The Bourgeois Public Sphere in Addressing the Plight of Female and Minority Groups - Essay Example

Public Sphere XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The Bourgeois Public Sphere in Addressing the Plight of Female and Minority Groups XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Name XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Lecturer XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date Introduction Traditionally the Public sphere could be defined as a group of individuals that normally do not exist in any definable space but comes together with a purpose of articulating societal needs. Originating in the eighteenth century, as part of the Enlightenment Era, the public sphere was designed to generate opinions and attitudes purposively that challenge and guide state affairs via voluntary association, accommodated by the growth of the press, coffee houses, salons and literary groups. The success of these discourse-based gatherings was considered to depend on several issues such as rule of law, degree of sovereignty, extent of accessing information and quality of participation. German philosopher Jurgen Habermas claims in his habilitation thesis, the main aim of founding the public sphere was based on a rational critique dialogue where everybody had the ability to contribute and participate equally (Habermas 1991). Habermas’ Bourgeois dominance of the public sphere describes a citizen as an individual that is seen to have conventional respectability accompanied by property ownership and has economic, social and political opinion. Karl Marx claims that there exist only two groups or classes: those who control the means or system of power and those who do not. The bourgeois fall under the category of those who possessed control over the political and legal system, creating values and laws that ensured their control is maintained over the subordinate in society such as women, the working class and minority groups. Karl Marx also believed the bourgeoisie formed the upper social class in society as they owned a large proportion of the factors of production found in a society that was characterized by capitalism (Marx 1850). Ordinary members of the middle class could also be classified as such should they self - impose a highness with which they regard themselves, thus earning them the title of being bourgeois. A bourgeoisie could even be an average person but one who would not accept or be willing in any circumstance to remain in that position. Having lacked the strength or ability to acquire honor, riches and power in an honest manner, he compensates all this by using mischief, wicked schemes and cunning methods, removing ethics from his actions and thus becomes an evident bourgeois. Such a man seeks material values and appearances to substitute the spiritual values he lacks. In other words, one can be considered to be a bourgeoisie simply because of a mentality that he holds, without necessarily having to be in possession of what it takes to be in the upper-strata class of the society. They also possess cultural traits that are directed towards intense materialism, referred to as the sitting-room culture. This involves amassing luxury items of very high quality that displayed a theatrical wealth. Often, their tiny, cluttered rooms were adorned with expensive luxurious items. They have consumerist lifestyles that emphasize in conspicuous consumption as well as material status. Such a culture, when brought into public spheres, significantly changed the mentality about the spheres (Adams 2000). According to renowned feminist Nancy Fraser, the aim of the public sphere was to provide an avenue by circumventing the confusion that existed in resisting the aspired thoughts in the political progressive movements and theories linked to them. The dominant wing, which mainly consisted of the Socialists and the Marxists, had to reach an understanding to appreciate the authority and draw distinctions between the citizens’ public arena and the state. Fraser refutes Habermas’ ideological image of the Bourgeois model, citing the misogynistic imbalance would negate its effectiveness, as the aim of the public sphere was to yield to justice a concept that had to be well understood from three dimensions. There had to be a fair distribution of resources among all citizens without discrimination, valued contributions by varying groups and equal recognition of participants therefore ensuring fair representation of every person (Fraser 1997). Fraser’s contributions are evident; as she believes that these ideological advances promote vacant scheduled theories. Public sphere aims are not only for empirical communication purposes but also to have a say in the normative political hypothesis of a democratic system. The public sphere is to be an arena to air public opinions on issues touching on their survival and enhancing moral-political legitimacy. It is a mobilizing vehicle for public opinions to be driven for a particular reason and direction as a political force. The public opinion is to be a tool for creating awareness and empowering the citizens to influence the state towards achieving better governance. It has the ability to compare with the autonomous power to act on their grievances. The public arena without the citizens loses meaning and purpose and it remains without concepts and thus lacks direction and political point. Fraser advocates for a “transnational public sphere” as it has the qualities to bargain and attain better responses on public reality (Fraser 1997). While ideological in its desire to promote an egalitarian existence within the Bourgeois model of the public sphere, the discourse of societal needs would no doubt be driven by class and cultural biases. Fraser alludes that an assembly of public citizens would naturally connect for a common interest and cause. It is to this consequence that the dominating male bourgeois class in the public sphere effectively discriminated against women, the working class and minority groups. Bourgeois describes a person who has economic, social and political opinions that are believed and seen to be greatly determined by property ownership as well as conventional respectability. Karl Marx mentions that there exist only two groups or classes: those who control the means or system of power and those who do not. The bourgeois fall under the category of those who possessed control over the political and legal system, creating values and laws that ensured their control over the subordinate in the society such as women, feminist groups as well as minority groups is maintained. Karl Marx also believed the bourgeois formed the upper social class in society as they owned a large proportion of the factors of production found in a society that was characterized by capitalism. 1 According to Fraser, bourgeois would even be an average person but one who would not accept or be willing in any circumstance to remain in that position. Having lacked the strength or ability to acquire honor, riches and power in an honest manner, he compensates all this by using mischief, wicked schemes and cunning methods, kicking out ethics from his actions and then becomes an evident bourgeois. Such a man seeks material values and appearances to substitute the spiritual values which he lacks.2 In other words, a bourgeois can be considered to be bourgeois simply because of a mentality that he holds, without necessarily having to be in possession of what it takes to be in the upper-strata class of the society. The bourgeois culture, as Fraser mentions, is one which is considered to be a ruling-class culture. They also possess cultural traits that are directed towards intense materialism which is referred to as the sitting-room culture. This involves amassing luxury items of very high quality that displayed their wealth. Often, their rooms would be cluttered tiny rooms or large spacious rooms but whatever the size, expensive luxurious items could still be easily spotted. They have consumerist lifestyles that emphasize in conspicuous consumption as well as material status. Such a culture, when brought into public spheres, changed the mentality about the spheres significantly. 3 The bourgeois introduced a consumerist drive, shifting the focus of public spheres from political actions to consumption and capitalist drive in mass media. All of a sudden, the media was used for advertisement and as a medium through which political forces were rallied instead of it being used by the public as a source of information on the political happenings in the society. The bourgeois then used media to spread their influence over the area in which they resided and such manipulation killed the publicity principle. Fraser heavily registers her discontent in her book as this restructured the public sphere incredibly as the topics selected and the contributions on topics were now controlled by those who held power, the bourgeois. The strategic intentions of the bourgeois to control the communication flows remain hidden but the damage caused to the public spheres is quite evident. Examples of bourgeois include the early bourgeois who were tradesmen and artisans that owned large businesses and had the ability to pay fines for the sumptuary laws that they broke. The French King even granted the bourgeois of Paris nobility. In the 18th and 17th century, the bourgeois greatly supported the French, American and English revolution as they overthrew the privileges and laws of the feudal order.4 Critics such as novelist Flaubert, playwright Truldière and Nancy Fraser herself could not keep silent about the harsh effects caused by bourgeois. Benito Mussolini together with various Catholic circles also criticized bourgeois men because of the hedonistic and materialistic approach they had towards life.5 Fraser emphasizes on how the phase of public spheres was completely transformed and the subordinate in society such as women, feminist groups and minority groups could not find their place in them. In essence, their place had been removed by bourgeois through discrimination and contempt of the subordinate. Women, feminist and other minority groups did not fit into the bourgeois class as they did not have the privilege to own property and to be excellently educated. As a result, they were excluded from the whole idea of public spheres. Public spheres then ceased to have adequate representation of the views of the public to the state as not all the aspects of societal life were touched on. According to Fraser, there existed a bourgeois class in the public sphere that was discriminating against the women and the minority groups like the homosexuals and the lesbians. The clubs and the social gatherings that existed to protect and be the voice of the oppressed were turned in to a training ground for the preparation of the bourgeois men to take up leadership roles and positions as this arena provided an avenue to broadcast their prowess in governing. The female groups’ representation was minimal and the group ended up being spectator entities. Property ownership and areas which increased the social status of persons which were the contentious issues to the public sphere were dominated by the little bourgeois men. This created a hegemonic dominance by the male bourgeois and the suppression of the female and minority groups as clearly expressed by Fraser. The public spheres were aimed at enabling the interlocutors to set aside what they perceived as the forces that made them different in areas such as birth, sex and fortune and have a common goal and concern. They were to relate to each other as if they were peers of the same economic and social status. 