tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post2915982312275985208..comments2024-03-28T08:37:58.136+01:00Comments on Limited, Inc.: the privilege of turn 1 (revised)Roger Gathmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-6594120874455970052008-08-29T23:15:00.000+02:002008-08-29T23:15:00.000+02:00Mr. CK, you are certainly right about this: "the f...Mr. CK, you are certainly right about this: "the formation of the public sphere" that one cannot form a public sphere per se. One can only form a public and a private sphere simultaneously." At the same time, when Engels, for instance, speaks in the forward to the Condition of the Working Class in England, he uses something like Habermas' notion of the public sphere:<BR/><BR/>"Schließlich habe ich noch zwei Bemerkungen zu machen. Erstens, daß ich das Wort Mittelklasse fortwährend im Sinne des englischen middle-class (oder wie fast immer gesagt wird: middle-classes) gebraucht habe, wo es gleich dem französischen bourgeoisie die besitzende Klasse, speziell die von der sogenannten Aristokratie unterschiedene besitzende Klasse bedeutet - die Klasse, welche in Frankreich und England direkt und in Deutschland als "öffentliche Meinung" indirekt im Besitze der Staatsmacht ist."<BR/><BR/>Public opinion naturally means private opinion too, of course. But what is interesting is that opinion, here, is made the equivalent of classes - which tells me, at least, that the idea that classes are ultimately defined by their place in the system of production is not the case for Engels, at least. Private opinion as a matter of state power is a pretty good way of describing the the private rumors and posItioning going on at a court - say Catherine ii or Louis xiv. In this way, public and private are redrawn. When Herzen remarks, about the memoirs of Catherine ii, that the amazing thing about them is that the state exists for the state alone - there is no concern whatsoever, or even lipservice, paid to the nation, the people, etc. etc. - he is spotting a very striking phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>However, as I hope you gathered from my little post, I am ultra suspicious of the way the "public sphere" has been tossed around as the conventional wisdom of the moment.Roger Gathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-34847902367856773412008-08-29T22:45:00.000+02:002008-08-29T22:45:00.000+02:00Since you have remarked on the satisfaction of rec...Since you have remarked on the satisfaction of receiving comments, I cannot let this post remain without response.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I have nothing to say germane to the topic. At the risk of diminishing that sociable satisfaction I would wish this comment to induce, let me simply say with regard to "the formation of the public sphere" that one cannot form a public sphere per se. One can only form a public and a private sphere simultaneously. For the sake of argument, I will suggest that in fact the only motive for forming a public sphere is to promote the formation and the plausibility of the private sphere. And the private sphere is, of course, the notorious domain of happiness. We wouldn't want mockery there, would we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com