Prison and the public sphere: toward a democratic theory of penal order*

Why Prison? ◽  
2013 ◽  
pp. 125-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Barker
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
HANS ASENBAUM

Although anonymity is a central feature of liberal democracies—not only in the secret ballot, but also in campaign funding, publishing political texts, masked protests, and graffiti—it has so far not been conceptually grounded in democratic theory. Rather, it is treated as a self-explanatory concept related to privacy. To overcome this omission, this article develops a complex understanding of anonymity in the context of democratic theory. Drawing upon the diverse literature on anonymity in political participation, it explains anonymity as a highly context-dependent identity performance expressing private sentiments in the public sphere. The contradictory character of its core elements—identity negation and identity creation—results in three sets of contradictory freedoms. Anonymity affords (a) inclusion and exclusion, (b) subversion and submission, and (c) honesty and deception. This contradictory character of anonymity's affordances illustrates the ambiguous role of anonymity in democracy.


Author(s):  
Nicole Curato

As the attention of spectacular publics wanes, disaster-affected communities begin to feel a sense of abandonment. This causes injuries to their esteem and poses limits on the scope of political action. This chapter narrates how ‘patient publics’ are constructed through the micro-politics of waiting. It argues that patient publics create a vocabulary for both acquiescence and negotiation to a political order that reproduces their subordination. Despite these limitations, however, the chapter argues that deliberative democratic theory can learn from how political claims are made amidst despair. It draws attention to modest achievements of communities that struggle but nevertheless strive to make an appearance in the public sphere.


2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Engelstad

AbstractClassical elite theory stressed tensions between elites and democracy, whereas modern studies of elites take democracy as a point of departure – to a large extent under the heading of democratic elitism. This article discusses two strands of elite studies in a democracy perspective, one stressing elite conflict, the other focusing on elite consensus. As points of departure for empirical analysis both strands are valuable, but when linked to democratic theory they are insufficient. It is necessary to view elites in light of constitutional features that regulate their relationship with the state. Moreover, the public sphere must be taken into account as a constitutive element of democracy and as an arena for communication between elite groups and between them and citizenries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. e41617
Author(s):  
Bernhard Grümme

Religion has become a highly ambivalent phenomenon in late modernity. For some, it is a lasting resource for meaning, even in a highly ideologically plural society. For others, it belongs in the private sphere, not in the public sphere. What both would probably share, however, is the assumption that a state religion would be in contradiction to the promises of freedom and autonomy of modernity. But where is the place of religion in a democratic society? The text discusses this highly complex question in an examination of two theories that have shaped debates in the field like few others. From this discussion, further perspectives for a theologically founded position that is responsible in terms of democratic theory are given in conclusion.


1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 712-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana R. Villa

The idea of the public sphere, of an institutionalized arena of discursive interaction, is central to democratic theory and practice. The modern age has, however, witnessed the erosion of a public realm distinct from the state and the market. In response to this erosion, public realm theory, notably the work of Arendt and Habermas, attempts to theorize the minimal conditions necessary for a discursive realm free of structural coercion or manipulation. The resulting normative conception of the public sphere has come under sharp attack by postmodern theorists, including Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard, who question the basic presuppositions of public realm theory. I examine their objections and show how the public realm theory of Arendt can be viewed as motivated by concerns similar to the postmoderns'. Against Habermas, I argue that Arendt's public realm theory is less concerned with the question of legitimation than with the theorization of an agonistic political subjectivity.


2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-77
Author(s):  
Doris Wolf

This paper examines two young adult novels, Run Like Jäger (2008) and Summer of Fire (2009), by Canadian writer Karen Bass, which centre on the experiences of so-called ordinary German teenagers in World War II. Although guilt and perpetration are themes addressed in these books, their focus is primarily on the ways in which Germans suffered at the hands of the Allied forces. These books thus participate in the increasingly widespread but still controversial subject of the suffering of the perpetrators. Bringing work in childhood studies to bear on contemporary representations of German wartime suffering in the public sphere, I explore how Bass's novels, through the liminal figure of the adolescent, participate in a culture of self-victimisation that downplays guilt rather than more ethically contextualises suffering within guilt. These historical narratives are framed by contemporary narratives which centre on troubled teen protagonists who need the stories of the past for their own individualisation in the present. In their evacuation of crucial historical contexts, both Run Like Jäger and Summer of Fire support optimistic and gendered narratives of individualism that ultimately refuse complicated understandings of adolescent agency in the past or present.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document