Advertisement

Democratic Publics

  • Roberto Frega
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is the first devoted to the group-based theory of politics. Its aim is to situate the pragmatist-based theory of publics in the context of the contemporary debate on the transformations of the public sphere, showing in particular that a pragmatist theory of democracy calls for a radical deconstruction of the Habermasian dualism of the state and the public sphere. Hannah Arendt’s notion of communicative power is discussed in relation to Follett’s theory of “power with”, and Habermas and Honneth’s theories of democracy are examined in turn. The chapter then engages contemporary economic and political theories of the commons, that I interpret as a political theory of public activation, one that helps us better grasp the political—and democratic—relevance of emerging economic practices such as peer production and political consumerism.

Keywords

Public sphere Pragmatism Commons Axel Honneth John Dewey Jürgen Habermas Hannah Arendt 

References

  1. Antic, A. (2016). John Dewey’s philosophical legacy for the global access to knowledge movement in the digital age. Kinesis 41(1), 6–16.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (2006). On revolution (1st ed. 1963 ed.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. and E. Grande (2010). Jenseits des methodologischen nationalismus: Aussereuropäische und europäische variationen der zweiten moderne. Soziale Welt 61(3–4), 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benkler, Y. (2003). The political economy of commons. Upgrade: The European Journal for the Informatics Professional 4(3), 6–9.Google Scholar
  7. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benkler, Y. and H. Nissenbaum (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(4), 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein, R. (2012). The normative core of the public sphere. Political Theory 40(6), 768–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across Borders. From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollier, D. and S. Helfrich (2012). The Wealth of the Commons. Amherst: Levellers Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cefaï, D. (2002). Qu’est-ce qu’une arène publique? In L’Héritage du pragmatisme. La Tour d’Aigues: Editions de l’Aube.Google Scholar
  13. Cefaï, D. and I. Joseph (Eds.) (2002). L’Héritage du pragmatisme. La Tour d’Aigues: Ed. de l’Aube.Google Scholar
  14. Centemeri, L. (2018). Health and the environment in ecological transition: The case of the permaculture movement. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of the Actually Existing Democracies. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Frega, R. (2013a). Between pragmatism and critical theory: Social philosophy today. Human Studies 37(1), 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frega, R. (2013b). From normative spheres to normative practices: New prospects for normative theory after Habermas. International Journal of Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  18. Frega, R. (2015a). Beyond morality and ethical life: Pragmatism and critical theory cross paths. Journal of Philosophical Research 40, 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frega, R. (2015b). John Dewey’s social philosophy: A restatement. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 2(7).Google Scholar
  20. Frega, R. (2017c). Pragmatizing critical theory’s province. Dewey Studies 1(2), 4–47.Google Scholar
  21. Frega, R. and G. Cristoforetti (2015). Smart democracy: una nuova etica delle comunità intelligenti. Occasional Papers 31, CEMS-IMM.Google Scholar
  22. Frischmann, B., M. Madison, and K. Strandburg (Eds.) (2014). Governing knowledge commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and Application. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1994). Hannah Arendt’s communications concept of power. In L. Hinchman and S. Hinchman (Eds.), Hannah Arendt: Critical essays, Chapter 8, pp. 211–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hess, C. and E. Ostrom (2006). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hildreth, R. (2009, August). Reconstructing Dewey on Power. Political Theory 37(6), 780–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hogan, B. (2015). Pragmatic hegemony: Questions and convergence. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 29(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Cambridge: Polity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Honneth, A. (2015). Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, J. (2015). Dividing deliberative and participatory democracy through John Dewey. Democratic Theory 2(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keck, M. and K. Sikkink (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Madison, M. (2014). Commons at the intersection of peer production, citizen science, and big data: Galaxy zoo. See Frischmann 2014 governing, Chapter Commons at the Intersection of Peer Production, Citizen Science, and Big Data: Galaxy Zoo.Google Scholar
  34. Micheletti, M. and A. McFarland (2015). Creative participation: Responsibility-taking in the political world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Papadimitropoulos, E. (2017). From the crisis of democracy to the commons. Socialism and Democracy 31(3), 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pruvost, G. (2015). Chantiers participatifs, autogérés, collectifs: la politisation du moindre geste. Sociologie du travail 57(1), 81–103.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, M. L. (2009). Democracy, elites and power: John Dewey reconsidered. Contemporary Political Theory 8(1), 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strandburg, K., B. Frischmann, and C. Cui (2014). The rare diseases clinical research network and the urea cycle disorders consortium as nested knowledge commons. See Frischmann 2014 governing, Chapter The Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network and the Urea Cycle Disorders Consortium as Nested Knowledge Commons.Google Scholar
  41. Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolfe, J. (2012). Does pragmatism have a theory of power? The European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 4, 120–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Frega
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre Marc BlochBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations