Date: 	Fri, 1 Aug 1997 22:21:29 -0400
From: "kenneth.mackendrick" <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: the public sphere



> May I intrude with Hannah Arendt's definition of the public sphere,
> as it initially arose in the ancient Greek polis, as the
> space in which peers spent most of their prime time engaged in
> speech and action with the aim of "shining" in the judgment of
> their peers, and, in turn, reflecting back such affirmation
> to their peers.

Hannah Arendt is a great place to start but not a very good place to end up.  
Arendt's work is most interesting in its earliest phase - with her study of Rahel 
Varnhagen.  Arendt, who is a very sensitive thinker, falsely divides the public and 
private spheres in an incoherent way.  She sort of supports a division of labour 
which is problematized by Adorno's thoughts on the culture industry.

> There surely are instances of such community in
> our society, and aspects of it in other interactions,
> but I think it is safe to judge that in the modern world,
> despite all its technological advances which should have freed up
> more persons to participate in the life of the polis, there
> is really no such public sphere (or at best it has
> been marginalized), little interest in 
> cultivating it, and we are less human (or at least
> deprived of opportunities to experience and develop
> our humanity) than would be expected if the ideals of
> the polis had not been replaced by lower values (like
> making money).

On the contrary - there is a huge public sphere.  Whenever we engage in anything 
we are engaging the public sphere - in the classroom, on the internet, through our 
labour, in our beds etc.  The problem is that the interests of the public sphere have 
been reduced to the instruments of capitalism.  Everything is reduced to its use 
value - and in turn to its exchange value.  The peripheral elements are wiped away 
- what is frivilous is scorned - what is unnecessary is outlawed - and what is 
simply playful is squeezed out of the thought process itself - UNLESS of course 
these frivilousities can be capitalized on - such as in the fashion industry or in 
sports arenas.
> 
> As Aristotle noted: If machines would operate themselves, there 
> would be no need for slaves.  Technological advance
> should have allowed women and children (and all men) to
> join the polis, in which persons are not *governed* but
> cooperatively shape their future in dialog.  Instead,
> we have the subordination of many to a few, and the
> government of men rather than the administration of things
> (Marx).


It is funny that the "logical" conclusion of not having to work is to "join the polis" 
and engage in politics.  The idea of freedom and happiness strongly brush against 
this.  Where is happiness in all of this?  And what about freedom?  What role shall 
technology play in these concepts and how shall it mediate them?  Furthermore - 
how does technology prevent such concepts from being actualized - even when we 
all recognize what is really happening.


> IMO this is a geat tragedy and failure of our culture.  

It sure is.  I would imagine that the task of one who studies technology is to find 
fruit on a dead vine - even if only by the absense of the latter in light of the 
presence of the former.

ken




     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---