Constructing the Private/Public Distinction in Muslim Majority Societies: A Praxiological Approach

  • Baudouin Dupret
  • Jean-Noël Ferrié
Part of the Culture and Religion in International Relations book series (CRIR)

Abstract

Is there any specific meaning to the notions of the “public” and “publicness” in Muslim majority societies? Is there anything that makes a situation characterized as public part of an “Islamic public?” This chapter argues for a multiple shift in perspective to address these questions. We claim that the private/public distinction and the very notion of a “public sphere” need fundamental reexamination, based on our argument that there is no such category as an “Islamic public sphere” outside those imagined and constructed by actors in Muslims majority societies in practice.

Keywords

Coherence Sorting Egypt Stake Helio 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Calder, Norman. 1996. “Law.” In History of Islamic Philosophy, ed. S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Cayla, Oliver. 1996. “Droit.” In Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale, ed. Monique Canto-Sperber, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  3. Douglas, Mary. 2002 [19 66]. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Dupret, Baudouin. 2001. “Normality, Responsibility, Morality: Virginity and Rape in an Egyptian Legal Context.” In Muslim Traditions and Modern Techniques of Power, vol. 3 of Yearbook of the Sociology of Islam 3, ed. Armando Salvatore, Hamburg: Lit; New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 165–83.Google Scholar
  5. Eickelman, Dale F., and Armando Salvatore. 2004 [ 2002 ]. “Muslim Publics.” In Public Islam and Common Good, ed. Armando Salvatore and Dale F. Eickelman, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 3–27.Google Scholar
  6. Ferrié, Jean-Noël. 1998. “Figures de la moralité en Egypte: Typifications, conventions et publicité.” In Urbanité arabe. Hommage à Bernard Lepetit, ed. Jocelyne Dakhlia, Arles: Actes Sud/Sindbad.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. “Practical Sociological Reasoning: Some Features in the Work of the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center.” In Essays in Self-Destruction, ed. Edwin S. Schneidman, New York: International Science Press.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, Harold.1984 [ 1967 ]. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.]Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984 [1981]. The Theory ofCommunicative Action, vol. I, Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987 [1981]. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. II, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, Jürgen. 1989 [1962]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Thomas Burger, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hart, Herbert L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kapchan, Deborah. 1996. Gender on the Market: Moroccan Women and the Revoicing of Tradition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Komter, Martha. 1998. Dilemmas in the Courtroom: A Study of Trials of Violent Crime in the Netherlands. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Komter, Martha. 2001. “La construction de la preuve dans un interrogatoire de police.” In Le droit en action et en contexte. Ethnométhodologie et analyse de conversation dans la recherche juridique, special section of Droit et Société, ed. Baudouin Dupret, 48: 367–93.Google Scholar
  17. Koselleck, Reinhart. 1988 [1959]. Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, trans. Maria Santos, Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  18. Livet, Pierre. 1994. La communauté virtuelle. Action et communication. Combas: Editions de l’éclat.Google Scholar
  19. Livet, Pierre, and Laurent Thévenot. 1994. “Les catégories de l’action collective.” In Analyse économique des conventions, ed. A. Orléan, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  20. Matoesian, Gregory. 1997. “‘I’m sorry we had to meet under these circumstances’: Verbal Artistry (and Wizardry) in the Kennedy Smith Rape Trial.” In Law in Action. Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Approaches to Law, ed. Max Travers, and John F. Manzo, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Moore, Sally F. 1993. “Introduction.” In Moralizing States and the Ethnography of the Present, ed. Sally F. Moore, American Ethnological Society Monograph Series, No. 5.Google Scholar
  23. Quéré Louis. 1994. “Présentation.” In L’enquete sur les catégories, ed. Bernard Fradin, Louis Quéré, and Jean Widmer, Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.Google Scholar
  24. Relieu, Marc, and Franck Brock. 1995. “L’ infrastructure organisationnelle de la parole publique. Analyse des réunions politique et des interviews télédiffusés.” Politix 31: 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sacks, Harvey. 1972. “Notes on Police Assessment of Moral Character.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. David Sudnow, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols., Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Watson, Rodney. 1994. “Catégories, séquentialité et ordre social. Un nouveau regard sur l’oeuvre de Sacks.” In L’ enquete sur les catégories, ed. Bernard Fradin, Louis Quéré, and Jean Widmer, Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, Rodney. 1998. “Ethnomethodology, Consciousness and Self.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 5, 2: 202–23.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, Bernard A. O. 1981. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, Bernard A. O. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  31. Williams, Bernard A. O. 1993. Shame and Necessity. Oxford: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Armando Salvatore and Mark LeVine 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baudouin Dupret
  • Jean-Noël Ferrié

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations