Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:13:35.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Liberalism, Deliberative Democracy, and the Public Sphere

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Evan Charney
Evan Charney*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theorists of democracy emphasize the importance of a public sphere, distinct from the apparatus of the state, where citizens can freely associate, deliberate, and engage in collective will formation. Discourse ethicists and deliberative democrats locate the public sphere within civil society and the manifold associations that comprise it. For Seyla Benhabib, the public sphere is constituted by the anonymous “public conversation” of civil society. By contrast, John Rawls has a much more limited conception of the public sphere. For Rawls, public reason, which establishes norms for democratic discourse, applies to a limited domain. I defend Rawls's view against the charge that it depends upon an untenable distinction between the public and nonpublic spheres. I argue that Rawls's more limited “liberal” conception better guarantees the heterogeneity of associational life in civil society. I then argue that Rawls violates his own principles by partially collapsing the public-nonpublic distinction with potentially illiberal consequences.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 97 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbot, Walter, ed. 1966. The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Herder & Herder.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1957. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the Self. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy and Difference, ed. Benhabib, Seyla. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bernadin, Cardinal Joseph. 1986. “The Consistent Ethics: What Sort of Framework?” Origins 16(10):345–50.Google Scholar
Bob Jones University v. United States. 1983. 461 U.S. 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eminyan, Maurice 1967. “Salvation, Necessity of the Church for.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XII. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Galston, William. 1991. Liberal Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. McCarthy, Thomas. 2 vols. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Trans. Berger, Thomas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Lenhardt, Christian and Weber, Shierry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism.” Journal of Philosophy 92(03):109–31.Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen. 1988. “Gag Rules or the Politics of Omission.” In Constitutionalism and Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon and Slagstad, Rune. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howe, M. 1965. The Garden and the Wilderness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. 1974. 419 U.S. 345.Google Scholar
Jacobson v. Massachusetts. 1905. 197 U.S. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanual. [1797] 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Gregor, Mary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lemon v. Kurzman. 1971. 403 U.S. 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lochner v. New York. 1905. 198 U.S. 45.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1689] 1983. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Ed. Tully, James. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1994. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue.” Ethics 105(10):44–63.Google Scholar
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis. 1972. 407 U.S. 163.Google Scholar
People v. Woody. 1964. 61 Cal, 2d 716.Google Scholar
Prince v. Massachusetts. 1943. 321 U.S. 158.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1995. “Bowling Alone.” Journal of Democracy 6(01):65–79.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism (paperback edition). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1762] 1978. The Social Contract. Trans. Masters, Judith. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael. 1994. “Political Liberalism.” Harvard Law Review 107(05):1765–97.Google Scholar
Shklar, Judith. 1989. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Rosenblum, Nancy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1993. The Partial Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
United States v. Ballard. 1944. 322 U.S. 78.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, Dana. 1992. “Postmodernism and the Public Sphere.” American Political Science Review 86(09):712–21.Google Scholar
Wenar, Leif. 1995. “Political Liberalism: An Internal Critique.” Ethics 106(10):32–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisconsin v. Yoder. 1972. 406 U.S. 205.Google Scholar