Jill Smith

Wow! What an intense read! Flyvbjerg attempts to compare and contrast Habermas and Foucault's central ideas "as they pertain to the issue of empowering civil society and democracy" (211). The article goes on to explain the "goal of Habermas's theory of communicative action" which is "clarifying the presuppositions of the rationality of process of reaching understanding, which may be presumed to be universal because they are unavoidable" (212). This sentence is a mouthful, I can not even begin to pretend to understand completely what it means. I can guess however, that in order to reach universal understanding, that is across all scopes of humanity, that the rationality of processes need to be clarified. The participants of such a discussion would also need to be open minded and willing to accept others views. I had to split the reading in order to get a handle on it. Foucault on the other hand has a "desire to challenge every abuse of power, whoever the author, whoever the victim's" (221). Foucault seems less interested in uniformity or universality because he feels it would be unfair to all people. He rather focuses on what is good for humans. I can not wait to discuss this in class to see if I am even close!

From Freddie re Flyvebjerg

Well Folks...you made it through Flyvebjerg. Yes he's hard...and yes, academics can be long winded...but unfortunately it's the way it is and the best way to tackle it is to keep your head down and wade on through! Actually, as far as the Habermas/Foucault debate is concerned, Flyvebjerg is one of the easier reads.
Having said that, you all managed quite admirably to get the basic gist of his discussion...so congratulations!
SO...you may all breathe a sigh of relief and know that we will be shortly getting back to McKee...well done. This is tough stuff and you have all come out the other side unscathed :)

Davey Neubauer: Flyvjberg

Huh!!!!!!!!
that is my main response as i tortue myself by reading this article, it seems to me that this guy Flyvjberg makes a really complicated set of texts even more complicated, which is really really frustrating in my opinion. I did get that Habermaus thought Kant was noble for his efforts in "developing a universal rational foundation for democratic institutions" (paraphrse). In otherwords he thought that Kant was right in trying to establish a universal system where people could come together and talk about the important issues and always come to a rational conclution. Habermas says Kant was wrong, but never gives any reasons or ways that these problems could be fixed. This is very hypicritical of Habermaus and I think childish to point out that someone else was wrong but not point out how to fix it. Maybe the reason fro this lack of conviction about what to do is that he could not find a definate truth about how to fix this problem.
Now Flyvbjerg also states that Foucolt says that Habermaus was too norrow minded when it comes to Kant and that

“[I]f the Kantian question was that of knowing what limits knowledge has to renounce transgressing,” says Foucault, “it seems to me that the critical question today has to be turned back into a positive one . . . The point, in brief, is to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessary limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression.” This entails an obvious consequence, according to Foucault, namely that “criticism is no longer going to be practiced in the search for formal structures with universal value, but rather as ahistorical investigation.”

what in the name of Sam's Hill is Foucault talking about here i get that unlike Herbermas he does not believe in absolute truth but I have no idea what the heck is going on here. Turn what into a positive one. It seems to me that just because these big "philosophers use big words does not mean they sre so smart. In other words just because these guys are dealing with complicated issues doesn't mean they have the right to discuss them in such complicated terms. If that was the case then they shouldn't of published books and just left their thoughts for discusion in far out smoking rooms in their lush houses were "briight men" discuss why they are so much smarter than the rest of us. I hope i can better understand in class on monday, cause all three of these guys are drving me nuts with their lack of respect for the common man. In other words talk in english please.

Janet Payne: Flyvbjerg

Flyvbjerg made several key points in his comparison of Habermas and Foucault, and concludes with their main differences. He begins by emphasising that an empowered civil society is crucial for a strong democracy. By drawing a comparison between Habermas' philosophy of morality based on consensus and Foucaults' philosophy based on historical conflict and power, he exposed the flaws in each school of thought by comparative analysis. Although Habermas' ideals seem noble in his concept of a universally inherent social life based upon establishing reciprocal understanding through communication with mutual respect and without biases, in reality it is unrealistic because he doesn't take into account the influences of the power base that is needed for political change. He is criticised as an idealist by taking a leap of faith that men in power are morally and ethically not hypocrites in their actions and are inherently looking out for the welfare of the disenfranchised. He also doesn't take into account the problems associated with cultural division of gender and minority groups. His discourse offers a Utopian society and all that's needed is consensus on constitutional values which is morally agreed upon and practiced by all in the public sphere. Foucault, on the other hand, is suspicious of the power impetus. He believes in the diversity of the individual in society, indeed, relishes it. "The search for a form of morality acceptable by everyone in the sense that everyone would have to submit to it, seems catastrophic to me." Foucault believes that this type of morality is a danger to society. Historically, resistance and struggle is the most solid basis for the practice of freedom. He is sensitive to diversity of gender and race in political identity and applauds the power struggles that are characteristic of activism and social change. Flyvbjerg concludes that Habermas' approach to the political sphere is through constitution writing and institutional development while Foucault focuses on strategies and tactics as a basis for an analysis of the dynamics of the power struggle. Foucault believes that suppressing conflict is suppressing freedom, in direct contrast to Habermas ideal of communicative rationality. The debate in the two philosophy's is stimulating and thought provoking, both having the redeeming quality of communication at it's core, though the approach may different.

