced to do so, the appereance of reason that is publicly realm shows
how effective the norms constituting the public sphere are or has been. Compare
constitutional state and Tr: In tr everyone in the public sphere accepts that politics is about
private interest, people are not even try to hide their private interests; that is the end a kind
of public sphere. In Us-liberal understanding of republic, legitimate lobbies. Public sphere if
emerges from those invested interests. Difficult to find working public sphere in American
state than European states. Lobby means corruption in our understanding. Any argument that
does not fulfill these normative criteria: if it does not the respect the equality of participants,
if it does not depend on the force of the argument, if it does not to aim for the public interest
.. such an argument is null and void. Whenever we critize an argument as ideological, it
appears to be a universalistic argument but it is not, it serves the interest of a particular group.
We are forcing people to make universal argument and if they don’t we critize, this is a severe
criticism. Most central of Habermas’ book.
Habermas main thesis: As a member of Frankurt school, he follows the critical investigation
called ‘imminent critism’. This method is borrowed from Hegel and Marx. Attempts to criticise
what explain the object attend by means of criteria drive from the analysis of object, no
external criteria is brought in t the critic. So it is not like Kant where you have universal values,
categorical imperative, that’s an external measure. What Marx does is the bourgeois ideology
claims that the bourgeois society establishes liberty and equality, let’s have a look what this
equality and liberty contractors of workers look like, they are neither equal nor free when they
sign working agreement infact nobody free in the society. He is bringing extra norm from
outside. Every institution by definition is grounded on certain norms. Marx argue economic
institutions are not free from norms, this realization of norms is not possible, institutions do
not realize the norms they promise. How Habermas critize bourgois public sphere in imminent
terms? Norms are themselves contradictary and problematic. In accordance with this method
Habermas seek to present the contradictory nature of the ideals put forward by the bourgeois
publics sphere but also trying to unearth the unrealized emancipatory potentials of these
ideas. He is not saying let’s reestablish bourgeois sphere. That bourgeois public sphere which
has lived until 1848 had some values in it, we have to rethink about these values. So structural
transformation of the public sphere according to Habermas a double one. Before the
emergence of bourgeois public sphere, represantative public sphere: The monarch or
aristocracy presented their power in a ceremonial manner, public shere was a necessary
component of a public authority represented. So, it was a show of power. Bourgeois public is
different than this but probably it is also a show off power, so it has inherited an important
value form this aristocratic monarchical public sphere namely ... this debate culture is
expression of certain power relations. Public show power emphasized the personal
embodiment of power that resides in the state monopoly of the power. In contrast, newly
emerging bourgeois public sphere towards the end of 18th century was at... in civil society
that is not the state(?). The bourgeois public was not opposed to the private, was
mouthpiece(sözcü) of the private. Private people came together as public and soon they
began to discuss issues of political realms, public debate gradually turn into an instrument of
public conversation. The rebellion of civil society against the state, which found its expression
in bourgeois public opinon. In its war against absolutism and feudalism public opinion with its
claim to reason and truth demanded the substitution of political power with the public reason.
Laws in accordance with the public reason had to replace political domination. The weapons
of the third estate has the bourgeois were the legal measures.
Habermas: According to bourgeois ideology the law itself by The law itself, by which the
executive and the judiciary had to abide, was to be equally binding for everyone(that is the
revolutionary part); in principle, no one was to enjoy a dispensation or privilege. In this respect
the laws of the state were like those of the market: neither allowed exceptions for citizens and
private persons; both were objective, which is to say, not manipulable by the individual; the
individual owner of goods had no influence on the market price; and they were not directed at
individuals The laws of the market, of course, prevailed because they were intrinsic; this was
precisely why classical economics endowed them with the appearance of an ordre naturel. The
laws of the state, in contrast, needed to be explicitly enacted. To be sure, the prince could
possibly also function as the legislator insofar as he was willing to bind his commands and all
state activity to general norms(that is why people are deliberating on the possibility of
enlightened despots and that would be enough for them). whereby the latter, in turn, would
have to be oriented to the interests of bourgeois commerce. For a state to be constitutional
per se did not necessarily require that the public sphere be constitutionalized within the
framework of a parliamentary form of government (or at least one in which authority was
vested in parliament). The physiocrats indeed had something like this in mind; their so-called
legal despotism held out the prospect that precisely under the enlightened monarch public
opinion would be sovereign. Hence the enlightened monarch of the physiocrats remained a
pure fiction; in the conflict of class interests the character of a state as a constitutional state
would not guarantee per se legislation geared toward the needs of bourgeois commerce. Only
with power to legislate itself did the public, constituted of private people, obtain this certainty.
The constitutional state as a bourgeois state established the public sphere in the political realm
as an organ of the state so as to ensure institutionally the connection between law and public
opinion(so ideally public opinion should turn into a law, there should be ofcourse mediator
mechanism). Habermas refers to intrinsically republican aspirations of public sphere during
the revolutionary period of bourgeoisie. Accordingly, state power should be vested in the
hands of the people, popular sovereignty should be the legitimate rule. Public opinion ensure
this legitimacy by giving laws their most general that is rational content and form, only then
the political realm,state can viewed as the realm of freedom. This was preciesly Rousseau’s
point, he opposes even the formation of publics for that matter the public opinon in order to
secure the popular sovereingty from the influence of particular and private interest. Rousseau
is the father of modern political theory, need of new social contract, most influenced by Plato,
radical republican.
It is Kant who first celebrates the formation of public opinion in accordance with the idea of
popular sovereign. Kant is talking about making public opinions out loud (its condition
education, so public opinion is qualifed/elite opinion) and freedom of speech, but privately
you are not free.
Habermas’ point Want to be democrats but at the same time want to preserve qualification
of public sphere. We need a qualified new form of public but does not support eliterianism.
And, how can you motivate people they can contribute in this society of extreme division of
labor in which we live in, how are we to make the arguments which are to interest of all public
and at the same time they are enlightened. Restructuring of public sphere.
This republican aspiration the control of state and its tranformation to a sphere of freedom
lies at the base of the demanding understanding of modern democracy. Not merely limit the
power of the state to secure social sphere where individual can live without interference of
the state but it aims to redefine the political sphere as a sphere of collective self
determination. Autonomy- auto nomos(self rule). Public opinion that emerges in qualified
public debates helps to clarify the common concerns of public which aims to live free that is
in accordance with the laws it has dictated on itself.
Second transformation of the public sphere according to Habermas. He was aware that this
republican ideal of revolutionary bourgeoisie could not have been realized because of the
structural reasons(most imp structural economic reasons because of class divison etc). But
with the emergence of mass society and mass media today the ideas themselves jeopardized.
And if we don’t rethink the role of public sphere as institutions, we are facing the dangers of
‘refeudalization of society’. It is only through the institution of laws as the expression of
common opion that bourgeoisie establishes state in which all citizens are free, independent
from one another. If you don’t have such view there is the danger that there will emerge
groups in societies where your dependency legitimazes according to these group rules,
rearrange by existing power magnets, that’s a real danger of lost of democratic self-
determination Habermas says. Public sphere turns into a stage where political power
celebrates as .. before a consumer public (ex. Trump). Public sphere turns into a show
business, it is there for the consumer public. *How can we generate/regenerate the existence
of democratic public sphere especially in this era of rising right-wing populism?- our main
concern.
Kant gives Rousseau’s republicanism an individualistic term. Therefore, Kant a liberal
republican(essentially republican but he brings liberal values into Rousseau’s totalitarian
republicanism). Tocqueville a republican liberal(essentially liberal but has republican touch).
Throughoıt the middle ages and high middle ages, people tried to make out ways to .. scope
of state, so they don’t intervene unnecessarily civil society. And liberty meant freedom from
state, freedom from the intervention of other individuals. That is basis of liberal understanding
of freedom, a negative view. Therefore, even go back to Magne Carta where the aristocrats
tried to find out ways to limit the power of the monarch so he doesn’t intervene the
aristocratic domain. Idea is non-domination. The understanding of liberal democracy draws
on this seperation as well, we have civil society different lobby groups have their own interests
and they want to represent their interest in the state so state acts according to them.
Critiques of liberalism questions this seperation: Hegel, Marx, Rousseau. That is the wrong
state, according to Rousseau, that’s the problem, we need a new contract so that state will be
reconquered by the civil society, it will be our state, it will be nothing outside.

Social Contract
People were only autonomous in the pastoral society. After that society and technology
developed, the development of technology brought .., people became dependent one
another. Now we are living in the civil society in the most dependent stage. So nobody is free.
How can we find out a new social contract which would justify the existence of state? That’s
his aim. And his argument is state canonly be justified if it saves us from this dependency, if it
turns us free individuals.(pp.54 first par.)So he argues in his second discourse, with the
emergence of property a state which was protecting the interests of property holders. So this
state is not justified. Comparing with the Hobbesian or Lockian theories of state of
nature/social contract. Rousseau has a critical intention, he doesn’t want to argue that state
can be justified by the fictive(in Hobbes and Locke we have a fiction), we need a new social
contract. How this social contract can be envisioned, how should that be?
(pp. 54 par.3) Find a form of association which will defend and protect with the ….an remain
as free as before. This the fundamental problem to which the social contract gives the
answer. Main issue at stake is let’s sign a contract through which we will only obey ourselves,
nooneelse. We will be autonomous, how is it possible? How can autonomy be realized in
contrast the natural freedom. According to Rousseau you depend your own strenght and the
society in which we live is comparable to state of nature in a decadent face. Because it only
works on the principle of use of power(we are still living in the Hobbesian state of nature). In
Hobbes civil society is preserved as it is in state of nature (nothing is changed), it is a sphere
of conflict of the individuals among themselves and state tries to limit that conflict so that it
no turn out in a violent way. Rousseau talking about transformation of indiviual freedom. It is
not a freedom that you will have in the civil society but a new form of freedom: acting radically
only according to the principles that you yourself obey your will.
We need transformation. We should observe create freedom from this dependence. How can
we freedom within this dependence, how can we sign a new contract so that we turn into
autonomus individual? We leave our natural freedom behind and exchange acquire civil
freedom, freedom of citoen (means bourgeoise), it is the transformed individual. Even after
the transformation one part of us still want to be bourgeoisie (seeking self interest) but one
part of us should seek general interest.
How can social freedom be realized in contrast to natural freedom?(pp.55 par.3,4) In Hobbes,
each individual gives their right individually, reciprocally each other. Individualism is preserved
even in the terms of contract. Rousseau say all citizens give all their rights to community, also
self-preservation rights (unlike Hobbes). Civil society before contract as a society of atomistic
individuals each seeking their own interest, they give their rights of preserving themselves.
Give all your rights to community, everyone; which should form a community and gains the
total sum of rights of all. At the end he has more strength than before. Rousseau talking about
totality, an organismbody politic.
(pp.55 par.5)‘Everything is alienated from himself and his power….. we as body receive each
member as an indivisible part of the whole.’Transfromation. Turned into a totality, which
means now I am the organ of new totality, part of a bigger whole. I am free, I obey myself
because I only exercise my function in this totality. New organism in which the relationship
between the part and whole is dialectical. Nothing but an organic relationship with whole and
its parts, which means when the whole transfroms itself the part also transforms vice versa.
Transfromed your individuality, which means we can understand who and what you are only
in terms of the totality which you’re ascribed. In a totally tranformed society in Rousseaun
sense nobody would even come up with to have different interest, you are part of the body if
that body dies you die. The idea of transforming estates of existent full of depencies into a
society of freedom is the main concern of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Marx; they all do this on
their way. General will is not sum total of the wills. Will of all vs general will.
(pp.56 par.1, pp.57 par.1) Member of sovereign, organic member of that totality and he owes
duties to the other members(moralduty). Tied strictly to the sovereign, each state has its
morals. Kant takes this idea and turn it into a universal morality. As a member of state(legal
duty: defines the borders of your freedom in a negative sense. And moral duty is the duty that
you owe to your organism and you actually obey yourself, it is a self duty, contract you made
yourself.
(pp.57,58) sovereign is always what it should be, it cannot harm itself. What happens when
the person is misguided and acting according to his natural private interests? He is going to be
brought back his freedom. Because in acting social freedom you are acting against your
freedom, new self. You are blind to what your self interest are, your self interest are defined
by interest of the society. After Auschwitz these are dangerous ideas.
Whether the general will can err? No. because you can only possible want the well-being of
your existence. But the components of body politic maybe in illusion about what is the truth.
So, led to he truth by good law-giver. In constituting the state, the public the main activity of
the citizens is to inact laws when necessary. But whenever citizens come together and have
to give a decision, this should take lace without communicaiton. And this is contrary to the
idea of public sphere is about communiction so that we have better argument,reason for any
thought. Rousseau argues if there is any communications, there will be fanctions and they will
build up interest groups, that is the end of the common organism. So, state collapses.
Elections, if you are in the minority you should realize you made a mistake and you have to try
to understand what the common will actually interest. Common interest never make mistake
and you should obey the general will. He actually take the no communication idea from the
papal elections, they don’t discuss, argue and find anonymous vote.

