Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Democratic Publics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy

  • 240 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the special issues recently devoted to this topic by the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy (2015/2), the Transactions of the C. S. Peirce Society (2017/1) and by the Journal of Speculative Philosophy (2017/2).

  2. 2.

    I have explained the reasons for this move more extensively in Frega (2013a, 2017c).

  3. 3.

    For a more extensive treatment of this topic, see Habermas (1996, Ch. 4).

  4. 4.

    See the discussion of Follett in Chap. 4.

  5. 5.

    See Frega (2017c).

  6. 6.

    See Habermas (1993), and Frega (2013b) for a critique.

  7. 7.

    For a more extended critique of Habermas’ epistemology, see Frega (2013b).

  8. 8.

    See Chap. 5 and the next chapter.

  9. 9.

    For a deeper examination of Honneth’s relationships to pragmatism, see Frega (2013a, 2015a). I reconstruct the historical process of the progressive pragmatization of Critical Theory in (Frega, 2017c).

  10. 10.

    See, in particular, Honneth (2015, Ch. 4).

  11. 11.

    See, for example, Hildreth (2009), Rogers (2009), Wolfe (2012), Frega (2015b), Hogan (2015).

  12. 12.

    In German ‘public’, ‘publicity’, and ‘public sphere’ are all translated with ‘Offentlichkeit’. This has given rise to some misunderstanding, particularly in the wake of Habermas’ discursivization of this notion.

  13. 13.

    For an alternative interpretation of Dewey as the forefather of participatory democracy but not of deliberative democracy, see Jackson (2015).

  14. 14.

    For an exhaustive overview of rival interpretations of contemporary interpretations of the commons, see Papadimitropoulos (2017).

  15. 15.

    For an overview of the relevance of pragmatism in the study of the digital commons see Antic (2016). I thank Andreas for his useful comments and suggestions.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Morozov (2011).

  17. 17.

    Useful readings in a now burgeoning literature in economics include Hess and Ostrom (2006), Bollier and Helfrich (2012), Frischmann, Madison and Strandburg (2014), Benkler (2006).

  18. 18.

    These traits describe tendencies rather than absolute achievements. We need to assess their democratic impact in comparative terms, by comparing the degree of realization of these principles to that we can find in traditional forms of organization.

  19. 19.

    For a more detailed analysis see Frega and Cristoforetti (2015), Benkler and Nissenbaum (2006).

References

  • 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 

  • Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (2006). On revolution (1st ed. 1963 ed.). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. and E. Grande (2010). Jenseits des methodologischen nationalismus: Aussereuropäische und europäische variationen der zweiten moderne. Soziale Welt 61(3–4), 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2003). The political economy of commons. Upgrade: The European Journal for the Informatics Professional 4(3), 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. and H. Nissenbaum (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(4), 394–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. (2012). The normative core of the public sphere. Political Theory 40(6), 768–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across Borders. From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, D. and S. Helfrich (2012). The Wealth of the Commons. Amherst: Levellers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cefaï, D. and I. Joseph (Eds.) (2002). L’Héritage du pragmatisme. La Tour d’Aigues: Ed. de l’Aube.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centemeri, L. (2018). Health and the environment in ecological transition: The case of the permaculture movement. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Frega, R. (2013a). Between pragmatism and critical theory: Social philosophy today. Human Studies 37(1), 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frega, R. (2013b). From normative spheres to normative practices: New prospects for normative theory after Habermas. International Journal of Philosophical Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frega, R. (2015a). Beyond morality and ethical life: Pragmatism and critical theory cross paths. Journal of Philosophical Research 40, 63–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frega, R. (2015b). John Dewey’s social philosophy: A restatement. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 2(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frega, R. (2017c). Pragmatizing critical theory’s province. Dewey Studies 1(2), 4–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frega, R. and G. Cristoforetti (2015). Smart democracy: una nuova etica delle comunità intelligenti. Occasional Papers 31, CEMS-IMM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischmann, B., M. Madison, and K. Strandburg (Eds.) (2014). Governing knowledge commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and Application. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C. and E. Ostrom (2006). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hildreth, R. (2009, August). Reconstructing Dewey on Power. Political Theory 37(6), 780–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, B. (2015). Pragmatic hegemony: Questions and convergence. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 29(1).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Cambridge: Polity.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (2015). Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. (2015). Dividing deliberative and participatory democracy through John Dewey. Democratic Theory 2(1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. and K. Sikkink (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Micheletti, M. and A. McFarland (2015). Creative participation: Responsibility-taking in the political world. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitropoulos, E. (2017). From the crisis of democracy to the commons. Socialism and Democracy 31(3), 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruvost, G. (2015). Chantiers participatifs, autogérés, collectifs: la politisation du moindre geste. Sociologie du travail 57(1), 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, M. L. (2009). Democracy, elites and power: John Dewey reconsidered. Contemporary Political Theory 8(1), 68–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. (2012). Does pragmatism have a theory of power? The European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 4, 120–137.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre Marc Bloch, Berlin, Germany

    Roberto Frega

Authors
  1. Roberto Frega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frega, R. (2019). Democratic Publics. In: Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18561-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation