Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Andreas Koller
Social Science History, Volume 34, Number 3, Fall 2010, pp. 261-290
(Article)
Access provided by UFJF-Universidade Federal De Juiz De Fora (20 Mar 2014 17:20 GMT)
Special Section:
History and the Social Sciences:
Taking Stock and Moving Ahead
Andreas Koller
This special issue on the comparative historical study of the public sphere
emerged from a Social Science History Association (SSHA) panel on the
topic in the fall of 2007 in response to the conference theme History and
the Social Sciences: Taking Stock and Moving Ahead. The rise of historical
social science has not led to an established tradition of comparative historical
research on the public sphere. In state-of-the-field surveys of historical soci-
ology (Skocpol 1984; Delanty and Isin 2003; Adamset al. 2005) and of his-
torical social science more broadly (Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003; Revel
2003), the study of the public sphere is a missing chapter. This introduction
and the special issue as a whole cannot take stock of the contributions to
the comparative and historical understanding of the public sphere that are
dispersed over many disciplines and often proceed in multiple disciplinary
terminologies.1 What can be achieved here is limited to taking stock of
analytic dimensions relevant to the comparative historical study of the public
sphere and by virtue of this show directions to move ahead, exemplified by
the articles gathered in this special issue.
Some of the central stakes of the public sphere for modern societies
appear already in Immanuel Kants (1996: 59) well-known notion of the pub-
lic use of reason: That a public [Publikum] should enlighten itself . . . is
nearly inevitable, if only it is granted freedom, that is, the freedom to make
a public use of ones reason in all matters. . . . The public use of reason must
at all times be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men.
Jrgen Habermas (1973: 35859) expressed these central stakes inherent in
the Enlightenment notion of the public sphere already in 1960, even prior
to his major book from 1962: that the principle of publicness enables the
rationalization of politics and of the activities of the state. In the medium of
public discourse, political authority and coercive power are rationalized and
civilized. This principle of publicness, the liquefaction of politics and state
power by public communication, has been the central motive of Habermass
political theory ever since and explains his initial idealization of the historical
origins of bourgeois democracy in his early work (Habermas 2009: 1415).
Despite its central relevance for the members of modern societies for
determining the course of their own history through reasoned debate and
public choice, the study of the public sphere is not an integrated research
field. Such an integrative approach was already formulated by John Dewey
and C. Wright Mills. But since Habermass work The Structural Transforma-
tion of the Public Sphere (Habermas 1989 [1962]), there has been no major
attempt for a synthesis. What such an integrative approach means is best
expressed by the later Habermas (1992c: 421), who recalls that the original
Comparative Historical Research263
The public sphere is the front stage, distinguished from the private
and institutional back stage. Accordingly, everyday language distinguishes
between communication in public and communication behind the
scenes. As Habermas (1989 [1962]: 37) mentioned early on, public com-
munication is in principle unclosed. The public sphere is the realm between
the private sphere and the sphere of public authority (ibid.: 3031), that is,
between society and the state. The same is implied in the notion of the public
sphere as an arena or forum (Neidhardt 1994). Accordingly, Habermas
(1996a: 373) later understands the public sphere as a complex network and
intermediary structure. This basic element of the definition of the public
sphere corresponds with the network-theoretical definition of publics that
emerged from network analysts who have theorized publics. In that termi-
nology, the public sphere is an interstitial space (Mische and White 1998).
This minimal definition of the public sphere is also compatible with
Charles Tillys notion of the political public sphere or, as he calls it, pub-
lic politics: the interactive setting between agents of government, polity
members (constituted political actors enjoying routine access to govern-
ment agents and resources), challengers (constituted political actors lacking
that routine access), subjects (persons and groups not currently organized
into constituted political actors), and outside political actors. Public poli-
tics consists of claim-making interactions among agents, polity members,
challengers, and outside political actors (Tilly 2000: 4). Public politics in
this sense is distinguished from personal interactions among citizens, among
state officials, or between state officials and citizens (Tilly 2007a: 1213).
Conceptually different from the discussed minimal definition of the pub-
lic sphere is its capacity for reasoned debate and public choice. The stakes of
the notion of the public sphere focus not simply on the general existence of
communication open to strangers but also on its capacity to guide social life
(Calhoun 2003b). These stakes, as expressed by classic figures like Dewey,
Mills, or Habermas, refer to the possibility that the basic character of social
life is more or less consciously chosen and not merely inherited, shaped by
external determination, or dictated by mere necessity. It means that public
communication can be something different than the mirror of mere power
politics, mere expression of personal experience, or mere reproduction of
cultural traditions. While there is no purely domination-free deliberation and
action, there are variations in the extent to which domination affects agree-
ments and actions (Calhoun 1993: 273).
Comparative Historical Research265
Middle Ages. The publicity of feudal power representation was not consti-
tuted as a social realm, that is, as a public sphere; rather, it was something like
a status attribute (Habermas 1989 [1962]: 7). Historically, the public sphere
as a realm between society and the state emerged in the national contexts of
the European Enlightenment and the founding era of the United States. The
emerging public sphere in the eighteenth century as a common space rep-
resents a mutation of the social imaginary, one crucial to the development
of modern society (Taylor 2004: 85).
The broader reception of Habermass early work on the public sphere
began in the United States only in 1989, when the first English translation of
his work The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas 1989
[1962]) appeared. Since then Habermas has been the dominant point of ref-
erence for American scholarship on the public sphere. However, American
thought and research have had their own engagements with public sphere
analysis. These traditions have been largely forgotten in intellectual history.
Dewey and Mills in particular provided earlier formulations of what came to
be known as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Also, Hannah
Arendts (1968, 1998) contributions to public sphere analysis (see also Ben-
habib 1992) were underrecognized on both sides of the Atlantic until the
1990s (Calhoun and McGowan 1997).
Only in his later work does Habermas realize that Deweys Public and
Its Problems from 1927 (Dewey 1954) could have been an important source
for his early work on the public sphere. Deweys book itself emerged as an
answer to what he took as a challenge set up by Walter Lippmann (1960,
1993), in particular Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925), and
by other elite-centered democratic theorists.
However, Deweys contribution, triggered by Lippmann, was by no
means the only one. Other American contributions to public sphere analy-
sis preceded the first English translation of Habermass early book in 1989 or
even the original German publication in 1962. The latter applies to Ameri-
can pragmatism more generally and to the work of Mills (2000) in addition
to Deweys work. All these and other contributions have yet to be fully redis-
covered, revealing multiple traditions of public sphere analysis in intellectual
history.
Comparative Historical Research269
Analytic Dimensions
The study of the public sphere is not an integrated research field. The fol-
lowing section provides an overview of analytic dimensions. Their investiga-
tion and discussion are spread out over many disciplines and often proceed in
multiple disciplinary terminologies. The quest for an integrative framework
is a necessary condition for well-defined comparative historical research.
The study of the first analytic dimensions, the external boundaries and
the internal divisions (differentiations) of the public sphere, allows inferences
on the capacity for reasoned public choice. The recent literature on citizen-
ship (Kivisto and Faist 2007; Somers 2008) speaks to some dimensions of
the external boundaries and internal divisions of the public sphere discussed
below. However, citizenship studies often focus on the rights and obligations
of citizens rather than on the public sphere processes at large.
Community Power Structure (1953) (see also Hunter 1959), fostered a line of
research that takes into account the power networks of the arcane sphere,
the back rooms of power. However concentrated, or rather dispersed and
therefore plurally structured, these networks are supposed to be, these inter-
connections of key actors, operating in the sphere of secrecy, are of central
importance (for an overview of this research field since Mills and Hunter,
see Domhoff 2006). Other approaches to detect interpersonal power net-
works are Pierre Bourdieus (1996) study of the rule of the state nobility
or the tradition of network analysis that has tracked down interpersonal con-
nections and demonstrated that their configurations are indeed power net-
works, significantly affecting the operations of societal organizations and
institutions, though it is always hard to reconstruct the full set of connections
(for a selection of this research tradition, see Tilly 2005: 45). The literature
on investigative journalism deals with the question of uncovering such inter-
personal power networks.
Also constitutive for the realm of secrecy are legal restrictions through
censorship and repression of public communication. Like Robert A. Dahls
(1971: 4) definition of democracy in terms of granting public contestation,
the public sphere relies on freedom of speech (Peters 2005), freedom of asso-
ciation (Gutmann 1998), and freedom of the press (Splichal 2003) and on the
ongoing accountability pressure on political representatives and institutions.
High-level legal restriction of public communication through censorship and
repression refers to the simulated, acclamatory public sphere (Ludes 1993;
Taylor 1999: 169) in authoritarian or totalitarian settings (Arendt 1973) or to
periods of actual or quasi-emergency government (Stone 2005), character-
ized by the shamming of communicative relations (Habermas 1987: 386).
The external boundaries of the public sphere are further demarcated by
the private sphere: the sphere of family and intimacy and the private econ-
omy, that is, the boundaries of the state and the public good and the cate-
gorical inequality that seals off those boundaries between the private and the
public. The boundaries between the public sphere and the private sphere are
not fixed but, as the later Habermas (1996a: 366) points out, defined relation-
ally in terms of the different conditions of communication, that is, the condi-
tions of intimacy and the conditions of publicity:
The threshold separating the private sphere from the public is not
marked by a fixed set of issues or relationships but by different condi-
Comparative Historical Research271
Studies of the history of the private sphere (Aries 1989; Chartier 1989)
and its relationship to the public sphere raise two sets of boundary issues:
that of blurred boundaries (privacy issues) and that of sealed boundaries,
underpinned by categorical inequality. Categorical inequalities, including
gender and race, can reify the boundaries between the private sphere and
the public sphere. There is an extended literature in particular on the long-
standing gendered nature of the public sphere (Pateman 1988; Fraser 1992;
Young 2000). These discussions helped establish a core distinction in the lit-
erature dealing with the public sphere: the relationship and empirical ten-
sions between deliberation and inclusion. This fraught relationship between
epistemic processes and democratic participation has also become central in
discussions about the legitimacy of international organizations. Despite all
its limitations, national democracy has been the only effective institutional-
ization of democracy, precisely because it managed to couple inclusion and
deliberation to a considerable extent (Habermas 2007: 435).
The external boundaries of the public sphere are further marked by the
private economy. Recent literature focuses on major shifts of the sphere of
influence of the private economy, that is, shifts in economic policy and poli-
tics that have redrawn the boundaries of public institutions, including the
state and the public good. This includes boundary shifts like the formation
of neoliberalism as well as the rise of business and financial news coverage,
shifts from seeking government regulation of corporations or via organized
labor to directly targeting corporations through public contention, and ten-
dencies to a moralization of markets.
public administration and public service, public universities and public edu-
cation, public health, the welfare state and the privatization of risk (Calhoun
2006), and intellectual property rights (Boyle 2008). The literature on private
action for the public good includes studies of the nonprofit sector (Powell
and Clemens 1998; Powell and Steinberg 2006), including philanthropy, as
well as studies of professionalism. The contribution of professionalism to the
public good is seen as a result of the institutionalized inherent logics of pro-
fessionalism and professional education (law, engineering, clergy, medicine,
nursing, etc.). Finally, there is a strand of literature featuring dispositional
accounts of the common good, public interest, and social capital, as opposed
to dispositions toward self-interest and the private good (e.g., Putnam 2000).
for reasoned public choice but are relevant for understanding the public
sphere as a mechanism for social solidarity and belonging. Public culture
spans all key terms of reference (Williams 1958, 1983), symbols, and mean-
ings that circulate publicly or are publicly accessible, relevant to a society at
large while not necessarily shared in the sense of commonly accepted (Peters
2008: 69). The realm in which this circulation takes place is the public sphere,
constituted by communication open to strangers. The analysis of public nar-
ratives (Somers 1994: 619) and of symbolic power is of central importance for
the comparative historical study of the public sphere.
been little new synthesizing work on the transformation of the public sphere
on the level of nation-states. In the early 1980s Habermas (1992b: 12930)
intended to conduct a new study on the structural transformation of the pub-
lic sphere, providing a new synthesis of the fragmented literature. However,
he did not realize his intention. Perhaps such a new study with deepened
historical specifications would have led him to a periodization of the struc-
tural transformation of the public sphere in terms of multiple transforma-
tions rather than in terms of a single process. In the field of media and com-
munication studies in particular, media history has been largely neglected
or narrowly focused on the media organizations as such, leaving out their
embeddedness in the wider society (Curran 1991, 2006).
ture from various disciplines. The overview of analytic dimensions can show
the direction to a framework for well-defined comparative historical research
of the public sphere, the framework for what Tilly (2007a: 55) once called
measurement in a broad sense of the word: not so much precise numbers
as careful placement of cases on analytically relevant continua. The careful
placement of cases of the public sphere on analytically relevant continua
can reveal in depth how this central sphere of social life matters for both
democratization and social boundary making.
Notes
The initial encouragement for organizing an SSHA panel titled The Public Sphere and
Comparative Historical Research came from Julia Adams after a talk with the same title
that I gave at Phil Gorskis invitation to the Comparative Research Workshop at Yale Uni-
versity. I thank both Adams and Gorski as well as the panel participants, the contributors
to this special issue, and the editors of Social Science History.
1 A more comprehensive attempt to take stock of the compartmentalized literature
is the growing Public Sphere Guide, an online guide provided at publicsphere.ssrc
.org/guide by the Social Science Research Council, cosponsored by New York Uni-
versitys Institute for Public Knowledge. See also the related online essay forum at
publicsphere.ssrc.org.
2 Such an elusive, underspecified usage of civil society (see also Tilly 2000: 14) also
seems to have been Tillys underlying concern in the early 1990s, when he said that
the concepts of civil society and the public sphere were morally admirable but ana-
lytically useless (see Emirbayer and Sheller 1999: 145). In addition, Tilly started to
theorize his own notion of public politics in detail only later in the 1990s.
References
Adams, Julia, Elisabeth S. Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff, eds. (2005) Remaking Moder-
nity: Politics, History, and Sociology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2006) The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford University Press.
284Social Science History
Alexander, Jeffrey C., ed. (1998) Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalization.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, Benedict (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread
of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anheier, Helmut K. (2004) Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. London:
Earthscan.
Arendt, Hannah (1968) The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego, CA: Harvest.
(1973) The Origins of Totalitarianism. Fort Washington, PA: Harvest.
(1998) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aries, Philippe (1989) Introduction, in Roger Chartier (ed.) A History of Private Life.
Vol. 3, Passions of the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
versity Press: 112.
Benhabib, Seyla (1992) Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition,
and Jrgen Habermas, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 7398.
Berlant, Lauren (2008) The Female Complaint: The Unfinished Business of Sentimen-
tality in American Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Boyle, James (2008) The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brunkhorst, Hauke (2002) Globalising democracy without a state: Weak public, strong
public, global constitutionalism. Millennium 31: 67590.
Burawoy, Michael (2005) 2004 presidential address: For public sociology. American
Sociological Review 70: 428.
Calhoun, Craig (1993) Civil society and the public sphere. Public Culture 5: 26780.
(1998) The public good as a social and cultural project, in Walter W. Powell and
Elisabeth S. Clemens (eds.) Private Action and the Public Good. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press: 2035.
(2002) Imagining solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, constitutional patriotism, and
the public sphere. Public Culture 14: 14772.
(2003a) The democratic integration of Europe: Interests, identity, and the pub-
lic sphere, in Mabel Berezin and Martin A. Schain (eds.) Europe without Borders:
Remapping Territory, Citizenship, and Identity in a Transnational Age. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 24374.
(2003b) Information technology and the international public sphere, in Douglas
Schuler and Peter Day (eds.) Shaping the Network Society: The New Role of Civil
Society in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 22951.
(2006) The privatization of risk. Public Culture 18: 25763.
Calhoun, Craig, ed. (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Calhoun, Craig, and John McGowan, eds. (1997) Hannah Arendt and the Meaning of
Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Comparative Historical Research285
Chartier, Roger, ed. (1989) A History of Private Life. Vol. 3, Passions of the Renaissance.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cooley, Charles Horton (1966) Social Process. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
(1983) Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Curran, James (1991) Rethinking the media as a public sphere, in Peter Dahlgren and
Colin Sparks (eds.) Communication and Citizenship: Journalism and the Public
Sphere. London: Routledge: 2757.