Ruby Valdez on A very difficult reading!!!!!

Oh my goodness!!! I know most of us are English majors, but whoa take it easy on all of the technical terms. Honestly, I am completely lost. I may have read some paragraphs five times each and nothing came out of that.
The only thing I understood was that Habermas has five points in which to create an ideal debate. I agree with Flyvbjerg that yeah he does give us this ideal setting, but he doesn't give us any idea on how to reach this "utopia." Then I understood that Foucault unlike Habermas thinks that society needs resistance and struggle in order to practice freedom. According to Flyvbjerg, Habermas gives us a destination, but no route. Also, that Foucault will give us a course of action toward our ultimate goal, but doesn't necessarily state how to do that or even what will come out of that. Maybe these brilliant minds want us to come up with what their plans are lacking or maybe they just want to confuse the hell out of us. Either way they both have very interesting ideas about the way society should be run or run itself.
With everything else I got so caught up in how difficult the words were that I just read it through without understanding. With that I leave you with a gentle goodnight and two tablets of Aspirin.

Megan Aragon: Flyvbjerg

I had to think long and hard about the weekend's reading assignment. Amazingly, I did that at work. What helped me understand better of the reading, is comparing the ideas of Habermas's and Foucault's, to everyday's lifestyle. Doing so helped me come up with my opinion of the two ideas. I hate to admit, but I am still not quite sure if I still understand what Flyvbjerg is saying. I would get what he is saying but as soon as a new paragraph comes, I am lost all over again. It was frustrating but this is what I did get out of reading his work, and that is: Habermass is a constitutionalist, he believes a new constitution should be written. But the flaw in that theory is that the ones who are in power would write the new constitution and I don't think that is actually what Habermas wants. Habermas desires of something more of power neutrality and more participation towards equality. Most of his ideas are connect to Kant's ideas. As much as I like the idea and would very much like to see it happening to our society, but just like Flyvbjerg says, I cannot see it happening. Even Habermas might see his own flaw when he says his idea does not apply to any specific groups such as gender, class, ethnicity, etc. Unfortunately, we have to face what is really happening in our society. That is where Foucault comes in the picture when he says the idea is unrealistic for our modern society. He is right... Foucault believes just the opposite, that it is good to have power. Foucault thinks that power causes conflicts and that we need conflicts in order to have what we want which is freedom and equality. I have to admit, I did not understand what Foucault meant by what he said about power at first, but as I thought about it more, thinking of our previous historical conflicts and the presidential debates Freddie mentioned, I can see what he means. We would not have things in a certain way accordingly to our beliefs if we did not stand up to what we believe is best for us. This makes Foucault not a constitutionalist. I agree with both in certain ways, probably more with Habermas, but that would be just me dreaming. Realistically, I agree with Foucault. It was an experience to agree with two opposing ideas, but at two different point of views - a personal one and a professional one.

Karalynn Schneck:The Flyvbjerg Mess

Trudging through the complexities of Flyvbjerg and the whole discussion on ethical discourse was like trying to find marbles in mud for me. I agree with Shelly that this whole discussion could have been summarized and posited in good-old fashioned English, instead of the annoyingly overworked mess of academic English. The style turned me off intensely.

But back to the subject at hand. It appears that Habermas’ five requirements for ethical discourse stem from the basics: equality, inclusion, and leaving all prejudices at the door. I could directly quote them, but it would be a waste of time, since we have probably all exhausted the requirements as a class.

Flyvbjerg’s problem with Habermas’ theory of communicative action and these five requirements for ethical discourse is that they are rather idealistic and not empirically proven or practiced. He seems to turn to people like Machiavelli and Foucault for alternative methods for understanding actual political behavior. I prefer the idealistic tendencies of Habermas, despite their loftiness—I think that all it boils down to is the necessity of practice. Habermas’ theories may not have ground in the real world, but they could and should be practiced nevertheless. In much the same way that parents seek to rear their children with positive reinforcements and grand ideals, reality should not prevent experienced adults from learning a lesson from children: humility and the willingness to learn something ridiculously difficult. These are just my ideas, but I would much rather live with this positive, idealistic philosophy than some witty, snide, hiply cynical trend that shoots down methods before they are evn put into practice.

Fanya:Kellner/Stephans

" in a world of abusive talk-show hosts, misogynistic rap groups and earphone-encased teen-agers. Habermas continues to believe that somewhere behind the better of our attempts to communicate with each other, there have to be some shared values, shared respect and acknowledged equality."

I think this is the only part that sticks out because I understand it the most... I have a lot of learning to do when it comes to the subject of politics. So most of the time spent reading this article was looking up words and and trying to get an understanding


When it comes to communication...I think we are actually sinking. With all of the technology and people getting around the face to face communication are skills are actually becoming more inadequate. We can take the aspect of getting to know someone as a friend or romantically, I have noticed for a lot of people instead of going out or even just calling on the phone, people are communicating via text. Asking all the important questions over the text instead of face to face or even on the phone. Communication now days is so different even when I was growing up. Most business meetings are done over the phone or they have some type of device that connects everyone together. There is no coming into the office and meeting with the boss and the other employers anymore. There seems to be a shortcut to everything now. Also another example kids do not know how to write papers anymore they are putting their text messaging slang into their school work which I find it to be a issue.

It seems like Habermas view is a bit far fetched but who am I to say anything can happen.

Shelley: Flyvbjerg

I am so impressed with the rest of my classmates- you all seem to know what the heck all of these guys are talking about....i, on the other hand, am completely lost! Reading page after page of this stuff is hurting my brain! Anyway, here goes my blog on the whole thing--please do not read this if you have a clue on what is going on in this essay, for my blog will probably just confuse you and send you right back to the beginning of this class (when none of us knew what was going on in the world of Habermas) .

One thing that Flyvbjerg does clear up for me is the differences in Habermas and Foucault. What i got from the reading is that Flyvbjerg thinks that Habermas' theories, although sound great, offer no exact instructions on how to get there. Yes, Habermas has these five requirements (on discourse ethics), but i do not know that there is a sole on this earth that can fulfill all of them. The biggest requirement that is a problem for Flyvbjerg is the 4th: power neutrality. He states at that Habermas' idea of a democracy lacks what should be at the core: Power!
As i understand it, is does Habermas think that the Constitution is a work in progress? A Document that we can go in and re-write after all these years? So am i on Foucault's side? i have absolutely no idea!!!!
It seems that Flyvbjerg thinks we should all listen to Machiavelli (another person that went over my head in Eng 306).
Overall, i tend to agree with Flyvbjerg ( i think)--that Habermas has all of these utopianthoughts, theories, ideas---but they are far-fetched, and he doesn't give us any ideas on how to reach that utopian dream.

Kristen Reagan: Flyvjerg

Flyvjerg's main claim is that the difference between Foucault and Habermas is a "tension in modernity." He believes that Habermas believed in consensus while Foucault believed in conflict and power when it comes to democracy.

Flyvjerg explains that Habermas believed in the idea of communicative rationality. Habermas thought that while communicative rationality is being threatened in modern society, that can be fixed through "consensus bringing force of argumentative speech." He thought that through rational argument, people are able to come to the same beliefs. Flyvjerg says that the biggest problem in Habermas' beliefs is that he describes a "utopia," but does not give us any directions on how to get there. Flyvjerg concludes that in fact, Habermas lacked the understanding of power that would be needed to change it.

Flyvjerg believes that Foucault has tried to understand what Habermas did not, the realities of power. While Habermas had a good understanding of political ideals, but not of the process, Foucault is the opposite. Over all, Flyvjerg says that both Habermas and Foucault believed that rationality in power were a very important subject. However, they do not agree on the best way to understand and react to the problems.

Michelle Peterson: On Flyvbjerg

Power is the main difference between the theories of Foucault and Habermas. For Habermas, constitutionalism is the way to go. He calls forth new constitutions to be written, but who would make the new constitutions? Inevitably it would be those who are in power. Habermas’s five requirements are flawed because he calls for “power neutrality” where power does not affect the discourse. He also calls on participants to practice “empathy” and equality (213). It is no wonder why Flyvbjerg calls these ideas “utopian” (215). It’s a nice idea that participants would turn into empathetic and understanding individuals and that those in power would be willing to put their power aside for the duration of the discourse, but unfortunately it sounds too good to be true. Flyvbjerg says it all when he says, “The vocabulary of Enlightenment rationalism has become an impediment to the preservation and progress of democratic societies” (219). He even tells the reader that Habermas admits that “his analysis does not include ‘gender, ethnicity, class, popular culture’” (225). Clearly Habermas is stuck in the past.

For Foucault, power is necessary in order to cause conflict and conflict is necessary for freedom. After all, if individuals weren’t given the chance to fight for their beliefs then that society would be deemed as oppressed and clearly an oppressed society cannot have a truthful public sphere. Foucault is an “opponent of ideals” (219) because he know that if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true. Foucault is not a constitutionalist but asks individuals to utilize their existing constitutions more “democratically” (223). For Foucault, freedom relies on power, so power must be in existence. Freedom is won by “resistance and struggle” and conflict unites society.

Stephanie Velona on Flyvbjerg

Brent Flyvbjerg presents both Habermas and Foucault’s arguments regarding democracy and the discourse of civil society. In this article Flyvbjerg presents Habermas’s 5 requirements for ethical discourse. Flyvbjerg spells them out, but the shortened version is 1) the requirement of generality, 2) autonomy, 3) ideal role taking, 4) power neutrality and 5) transparence. Basically what Flyvbjerg says is that citizenship based on this model would be defined in terms of “taking part in public debate”. In this model Habermas is saying that everyone who is affected by a particular issue should be allowed to enter in a public debate about the issue, that there should be open discourse without one party in control.

I think Habermas has mainly constitutional elements in his argument. I do see one contradiction in his argument though; he says he wants public discourse without power yet according to Flyvbjerg for Habermas “the head of the king is still very much on, in the sense that sovereignty is a prerequisite for regulation of power by law.” However Flyvbjerg also points out that Habermas is a “top-down” thinker when it comes to procedures, he would want to tell people how they should do things instead of the people deciding how things should be done, although he would not want to control the outcome. So these elements seem a bit contradictory, but I think that he is basically a constitutionalist.

Flyvbjerg feels Habermas’s basic weakness being the “lack of agreement between ideal and reality, between intentions and their implementation”. Flyvbjerg feels that Habermas gives us a picture of what the ideal of “communicative rationality” is but he does not offer any suggestions of how to attain it. Flyvbjerg seems to suggest that Foucault’s approach that “rationalism as an ideal should never constitute a blackmail to prevent the analysis of the rationalities really at work”, as a more practical ideal.

Foucault suggests that an “analysis of society” is what will get us to understand actual political behavior. This to me seems to make perfect sense, by studying the people who belong to different civil societies we can learn how these different societies might participate politically. Not every person will fit into the typical mold of the society that they belong to; however we can get a more empirical view of particular societies and their political participation.

Habermas has a bit of a utopian approach to the way things should be and can be without the real means of getting there. Foucault seems to approach things from a more realistic perspective, trying to figure out how things are and then we can see how to make them better.

From Lorraine: Habermas and Foucault

The main things that kept running through my mind when reading the Habermas vs. Foucault article written by the guy who's last name I can pronounce is 1)A lot of thet stuff went over my head, even after multiple readings and 2) While I admire Habermas' idealism, I would have to agree with Foucault and other "cynics" who postulate that the discourse that Habermas calls for will always be penetrated by power based on the fact that those who originally communicated were white upper class males and Habermas seems to ignore the elephant in the room that is inequality. It just feels that the only way the communication that Habermas talks about can take place is on a planet where everyone has the same haircut and is named Bob.

Here's a look at those citizens who consisted of Habermas' "Civil society"

Racism and the Media from Lorraine

I was thinking about how the media is corporate owned and the pluralistic society. One thing I've noticed in my studies is that the media can be skewed in manipulating how people are seen, just like we discussed in class (more or less).

Chris Rock makes a similar observation, though he calls for the African American community to accept more responsibility for their actions in this clip.

I must warn you, the language is strong, so if you're offended easily, please don't watch this.

You've been warned. But if you want the crux of the argument, fast forward the scene 7 minutes in, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Can you see any contradictions in the argument, or how he states his argument?

Shelley : Kellner/Stephans

Okay- i thought the Stephans article was easier to read and a little more clear on Habermas than the Kellner one, so i am going to "blog" about it. First of all, i liked how Stephans quoted other professors/ authors/ political figures and we were able to hear their views on habermas in their own words. I was able to understand habermas a little better and his views became clearer (i thinnk?!?!?!?) Anyway, the first thing that i had a strong opinion about while reading was when i came to this sentence:
"His writings don't influence masses of blue-collar workers, but they are read by a lot of German party officials and journalists and so on. In this way he is very influential."

I thought to myself wouldn't the blue-collar workers be the audience that Habermas wants to read his articles? They are the ones with problems and whose voices need too be heard -- not the upper class white men, in this case the German party officials and journalists. If he is so influential, the working class would be inspired to practice what Habermas is preaching: express their views and ideas about society and the world in which they live!!

Also, the paragraph on communication, when Stephans writes:
" in a world of abusive talk-show hosts, misogynistic rap groups and earphone-encased teen-agers. Habermas continues to believe that somewhere behind the better of our attempts to communicate with each other, there have to be some shared values, shared respect and acknowledged equality."

I sort of believe that we are making less progress in terms of communication. I mean, my neice doesn't even call me on the phone--she texts me! Right there shows that we are becoming a generation that avoids true communication by short emails, texts with abbreviated words, even talking on the phone pails in comparison to talking face to face. Habermas' outlook seems so optimistic----i'm reminded of the song "Imagine" by John Lennon : "You may say, I'm a dreamer/but i'm not the only one/I hope someday you'll join us/ and the world will live as one" Sure it is a nice idea, but a little on the unrealistic side.

The only thing left that i seem a little confused about is the stuff about politics: I don't even know what a democrat or republican is, let a lone a liberal or radical----(Stephans stated that Habermas stands somewhere between a radical and a liberal). If i brush up on that i might be able to understand a little more of Habermas' views.

Fanya Daniels on Keller

I think I have got something...lol

I agree with Habermas when he point out that citizens are being consumers. Citizens have lost sight of the real goal. They are more concerned with their own issues. When people vote or make a decision they are not thinking about the problems of the country as a whole. People are not worried or considerate about the welfare of others. For an example, rich people (not all rich people) will only worry about whats going to benefit them. Another example is our youth they are so concerned with what is useful for them right then and there. Games, clothes, processed foods, shoes, ect., is what our youth is made up of. Our youth today is not concerned with laws or what is going on on in the real world. Which is a bummer because it will eventually effect them and generations to come. Its all about private advantages than public welfare.

Fanya Needs an Epiphany

I have been reading this article all weekend and I am still in a daze...I will probably post in an hour or two hopefully I can have some type of epiphany.

-Fanya Daniels

Stephanie Velona on Kellner and Stephens

Kellner presents us with an overview of Habermas’s public sphere. In reading this article I believe that Kellner was trying to present us with the ideas that were expressed by Habermas, his slant seems to be that of someone who supports the Habermasian theory of the public sphere. According to Kellner the bourgeois public sphere that Habermas discusses was one that took into consideration the private sphere (family, economic, and social life) which contrasted with the demands and concerns of social and public life. During this time the bourgeois had social societies that they belonged to where they could discuss things of interest and importance to their society and their families. I would agree that this was very true for the bourgeois or middle class during the 1700, and 1800’s but I also believe there was a definite shift in the 1900’s and since that time when mass media came to be a part of life.

Kellner goes on to tell us that Habermas sees the “transformation of the mutations of the public sphere from a space of rational discussion, debate, and concensus to a realm of mass cultural consumption and administration by corporations and dominant elites”. Where before the media was used as a facilitator of public debate it has transformed into a mass media directed by the large corporations that own them, inflicting their ideas and thoughts onto the general public in an attempt to make us think and believe as they want us too. Unfortunately, I believe this assessment to be a true one. People are so easily swayed by what they see on television or hear on the news. I believe that whether you listen to CNN or FoxNews Station or MSNBC you are getting the news told to you with a certain slant, either a conservative or a liberal slant most often.

I enjoyed Mitchell Stephens article because it built more on the biography that we built in class. We learned a little more about the person that Habermas is. This article mentioned the public sphere and how Habermas does not just believe in it but he becomes part of it and practices those beliefs. His staying up for hours just to have discussions especially political discussions is one of his favorite things to do. Stephens introduces us as a class to his ideas of “communicative action”. Habermas is a believer in the Enlightenment ideas and that “reason…is crucial to clear communication”. Unlike most of the postmodernists who do not believe that reason is a necessarily good thing. I think as of right now I may be a more Habermasian type of a person as I believe as does Habermas that prejudices can be overcome in time through communication. I also love that he would like to see more citizens participate in governmental processes. That I believe is very important in a Democratic society.

Overall I liked learning more about Habermas’s theories, even if they are just the tip of the iceberg with much more to learn and to digest. I will be looking forward to more to come.

Jared Lively on Kellner

Kellner's critique of Habermas brings up several important points that are especially relative to situation of the state primaries going on right now for the upcoming presidential elections. I like when Kellner mentions Habermas' point about the tendency to vote for "private interests and opinion" instead of the greater good of reaching a societal consensus. I think that a lot of voters today tend to vote for their own private interests rather than what would benefit the society as a whole, and that isn't condusive to building cohesive communities.
Habermas supports "intraorginizational public spheres," and that's kind of what state primaries are. State primaries allow the democratic and republican parties to have discourse within themselves and decide their best candidates. However, once the front-runners are chosen by their respective parties, we run into problems with the corporate media, which Habermas disdains. The corporate media's coverage of only the democrat and republican front-runners (more or less) rules out the chance of any other candidate having any shot in the election. The corporate media's control of the elections, in essence, supports the concept that the democrat and republican parties should promote their most marketable candidate with the best shot at winning the election instead of the candidate with the best ideas to benefit the society as a whole.

Ruby Valdez on Kellner

What I got from the reading was pretty much everything else we had already talked about in class. For example, Habermas' view on how we can all come to a consensus on an issue if we discuss it. I see that his intentions are good, but I have to disagree. I see the way people "talk" to each other and I don't really see that happening. Also people in the neighbor hood where i grew up have gotten shot for having any kind of differences. Don't get me wrong I don't think his opinion is incorrect I just think I've seen way too many rude people who can care less about anyone else let alone about their opinion.

However, I do agree with Habermas that people have become more and more interested in the mundane rather than in what will politically affect them. The reading states, "As the public sphere declined, citizens became consumers, dedicating themselves more to passive consumption and private concerns than to issues of the common good and democratic participation." Most of the youth of this decade is proof of all of this. Countless teenagers buying things they don't need and for most of their lives have "successfully" lived without. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I have fallen into this consumer trap, but after this reading I promise to charge with caution. Also, teens [at least the one's I've talked to] are more interested in personal benefit rather than in public welfare. They are way too wrapped up in what Jeff said about them when they left the room than in the laws that will affect their soon to be adult lives. I know I'm just mentioning teens, but they'll be running the country one day. Frankly from what I'm seeing I'm a little scared.

Davey Neubauer

After reading the Kellner article i come away with one concensus about Habermas, "why can't he talk more simply for us simpletons". However i did come away with some good points that i think are valid and worth mentioning here.

First I liked when he touched on history when he talked about the intervention of newspapers and political clubs. ". For the first time in history, individuals and groups could shape public opinion, giving direct expression to their needs and interests while influencing political practice". I think this is an essential point because what type of society are we if we are not allowed to express our own views in a constructive manner. If we are "suppressed" (in the words of the Monty Python sketch) than we are like puppets following the order of a slave master who allows for his people to follow him or die. Last time I checked those lists of choices pretty much sucked.

I thought Habermas' best point was showing how the big economic corporations were controlling society today to the point were we are just puppets on a string. Buying what ever they say we must buy, and giving into their demands with out standing up. Habermas thinks we should stand up out of the suppression in order to look into the mirror and realize that we are actually human beings and are capable of constructing our own ideas and thoughts. Not only can we construct these ideas, but it is vital that these ideas are expressed because without expressing our ideas about the world and were it is going, life is meaningless. Habermas I think would argue life is not worth living because society is runnung on a treadmil and going backwards in progression, instead of forwards.

Michelle Peterson: On Kellner

It seems like the public sphere has never been perfect and Habermas' critique of the public sphere is not too unrealistic. It's interesting to note the correlation between the decline of the public sphere and the rise of the consumer. As society grows in its population, people become less involved with the larger community and more self-centered. The downfall of the public sphere could be a result of a people who just stopped working together and started looking out for number one. Kellner says, "Struggle among groups to advance their own private interests characterizes the scene of contemporary politics." I would even say that it comprises society in general. I definitely agree with Habermas that the job of the media has definitely shifted. Kellner says that the media limits the public sphere because its "themes" and "discourses" must first be approved by media corporations. This particularly reminds me of the war in Iraq and how the news only briefly mentions fallen soldiers where Britney Spears gets five minutes of glory every day. I wonder how we as a society has let this happen? Habermas would probably say it has happened because we have become spectators and consumers and do not offer an opinion. I would have to agree.

Megan Aragon: Mitchell & Kellner on Habermas

I enjoyed reading this article because it was interesting to see Habermas's point of view of the public sphere and modernism/postmodernism. I am more of a modernist, however I agree with some things that postmodernists believe. But I appreicate the fact Habermas is willing to have an open mind and try to solve issues that is best for everyone. The bourgeois public sphere gives everyone the opportunity to speak for themselves. Kellner says that the bourgeois public sphere revealed Habermas's interpretation which is to mediate between the private concerns of individuals of their familial, economic and social life contrasting to the demands and concerns of social and public life. I didn't understand this completely. As I read further into the article, I believe what Kellner is trying to say is that Habermas says that the media, the big businesses, and the powerful positions of the economic corporations have too much control over our individual power and are the ones who causes conflicts, or prevent us from actually find a solution to the conflicts. So when Kellner and Mitchell mentions that it seems that Habermas tries to find a solution for everyone, they are saying that many of us are not actually listening, yet we do not realize that we not doing any good by being enclosed to only our opinions but yet try to listen to other point of views. We might actually get somewhere by simply listening to others.

Karalynn Schneck: Mitchell & Kellner on Habermas

I very much enjoy Habermas' positive outlook on the world. Many postmodern critics censure him for being unrealistic, but for goodness' sake, they never offer any real solutions to modern problems, so where do they have room to complain? When working collaboratively on group projects and the like, I have found that those who are quick to complain are also usually slow to make new discoveries. They are so busy being pessimistic that they fail to make any useful impact on the world.

Fish is right when he says that Habermas “‘seems to offer a way out of corrosive relativism’” (Mitchell), but he fails to realize that any attempt to actively solve the troubles of pluralism should not be discarded simply because it is naive or incomplete. As the saying goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” Therefore, instead of trying to drag down Habermas and like philosophers with their depressive and pessimistic rants, postmodernists should seek to work together with modernists in seeking to solve the chaos of today’s world. These philosophers get paid plenty of money to sit around debating through all sorts of media, so they might as well put their time into a purpose that it useful, like Habermas. Relativism is corrosive in that it perpetually divides humans from each other and makes us all the more selfish daily. The “my Truth is not your Truth” doctrine is dangerous and destructive, and what the world needs is a constructive approach to pluralism.

“The postmodernists might begin questioning, for example, whether ‘reason’ isn't just the name the powerful give to their rationales for holding power or whether ‘justice’ isn't just an excuse for the majority to impose its morality on the minority” (Mitchell). The problem with these postmodernist views is that they do not end up helping anyone. Habermas knows and agrees that there are big corporations and controlling media giants who take away individual power and insidiously oppress democracy, but he sees light at the end of a dark tunnel, believing “that just institutions can lead to a fairer society” (Mitchell). The modern age does not have to be the end of democracy, human rights or justice. There are ways to battle the evils of society, and whining and nitpicking are not among them.

