The spaces of public dissension: Reconsidering the public sphere

Communication Monographs

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 231-248

  Phillips, Kendall R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002081198     PISSN: 03637751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03637759609376391     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Arendt, H. (1977). Between past and future. New York: Penguin Books.
2. Balthrop, V.W. (1989). W(h)ither the public sphere? An optimistic reading. In B. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth AFA/SCA conference on argumentation (pp. 20-25). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
3. Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of the public sphere: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 73-98). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bernstein, R.J. (1988). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
5. Bitzer, L.F. (1978). Rhetoric and public knowledge. In D. Burks (Ed.), Rhetoric, philosophy, and literature: An exploration (pp. 67-95). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
6. Blair, C. (1992). Contested histories of rhetoric: The politics of preservation, progress, and change. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, 403-428.
7. Brante, T. (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T. Brante, S. Fuller, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science: From content to contention (pp. 177-191). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
8. Brante, T., Fuller, S., & Lynch, W. (Eds.). (1993). Controversial science: From content to contention. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
9. Browne, S.H. (1995). Reading rhetoric and the texture of public memory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 237-265.
10. Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
11. Burke, K. (1969). Rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
12. Burleson, B.R., & Kline, S.L. (1979). Habermas's theory of communication: A critical explication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 412-428.
13. Calhoun, C. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Coles, R. (1992). Communicative action & dialogical ethics: Habermas & Foucault. Polity, 25, 71-94.
15. Collins, R. (1993). Ethical controversies of science and society: A relation between two spheres of social conflict. In T. Brante, S. Fuller, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science: From content to contention (pp. 301-317). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
16. Dean, J. (1992). Including women: The consequences and side effects of feminist critiques of civil society. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 18, 379-406.
17. Doxtader, E.W. (1991). The entwinement of argument and rhetoric: A dialectical reading of Habermas' theory of communicative action. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28, 51-63.
18. Ehninger, D. (1968). On systems of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 131-144.
19. Farrell, T.B. (1993). Norms of rhetorical culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method. New York: Verso.
21. Foss, K.A., & Foss, S.K. (1991). A new context for the study of women as communicators: Re-visioning public address. In K.A. Foss & S.K. Foss (Eds.), Women speaking: The eloquence of women's lives (pp. 1-22). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
22. Foss, S.K., Foss, K.A., & Trapp, R. (1991). Contemporary perspective on rhetoric (rev. ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
23. Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge (A.M. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. (Original work published in 1969).
24. Foucault, M. (1988). Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings 1977-1984 (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Routledge.
25. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Fuhrman, E. (1979). The normative structure of critical theory. Human Studies, 2, 209-228.
27. Goodnight, G.T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensics Association, 18, 214-227.
28. Goodnight, G.T. (1987). Public discourse. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 428-431.
29. Goodnight, G.T. (1989). Toward a social theory of argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 26, 60-69.
30. Goodnight, G.T. (1991). Controversy. In D.W. Parsons (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh AFA/SCA conference on argumentation (pp. 1-13). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
31. Goodnight, G.T. (1995). The firm, the park, and the university: Fear and trembling on the postmodern trail. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 267-290.
32. Habermas, J. (1970a). On systematically distorted communication. Critical Inquiry, 13, 205-217.
33. Habermas, J. (1970b). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Critical Inquiry, 13, 360-375.
34. Habermas, J. (1973). What does a crisis mean today? Legitimation problems in late capitalism. Social Research, 40, 643-667.
35. Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, 1, 49-55.
36. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon. (Original work published 1973)
37. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1976)
38. Habermas, J. (1979). Aspects of the rationality of action. In T.F. Heraets (Ed.), Rationality to-day (pp. 185-205). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
39. Habermas, J. (1992a). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Habermas, J. (1992b). Conservatism and capitalist crisis. In P. Dews (Ed.), Autonomy and solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas (rev. ed., pp. 63-76). New York: Verso.
41. Habermas, J. (1993). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
42. Habermas, J. (1994). Past as future. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
43. Hauser, G.A. (1985). Common sense in the public sphere: A rhetorical grounding for publics. Informatologia Yugoslavica, 17, 67-75.
44. Hauser, G.A. (1987). Features of the public sphere. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 437-441.
45. Hauser, G.A. (1994, August). Public voices of vernacular discourse. Paper presented at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
46. Hauser, G.A. & Blair, C. (1982). Rhetorical antecedents to the public. Pre/Text, 3, 139-167.
47. Hohendahl, P.U. (1979). Critical theory, public sphere and culture: Jürgen Habermas and his critics. New German Critique, 6, 89-118.
48. Hohendahl, P.U. (1992). The public sphere: Models and boundaries. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 99-108). Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
49. Hogan, J.M. (1991). Between the public and technical spheres of argument: The "televisual" rhetoric of the nuclear freeze campaign. In D.W. Parsons (Ed.). Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh AFA/SCA conference on argumentation (pp. 100-106). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
50. Hollihan, T.A., Riley, P., & Freadhoff, K. (1986). Arguing for justice: An analysis of arguing in small claims court. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 187-195.
51. Langerak, E. (1994). Pluralism, tolerance, and disagreement. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 24, 95-106.
52. Lessl, T.M., & Panetta, E.M. (1994, May). The constitutive bearing of rhetorical discourses: A brief look at the case of public science. Paper presented at the Eastern Communication Association Convention, Washington, DC.
53. Lyotard, J. (1988). The differend: Phrases in dispute (G. Van Den Abbeele, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1983)
54. Lyotard, J. (1989). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979)
55. McCarthy, T. (1992). Practical discourse: On the relation of morality to politics. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 51-73). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. McKeon, R. (1971). The uses of rhetoric in a technological age: Architectonic productive arts. In L.F. Bitzer & E. Black (Eds.). The Prospects of rhetoric: Report on the national development project (pp. 44-63). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
57. Miller, C. (1982). Public knowledge in science and society. Pre/Text, 3, 31-49.
58. Olson, K.M., & Goodnight, G.T. (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249-276.
59. Pateman, C. (1989). The disorder of women: Democracy, feminism, and political theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
60. Peters, J.D., & Cmiel, K. (1991). Media ethics and the public sphere. Communication, 12, 197-215.
61. Pera, M., & Shea, W.R. (1991). Preface. In M. Pera & W.R. Shea (Eds.), Persuading science: The art of scientific rhetoric (pp. vii-x). Canton, MA: Science History Publications.
62. Poster, M. (1992). Postmodernity and the politics of multiculturalism: The Lyotard-Habermas debate over social theory. Modern Fiction Studies, 38, 567-580.
63. Richards, I.A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
64. Rothfield, P. (1990). Feminism, subjectivity, and sexual experience. In S. Gunew (Ed.), Feminist knowledge: Critique and construct (pp. 121-144). New York: Routledge.
65. Schaeffer, J.D. (1990). Sensus communis: Vico, rhetoric, and the limits of relativism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
66. Schuetz, J. (1986). Overlap of argument in the legislative process. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 223-234.
67. Scott, J.C. (1986). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
68. Sennett, R. (1976). The fall of public man. New York: Norton.
69. Spitzack, C., & Carter, K. (1987). Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 401-423.
70. Stallybrass, P., & White, A. (1986). The politics and poetics of transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
71. Visker, R. (1992). Habermas on Heidegger and Foucault: Meaning and validity in The philosophical discourse of modernity. Radical Philosophy, 61, 15-22.
72. Weal, B.W. (1985). The force of narrative in the public sphere of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 104-114.
73. Weaver, R.L. (1970). The power of the word. In R.L. Johannesen, R. Strickland, & R.T. Eubanks (Eds.). Language is sermonic (pp. 33-55). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
74. Xiao, X. (1995). China encounters darwinism: A case of intercultural rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81, 83-99.
75. Zarefsky, D. (1994, March). The postmodern public. Spectra, (3), 9-13.