5.10.17
Two forms of democratic political publics:
1. Liberal political public
2. Republican political public
Liberal political public try to protect the civil society from unnecessary state intervention.
State should not interfere in the civil society or private sphere of the citizens. Therefore, the
public spheres that emerged in civil societ try to limit activity of a state. Mill and Tocqueville.
Republican political public try to control state power. State is to be controlled by the public,
that is the function of public. State power must be transformed into a sphere of freedom, self-
determination governed by laws enacted by citizens themselves. Habermas is particularly
interested in the idea of enactment of law by citizens, according to him normatic values
inherent in bourgeois public sphere still carry an emancipatory or democratic potential which
are waiting for their realization. In this respect he refers the idea of Public use of reason and
underlies the function that bourgeois public sphere emerged against representative public
sphere of the absolute monarchy and gave an expression to the bourgeois aspirations of
political power. Bourgeois strike no longer only for limiting the power state over civil society
but claim to substitute political group itself with the general interests of the public. Ruling
function in the third estate wanted that people should be governed according to the rules
which they detemined to law. General interest found an expression presumably in the
consensus emerging in the public debates and it should be instutionalize as law. There should
be a public debate, discussion of what the law should be and that law should be enact. The
principle of popular sovereignty is according to Habermas is the essence of republican
understanding of democracy.
Public opinion: indeterminence which stems for the word opinion not truth but merely
opinion. Open to discussion, persuade others. Reputation, how somebody is represented in
the eyes of others, refers to collective opinion. 1. Subjective view point 2. Unreflective
collective judgment. Positive appreciation of public opinion and this significance begins
Rousseau understanding of republicanism, volunta general. Political body Rousseau envisions
is modeled in contrast to the existing bourgeois civil society. He demands from individual to
renounce their private interests in exchange of citizenship, only as a citizen one can restore
his freedom, autonomy lost in the history. Even one can force somebody to his freedom when
he acts against the contract. In civil society everyone is dependent on everyone as a part of
the political body citizen is free. General will, sovereign is always right, which find its expresion
in laws , public opinion or customs. Formation of public opinion does not materialized in public
discussion rather it is rooted in the hearts of people, not formed by public opinion. Debates
are detrimental to the infallible general will because they present the existence of particular
wills

05.10.2017

2 forms of democratic publics

- Liberal democratic public: strive to protect liberal society for state’s intervention, try
to limit state’s activity

- Political public in the republican sense: state control public state power must be
transformed into sphere of self-determination. According to Habermas nor values
inherent in bourg pub sphere realization. Public use of reason formal rules pertaining.
Secondly h underlines the function that bour pub sp has certain function.
Representative public sphere of absolute monarchy. Bourgeois understanding of pp …
people should be governed acc to rules. Popular sovereignty is acc to hab essence of
republican and of democracy which sharply .. from liberalism.

Doxa a viewpoint, judgement, it is not truth but nearly opinion. One of the meanings
of doxa is opinion which understood as open to discussion. Secondly it also has a
menaing of reputation, how someone is represented in the eyes others. Collective
opinion, opininon of the public. That’s determined by colective opinion. 2 semantic
levels: subjective viewpoint, unreflective collective judgement.
General will emerges only in body politic. General wll searche for common good. Pol
body is model in contrasst to existence of civil bourgeiois society. Rousseau demands
inds renounce their private interest exchange it citizenship. In civil soc, everyone is
dependent on everyone. As a part of the pol body citizen is free. Formation of pub op,
does not materilize in public discussion. Debates are detrimental infallible general will.
Critiques of liberalism questions seperation. Kant’s liberal republicanism respects this
divide between state and civil society. The laws of public reason should gradually
replace domination illegitimate rule. It also should serve common interest.
Unconditional comment: categorical imperative
Secondly content of this discussion informs us about specific interest of that public.
Universal dimension fo the laws and their particular content. Laws should be universal,
obeyed in any circumstance, can be applied to everybody. In its contnt it expresses the
wishes a particular society.

Intelligence reason

Phenomena Noumersa

Phenomena (its refering to structure our discourse, it means appearing. We

understand world by structure by our categories. Find out laws. Establish causal
relationships. We categorize world the causal necessities. We recognize them as
necessary relationship. Phenomena is world as appears to us. This creates a ghostly
reality (noumena). This world beyond phenomena does not seen to us. We are not just
composed of reason but also bodies. We are also subject of laws of nature.
Phenomenal world turns to nature. We can undertsand the laws because we have
category of necessity. Innature everything is necssity. Whether we cana ct freely or we
are just as any other thing determined by nature. Kant radicalised this question and
says that if we obey ..,then we obey necessity. The question is whether there can be
nec a law which I obey which does not come from external phenomaenal world. If
there is such a world, then I can call myself free.

If we act auto-nomos then we act according to moral law. Moral law is moral because
it is self given. There is parallelity moral law and the law hat citizens make themselves.

Laws of nature are notjust there, they are conceptual achievement. We conceptualize
them as laws, its our conceptualization. The world is not just given to us, we contirbute.
Kant practical reason is about morality, how do I relate to the world, if the world
structured by necessity by laws. Is there a radical way of determining my ends, purely
out of consideration of my own capabilities, not induced by any causal relation? Kant
says freedom is act of reason.
 - Groundwork for metaphysics of morals
- Critique of practical reason
Kant formulates his famous categorical imperative which is soul grounding of morality.
When you act morally, you are free.  Rousseau. Categorical imperative should not
be motivated by external world, duty ethics, in contrast to consequentialist.
Realization of freedom moment you obey categorical imperative is morality.
Categorical imperative has 3 or 4 dif formulations. There is one law, they complete
each other, it expresses self-given law, intrinsically related to idea of autonomy. The
1st for of categorical imperative act only according to that maxim (principle of that
action) whereby you at the same time will that should become universal law without
contradiction. Every reasonable being should be a position in the one.
Second formulation, act in such a way, you treat humanity whether in your own person
or in the person of any other never… daily dealings with other we treat others as means
of ends. You have to use others as means to your own ends. treating others as an
means to ends means think others as natural things. Human subjects are not just
another object. Act against this imp if you treat others always as a means of ends. you
cannot limit others’ freedom without limiting your own freedom. You are also a thing
and anyone can use you for any purpose.
Third formulation, therefore every rational being must so act as if he were through his
maxim always a legislating a member of universal kingdom of ends. only in this
formulation, public debate is included. What is enlughtenment is about cat imperative.
Critique is about self-reflection.

In civil society we are living in full dependence on each other. In the modern world we are
increasinly dependent one another. How to overcome the dependency that emerges social
division of labour as a matter first problematized by Schiller. Enlightenment is not about self-
illumination it is elimination relationships which involve power inequalities.
Habermas  How to create conditions of discourse free of domination. Public sphere should
be domain where only the force of argument is justified. Not other force should interfere in
the public sphere. Emancipation cannot be a individual affair. (Kurtuluş yok tek başına)
emancipation can only take place in public sphere. The public should educate itself. Public
debate is a learning process. First we need public freedom. We can argue in our contemporary
world post-truth targeting emergence of any public debate, it destroys to public sphere.
You learn how to discuss very slow manner.
Without functioning public sphere you cannot have a democracy.
Academic freedom vs Kantian public use of reason.
 12.10.17
Republican conceptualizations of Hegel and Marx
Marx and Hegel are critical republicanists. They are critical of Rousseau’s version of
republicanism. The point of Rousseau’ republicanism was that state is not separate entity,
state must be under the control of sovereign citizens. State is not separate from sovereign
citizens. This is both Hegel and Marx problematic, society as a unions totality but they also
want to view the mediations within that totality. Both Hegel and Marx mediation is important
part of politics. They agree with Rousseau that society is a totality. With that they do not agree
with liberalism. Both Hegel and Marx are very critical on liberal understanding of state and
society. Liberalists: Civil society is separated from state strictly. Whole idea of politics is to
control status over the state does not interfere to society. According to interests, state exists
within the society. For example, in the US, lobbying is normal procedure of politics. State is
seen as horses of a coach. Whereas in the republican conceptualization, state put under
control, it is nothing but the expression of the power of the citizens. Democracy means
empowerment of the people. State empowers the citizens.
Hegel’s critique of liberalism, we cannot separate state and civil society from one another. He
does not start with individuals, starts with family. The reason is it is the basic intersubjective
unity. He criticizes Kant’s definition of marriage as a contract. For Hegel, marriage is
intersubjective unity, you cannot marry in order to just make a contract. Certain
intersubjective relations cannot be understood as these moral terms. Kantian morality is
universal morality, refers to individual. You will not buy a partner a flower because it is your
duty. There are other relationships. Duty. Organization, institution? Institutions involves
certain norms. Family is an institution. The point is if you want to understand society,
according to Hegel, you have to start from institutions. Because they involves certain duties
which can only understood within reciprocal social relations. Only within a family sacrifices of
mothers and fathers make sense. He argues older son entitled to go civil society and
communicate with other families in terms of economic relationships. First you have families
then you have civil society which understands mostly in economic terms. Families are
interrelated with one another. According to him, people get into relations of recognition
without knowing that they are relations of recognition. Their occupations are important. With
these recognition relations people learn about themselves or turn into themselves what they
are. Civil society helps people to educate themselves into certain identities. (Goethe –
bildingsroman)
This socialization in civil society is also very one-sided socialization. We need something else
in order to continue this diversity. If you are only one-sided it can be detrimental for unity. In
State, we have different recognition. We are citizens, we have relationships on the basis of
equality. One reason why we need state is because he is aware the economic problem of civil
society. Hegel is aware of inequalities in civil society. These inequalities create more
inequalities. This is a system which creates more and more inequalities. We can only talk about
shadow of reason casted upon the market. In the end, somehow the market mechanism
integrates us society. Not only socially, but also proliferation of means.
Market somehow reasonable. Systematic creation of material inequality.
Public opinion is similarly only subjective and, expresses only interestt of occupational groups.
The articulation of public opinion is one-sided interest articulation. We need to find out new
institutions for order of civil society, so needs and interests bundled together into more
general interest. Here within the civil society, interest opinion formation can be described as
have educated formation. We need other institutions in order to counteract against
disintegrated tendency of civil society. We need to do is continue this conflictual whole with
other institutions which relate them. And, these other institutions are cooperations. At this
point you can make either totalitarian or social democrat interpretation. Social democrat
interpretation says that trade unions articculating common affairs of particular interest. We
need them to articulate general interest in a more rational way. On the other hand, corporal
thesis which understands state as body politic, argues that corporations are there to
strengthen behalf and body of the state. Corporatism was very popular in 20s and 30s, its
bases of fascist totalitarianism. Because you refuse the possibility of conflicts.
Hegel’s institutionalized account of civil society and state relation present also ground for
fascism. Only because there is the state you have civil society. only because there is civil
society, you have families. You think this plains include other plains, without this larger plain
of state, the existence of civil society is not possible. Without existence of civil society, family
does not exist. Because ther eis state there is civil society. This is a attack to liberal
understanding.
Marx says the problem in civil society is so fundamental that is the class conflict. The state is
only a tool of dominating classes. Public opinion is ideological. Class based view of opinion.
State-civil society distinciton is ideological. At the same time, it is also precondition of
bourgeois domination. Actually in reality, division between and civil society does not exist.
But liberals should argue there should be distinction because there is exactly what provides
central divisions.
Liberal understanding of democracy focuses on civil society against state and protection of
individual rights. Political debate we are not searching for consensus, consensus is an
exception. Politics is not trying to find our consensus. Inreducability of conflicts. Consensus &
compromise.