Davey Neubauer

This song's been running in my head all day!
Its called "invitation to understanding", and i thought it would be appropriate when talk'n about Habermas and Foucault. Its live so the sound isn't the greatest so here is the lyrics. Oh yeah the song is by the band MXPX.



Come on understanding visit me for once today

I'll be grateful, you don't even have to stay

It must be hard for you to get over to myside of town

I know there's many people like me to be found



If you come knockin' at my doorAnd I am not around

Foolishness came by and we're downtown

Please don't leavePlease come on in and make yourself at home

I know you're probably used to being alone



Everyone keeps telling me you're something that you're not

But I know if I met you I'd like you a lot

What exactly does it take to bring you to my door

By the time that you arrive I won't live here no more

What can I do? There's no one here but me

And nothin' on tv

Where could you be? I really wouldn't know Where else you might go

Jared Lively - Intro post

McKee's intro raised a lot of interesting questions. He talked a lot about the needs and requests of different demographics. The muffled voices of the margianalized groups tie in to the analogy that Freddie made in class yesterday about the monopoly of power that old, rich, white men hold. Though minority interests are being integrated into western cultures, their voices are worthy of hearing and shouldn't be ignored by the media outlets. I think McKee was suggesting that a lot of times we get the message of the subjugated through the translation of a white man, when we should really be getting the message from the source itself.

Megan Aragon, McKee's Introduction

Ok, wow...this was a struggle to get into the blogger! I am finally here. :)

As I read the introduction of McKee, I didn't find what I was expecting to find as I read the section. I expected McKee to claim his opinion and where he stood between Modernism and Postmodernism. Instead, McKee shared an equal standing to both sides. He also summarized what Modernism and Postmodernism was all about and what the cultures contain of. Before I read this book, I thought I got the idea of what the two cultures were all about. All I understood was the superficial idea of the two cultures. McKee definitely gave us an explanation or/summarization in depth of Modernism and Postmodernism. Here are two examples, explaining in depth of each culture: "Modernity involved a different way of seeing the world, and of seeing the palce of people in it. Thinkers developed 'Enlightenment' values as a guide to prganizing society: all citizens were of equal worth and importance (equality); everyone should be treated fairly (justice); everyone had a right to a basic level of material welfare (comfort)." (McKee, 7). "A postmodern attitude still accepts the importance of basic Enlightment values-equality, freedom, justice, comfort, but takes a 'relativist' rather than a 'transcendental' approach to them." (McKee, 17). I shared these quotes from McKee's introduction because it was the initiator of my opinion towards Modernism, Postmodernism and what McKee had to say about it. I believe that postmodernism is healthy for our society because I think everyone should have a say, at least, for themselves. As people say, we know ourselves best, for the most part. Therefore, we should be able to make our own decisions for ourselves without any one else's values interfering with our values. However, I also think that Modernism should always exist, because it seems to resolve many of our issues whether we like it or not. Such as the laws and supreme court decisions that leads to the final answer of an issue. We need to have a final say for some of our society's issues in order to have acceptance, because people will eventually accept the final say/value or just simply move on. I look forward to reading further into the book to see what else there is to learn about the two cultures. :)

From Lorraine: COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!

I'd like to try something, if y'all would be obliged to indulge me: Just about anything we talk about can be brought back to either Monty Python, The Simpsons, or otherwise have some comedic commentary made by some of the world's funniest people.

I was thinking of the old feudal systems and the present day discourse we have in the world, and I thought of this scene from Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail:



It's hard to tell as to whether Dennis is Modern or Post Modern...what do you think?

Karalynn Schneck: McKee Introduction

In this introduction, McKee attempts to address the attitudinal argument about the worth of cultural difference versus an established set of rules to breed equality. It is obvious that the author leans more towards the postmodern view on cultural difference, which postulates that each culture has equal value in the public sphere: "different groups think and communicate differently about issues and we should respect that" (McKee 17). Proponents of the modern attitude have come to the conclusion that a focus on cultural difference is problematic because it divides people instead of uniting them, takes attention away from the importance of changing legislature and instead spotlights changing culture, and these new forms of culture are less worthy and don't seek to unite people under Enlightenment ideals (McKee 28-29). I think the author has chosen a very interesting and controversial subject to address. Part of me leans toward the modern attitude that cultural difference leads to fragmentation and decay, and yet I have a hard time believing in a Nazi-like set of rules to suppress individuality and cultural beauty. I recognize that I have been highly influenced as of late by the ideals of the Romantic period, which champions individuality over Borg-like conformity, nature over institutions, etc. I see a lot about this subject in Star Trek's alien society "The Borg."

I am interested and frustrated with the concerns about the public sphere mainly because they are so complex: the trivialization, commercialization, spectacle, fragmentation, and apathy that characterize today's public sphere worry me, and I look forward to McKee's arguments, conclusions, and hopefully his solutions to these issues. I often feel a sense of hopelessness and despair (as we discussed last class) over the pluralism and fragmentation of the modern world, but I am at a loss as to whether the modern or postmodern mindset is the most appropriate in solving our problems. I look forward to what McKee has to offer.

Davey Neubauer

After reading the introduction I came away really intrigued with the comparison of the old monarchy system opposed to the new enlightenment system. In the monarchy systems the people were ruled over by kings or emperors and had no say in anything in their society the ruler or the ruler highest advisers made all the decisions. Going into the enlightenment era people were the ones with the power. Enlightenment stresses equality and freedom two things that were radically different in the 17Th century and what is now taken for granted most of the time.

Another point that was mentioned in the intro of the book, was the question of wither to treat everyone equally, or recognize every ones differences and working around those differences so that everyone gets a fair chance. After thinking about these two sides i believe the letter of the two is more efficient and therefore more successful. I believe that many people have differing opinions on issues and therefore should be allowed to express those opinions. The best way to do this is to listen attentively to their points and not to lash out at them emotionally if they say something that is not quite in line with what you are trying to say. It seems to me that the first point is a bit closed minded and if someone is already set in their ways they will not really listen to the other person viewpoint. I think the most important aspect of the public sphere is to allow everyone to have a voice, that is allow equality to take shape so that the closest thing to a solution can be formed

Kristen Reagan

Coming into class, I was really unsure of what the term "public sphere" meant. We kind of touched on it in class, but after reading the introduction, I had a better understanding of it. When talking about the public sphere, we are not actually talking about a literal thing. Instead, we are talking about a metaphorical term to describe a "virtual space where people can interact" (pg 4). McKee uses the example of hearing something on the news and then talking about it with friends, and other people that we come into contact with. He explains that the human interaction in this is the public sphere. Putting it simply, the information that can be accessed by the public is part of the public sphere.

Stephanie Velona

Ok my first time blogging and I already had to edit my blog posting.

McKee in his introduction gives us an overview of what will be presented in his text. He tells us point blank that his position will be a postmodern one. He will be exploring cultures through the concept of modernism and postmodernism throughout the rest of the book. He will be approaching subjects in this book by "assuming that the levels of identity that matter most are the ones that the people concerned think matter most, in their own lives." I will be very interested to see how he is able to do this while always coming from a postmodern position. He will also be using negative terms to refer to cultures in an attempt to "embrace the negative term and argue that, from a postmodern perspective it is in fact a positive thing..." I will be interested in the results.

Janet Payne

I just figured this blog thing out. Here goes. McKee broke his introduction down into explicit categories giving rise to continued interest and greater understanding of his intention for writing this book. I think the most important point he makes is that communication is paramount in the public sphere, for all socioeconomic and cultural groups, regardless of current political standing. Continued dialogue will increase understanding and awareness of issues and concerns of "reasonable and well-intentioned persons". I for one am looking forward to how he will employ the political technique of "reclamation" throughout the rest of the text.

Stephanie Velona

look at this great lookin philosopher

Jill Smith

McKee's introduction to the public sphere introduces the public sphere as a place where citizens can voice there opinions and can discuss issues with fellow citizens. Politics is probably one of the most important areas discussed in the public sphere. McKee points out that before ordinary citizens were able to participate in political decisions, there was no "public sphere" but with the introduction of democracy, the public sphere emerged as a way for people to come together to make political decisions about the way there country's are ran. From reading the introduction one get's a better understanding of how the public sphere emerged in society. Before the introduction of democracy, the public sphere was not so public, oppositions to the throwns were done in private secretly. Now, any one person could oppose the president or the head of a country (in the Western World that is) without fear of being executed. The public sphere is necessary in our society.

Michelle Peterson

Hi everyone. Well, my initial reaction to the beginning of the intro. was that the public sphere is just a metaphor, or rather, a cool title given to forums where people gather to discuss, write, react, etc. to state affairs. I couldn't believe that I was actually taking a class about this! Essentially our class is a public sphere where we learn about the public sphere while discussing the public sphere. Sounds exciting. . .
It wasn't until I continued reading that I learned that I was totally wrong. What interests me most is the history of the p.s. and that we should be thankful our country is free to have a p.s. McKee writes, "a society that wants all citizens to be free, and to be treated equally and justly, needs a functioning public sphere to ensure that their opinions and ideas contribute to the forming of general agreement" (16). Many of us are future educators. I wonder if it is our duty to inform students about the p.s. and make sure that our free public sphere remains just that, Free. It will be interesting to see what we can take from this class and apply to our classrooms.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

ALRIGHT, Y'ALL, THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!




AND PART 2!

Remember to put your name in the title section

Hi
Just a reminder to put your name in the title section so you can get the credit for posting.
Thanks
Freddie

Welcome to English 240 Winter 2008-from Freddie

This is where you will be posting your weekly responses to the readings and any other thoughts/questions about the class or what is going on in your own"Public Sphere"
Feel free to upload pictures, videos or whatever else you feel might enhance our discussions.
Looking forward to terrific term...
Freddie