(2006) Media history: The neglected grandparent of media studies, in
Kenneth W. Y. Leung, James Kenny, and Paul S. N. Lee (eds.) Global Trends in
Communication Education and Research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton: 1735.
Dahl, Robert A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Delanty, Gerard, and Engin Isin, eds. (2003) Handbook of Historical Sociology. Lon-
don: Sage.
Deutsch, Karl Wolfgang (1966) Nationalism and Social Communication: Inquiry into the
Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dewey, John (1954) The Public and Its Problems. Chicago: Swallow.
(1982) A new social science, in The Middle Works, 18991924. Vol. 11, 1918
1919. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 8796.
(1987) Authority and social change, in The Later Works, 19251953. Vol. 11,
19351937. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press: 13049.
(2000) Liberalism and Social Action. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Domhoff, William (2006) Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (2002) Concluding remarks: Public sphere, civil society, and
political dynamics in Islamic societies, in Miriam Hoexter, Shmuel N. Eisenstadt,
and Nehemia Levtzion (eds.) The Public Sphere in Muslim Societies. Albany: State
University of New York Press: 13961.
Eley, Geoff (1992) Nations, publics, and political cultures: Placing Habermas in the
nineteenth century, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press: 289339.
Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Mimi Sheller (1999) Publics in history. Theory and Society
28: 14597.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Brooke Harrington (2004) Tiny publics: Small groups and civil
society. Sociological Theory 22: 34156.
Fishkin, James S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic
Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fishkin, James S., and Peter Laslett, eds. (2003) Debating Deliberative Democracy.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Fleck, Christian, Andreas Hess, and E. Stina Lyon, eds. (2009) Intellectuals and Their
Publics: Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Aldershot: Ashgate.
286Social Science History
Fraser, Nancy (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of
actually existing democracy, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public
Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 10942.
Friedman, Milton (2002 [1982]) Preface, 1982, in Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth
Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: xixiv.
Gerhards, Jrgen, and Friedhelm Neidhardt (1991) Strukturen und Funktionen mod-
erner ffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen und Anstze, in Stefan Mller-Doohm
and Klaus Neumann-Braun (eds.) ffentlichkeit, Kultur, Massenkommunika-
tion: Beitrge zur Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie. Oldenburg, Germany:
Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universitt Oldenburg: 3189.
Giugni, Marco, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly, eds. (1999) How Social Movements
Matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Goffman, Erving (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. India-
napolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Goldstone, Jack A., ed. (2003) States, Parties, and Social Movements. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Gutmann, Amy, ed. (1998) Freedom of Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Habermas, Jrgen (1973) Zur Kritik an der Geschichtsphilosophie (R. Koselleck,
H. Kesting) [1960], in Kultur und Kritik: Verstreute Aufstze. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp: 35564.
(1987) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A
Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon.
(1989 [1962]) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry
into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1992a) Concluding remarks, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public
Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 46279.
(1992b) Dialectics of rationalization, in Peter Dews (ed.) Autonomy and Soli-
darity: Interviews with Jrgen Habermas. London: Verso: 95130.
(1992c) Further reflections on the public sphere, in Craig Calhoun (ed.) Haber-
mas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 42161.
(1996a) Civil society and the political public sphere, in Between Facts and
Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press: 32987.
(1996b) Deliberative politics: A procedural concept of democracy, in Between
Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 287328.
(2006a) Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an
epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Com-
munication Theory 16: 41128.
(2006b) Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy 14: 125.
(2007) Kommunikative Rationalitt und grenzberschreitende Politik: Eine
Replik, in Peter Niesen and Benjamin Herborth (eds.) Anarchie der kommunika-
Comparative Historical Research287
tiven Freiheit: Jrgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik. Frank-
furt am Main: Suhrkamp: 40659.
(2009) Einleitung, in Politische Theorie. Vol. 4 of Philosophische Texte: Stu-
dienausgabe in fnf Bnden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp: 934.
Hallin, Daniel C. (2008) Neoliberalism, social movements, and change in media systems
in the late twentieth century, in David Hesmondhalgh and Jason Toynbee (eds.)
The Media and Social Theory. London: Routledge: 4358.
Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models
of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hirschman, Albert O. (1982) Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe, ed. (2000) ffentlichkeit: Geschichte eines kritischen Begriffs.
Stuttgart: Metzler.