Tocqueville – He is republican liberal. His theoretical approach is essentially liberal, he wants

protection of individual rights and does not want intervention of state to affairs of individuals
in civil society. But on the other hand, there is also a republican perspective because he sees
importance of civil associations.
The question is: What if the public is not a reading public? Not a public of intellectuals? He
seems to find a solution to the problem with new form of associations emerged in the civil
society. He was amazed when went to the US. It is amazing in the US that they have invented
this association.
It is a standard classical text. He is one of the few intellectuals known by Marx as well. What
is the meaning of democracy? In Ancient Greek term, democracy means empowerment of the
people. Demos + kratos. Demos means people and poor. That is not about quantity but the
quality of power structure. In aristocracy you are ruled by good, rule fo the good. It is not a
occupation of office. This power is exercised by the demos, it empowers the people. People
control the rich in Athenian democracy. Tocqueville’s understanding of democracy means
government of the people which means the majority, majoritarianism and that can be
dangerous. He is not against empowerment of the people, he is against majoritarianism.
What is a democratic government in contradistinction to a republic? Republics are not
necessarily democracy. Law is important with respect to republic. Laws are in the spirit of Res
publica : public affair. You will not obey anyone but laws. That is the main idea behind
republicanism.
When you look at Rousseau, democracy is only about governing which is related to executive
function. In a democracy, many gives the decisions. In nineteenth century US, Tocqueville
makes the observation that they make laws as if they are making decrease. The assembly
decides in each and every time. The immediate decisions are taking by the majority. Whereas
in republicanism, we are primarily talking about legislative, who makes the laws. Tocqueville
observes that extreme type of democracy which every decision is taken by majority. “Of all
political powers, the legislature is the one that most willingly obeys the majority. The
Americans have wanted the members of the legislature to be named directly by the people,
and for a very short term, in order to force them to submit not only to the general views, but
also to the daily passions of their constituents.” Which means the representatives are real
respresentatives of particular group interests. That must be something problematic. Because
when we talk about laws in a republican state, laws are there for the well-being of the whole
community. Representative in the parliament is not trying to formulate interest of a whole
community.
“At the same time that the law increased the strength of powers that were naturally strong, it
weakened more and more those that were naturally weak. It gave to the representatives of
the executive power neither stability nor independence; and, by subjecting them completely to
the caprices of the legislature, it took from them the little influence that the nature of
democratic government would have allowed them to exercise” In a republican government
Tocqueville assumes that executive should be controlled such a way that it must only at in
accordance with law, but should have certain independence from the legislative so that they
can give some of decisions. But in majoritarianism, it is impossible to make a disinction
between the legislature function and the executive function. “In several states, the law
delivered the judicial power to election by the majority; and in all, it made the existence of the
judicial power dependent, in a way, on the legislative power, by leaving to the representatives
the right to fix the salaries of judges annually” The idea of representation is to being formed
by the problems of constituents and then at independently so that you can find general
solutions to the problems of contituents. Instead these lobbies are working such a strong way
so called representatives no more than servants of lobbies.
Second he means democracy means moral dominion of majority. “The moral dominion of the
majority is based in part on the idea that there is more enlightenment and wisdom in many
men combined than in one man alone, more in the number than in the choice of legislators. It
is the theory of equality applied to minds.”
Thirdly, “So in the United States the majority has an immense power in fact and a power of
opinion almost as great; and once the majority has formed on a question, there is, so to speak,
no obstacle that can, I will not say stop, but even slow its course and leave time for the majority
to hear the cries of those whom it crushes as it goes.” The majority has immense power over
opinion.
Another problematic about democracy is instability in terms of administration.
You decree what you think
In order to anything you have support of majority.
“I regard as impious and detestable this maxim that in matters of government the majority of
a people has the right to do anything, and yet I consider that the will of the majority is the
origin of all powers. Do I contradict myself?”
What Tocqueville propose against the majority of people. What can be use against tyranny of
the majority?
Civil society and associations cannot be a solution but can be a remedial against the danger of
the tyranny of the majority. you can think plurality of groups emerging in civil society.
“A majority; but what is a majority taken as a whole if not an individual who has opinions and,
most often, interests contrary to another individual called the minority? Now, if you admit that
an individual vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why would you not
admit the same thing for the majority?”
One of the problems is formation of public opinion in terms of majority.
“When a man or a party suffers from an injustice in the United States, to whom do you want
them to appeal? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority. To the legislative body? It
represents the majority and blindly obeys it. To the executive power? It is named by the
majority and serves it as a passive instrument. To the police? The police are nothing other than
the majority under arms. To the jury? The jury is the majority vested with the right to deliver
judgments. The judges themselves, in certain states, are elected by the majority. However
iniquitous or unreasonable the measure that strikes you may be, you must therefore submit to
it”
“Arbitrariness must be carefully distinguished from tyranny. Tyranny can be exercised by
means of the law itself, and then it is not arbitrary; arbitrariness can be exercised in the
interests of the governed, and then it is not tyrannical”
Tyranny is rule of force. 2 empirical examples from Tocqueville:
 1) In Baltimore, at the time of the War of 1812, a striking example was seen of the
excesses to which the despotism of the majority can lead. At this time the war was
very popular in Baltimore. A newspaper that was strongly against the war aroused the
indignation of the inhabitants by its conduct. The people gathered, broke the presses,
and attacked the newspaper office. Some wanted to call the militia, but it did not
answer the call. In order to save the unfortunate journalists, who were threatened by
the public furor, it was decided to put them in jail, like criminals. This precaution was
useless; during the night, the people gatheredagain; the magistrates were unable to
get the militia to come; the prison was forced open; one of the journalists was killed
on the spot; the others were left for dead; the guilty, brought before a jury, were
acquitted.
2) I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania: “Please explain to me why, in a state
founded by Quakers and renowned for its tolerance, emancipated Negroes are not
allowed to exercise the rights of citizens. They pay taxes; isn’t it just that they vote?”—
“Don’t insult us, he answered, by thinking that our legislators have committed such a
gross act of injustice and intolerance.”—“So, among you, Blacks have the right to
vote?”—“Undoubtedly.”—“Then, how come at the polling place this morning, I did not
see a single one in the crowd?”—“This is not the fault of the law,” the American said
to me; “Negroes, it is true, have the right to present themselves at elections, but they
abstain voluntarily it seems.”—“That is very modest of them.”—“Oh! it isn’t that they
refuse to go, but they are afraid that they will be mistreated there. Among us, it
sometimes happens that the law lacks force when the majority does not support it.
Now, the majority is imbued with the greatest prejudices against Negroes, and
magistrates do not feel they have the strength to guarantee to the latter the rights
that the legislator has conferred.”—“What! the majority which has the privilege of
making the law, also wants to have that of disobeying the law?”
Tocqueville argues that thought is silence by opinion of the majority.
“Thought is an invisible and almost imperceptible power that scoffs at all tyrannies [that scoffs
amid chains and executioners. {You could say of it what Malherbe said of death: it does not
stop at the gates of the Louvre any more than at the door of the poor man}].y Today, the most
absolute sovereigns of Europe cannot prevent certain ideas hostile to their authority from
circulating silently within their States and even within their courts. It is not the same in
America; as long as the majority is uncertain, people speak; but as soon as the majority has
irrevocably decided, everyone issilent, and friends as well as enemies then seem to climb on
board together. The reason for this is simple. There is no monarch so absolute that he can
gather in his hands all of society’s forces and vanquish opposition in the way that a majority
vested with the right to make and execute laws can [at will, vested with the right and the
force].
A king, moreover, has only a physical power that acts on deeds and cannot reach wills; but the
majority is vested with a strength simultaneously physical and moral, which acts on the will as
well as on actions and which at the same time prevents the deed and the desire to do it.” Not
only disciplines by threatening you physically, but it can infiltrate in your mind so you can
exercise subculture. How majority of public opinion can be influential think about hunger
strikes.
“In America, the majority draws a formidable circle around thought. Within these limits, the
writer is free; but woe to him if he dares to go beyond them. It isn’t that he has to fear an auto-
da-fe´, but he is exposed to all types of distasteful things and to everyday persecutions. A
politicalcareer is closed to him; he has offended the only power that has the ability to open it
to him. Everything is denied him, even glory. Before publishing his opinions, he believed he had
some partisans; it seems to him that he has them no longer, now that he has revealed himself
to all; for those who censure him speak openly, and those who think as he does, without having
his courage, keep quiet and distance themselves. He gives in; finally, under the daily effort, he
yields and returns to silence, as though he felt remorse for having told the truth. Chains and
executioners, those are the crude instruments formerly used by tyranny; but today civilization
has perfected even despotism itself,which seemed however to have nothing more to learn.
Foucault  “Princes had, so to speak, materialized violence; the democratic republics of today
have made violence as entirely intellectual as the human will that it wants to constrain. Under
the absolute government of one man, despotism, to reach the soul, crudely struck the body;
and the soul, escaping from these blows, rose gloriously above it; but in democratic republics,
tyranny does not proceed in this way; it leaves the body alone and goes right to the soul.”

