Page 107 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 107 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
104
spheres but publics may be constituted by a city's institutions and these may overlap with others. He sees the Internet as “a public of publics.” Bohman’s main claim is that the Internet cannot support a public sphere based on any “intrinsic” features. By “intrinsic” he means the technology, its speed and scale. He follows Habermas in postulating rational and deliberative communicative action as a precondition for the Internet constituting a public sphere. “Rather than simply entering into an existing public sphere, the Internet becomes a public sphere only through agents who engage in reflexive and democratic activity.” (140)
Such a view implies that the Internet is like some kind of Turing machine that has an input, a state and an output. The input consists of the ‘reflexive and democratic activity’ of agents, the state the intrinsic features of the Internet, and the output the public sphere. I believe that Bohman follows Habermas in over-emphasizing the role of communicative rationality. By making the agents’ ‘reflexive and democratic’ input an exclusive precondition for the Internet to constitute a public sphere, Bohman ignores the undemocratic input that still allows the Internet to become a public sphere.
I believe that this precondition is far too optimistic. The question whether the Internet facilitates tribalism arises precisely because it offers a public space that both types of agents, democratic and undemocratic, can avail of. It is not just a piece of electronic plumbing. It is not just the "public of publics," it is also the "public of the private." Salons and clubs are inclusive of some and exclusive of others, as contemporary associations are. The Internet cannot exclude, but the Intranet can. I shall use the term cyberspace to subsume both.
Object Description
| Title | Negotiating pluralism and tribalism in liberal democratic societies |
| Author | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Author email | sadagopa@usc.edu; shobasadagopan@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Philosophy |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-22 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-15 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Lloyd, Sharon |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Dreher, John Keating, Gregory |
| Abstract | My aim in this dissertation is to enquire whether toleration as a practice is achievable. It is prior to the question of how it can be grounded as a virtue. I argue that in liberal democratic societies where there are struggles for recognition on the part of ethnocultural groups, it is possible to negotiate pluralism and tribalism in a way that a stable pluralist society can be maintained. My core thesis rests on a theory of interdependence based both on a theory of human nature and on the material fact of globalization. Insofar as we affirm our nature as human beings engaged in productive activity with other human beings, insofar as we value a world that facilitates that activity, toleration is desirable. It is achievable because with globalization there is a tendency towards homogenization that erodes cultural differences. There is less reason for conflict because what we have in common, our interdependence, goes far deeper than culture. A further sufficient condition may be found in well thought-out policies that are executed through education and dialogue. |
| Keyword | toleration; value pluralism; liberalism; cultural homogenization; globalization; common citizenship |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1658 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Sadagopan-2395 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Sadagopan-2395.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 107 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 104 spheres but publics may be constituted by a city's institutions and these may overlap with others. He sees the Internet as “a public of publics.” Bohman’s main claim is that the Internet cannot support a public sphere based on any “intrinsic” features. By “intrinsic” he means the technology, its speed and scale. He follows Habermas in postulating rational and deliberative communicative action as a precondition for the Internet constituting a public sphere. “Rather than simply entering into an existing public sphere, the Internet becomes a public sphere only through agents who engage in reflexive and democratic activity.” (140) Such a view implies that the Internet is like some kind of Turing machine that has an input, a state and an output. The input consists of the ‘reflexive and democratic activity’ of agents, the state the intrinsic features of the Internet, and the output the public sphere. I believe that Bohman follows Habermas in over-emphasizing the role of communicative rationality. By making the agents’ ‘reflexive and democratic’ input an exclusive precondition for the Internet to constitute a public sphere, Bohman ignores the undemocratic input that still allows the Internet to become a public sphere. I believe that this precondition is far too optimistic. The question whether the Internet facilitates tribalism arises precisely because it offers a public space that both types of agents, democratic and undemocratic, can avail of. It is not just a piece of electronic plumbing. It is not just the "public of publics," it is also the "public of the private." Salons and clubs are inclusive of some and exclusive of others, as contemporary associations are. The Internet cannot exclude, but the Intranet can. I shall use the term cyberspace to subsume both. |
