From: Satoru_Aonuma-AT-mts.cc.wayne.edu
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 09:45:28 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: public sphere


   Many thanks to those who have responded to my
reading of Habermas's public sphere thesis.  A couple
of further thoughts.
  (1) I recognize that there are certain breaks in 
Habermas's thinking in the last 30 years. I also
know there are some people who periodize his
works (sociological, philosophical, political,
periods, for example).  In several of his recent interviews,
however, Habermas consistently maintained
that his project has basically remained the same
since the late sixties, albeit different accentuations.
And I see one indication of such continuation in his
discussions of the public sphere (60s), student 
movement and public opinion (70s), and civil disobedience,
(80s), along with his theoretical program of 
communicative action and discourse ethics: that is, 
the repolicization of the public in a liberal-constitutional/
social-welfare state. 
  (2) How should we understand the German word "diskurs" 
as used by Habermas or in German language in general? 
As I understand it, for Habermas diskurs is primarily 
argumentative, self-reflexive communication which is 
different from Foucaultian/poststructuralist discours. 
It seems, however, that some people (even Habermas himself) 
sometimes mix them up, which is very confusing. I am a 
native of Japan; and, in Japanese translation, discourse 
ethics is translated as something like "argumentative" 
ethics. 
______________________________
Satoru Aonuma/Wayne State University 
Satoru_Aonuma-AT-mts.cc.wayne.edu
*******************************
"I don't even know who they are. I mean, I look out into 
the audience and think, who the fuck are these people? 
Why are they here, who are they?  Maybe it's better 
that way; maybe if I were to think too much about my 
audience and what they wanted, it would hold me back." 
-Joe Jackson