Civil and political associations, commercial associations. How we differentiate political and
social associations? Political associations: parties. In political associations, you have an aim to
change the law. Trade unions also be considered as pol ass when their int are not only about
commercial intr but changing the law. In contrast the civil associations, political associations,
in the long-run, always have an aim to change the rule. Civil associations’ immediate aim is
draw attention to a problem. Some civil associations set up in order to solve a problem. Civil
associations do not necessarily aim political significance but they may also have political aim.
In aristocratic society, you have couple of very powerful individuals and whenever they do
something, they are doing it for the public. And he uses here innate of a state. Tocqueville is
very important for Arendt and Habermas. Public sphere, Tocqueville talking about, is stage,
you step on that stage to set an example.
In a democratic society, you have a society of equals.
Tocqueville says that If you do not organize yourself in civil associations, there are 2
possibilities either government..? State starts order things. We can think about in terms of
real socialism which is organization of society from top to bottom. The other possibility would
be establishment of civil associations be in danger.
“In democratic countries, only the social power is naturally in a state to act like this, but it is
easy to see that its action is always insufficient and often dangerous.”
Civil associations  put an issue in to public sphere.
 19.10.17
Tocqueville’s main concern was a liberal one. Under democratic government, the threat of
tyranny takes a new form. Tocqueville – tyranny of majority. Tyranny is not to be confused
with arbitrary rule but rather as force. Tyranny is rule based on force, he says. The unqualified
opinion of the majority causes such a threat because it is too strong. Most importantly,
freedom of thought is under threat. The sovereign, in democracy the majority, does not
necesssarily resort to physical force to control those who are in minority. The moral power of
majority opinion infiltrates the minds of all. Self-cencorship and self-control, the problem also
addressed by Foucault. Against tyranny of majority Tocqueville argues first the system of
government based on checks and balances. Secondly, he refers to the idea of universal justice
that should have a priority over any particular understanding of community, community
justice and this can be understand as appeal to individual human rights which are, in fact,
institutionalized in liberal democracies. Human rights bases you cannot make a law against
human rights. What is a liberal democratic constitutional state? It is a state guaranteed certain
basic rights. 1) First set of basic rights protects individual status as a free human being –
freedom of thought, conciouss, speech etc. 2) Second set of basic rights, protects individuals
in civil society. As citizens people are equal before the law. 3) Last set of basic rights can be
understood as political rights, freedom of assembly and association. Liberals (Tocqueville and
Mill) and Republicans (Rousseau, Kant, arguably Hegel and Marx) have diverging
interpretations of the use political rights. Republicans view political debates and associations
as principle element of self-rule, autonomy. Since Kant, we have talked about autonomy. If
according to Republicans, necessary legal, social, institutional, and economical conditions are
bad, the public sphere would be embedment of public reason. Or an institution contributes to
development of public virtues by means of a public debate, that would be Hegel. And arguably
as Marx and Engels it informs the executive community of a communist society which would
make the existence of the state power (7.58)... In case such conditions are not met public
debate the state seriously by the republican theorist as a democratic force which can
contribute to enhancement individual, social and, political self-rule/autonomy. This idea first
founded social contract. Rousseau sacrifices distinct identities of the individual for the the
collective identity. For Rousseau as for Plato, only the community counts not individual.
Rousseau suggests the eradication of civil society and abolition of public debate all together.
In order to realize, citoyens freedom, remember non-public general opinion is the basis of
general will. Paradigmatic example of how general will emerge without communication. Kant
and the critical republicans opted for gradual democratic control of state by civil society even
to the point of the abolition of the state. Public Sphere, as accordingly arena of public debate
via public reason, aims to substitute domination or an institution of education that mediate
between private interests of the citizens and the general interests embodied by the state. In
the case of Marx, it is one of the domains of class struggle which aims to expose the ideological
nature of bourgeois social and political institutions presumingly serve the general interest of
all citizens. So, public debate has an important democratic significanse also for Marx.
Otherwise, we cannot imagine that he has written forty two volumes of texts and, prodec
them in the public so that people can change their minds. He try to influence public opinion.
Liberals in contrast view political associations as a mean to protect society from the total
domination of ruling groups. Political associations express the interest of groups organized in
the public sphere. Therefore, public debates in the public sphere are more likely to end in
compromise rather than in consensus. Public sphere is viewed as an arena where conflicting
interests compete and struggle rather than domain where public reason finds its expression.
We can claim that both Tocqueville and Mill, founder of social liberalism, are deeply
concerned with the advance of democracy which can easily take the form of social and political
tyranny. If necessary legal and political precautions are not taken, certain individuals belong
to a minority group or do not agree with the majority view are condemn to live a life prescribed
by the majority. The end result would be a society of equals where individual differences are
leveled out – a mass society. Tocqueville as a liberal does not view politics in consensus
building. Political rights of freedom of association and assembly are important and necessary
against the tyranny of majority but do not guarantee protection from the greater evil of
tyranny of the majority of the rule. And yet he observes the American democracy has
developed in form of association that can help to protect the plurality of view vibrant in the
public sphere. The aim is keep to plurality of view vibrant. He calls them civil associations
which do not aim to change law directly. Their aim is to set an example about issue which they
think of common concern of public value. Civil associations provide for visibility for an issue.
Members of civil associations act in a public stage. The metaphor of stage is not accidentally.
The public opinion that emerges as a result of deliberate public act and, seeks for recognition
or applause for wider public which means it is qualified opinion, not just expression of
tradition, custom or unreflected prejudice. On the assumption that in a democratic society,
there are freedom of association guaranteed there will be multiplicity of divergent opinions
and interests. This plurality of organized opinions can co-work against tyranny of majority’s
opinion. There does not emerge polarization.
Tocqueville solution to our problems was more civil organization, active citizenship, whereas
Mill is searching for institutional legal works against the tyranny of public opinion but is more
solution is about self-education, not education in positivist sense but to make the institutional
reforms necessary for possibility of the development of individuals/self-realization.

John Stuart Mill (Social Liberal)

His understanding of utility is more general one. It is not classical utilitarinism, we can call it
as humanist position.
In the first chapter he starts with limiting the topic. What does he mean by liberty of the will?
Autonomy, self-rule.
As a social liberal Mill make a strict opposition between individual and society as the
paradigmatic problem is what makes him a liberal. He diffirentiates between liberal and
democratic control of power in order to understand freedom. Liberal vs. democratic control
of power. liberal society is not necessarily democratic society or vice versa. What is the liberal
idea of control of power? we have monarchs and their power should be limited. Liberal
definiton of freedom: “The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the
ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they
meant by liberty.”
“A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks, by
which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its
interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing
power.” he is still about limiting the power of the governor.
“A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a
necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest
to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State
should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed,
could they have complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to
their disadvantage.” If they are really represented it’s their own power so why should we need
to curtail the power of state? He direcr contrast the liberal anxieties. If our government is
representative government, if republic is people’s republic, we are the sovereign and if
sovereign can never err, mistake (Rousseau) why should be put any limits? Dem control here
is put in contrast liberal. This idea is very dangerous, he says, keep both; if we want to
democracy, we need also the liberal control of government. Democracy can be illiberal and it
can be very dangerous.
*What is the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence?
“There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual
independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable
to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.” Expand the
clasical concern of liberalism which is about protection against political despotism. What
about social tyranny? What to do against social tyranny?
Then he talks about problems of custom and tradition. Customs and traditions are very
important in Hegelian understanding. They are embodiments of ratipnality according to Hegel.
Mill does not think in same lines. “The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them
self-evident and self-justifying. This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the
magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature (morality
in philosophical tradition is understood as second nature), but is continually mistaken for the
first.” As if act in this or that way belongs to the very human nature. What is his concern? He
does not want to exclude customs or traditions totally but what customs usually do to us is
that we do not ground the way we act. We do not giv reasons for how we act. Feelings,
emotions dominate us. Emotions do not allow us to ground our actions. We shoulld be able
give justifications for social regulations and, that is eroded by traditions and customs. “No one,
indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion
on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person’s preference;
and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people,
it is still only many people’s liking instead of one.” Like Kant, he is appealing to reason.
He redefines public opinion. And not in terms defined by Tocquville. He has a very negative
view of public opinion. Public opinion is understood as common sense morality. He gives even
a class analysis for that. In societies, one class in ascendancy then their morality becomes valid
and, they justify their domination by influencing the public opinion. “Wherever there is an
ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class
interests, and its feelings of class superiority. The morality between Spartans and Helots,
between planters and negroes, between princes and subjects, between nobles and roturiers,
between men and women, has been for the most part the creation of these class interests and
feelings: and the sentiments thus generated react in turn upon the moral feelings of the
members of the ascenant class, in their relations among themselves.”
Then he talks about intellectuals, reading public. How freedom of opinion has developed in
Europe through struggles in and about religioug tolerance. But, he says, this tolerance is not
practiced at all.ıf you are really off different opinion with passion, you would not tolerance to
other people.
Structure of human liberty. “It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness;
demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and
feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative,
scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to
fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual
which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought
itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly,
the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual,
follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite,
for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of
full age, and not forced or deceived”
“No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be
its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and
unqualified” absolute and unqualified protection of freedom of speech, publication. If there
are limits to that, then we cannot talk about democratic country. Second qualification “The
only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so
long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” This
is the first formulation of his famous harm principle. As long as we do not harm others, we
should be able to do anything we want. And, third one “Mankind are greater gainers by
suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as
seems good to the rest.” Instead of trying to persuade others to live a life according to our
understanding of what is a good life, you should let all people to choose their own ends. With
the pluralization of different ends, we would have a better society. Individual liberty is
threatened by the very public opinion not necessarily by the government. Social tyranny is the
real threat now for liberalism.
“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical
or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” That is the critique of paternalism. He is against the idea
of “halka rağmen halk için”. Those people who own their ends have character. The others
cannot be considered even as have characters. Our aim is to provide an institutional
framework, so that people can determine their own ends and realize their reasons.
“We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as
that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of
by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury. For
the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which
the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of
spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming
them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients
that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable.” Here be catch leaving the ideology
of British imperialism.

