Deliberative Democracy and the Public Sphere



I discuss deliberative democracy, and in particular the public sphere, as theoretical tools to challenge the market logic of neoliberalism. The chapter will focus on the work of Jurgen Habermas, and his argument for political legitimacy through the transcendence of difference in a discursive space free from power and coercion (Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989). The public sphere, arguably the most prominent democratic theory within media studies (Karppinen, Rethinking Media Pluralism, Fordham University Press, New York, 2013), reimagines relationships between citizens and representative politics beyond mere representation. Habermas’ work has been employed in ethnic media research, but often in a way that reflects the development of public sphere theory over the years since its original construction. Placing emphasis on the plurality of public spheres present in complex modern societies, scholars have highlighted ethnic media’s role in facilitating counter-publics, subaltern publics and Indigenous public spheres. This more plural landscape has itself raised questions over the relationship between different publics, and the continuing role of rational consensus when it comes to cross-cultural dialogue.


  1. Browne, D. (2005). Ethnic minorities, electronic media and the public sphere: A comparative study. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  2. Budarick, J., & Han, G. S. (2015). Towards a multi-ethnic public sphere? African–Australian media and minority–majority relations. Media, Culture and Society, 37(8), 1254–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butsch, R. (2007). Introduction: How are media public spheres? In R. Butsch (Ed.), Media and public spheres (pp. 1–14). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Couldry, N., & Dreher, T. (2007). Globalization and the public sphere: The space of community media in Sydney. Global Media and Communication, 3(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham, S. (2001). Popular media as public “sphericules” for diasporic communities. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 4(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahlberg, L. (2011). Discourse theory as critical media politics? Five questions. In L. Dahlberg & S. Phelan (Eds.), Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 41–63). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlberg, L. (2014). The Habermasian public sphere and exclusion: An engagement with poststructural-influenced critics. Communication Theory, 24, 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dean, J. (2009). Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Downing, J., & Husband, C. (2005). Representing race: Racisms, ethnicity and the media. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Dreher, T. (2009). Listening across difference: Media and multiculturalism beyond the politics of voice. Continuum, 23(4), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eley, G. (1990). Nations, publics and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the 19th century (CCST Working Papers). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(26), 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraser, N. (2014). Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. In K. Nash (Ed.), Transnationalizing the public sphere (pp. 8–42). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  14. Garnham, N. (2003). A response to Elizabeth Jacka’s “democracy as defeat”. Television and New Media, 4(2), 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gitlin, T. (1998). Media sphericules. In T. Liebes & J. Curran (Eds.), Media, ritual and identity (pp. 79–88). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalisation of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421–461). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. (1996a). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1996b). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 21–30). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hamelink, C., & Hoffman, J. (2008). The state of the right to communicate. Global Media Journal, 7(13).
  22. Husband, C. (1998). Differentiated citizenship and the multi-ethnic public sphere. Journal of International Communication, 5(1–2), 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Husband, C. (2009). Between listening and understanding. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 23(4), 441–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jin, D. L., & Kim, S. (2011). Sociocultural analysis of the commodification of ethnic media and Asian consumers in Canada. International Journal of Communication, 5, 552–569.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, P. (2007). Election 2007: Media policy. Australian Review of Public Affairs.
  26. Kapoor, I. (2002). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? The relevance of the Habermas–Mouffe debate for third world politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(4), 459–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karppinen, K. (2007). Against naive pluralism in media politics: On the implications of the radical-pluralist approach to the public sphere. Media, Culture and Society, 29(3), 495–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karppinen, K. (2013). Rethinking media pluralism. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keane, J. (2013). Democracy and media decadence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khiabany, G., & Williamson, W. (2015). Free speech and the market state: Race, media and democracy in new liberal times. European Journal of Communication, 30(5), 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2011). The crises of multiculturalism: Racism in a neoliberal age. London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  32. Lobera, J., Arco, V., & Gimenez, C. (2017). Toward a multi-ethnic public sphere? Media consumption in highly diverse districts in Spain. International Migration, 55(2), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  34. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  35. Movius, L. (2008). Global debates on the right to communicate. Global Media Journal, 7(13).
  36. Nolan, D., Farquharson, K., & Marjoribanks, T. (2018). Australian media and the politics of belonging. London and New York: Anthem Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomassen, L. (2010). Habermas: A guide for the perplexed. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  38. Yu, S. (2015). The inevitably dialectic nature of ethnic media. Global Media Journal—Canadian Edition, 8(2), 133–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MediaUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations