LECTURE 2: DIFFERENCES IN PUBLIC
Public Sphere:
communicative realm
to discuss and debate common interest and government
the force of the better argument wins (coercion is absent)
participants leave their identities and status behind
Discussing the common interest and government ⇒ Who’s part of the “common” or what is
the government?
→ Some groups are often excluded from the public sphere (e.g. unauthorised migrants,
people at the end of the global supply chain) = decisions being made for their future without
them.
How can we establish fair rules?
Veil of ignorance ⇒ participating in discussion (about allocating resources + social
justice) without knowing what identity/position you will have in society.
Removing your identity before discussion is central according to John Rawls.
We make theory for someone and some purpose.
Positionality = decide what article to read based on title, source, gender, language etc.
Mythical debate between Naive Objectivity and Extreme Relativism.
Bennett and Livingston:
Worried about disinformation undermining the realm of communication and force of the
better argument.
4 arguments about the Disinformation Age:
Confirmation bias: tend to seek out information that confirms our beliefs and avoid
opposing arguments.
Social media: puts confirmation bias on speed because their algorithms allow for the
proliferation of specific ideas.
State interference: active and powerful agents founded by govs to produce
disinformation.
Erosion of liberal institutions: they help to regulate information and allow for a
reasoned debate.
Solutions:
Finding ways to restore more representative and responsive parties
Reinventing a press that may help develop and tell the story
Repairing the basic functioning of democratic institutions by thinking critically about
the present conditions of democracies
Young:
,The deliberative democratic model has exclusionary implications:
Social power prevents people from being equal speakers.
Privilege is likely to dominate the discussion.
Cannot assume that there is a shared understanding to base a deliberation on.
Certain types of speeches are valued more, by particular members.
o speech with practical purpose (”we should do this”, not “I’m not sure”).
o obsession with logic as a form of rational debate.
o manner = how to behave and present your ideas.
Proposes a model of ‘communicative democracy:
Significant interdependence.
Formally equal respect.
Agreed-on procedures for fair decision-making and discussion.
3 elements that broaden the conception of communicative democracy:
Greeting = how you address the audience. Helps establish trust and respect.
Rhetoric = giving reasons and justifications for opinions and judgements + using
certain forms and styles. Gets and keeps attention.
Storytelling = use of narrative to communicate ideas to people who aren’t affected by
an issue. Reveals a source of values and meaning that bring people together to solve
the issue.
⇒ Combination of the 3 the underprivileged have a say and right to assert.
, LECTURE 3: RELIGION
After the Cold War = the idea that religion was going to become a central point of tension
(Clash of Civilisation).
Fundamentalism driving the return of religion? Religion is moving and adapting all the time,
not just outdated ideas.
Religion is the medium of political thought.
E.g. Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan (the foundation of authority).
Many prominent political leaders had a religious foundation behind their fight like Gandhi.
Religious tolerance is at the foundation of the state system.
E.g. Peace of Westphalia “cuius regio eius religio” = in every state the ruler chooses the
religion and the rights and duties that derive from it.
Diversity of models of tolerance.
Religious chauvinism at the foundation of the state system.
E.g. Line of Pope Alexander VI to divide between Spain and Portugal ⇒ sovereignty not
applied to non-Christian leaders of countries.
Public Sphere = secular
separation between State and Religion.
realm that is non-religious → rules on the basis of rationality and common reason.
religion is protected in the private realm → no intervention from the state when a
Church decides rules for its members.
⇒ 3 Pillars of secularism.
Can people of faith participate fully in the public sphere (through translation)?
Taylor:
Believes in spiritualism in non-believers. Religiosity’s role in the public sphere is not an issue
as we all understand the basis of spirituality (e.g. doing yoga, buying crystals).
The moment of fullness created by spirituality isn’t inaccessible to non-religious people.
There may be a legitimate ground => no need for translation.
Rawls and Habermas
Religious reasons can be inaccessible for non-religious members:
Myth: x is good because the story says it.