Chapter 3. Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Wellbeing

“men should be free to act upon their opinions—to carry these out in their lives, without
hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and
peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as
free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances
in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to
some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private
property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but
may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the
house of a corndealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the
more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments,
and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be
thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” This is the extreme
form of freedom of speech.
Opinion of others is important but, that can cause a problem to determine our own needs.
This is the argument of Authenticity. Authenticity always involves the idea of essence.
“In our times, from the highest class of society down to the lowest, every one lives as under the
eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship. Not only in what concerns others, but in what concerns
only themselves, the individual or the family do not ask themselves—what do I prefer? or, what
would suit my character and disposition? or, what would allow the best and highest in me to
have fair play, and enable it to grow and thrive? They ask themselves, what is suitable to my
position? what is usually done by persons of my station and pecuniary circumstances? or
(worse still) what is usually done by persons of a station and circumstances superior to mine?
I do not mean that they choose what is customary in preference to what suits their own
inclination. It does not occur to them to have any inclination, except for what is customary.
Thus the mind itself is bowed to the yoke: even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is
the first thing thought of; they like in crowds; they exercise choice only among things
commonly done: peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct, are shunned equally with crimes:
until by dint of not following their own nature they have no nature to follow: their human
capacities are withered and starved:” he introduces the word “eccentricity”. A free society is
a society where the freedom of the eccentric is protected. We see how encompassing
utilitarianism he has here. Eccentrics and geniuses contribute the society as most productive
way as possible. We cannot understand what they are contributing the society ofcourse we
can because, we are in conformity. A liberal good society should protect first and foremost
opinions of eccentrics and geniuses. If you protect that, you can protect anything. Being
original is contrasted with mediocracy. Difference is difference when only it is a radical
difference. The important thing is we are appreciating difference. One dimension of men is
emerging in mass society. “The combination of all these causes forms so great a mass of
influences hostile to Individuality, that it is not easy to see how it can stand its ground. It will
do so with increasing difficulty, unless the intelligent part of the public can be made to feel its
value—to see that it is good there should be differences, even though not for the better, even
though, as it may appear to them, some should be for the worse. If the claims of Individuality
are ever to be asserted, the time is now, while much is still wanting to complete the enforced
assimilation. It is only in the earlier stages that any stand can be successfully made against the
encroachment. The demand that all other people shall resemble ourselves grows by what it
feeds on. If resistance waits till life is reduced nearly to one uniform type, all deviations from
that type will come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature.
Mankind speedily become unable to conceive diversity, when they have been for some time
unaccustomed to see it.”
J. S. Mill – On Liberty / Subjection of Women

Foucault
What can be Foucault’s alternative to modern politics? As is the case canonical writers,
Foucault has some continuous concerns. He interested in what he calls technologies of power
which shapes and controls and creates modern subjectivity. His main thesis is that a major
social transformation has taken place in 18th and 19th century in Europe. Both liberalism and
republicanism are state-oriented theories. They view the state as locus of power. For Foucault,
both political positions present noble attempts to enhance the freedom of individuals in
modern society. Because Modern world has witnessed the new emergence of new and more
effective power relations that control the individual. His main concern is individual controlled
and created by society not and, that creation we have involvement of power relations. We
cannot able to overcome power relations. We can choose to resist a certain form of
individuality. Challenge the production of normality. This new form of power which he calls in
his later work as governmentality does not have one focal seed. It is diffused and shape us, in
our daily lives. All socialization are infused with power and power networks. In a lecture,
Foucault describes this transformation of power relations as the following: modern state with
its roots in medieval as we understood to be sovereign power per se, the sovereign power can
be characterized as the power of state. It can be the monarch or the people. Power of the
state over live or death of its subjects. Sovereign can kill. As formulated in the classical theory
sovereignty, sovereign power is essentially formulated in judicial terms, the right of life and
death belongs to the sovereign as Rousseau says. In the final analysis, this power can be
formulated as the right to take life or let live. If you think about it, it corresponds exactly with
liberal divide between state and civil society. take life: punishment, otherwise does not
interfere: let live. That is the liberal formulation of sovereign power. State’s first and formest
duty is preserve order and, peace. Foucault argues that beginning with eighteenth century the
sovereign form of power is complimanted by a new right. It is complimented with a more
influential power regime. This new right is right to make live and let die. This new power
creates individual. They construct us as we are. These formulations are exact opposites of one
another but, Foucault argues they compliment each other. Disciplinary power and bio power,
or governmentality, does not replace sovereign power it compliments it. There is this
dimension of the new regime we can call it bio power and another dimension is disciplinary
power. Panopticon is disciplinary power.
Biopolitics is applied to men as species, men taking as a living being. He talks about population.
He does not address individuals in their individual existence rather it addresses abstract entity
which can only figure out in statistics. The population is the subject the general processes of
life and death cycles. By means of biopolitics, the society is regulated. State as well as private
instituitons, private firms are based on this biopolitical regulation, think about insurance
companies, safety measures, birth control or, three kids policies, health policy. All these draw
on the knowledge that contitutes biopolitics. Like disciplinary mechanisms, these mechanisms
are designed to maximize and extract forces and bring them in to form of regularity. It is the
power to make species live and die. As long as you live you are subject to statistic of biopolitics.
Only death is outside the power relation. Power can control mortality. That is why power
ignores death. It is about statistics.
Disciplinary power is panopticon. This is an advertising text by the way. There is one tower in
the middle and circle construct and the cricle constructed there are cells so that individuals
cannot see each other but the one can see all of them. They learn controlling themselves by
being in those cells. Perfect atomization of people they cannot communicate with others. Full
servailiance. And then he has this genius idea that because the guardians are encapsullated in
the system whatever happens in the system also happens to them as well so they have to take
wellcare of people who have ilness for example. If they communicate with each other the
communication will cause his ill as well. The system itself controls the guardian as well.
Disciplinary power rests on self-discipline. If you want to teach full servailliance, it can only
realize if people discipline themselves. Bentham talks about architectural idea but it also an
idea of new power regime. It can be applied to anything. Main idea is efficiancy. It efficiently
regulates the self –control of the people. Foucault talks about this self-control, if we are
catholic, and we go to confession and say forgive me father I have sinned that moment I
construct myself as believer and give information about myself to the priest and, while I give
my information about myself, I construct myself by explaining myself. The important thing I
reproduce that information about myself and that is the beginning of self-discipline.
Disciplinary power exists through technics.
There is no place out of these power relations. The aim is not get rid of power relations. We
create ourselves relationally with these power relations. The question is whether you really
want that? (Mill – According to what norm can you resist against certain forms of domination)
If the whole of social life is regulated with this network power and there is no outside from
network of power, what can Foucault tell us about public sphere? About visibility, commenting
on panopticon, is a trap. Visibility is about the exercise of power. Perhaps putting yourself on
the stage of public sphere is not always a good idea. If you are not visible you are also a part
of power network. There is no outside of it. The question is whether you want to be visible
The problem is these power mechanisms do not allow you to determine yourselves, your
individuality according to your own developed laws. You will never achieve full determination.
How can be a part of political movement?

26.10.17
Public sphere in 18th century. Liberalism and republicanism has developed as we have seen
in different understandings of the role of public sphere. Promise of the individual freedom is
not to be realized even in the dreams of both Liberal and Republican understandings of politics
come through. His criticism should not be misunderstood as a radical way. The discussion of
modernism and post-modernism throughout the late 80s and 90s, we are productive in this
problems of class and identity politics as they were practiced until then. The binary modernity-
postmodernity however, seems to be fetishized to degree that both approaches evoken
nothing beyond habituated reactions. That means usually if you are on the postmodern
side,you have to say bad things about modernists. And, the orhet side accuse Foucault as well
he such a relativist, he does not have any norms. This polarization is not helpful. We must
integrate different approaches with one another. Even in Foucault own terms, new emergence
forms of social control, disciplinary and biopolitical power, do not make the sovereign power
of state obsolete. Disciplinary power and bio power complement each other. he does not
claim that sovereign state power does not exist. On the contrary, he is a very engaged activist.
Liberal and republican approaches are meaningful but they are not sufficient.
Emancipation-liberal and self-determination-republican. One of the questions is who are we?
What kind of selves we make ourselves? We need to ask for emancipation. Who do we exclude
as we as a community or is it desirable to include everyone? If we want to live in
counterpublics. As feminist, do you want to include all your protests men? Theory of public
sphere whether liberal or republican that reflects upon the conditions of possibilities of a more
emancipated society. the way we saw John Stuart Mill is important about right eccentricity.
Idea of giving free space for the eccentric. Republican idea of self-determination in individual
and public terms is a thought which we cannot easily give up. But provided with critical insights
by Foucault theory, we can also question problems.
The another severe challenge liberal and republican theories have an account for historical
transformation of bourgeois state which undermine the very theoretical basis these theories
founded upon. Namely the juridical and socially justifiable distinction between state and civil
society. This is undermined historically. Public sphere is emerged from a civil society and was
to be understood as part of as private public initiative against or in a position to state. Think
about Kant and, Tocqueville. At last quarter of nineteenth century, number of factors that set
clear cut distinction unsustainable. Historians speak of this period as marking the end of the
liberal era of industrial capitalism. German unification and from now on our rules are going to
be valid. On the other hand, you have one of the last form of revolutionary acitivity. Commune
was very important. In international trade the late comer states Germany and Italy began to
favour of protectionist economic policy this was even clear when Marx was writing, nationalist
economy. He mentions List. List is propagating a politics of nationalist self-sustainable
economy. Marx thinks that is reactionary form of politics compared to the liberalism of Great
Britain or the US. Market is always on the side of Great Britain and the US. From the beggining,
these states played an active role in providing for favourable conditions for the development
of big industry. That is the aim. Secter rule of free competition and free market is limited by
the concentration of capital or by international trade. As capitalist states become literally
actives that manage the affairs of national industries. That make it necessary for the state
intervene in the civil society are the extension of the male suffrage, struggle for the universal
suffrage and the rise of working class struggle as a political force. Labour unions became to
hold not only economic counter wave but also get organized as socialist parties. When the aim
to have an influence on legislation, this change the rules of public debate. Because public
debate was good as long as remain within the limits of bourgeois liberal state. Capitalist states
have to make concessions to these democratic forces, legal regulations for improvement
working conditions, formation of social security funds and the task of providing protection,
compensation and, subsidies to the economically weaker social groups prevent direct
intervention of state in private sphere in civil society. So democratic masses have transformed
the economic power to political power, they were successful actually. Paradoxically, the
struggle of democratic forces against capitalism has saved the system. The system ramined as
a capitalist system. State had to assume new functions inviting the economy. Even planning
long term strutures, such as policies,strengthened the middle class becoming most important
class for the state policy.
Finally, development of public service which were previously in the hands of private firms that
was always the case in the US and infrastructural investment were both necessarily
compensate the private costs of productions and to increase consumer power. Infrastructural
investments are done for development of big industry. Private costs of production and
increase consumer power. You increase the consumer power of citizens. It does not make
sense to have same car longer than 5 years in Germany. Protecting and supporting its biggest
industry. Frankfurt school thinkers called period leading two world wars the era of monopoly
capitalism. It also provides bases for the post-world war welfrare state regimes. For our
purposes, it is enough to know that by the first quarter of the 20th century it was not easy to
make clear distinction between the private and public realms in the economy. To put it with
Habermas, public and private spheres mutually infiltrated with one another. Infiltration of
market sphere may the family ever more solve realm of private. This transformation made a
family sole realm of the private. Using its predominantly economic function, bourgeois family
turned into abstract intimate sphere. Even Hegel takes the bourgeois family as an economic
unit. The economic unit is losing its power. We do not understand family today economic unit
but rather abstract intimate sphere of love. Since it turned into abstract intimate sphere,
sphere of mere consumption and leisure. As such it sees to provide justificator ground for
private autonomy. Especially in 19th century, we are talking about family-based firms that was
the basis of economic activity overwhelmingly after last part of 19th century, economic
activity invented new reorganization of the social sphere. Economic act organizes what we
called social sphere where class struggle, economic interest groups and democratic
organizations all their say is shaping the private public institutions of the market. Not the
secret law of non-intervention of private sphere regulates the institutions of the market but,
struggless between classes and corporate economic interests. As bourgeois family lost its
private power of disposal over the means of production which was rooted in the family
property, it became ever more a sphere of intimacy. “ I do not bring work at home” Work is
at the social sphere. Family was itself a firm and, this has mean most significantly depicted by
the novel by Thomas Mann.
“The social-political compensation for the largely eroded basis of family property stretched
beyond material income supplements to functional aids for managing life. For along with its
functions in capital formation the family increasingly lost also the functions of upbringing and
education, protection, care, and guidance-indeed, of the transmission of elementary tradition
and frameworks of orientation.” Now state give the education of what is good, what is right.
“In general it lost its power to shape conduct in areas considered the innermost provinces of
privacy by the bourgeois family” on the other hand, the family now evolved even more into
consumer and leisure time. Private autonomy was maintained not so much functions of
control but as in functions of consumption. To the loss of power of the family as a great
significance for the transformation of the public sphere. For what is considered to be private
now under the control of social life. And at the same time, public life itself assumes the forms
of intimate relationships. Because you define yourselves increasingly by hobbies, leisure
activities. Public life itself assumes the intimate relationship. Discussion and actions among
strangers leave their places to acting among people in the same community. You start to hang
out with people with whom like to do similar leisure activities. Whereas, politics was defined
as actions among strangers. Action among strangers on certain aims that you want to realize
together. You do not want to know much about private life of the person. Because we define
ourselves in new communities through our leisurely activities, sometimes we think, confuse
political activity with leisurely activity. People want you to agree on everything in terms of
private life as well. Public sphere was a sphere that emerged by coming together of strangers.
A new sphere should emerge by coming together of different people which called political
public sphere. With the new development, these two spheres are too much intirinsincly
infiltrated to one another. “The shrinking of the private sphere into the inner areas of I a
conjugal family largely relieved of function and weakened in authority-the quiet bliss of
homeyness-provided only the i I illusion of a perfectly private personal sphere; for to the extent
that private people withdrew from their socially controlled i roles as property owners into the
purely "personal" ones of their noncommittal use of leisure time, they came directly under the
influence of semipublic authorities, without the protection of an institutionally protected
domestic domain.” On the one hand, family loses its authority, on the other hand, open to
mass media’s manupulation through leisure activity. Leisure activity is defined by mass
policies. “Leisure I I behavior supplies the key to the floodlit privacy of the new sphere, to the
externalization of what is declared to be the inner life. What today, as the domain of leisure,
is set off from an occupational sphere that has become autonomous, has the 1 tendency to
take the place of that kind of public sphere in the world of letters that at one time was the
point of reference for i a subjectivity shaped in the bourgeois family's intimate sphere.”
Habermas’s point is that leisure behaviour is apolitical. Because it reduces people activity to
satisfaction of individual desires. Same problem had been described in different ways by a
number of intellectuals, most prominent among them Arendt and Richard Sennett, under the
conditions of late capitalism, individuals attitudes to social life exceedingly individualist
expressivist character. Lacking an institutional sphere of public opinion exchange, individuals
have the opportunity to distinguish themselves only by deviating norm instead of participating
in public life so as a determinant very norms existing in it. Think about all these subversive
fashions, punk hippie movement, bohemians. That is the individualist form of protest against
the existing norms, you cannot change norms with that. Foucault argues if we do that
subversive act together with many people, that can change our lives. At the time 60s
movement seems apolitical. This apolitical stylistic resistance to the norms has tranformed
the society in a radical way. We can talk about sexual revolution in 60s and 70s. Very
problematically failed in Turkey. He is very critical about subversive movements. Habermas
says if we depend on leisurely activity is apolitical, that is a problem because mass society
manipulates our leisurely activity. In order to generate public discussion we need something
else. And apolitical approaches to society takes social life as it is. It renounces the prospect
determining the rules of getting together this woulld only have been possible by public
discussion. Is it possible to invent public sphere non-bourgeois? First according to Habermas,
bourgeois public sphere is obsolete. It is whether viable or desirable to reproduce. Modern
public sphere should potentialy include all citizens and non-citizens living in the same society.
We should not only include all minorities but also Syrians, for example, they are living in this
country and they have their problems. Public sphere should contribute to the formation of
qualified public opinion. Habermas is a Kantian. We need to find a way to qualify public
opinion while including all people. The mass media work against this idea. Produces consumer
goods and consumers. A realist theory of democratic public sphere must reckon with
disenchanment of politics which Lippman talks about. The expressive individuals of mass
society, Punks Hippies etc., hardly find a motivation to act in concert with strangers. Gezi was
also extraordinary situation. We can make this situation as part of the politics without
normalizing them. Early public sphere to the new situation. Economy politics of society is
changing. Heydays of liberalism, end of 18th century to mid 19th century, after that massive
intervention of the state. Anothers change is because family loses its authority we find new
instruments enables individual to realize self-determination. You have the borders of different
spheres blurred. We have to build up new public sphere.

Lippman
Liberal or Republican?
Liberal. Why? He is agains the idea of public as a single body. Self-determination of public as
a political body is not a vioble theoretical perspective. Republican idea is totally misleading.
Stage metaphor. What kind of a stage does he talk about?
Plato - If we can refahsion the soc pub are composed of only able people then we would have
vibrant public.
What can you teach citizens about politics? Issue-based politics. Children should know about
what is plitics in the future. The problem is we are living in a changing world, problems of the
teachers is not relevant for the children. Secondly, there are too many issues.
People are disinterested because people dont have enough time and interest. To know about
everything is very boring. In order to have knowledge public opinion has, he has to expertise
knowledge. He cant be a person knows everything.
Teach way of thinking. Choice of ethics. You can teach our children ethics. Hoe can we
determine which principles we are going to choose? Dif principles applied in each case. We
should choose this principle over that. Main problem is the public has difficulty in
understanding. Poliitics not only about morality but also interest. Interest play powerful role
in politics. Public does not understand problems as they are. You cannot determine what the
problem is.
In mass societies we have to think politics in a different way.
We have agents and bystanders. Agents are insiders as experts. Everybody is expert in
something. This differentiation is always different. General and abstract interests.
Public opinion when assumes power is tyrannical. People should be able to differentiate
between the villain and the good. Whether these people are telling the truth about their
claims, whether they are presenting their purely own interest as general interest. Role of the
public: dif between presents private interest as public interest. Much more viable than
teaching all issues. Very pragmattic solution.
 02.11.2017
The state responds with a) a containment sttrategy b) state has make concessions against the
power of labour. After the ww2, this became the basis of emergence of the welfare states.
Third point, families redefined sphere of intimate relations and consumption. feeling of
freedom in the int sph of family and understainding this sphere leisure of consumption,
Marxist point. Infiltration of private sphere by state. State is deeply involved in economic
activity.
5) this means bourg pub sph is became obsolete. First, the literary publics have become places
for private consumption. this meaning does not exist.. cultural prod take the form of
commodity. Emergence of mass culture and mass society. clicking. Familiar critique of cultural
industry. State if has an interest would intervene and try to ropagate cultural groups. Anyone
can consume some form of cultural group. Quality of intelllectual challenge is turned into
mediocratic challenge. Access to culture is promoted with state and public institutions. And
immediate character of culture visual. New forms of news spectacle. This has even more
accelerated. The development of biographical literature. We consume the private lives of
public figures. How can public sphere can regain its critical function? Tı these development,
neoliberalism which is total privatization of.. public spheres private (Cloud-Film). Second
development that development of communications media. We usually think that we are
communicating with ‘familiar’ strangers.
Dewey has written this book called public and its problems. He is Hegelian but h has a language
which aims to popularize Hegelian thinking. Presents them as a sophisticatted mode of
pragmatism that the justification of what we know can only be passes through action.
Unsophisticated form of pragmatism.. we can think of an more sophisticated understanding
pragmatism. We cannot create ideas independent of praxis. Praxis should inform our
knowledge. Praxxis cannot be thought about inseparation.. hegelian philosophy, action and
knowledge inform each other. unlike Lippman. If we characterize Lippman’s position is liberal,
Dewey is a republican. Distinction between great society and great community which is
reassessment republican ideal. This is a republican understanding of democracy. It is about
how to transform what he calls the great society into a great community. He provides us a
good conclusion. In conrast, description of tendencies how it should be, that concrete
suggestions… because these suggestions very tentative they ar eopen to interpretations.
Dewey both inspires Arendt and Habermas. We can think dewey as a communitarian because
of his emphasize on community. Communitarian thought each society has its own values and
liberalism with his emphasize on individual cannot help us t better und societies and liberal
bel abour ind freedom can do injustice communities. It uphold the privacy of community over
individual. Communitarians demand group rights versus individual rights in order to protect
groups’ specificity. Many of the rgihts we are claiming today are individual rights. Even the
right to self-determination can be interpreted as individual rights. Danish community in
Germany, in north germany there is danish comm which have their own rights they can also
vote… second arendt takes up dewey’s def of pol part as imp feature of being human. Dewey
is so much enthusiastic about politics face to face. Being able to act in concert with strangers.
Dewey’s emphasis on the channels of communicaiton is taken up by Habermas also. Finally,
we can inspire us with respect to counterpublics…

Dewey
Local origins of American government. Which has been also emphasized by Tocqueville.
Township building. The state was sum of such units… we have a totally decentralised regime.
Every communite mind their own business. At most by hiring some teacher, he says reaidng
was important because they were protestants. But these local town meeting practices..
everything is locally designed and governed. “We have inherited in short local..” arendt in
american revolution we have this rev of town meeting failure of the rev was that it couldnot
itegrate township meetings to newly emerging dem government. Arendt tries to find way to
grassroots politics to representative. Township meeting should replaced represent
democracy but it should be a auxilary how to shape democratic participation. (Associations?)
National unification… there is an inc dev of industrial technological transformation but legal
political moral conciousness lacks behind. We cannot really think about community in
essentialist terms. Economy determines why do we care. Both share the idea that no matter
what you do in final analysis economy determines. He talks about lack of personal liability.
Machinery is invaded great society. technological knowledge which is directed toward
intrumentality. Inst reason has occupied the great society..
To protect life world
Life world exist only thourgh different forms of communication.
When we in the end reach the ideal of dem we can actually reorganize whole society as a
community which organize through small communities.
Tehnological Rationality
Social Knowledge
Dewey is actually openning the way Habermas is undertaking. If you dif that yes we need
experts for tech rationality but, social knowledge is something else, it cannot be reduced tech
rat. Son know entails knowledge about what we consider about good life is. He also
Aristotelian. Those ideas are talked only in communities.
Functional Integration
Social Integration
Durkheim –
What he talks about great society vs great community can we translate into mechanic vs
organic division labour in durkhemian sociology. Older societies have mech div of lab every
small com has by decree what kind of a division of labour they have.. whereas org div of labour
in capitalst soc needs supply demand curves determines what and how much you are going to
produce. That difference is necessary for the whole. One inspirational source is Durkheim.
Another sociologist..

09.11.2017
Public sphere is colonized by society which includes market sphere and bureaucracy.
What is pollitics? The answer of this question also defines what is public sphere. What are the
conditions of possiblity of democratic society? at the end of the st tr of hab bourg pub sph
intst of the past is it possible the rethink politics so it is possible to enable… imminent cricism.
We are not only criticiing here norm ideas here by external criteria but we taking the existing
inst and practices and detect in them certain ideals and this ideals realized or not. Most
influential political theorist Hannah Arendt. Taking up the inst criticisn the norms. What is
political action? She does not give up the hope radical transformation to democratic society.
she points the rev upheavals rather more frequent.. since 18th century revolutions at the rise.
Making a revolution. Revolutions are those instances in history publics assumes power of
radical democratic control of society. how should this constituting power be organized so that
it does not lose its democratic nature? According to Arendt, cenralisation of power is the death
of revolution if publics do not have power in their hands. What lies behind this constituting
power is a specific form of human acitvity? If we know that political action is we would not go
after wrong ideals. Politically undesirable and unattainable.
2 popular criticisms
Politics is necessarily public acc to arendt. Today she draws strict lines btw different… thre is
no space for feminist activism. Private is political. What we call private in that discussion,
domestic violence. Intimate relations cause poltical actions to collapse. Actors concern among
strangers. How the dev of kurdish women movement.
Specific nature of different forms of human acitivity. There is ontological difference between
sphere sof human activity.
Another widespread criticism is that.. whenever she critiices Marx, experience socialist
understanding of Marxism.
Labour work and action.
Labour: is about subsistence, determined by necessity, in order to exist we need labour. Giving
birth is labouring. All repetititous acitivities are labour because satisfying necessities. Birth is
also necessary part of life.
Work: with Marx we are talking about modern times and abstract labour which exists only
theoretically. In Aristotle techne, you have an object, material to realize that object and build
up a table. That is work. Essential quality of work is worker controls the whole process. Worker
has a plan in his/her mind. Artisan. In modern times, modern workers are not working they
are labouring. She agrees with Marx. In mod cap soc, factory worker does nt produce a product
of artisanship. His energy is used to produce commodities. She argues in cap soc, work
traiditional sohere of work is tranformed into sphere of labour and necessities. In artisanship,
you have a limited realm of freedom. You can come up with a new idea. That is not the case
in labour, thats the repetitive activity. It is not creative. It produces consumer products
compare Parthenon. It is not produced to consume. Eternal life, but pagans and greeks do not
care after life. The danger is you live your life and get lost without a trace. “Isn’t it desperate
you will not remember after your death?” eternity is defined by Christians and it is about
eternal life and, world which we live in… for the Greek, we ar eliving only for once, if you have
no trace in this world, you lost your eternity.
City planning determines how we live in, how you relate to one another. And work’s aim is
that. Labour does not have that function. Working activity is tranformed to labouring in
mdoern society. She does not say work disappeared. There are dif spheres of life.
Action (fully free domain of human activity)
Oikos (household)

Labour (full of necessities)

Works create (has an aim)
Main claim is mod soc. Action sphere is in danger. We condemned to live in external
necessities. We lost the possibity to add something new. Action is equated with what Aristotle
calls the attainment of eudaimonia (human flourishing) is in danger undercircumstances of
society. action is predominant over other forms of acitivity. It a specisifc human quality.
Actions is an end in itself. We can only differentiate ourselves by action.
Arendt’S Understanding of power. convential power persue power and violence continue. But
she separates. In extreme case, a tyrannt rule a society with pure violence. (Authority –
Power?) power is therefore, related with politics. Violence is ruling and domination.
Differentiate domination from politics. Equal individuals come together and there meerges a
power. domination is using instruments. Revolutions takes place usually without… first
Egyptian Revolution. Tahrir Square. State or machineray of violence can crush the polticial
coming together of people. No violence machineray exist long time without power bases.
Action has a privileged and overriding status. She discusses zoon politikon. Ancient thinkers
insisted upon definition of poltiical instead of social. Determined by praxis and lexis. Actions
withut speech are meaningless. Truly interpretation of them and only language can do it. They
are deeply intermingled between one another. These are activities of freedom and
fundemantal foundation realm of human affairs. Practical wisdom requires experience in
public affairs. This dif btw zoon pol and soc animal emergence of the social sphere and its
ascendancy over modern times. Oikos get fatter and fatter and becomes social. Colonizes
political acitvities. Force and domination is pre-political and, exist in oikos. Whereas in the city,
if you try to rule people worn you. Household is pre-political you have the despotism of the
father. Later analogy between household and state is very significant…
social is a form of superhuman family. In ancient greece you dont have the respect for private
property. Private propert meant in ancient greece only owning a house which meant citizen.
Household is the sohere of one’s lack and needs. Realm of freedom of public sphere. All
activities performed are determined by necessities. Realm of the polis, on the contrary,was
the sphere of freedom.
If we are not solve problems in civil society, what does politics good for? What does politics
has an end in itself mean? You can discuss anything in life to discuss them political perspective
you make this discussion, institutional changes we have in mind serve the realization of
existence of political sphere. Aim in any social reform should target the existence of further
development.. politics end in itself -- Republicanism of Arendt. Sustain political sphere.
Distinction between private and individual property.private property is related to privation,
lacking somthing. By privation, either society lacks you, you lack participation in society. a
certain mode of property ownership. In society we can talk about behaviour and not action.
.. monadology..
Irreduvable individualities.

16.11.2017
Human action by pointing out human plurality. Action& speech. Equality and difference.
Through human action you can only gin uniqueness. Uniqueness, otherness and, distinction.
What is the difference between these 3 words? Irreducable plurality of human beings.
Otherness – Hegelian terminology. Hegel argues that we understand the reality throguh these
dichotomies. Black – white. Otherness is always inherent in the existing something. There is
dialectical relationship between being. Dialectics is category of our mind we cannot
understand being without dialectics. We understand the world through binary opposition.
The realtionship is between the part and the whole. We differentiate things by drawing
borders. (Framing?) everything is interrelated. Everything is related to whole. Does not
understand individuality through otherness. By differentiating themselves from society, thhey
define society. otherness: creatures distinguish themselves. They do not of course they
distinguish themselves. Only rational beings, self-consciousness can explicitly differentiate
themselves. we are not individuals only bcs we dif ourelves from the whole but bcs we
essentially inds we are essentially different. We begin differently in the world. We need to
articulate this difference, if we cannot we missing something from our essence. She is a
existensialist. Apart from all those mediations, there is something the fact that we are born in
this world. every act of born is new action. Men can do without work, labour but cannot live
without action. Beginning something new. Acting is both to begin and bring it to an end.
Enexpected can be expected such a subject. People do not act, people behave. Speech and act
have dut to revelation. Speech is essential for action otherwise, it could be enough to use a
sign language. Speech is an end in itself. Reveal who we are rather than what we are.
Daimon – Eudaimonia
Eu: good
Daimon: small devils
You do not see small daimons. The others can tell whether you have a good diamon or not. By
speaking and acting we are presenting who we are. (presentation – representation) political
life attains a fundamental meaning of a human life. Without political life we cannot present
who we are, we cannot present our essential uniqueness.
Civil society organizaions with full of charity. Awareness and charity organization. Charity org
do not try to presenting problems, temporary solutions for them. conservaitve politics prefer
charity work, if you politicize problem you want to change the rules. Charity work in itself is
conservative. Good man is a lonely man, it is not a political figure.
Inter-est is what emerges between us. It is not tangible as table, but web of relationships. In
action we continue to act as long as we act. How scan we tabilize these web of relations
without diminishing the action? Those web of relations are established through stories.
Stories reveal us. We are not authors but acotrs of our stories.
Action is never possible in isolation. Action x Making. Action is not natural phenomena.
Whereas in human relations there is no clear determinancy. We nnever reach what we plan
to reach. It is incalculable. Abundancy of possibilities.
All institutions ar asking fr the support of each generations. Without support theey would
collapse.
Greek solution: greeks found the solution in the polis. Ttradition of rememberence. Organize
institutionalization of forgetting - not citizens but consumers.
Power emerges only when people come together, that differentiates also power form ruling
pracitces. Command and obey structure. Power is horizontaly organizes. Communication is
important. Deliberating challenging others. Agonistic politics. Unpredictabilty of action.
Spheres of activity. Bringing something new into the world. If you bring something totally new
into the world… emergence of the social. World of alienation, world we live in is turn into
object of hom faber. That means social realm strategic action defines our ends. spheres of
labour and work so decisive, we think every action in terms of work. Revolutions can be before
planned and can be exercised according to this plan. Even more dangerous than homofaber is
animal labourans. We satisfy our lives as karın tokluğu. Public happiness x Private happiness.
Love of wisdom cannot develop political virtues. Courage most imp virtue of human beings-
Aristotelian. All these entails a critique of welfare states. State today service of the social
whereas social and private in the service of political freedom. People can be politically free.
Welfare state has been turned into means to satisfy social needs.

Consent and Will –

After the monarchies collapse the reltionship between ruler and the ruled did not change.
Will – no place for discussion, it is so abstract.
Instead of one will, we have to preserve irreducable individualities.

American rev did not born out of idea but instead born out of experiences. Frenc rev has visa
veraa, more ideas than experiences. In the ame rev ideas were important but not
institutionalized.
Civil rights are not equal to political freedom.
Constituting power and constituted power. arendt says that work together but it seems to be
contradictory. If you have a revolution you want stability on the other hand because it is a
revolution it is against stability. Any revolution has constituting and constituted power. How
to institutionalize the revolutionary spirit? If we can institutionalize revolitionary spirit then
we have a space people can attain their political freedoms.
What is the main thesis here?
Aim of the revolution is to activate public space. American revolution is more successful but
they lack to institutionalize political liberties.
French Revolution - social questions played crucial role in french revolution. The terro regime
is not adjective, they called themselves regime of terror. It is against those people who are
private interest. how can you create a volente generale?
Real revolutionary power should preverse particular differences.
Comparison between representative democracy and real republican democracy and freedom.
The latter should find a way to… parl dem internally is problematic and against the horizontal
organzation of the people. The fact is each time meerges rev upheavel without knowing
people come together and organize themselves horizontally. That cannot be a coincidence. If
it repeats itself, we remeber it and find out a way to institutionalize it. Warns us about social
question.

23.11.17
Gramsci
Theory of Novel
Nationalism won over class struggle. That was the disappointment for socialists. Gramsci starts
his career with war. Why do we have a myth of Gramsci? Texts are challenging because he
writes in tradition of Hegel. Philosophy of praxis Marxism. Was the main given the Hegelian
Marxism. Horizantal organization. Arendt also talks about it, horizontal organization. His
opponents were syndicalists and economists. Syn argue that we dont nec need a party, if we
struggle again economic domination over the bourg in the end there will be a revolution. In
1924, he established Communist Party in Italy. The fascist enacted OHAL and he was put in
prison.
Gramsci has interesting position in the elite discussion.
Civil society and state. Hegemony. difference between ideology and hegemony. revolutionary
strategy corresponds political activism in public sphere. We can also touch upon economic
determinism. Only for liberals economy determines everything. In Marxism, class struggle
determines everything.
Gramsci provides reinterpretation of historical development. What is Marx’s historical
development. What is the motor of history? First explanation is class struggle. The second one
is contradiction between relations of production and forces of production. Structurally there
emerges a relation between classes. Forces of production does not mean means of
production. Organized labour also force of production. Marx does not say that at some point
means of prod so revolutionized that you need new forms of prod. Because forces of
production a different organization of labour can contradict existing relations fo production.
Marxist formula includes subjectivity.gramsci emphasizes role of the agent.
State emerges almost organically from civil society.
-citizen
STATE

