I really found myself getting into this chapter more than others this week. I think this is for one simple reason i actually understood what was going on and i didn't have to re read everything a billion times (sorry this is the end of my disclaimer)
I thought it was really interesting that Mckee again defends Habermas on the aspect of keeping certain cultures out of the public sphere. For Mckee says that Habermas doesn't believe that people don't have the right to formulate their own opionions but in fact it is because they formulate their own opinions that they should not be allowed to join into the public sphere. Basically Habermas believes (and I am paraphrasing here) that people in the public sphere need to speek the same language and for that reason more people being allowed to compete in the public sphere only cause confusion. His reasoning for this is that there is only one truth and if we are speaking different languages there will never be one truth, only multiple truths.
I believe this theory has many faults because how is this a true representation of a public sphere if we are excluding certain people from the discussion just because they have different world views from our own. It seems to me Habermas comes off as a person who doesn't want to hear what others have to say if it goes against what he believes in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I haven't read the text (and am not in the class!--but this is the blogosphere... where logic can be hijacked, reason disregarded, and context ignored!) but a question from your post... You state:
if we are excluding certain people from the discussion just because they have different world views from our own.
That this can't be a true public sphere? And that Habermas sounds as if he doesn't want to hear what others have to say!
What do you do with people who choose a picture of the world that rejects the public sphere? If someone refuses to come to the table to collaborate in an open and honest fashion--are we excluding them or have they excluded themselves?
I'm not sure that McKee does takes up Habermas's position. He does however, and I think its a credit to him, give it a fair "airing". In fact that's the thing I lie about McKee...he fairly addresses both sides of the coin. Ultimately though, I don't think he thinks there is anything wrong with the fragmentation of the public sphere...rather, I get the impression he thinks its ultimately better for society to recognize and accept this separate Public spheres so we can all just get on with...I oversimplify of course
Freddie
Post a Comment