Hlscher, Lucian (1979) ffentlichkeit und Geheimnis: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zur Entstehung der ffentlichkeit in der frhen Neuzeit, ed. Rein-
hart Koselleck and Karlheinz Stierle. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Hunter, Floyd (1953) Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
(1959) Top Leadership, U.S.A.: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill: Uni-
versity of North Carolina Press.
Ikegami, Eiko (2000) A sociological theory of publics: Identity and culture as emergent
properties in networks. Social Research 67: 9891029.
Imhof, Kurt (2006) Moderne: ffentlichkeit und sozialer Wandel, in Die Diskontinui-
tt der Moderne: Zur Theorie des sozialen Wandels. Frankfurt am Main: Campus:
185211.
Imhof, Kurt, Heinz Kleger, and Gaetano Romano, eds. (199399) Krise und sozialer
Wandel: Analyse von Medienereignissen in der Schweiz. 3 vols. Zrich: Seismo.
Jacobs, Jane (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random
House.
Kant, Immanuel (1996) An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? in James
Schmidt (ed.) What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-
Century Questions. Berkeley: University of California Press: 5864.
Kivisto, Peter, and Thomas Faist (2007) Citizenship: Discourse, Theory, and Transna-
tional Prospects. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Klinenberg, Eric (2007) Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control Americas Media. New
York: Metropolitan.
Koller, Andreas (2009) Kontrafaktische Voraussetzungen, in Hauke Brunkhorst,
Regina Kreide, and Cristina Lafont (eds.) Habermas-Handbuch: LebenWerk
Wirkung. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Lippmann, Walter (1960) Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
(1993) The Phantom Public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Ludes, Peter (1993) Scheinffentlichkeiten: Medienwissenschaftliche Aufklrungsver-
288Social Science History
Powell, Walter W., and Richard Steinberg, eds. (2006) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research
Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Com-
munity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Revel, Jacques (2003) History and the social sciences, in Theodore Porter and Dorothy
Ross (eds.) Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 7, The Modern Social Sciences. New
York: Cambridge University Press: 391406.
Scannell, Paddy (1990) Public service broadcasting: The history of a concept, in Andrew
Goodwin and Garry Whannel (eds.) Understanding Television. London: Routledge:
1129.
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. (1999) The Cycles of American History. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Schneiderhan, Erik, and Shamus Khan (2008) Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of
deliberation. Sociological Theory 26: 124.
Schudson, Michael (1998) The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sennett, Richard (1977) The Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf.
(2000) Reflections on the public realm, in Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson
(eds.) A Companion to the City. Oxford: Blackwell: 38087.
Skocpol, Theda, ed. (1984) Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Somers, Margaret R. (1994) The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and net-
work approach. Theory and Society 23: 60549.
(2008) Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have
Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Splichal, Slavko (2003) Principles of Publicity and Press Freedom. Lanham, MD: Row-
man and Littlefield.
Stone, Geoffrey R. (2005) Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act
of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. New York: Norton.
Symes, Carol (2007) A Common Stage: Theater and Public Life in Medieval Arras.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Taylor, Charles (1999) Two theories of modernity. Public Culture 11: 15374.
(2004) Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Thernstrom, Stephan, and Richard Sennett, eds. (1969) Nineteenth-Century Cities:
Essays in the New Urban History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Thompson, John B. (2005) The new visibility. Theory, Culture, and Society 22: 3151.
Tilly, Charles (2000) Processes and mechanisms of democratization. Sociological
Theory 18: 116.
(2005) Trust and Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2006) Why? What Happens When People Give Reasons . . . and Why. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
(2007a) Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2007b) Grudging consent. American Interest, SeptemberOctober.
290Social Science History
Turner, Stephen (2003) Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts. Lon-
don: Sage.
Warner, Michael (2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone.
Weber, Max (1958) Religious rejections of the world and their directions, in Hans Gerth
and C. Wright Mills (eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press: 77128.
Wessler, Hartmut, Bernhard Peters, Michael Brggemann, Katharina Kleinenv. Knigs-
lw, and Stefanie Sifft (2008) Transnationalization of Public Spheres. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Williams, Raymond (1958) Culture and Society, 17801950. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
(1983) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, rev. ed. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Young, Iris Marion (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.