Family

Civil Society Individuality

In german ideology, we have def of structure which is in broad sense economic relationships.
And all the rest is German ideology, superstructure. And also state is ideological structure.
Relationhip between totality and its parts. Which has the sole function to provide the basis for
functioning the structure, enables the structure in a better way. Culture, state, education etc.
is superstructural therefore ideological.
Gramsci cannot use the word “class”. Social group and fundamental social group. Whenever
he is taşlking about social group he talks about classes in mor egeneral, sociological sense.
Social classes refer to groups which can be determined by different criteria, what is your
education, status etc. can be determinance which class you belong in Weberian sense. What
is the specificty of classes in Marxist sense? Conflictual relationship. Two main classes are
proleteriat and bourgeois. Contradiction can be resolved in the end. Where does this
contradictory emerge from? Classes are defined according to functions groups in question
take in terms of production relationships. Class in itself is defined solely in terms of this
positioning. Or, in Hegelian terms these are potentially classes. Grmasci’s argument is that call
for itself develops the relations that take place in civil society. becoming aware of which class
you belong to. Subsequent moment in the relation of political forces. Political forces emerge
in civil society. divides civ soc in three level. “The first and most elemantary is economic
corporate level. The second moment is that solidarity of interest among all the members of
soc class but still in purely economic.. and third moment..”
Awareness and necessity of political domination has emerged. How bourg state has developne
on the other hand theory of revolution. If the state is a class state based on class division. If
we have the right leninist party, it would be the state proleteriat. We can try to gain over the
hegemony. Universal state is partial class state. Violence as integral part of politics. Hegemony
– persuasion. Aim is to form state in state which can be alternative to seemingly universal
state of bourgeoisie. In the third phase, the state in narrow sense he desc it as class lib terms
the institution has monopoly of violence. Coercive inst which is used against subaltern classes.
If they have been aware now that the interest of the ruling classes are not the interest of the
subaltern clases. In last instance, you have to use coercive power of the state. Not only need
to gain hegemony but also institutions of state which are not directly military institutions
consent is also produced in… Hegemony emerges from relations of production in civil society,
not given from the top. War of position is.. war of attrition. In that war it is usually the ones
attack. Cohersive mechanism of state is first trench? people from the back provide… alternativ
way startegy to leninism which was successful to Russian Revolution. You change the civil
society. demoralizing strategy. Debates in civil society nothing but ongoing struggle of
hegemony.
Presentation – overall state theories. State of nature. For Hobbes and Rousseau state is the
negation of prestate. Locke and Kant it is the continuation of prestate nature. For Hegel, state
is production of history and rationalization of prestate society. dichotomy state against
prestate. Marx influenced by Saint Simon. For Marx, prestate still exist not in individul level
but in class level. There is the reflections of prestate society. three points on state theory.
Firstly state is the concentration of violence. Secondly, this instrument serves the particular
class. Thirdly, not the state but the civil society is the main determinant. It is against the
positive side of state of nature. State is transitory instrument for the civil societies.
To win the war you need intellectuals. Traditional intellectuals have autonomous positions
which they think acquired this position by eternal truths. Trad int can be convince to join in o
the party of revolutionaries, they can change sides. That is the aim of struggle of hegemony.
He does not give us a vulgar Marxist explanation. Who are the organic intellectuals?
Freestanding occupations. He talks about organic intellectuals of bourgeois class. a person
who exercises the function of his class and, organizes peple together. He has a practicl
education. Differentiation, he makes, Platonism and Aristotelianism. Aristotelian
understanding of practical wisdom. Organic intellectuals has the practical wisdom. Whereas,
the traditional intellectuals think more about general laws. Who is the organic intellectual of
the working class? The most advanced sections of the working class would take the issue of
organization in their hand. Probably in sense of organizational capability. Occupational high
schools are important. There we can recruit organic intellectuals. Advanced means also a
segment of work which oversees other sections of work.
Who are the organic intellectuals of working class today? Some segments of white colour
workers. The strongest labour union is in the service sector in the Germany.

30.11.17
Boat metaphor – Zarrab davası
Communitarian republican – Aristotelian understanding of society. what kind of problems do
we have in public sphere in the modern world?
Capitalism
Freedom of expression
Participation in politics
Access to information – the truth(intellectuals, elites-problem for public sphere theories) or
opinion(citizens)? Particular interest or common interest of the public?
Role of the public sphere
Citizenship according to Aristotle is open to contestation. Radical democracy is about
integrating those who cannot participate. Inclusion. Habermas uses the term integration in
Durkheimian way. Differences ar enot a impediment against integrariton. İntgeration means
in Habermasian terms to reestablish society in daily basis. New citizens should be integrated
into the state means state reformulates itself on daily basis. New comers integrate themselves
means the locals? also integrates itself to new comers. In the end, people understand
assimilation in the word integration. Integration means being able to participate.
Civil disobedience and otheer forms of political acitivity.
Constitution – habermas arguing for constitutional patriotism. Why do not I like my
constitution.
Bureaucracy
Opinion polls vs. public opinion. Lack of deliberate public discussion.
Visibility as essential feature of the public sphere. You want to set an example for the public
people can follow you. Civil disobedşence is an integral part of public sphere. Synthesis of
liberalism and republicanism includes right to step back. Important right we need to preserve.
We should have the right to be invisible.
Tyranny of the majority – public sphere should be an answer to tyranny of majority.
Presentation

Life world
Money Solidarity Administrative Power
Civil society
Recognizing co-dependency to others.
Public use of reason
Ethical emphasize of republican view a little bir problematic because it is not open to
disccussion. Moral discourse is not about previously settled but more about the common
good, deliberative feature. He does not exclude other discourses. We must have an emphasize
on moral grounds. Orientation of common good.
Informal Public Opinion – Formation (Decentralised Society)

Influence
Political Elections
Communicative Power
Legislation
Administrative Power
Constitution is different from life world. Public opinion has the influence to administrative
power in contitutionally based legal processes. How deliberative power seen in the schema.
Civil disobedience acts is not just against state. It is actually near the state, legitimate the state.
He draws a certian line between against the constitution and near the constitution. Civil
disobedience is not revolution. Student movements were in danger of turning itself to terrorist
activities. We should not normalize civil disobedience acts. Legality and legitimacy. Civil
disobedience aims legitimacy.
We can have an influence on Money and Bureacuracy. These turn to system. If you legalize
everything..
Communicative power taken from Hannah Arendt. It has emerged through comm in civil
sociey. Habermas more republican than liberal. Reformulates republicanism.
Rawls more liberal. But they are taliking about same thing.
Pragmatic discourses what is most efficient can be debated by experts. Eelites have the role
informed the public efficiency. Limit the discussion in terms of its pragmatic ends. another
discourse is moral discourse. What is ht eright thing ot do. Differentiate mral and ethical
discourses. Ethical discourse is about the good life. We cannot agree on definition of good life
according to Habermas. Good life which is relevant for each society but htere might be also
values norms, bindging for the whole society. questions of identity. put in terms of who are
we and who doo we want to be. For Habermas it is very imp, we are a nation inheritance of
holocaust. We do not want to be Nazis, that is identity. all the other normative questions are
moral questions. Should be solve in Kantian universalism. Proceduralism. All those who are
affected by a certain debate should be participants of that debate. Not private morality.
Deliberation of this question is open-ended. And do not end up in constitution. Only in rare
cases etchical cases… law universal rules of living together. The basis of law as moral
discourses. Problematic question is then identity of the community is too much internalized
by the moral question. Abortion in the US. It is the question of morality. How are we going to
convşnce th eothers that this is not question of ethics but question of morality. Morality =
categorical imperative. In that case, Habermas is liberal.
If we divide the problem to its components than we have a qualitatively better public debate.
Republicans put their emphasize on political participation. You cnnot havee unşversal rights
without understanding… rationally they are cooriginal. We need to defend both, that means
limit time to tie both of them. will formation process has power struggle for liberals. For
Habermas, we cannot reach consensus for every topic. In pragmatic discourses, you have the
criteria of compromise.
Difference between civil disobedience and moral objectivism is that objectivism is a moral
discourse. Individual decides upon his or himself. Does not set an example for the public
sphere. He can be punished. Civil disobedience is an act which is illegal. Conservative
politicians argue that nonviolent resistance to law is also violent. 3 criteria are important. The
pol participants of this action ar eparticipating while they believe in the legitimacy of the
constitution. Constituitons is nothing but something emerged through communication.

07.12.2017
Not power, subject. Forms of subjectification through objectification. French emphasis in
word subject, suje – tebaa, being under domination. Whereas in Kant, subject of reason.
Development of identity by different formes of objectification.
Knowledge regimes are used as modalities of objectification which creates your minds
subjectivity. Subjective labours.
Institutional practices.
Last one can be understand in biopolitical terms or, it is about practices of the self. Regime of
production of self.
All these regimes we come across power relations. How we analyze those power relations.
Underlining rationality. Empirical struggles, empirical forms of resistance to drive different
froms of rationality. According to Foucault, there is no one rationality, there are different
nationalities. The enlightenment rationality is intelf prone to irrationality. Because it turns in
to form of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. A-normal practices, existing rationalities in
society determine our lives. Who we want to be, who we are.
Idea of progress which can be argued for the whole society for Frankfurt school. For foucault,
there are regimes which is called progress. Dominated-domination. There is no essence of
power, there are different modalities of power.
Not come with number one enemy; rather immediate struggles, practices.
Identity politics
Knowledge regimes, what is produced as truth. We want a public sphere which is produce
truth.
To know what we do not want to be
Technology of power. He distinguishes forms of struggle. Predominant form of power
relations are based on subjectification. Transformation in nation states from its emergence
ownwards, emergence of modern state. He argues that we analyze the mod state within the
liberal paradigm which means monopoly of power has emerged against individual citizen.
Pastoral power which is contrary to idea of monarchical power. control of lambs individualized
and leads them by not giving individualized commands but sheep follows those commands.
Foucault does not make a differentiation between violence and power but it is a continuation.
But arnedt these two are two contrast things. Emphsasis on discouse and action, you cannto
really know the ocnclusions of your acts and these concerns you can also find in Machiavelli.
Geniology of morals.
Warner – Presentation
Distinction of the public and a public. Takes public as a superstructure. The public is social
totality. Emphasis on circulation. Passing of the information and the thought. We are never
have a ful control over discourse. Discouse circulates. It is interpreted by the participants of
the public – It is Arendtian.
The public addressing more universal. We have 7 topics.
Public is self-organized. If you attach and pay attention on a particular kind of discourse
for a time, you will be part of the public.
Goddip is not about strangers. Public form of gossip that is may be public discourse.
But a scandal. It is a form of gossip.
Timelessness.
In public speech you are all equals.
Organizes your belonging to public.
To define public discourse as opposed to other forms of discourse. Pub discourse can only
emerge when we are sure it is self-organized. It is enough to attention certain people. You
need to hav durable attention, that is the minimum participation. Gossiping that is the way he
is differentiate public sphere from private concerns as Arendt. He address public speech both
personal and impersonal. We should not include emotions, we still need criteria to distinguish
gossip and lyric poem. We should be able to say this speech is referring to me. I know that I
am part of a group who thinks like me. A group of people I do not know and it is open to new
comers. Problem here is, if you want to create counterpublics, you need to use distinctive
language.because otherwise cannot encompass everybody. If you are going to form a public
discourse… community. There is also a public sphere KAOS-GL, they all belong to that public.
Last point* how counterpublic emerges. They form a public space appeal to te public. Aim of
pub speech is to acquire clarity in your own discourse. You create your individuality. It sis not
about trying to convince other people. Twitter. Aim is to cerate to learn about your own
discourse. Of you form counter publics create a visibility in your own discourse. You can
presented more visibility. You gain a presence.