Ritual: x is good because my community says it + feeling of belonging.
Public Sphere:
communicative realm
to discuss and debate common interest and government
the force of the better argument wins (coercion is absent)
participants leave their identities and status behind
Discussing the common interest and government ⇒ Who’s part of the “common” or what is
the government?
→ Some groups are often excluded from the public sphere (e.g. unauthorised migrants,
people at the end of the global supply chain) = decisions being made for their future without
them.
How can we establish fair rules?
Veil of ignorance ⇒ participating in discussion (about allocating resources + social
justice) without knowing what identity/position you will have in society.
Removing your identity before discussion is central according to John Rawls.
We make theory for someone and some purpose.
Positionality = decide what article to read based on title, source, gender, language etc.
Mythical debate between Naive Objectivity and Extreme Relativism.
Bennett and Livingston:
Worried about disinformation undermining the realm of communication and force of the
better argument.
4 arguments about the Disinformation Age:
Confirmation bias: tend to seek out information that confirms our beliefs and avoid
opposing arguments.
Social media: puts confirmation bias on speed because their algorithms allow for the
proliferation of specific ideas.
State interference: active and powerful agents founded by govs to produce
disinformation.
Erosion of liberal institutions: they help to regulate information and allow for a
reasoned debate.
Solutions:
Finding ways to restore more representative and responsive parties
Reinventing a press that may help develop and tell the story
Repairing the basic functioning of democratic institutions by thinking critically about
the present conditions of democracies
Young:
,The deliberative democratic model has exclusionary implications:
Social power prevents people from being equal speakers.
Privilege is likely to dominate the discussion.
Cannot assume that there is a shared understanding to base a deliberation on.
Certain types of speeches are valued more, by particular members.
o speech with practical purpose (”we should do this”, not “I’m not sure”).
o obsession with logic as a form of rational debate.
o manner = how to behave and present your ideas.
Proposes a model of ‘communicative democracy:
Significant interdependence.
Formally equal respect.
Agreed-on procedures for fair decision-making and discussion.
3 elements that broaden the conception of communicative democracy:
Greeting = how you address the audience. Helps establish trust and respect.
Rhetoric = giving reasons and justifications for opinions and judgements + using
certain forms and styles. Gets and keeps attention.
Storytelling = use of narrative to communicate ideas to people who aren’t affected by
an issue. Reveals a source of values and meaning that bring people together to solve
the issue.
⇒ Combination of the 3 the underprivileged have a say and right to assert.
, LECTURE 3: RELIGION
After the Cold War = the idea that religion was going to become a central point of tension
(Clash of Civilisation).
Fundamentalism driving the return of religion? Religion is moving and adapting all the time,
not just outdated ideas.
Religion is the medium of political thought.
E.g. Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan (the foundation of authority).
Many prominent political leaders had a religious foundation behind their fight like Gandhi.
Religious tolerance is at the foundation of the state system.
E.g. Peace of Westphalia “cuius regio eius religio” = in every state the ruler chooses the
religion and the rights and duties that derive from it.
Diversity of models of tolerance.
Religious chauvinism at the foundation of the state system.
E.g. Line of Pope Alexander VI to divide between Spain and Portugal ⇒ sovereignty not
applied to non-Christian leaders of countries.
Public Sphere = secular
separation between State and Religion.
realm that is non-religious → rules on the basis of rationality and common reason.
religion is protected in the private realm → no intervention from the state when a
Church decides rules for its members.
⇒ 3 Pillars of secularism.
Can people of faith participate fully in the public sphere (through translation)?
Taylor:
Believes in spiritualism in non-believers. Religiosity’s role in the public sphere is not an issue
as we all understand the basis of spirituality (e.g. doing yoga, buying crystals).
The moment of fullness created by spirituality isn’t inaccessible to non-religious people.
There may be a legitimate ground => no need for translation.
Rawls and Habermas
Religious reasons can be inaccessible for non-religious members:
Myth: x is good because the story says it.
Ritual: x is good because my community says it + feeling of belonging.