6 Gender equality has always been a significant factor to realization of sustainable economic growth. Creation of quotas and decentralization has always been viewed as ways of creating equality among the modern society. Fraser clearly mentions that a common phenomenon, as part of the aims to the creation of the public spheres, was to find possible remedies to ensuring the rights of women and other minority groups are addressed and attained. Women are a valuable resource that is yet to be fully utilized in most countries including the Arabic and European world. Women participation in labor market was minimal and they were less involved in decision making. The main aim to be achieved in the public sphere according to women was the mainstreaming of gender equality/affirmative action in the existing action plans at national and international levels. This included the problematization of issues that were once perceived to be personal and private like domestic violence. Issues that were related to female like reproduction had to be discussed with openness and with a common concern from all gender parties. The key areas of concern that form the basis of criticism on the Habermas’ public sphere model are gender and diversity. Feeree identifies that there is needed to identify, rethink the role of women and how they should participate in public spheres. Issues of main concern included the visibility of women and the outcome of the whole process. The roles of women as political and social agents were of key concern as they lacked representation in the public sphere. Fraser shows us how this resulted to women roles being considered to be in the private realm while men were expected to have predominant roles in the economical and politics realm. This has led to women responding by politicizing their issues through the formation of organizations and instruments that are aimed at championing their rights. Women’s right to work was and still remains a thorny issue to public spheres as they are expected to fulfill their role as mothers and wives as well. Many will argue against it as much as it is a reality that women are discriminated at work places more often compared to their male counterparts. However, this is not a reality as most key positions and representatives in decision making in public spheres are dominated by men. Little positions are always left for women, describes Fraser, but they do not reflect the true nature of how situations are to be when gender is mainstreamed in the action plan. In the French revolution, the salons persisted to be important institutions as they were social gatherings that women met to discuss and formulated ways to counter the bourgeois male predominance and usher in a new era of meritocracy.7 To avert this Banhabib argues that there is need to employ a dynamic cultural view to a static one. This model, she argues, will accommodate all group differences and incorporate their differences. The holding of normative views and opinions that are premature can act to derail efforts geared towards mainstreaming gender in all aspects of an action plan. There should be a deliberate attempt to include aspects and models that will enhance effective interaction between the female and male counterparts. A deliberative democratic model is essential as it encourages cultural contestation which enhances conditions for policy recommendations that lead to democratic legitimacy. Fraser says that for this to occur there must be a conversational situation that has to guarantee the participation of every party. Every party has to freely air his concerns and attitudes and should not be inhibited in making demands for his or her rights.8 The feminists have made gainful contributions to the refinement of the public sphere’s theoretical notion and the empirical potential theory. They hold it to the view that the universal ideal reserves particularism and the radical discourse limits them from expression. In turkey, Fotopoulos views the fight of equal rights between the two involved parties is just but the beginning to attaining human liberation. This goal, he argues, can only be attained through clear formulation and implementation of institutional framework, a positive change of values and distribution of power across the board irrespective of gender or cultural identity. The feminist struggle has enabled clear and visionary change in Turkey and its outcomes are visible in the political and economic structures as women who had been excluded from the public domain based on cultural perceived roles and norms have been included in part of the decision making processes.9 The realization of liberty has enabled the perception of men on women as the traditional values on gender have been undermined, leading to an environment that excludes oppression on women and other minority groups. The minority groups on the other hand feel their interests are not always met. The feminist groups are mainly focus on the championing for the rights that touch on the girl child and women. Their main aim, when peering through the eyes of Fraser, was to articulate the need to embrace the rights of the girl child and women in the society by provision of quality education for them, clearly spelling out their role in the society and demystifying the cultural inequalities that exist in the society. The minor groups which include the homosexuals and the lesbians want their rights in relation to socials. To many feminist groups the original notion of a public sphere as it evolved was that it was to be a place where the government authorities and private individuals were to meet face-to-face and discuss public matters in a rational and critical manner. The notion has been subjected to transformations brought about by capitalism and the modern welfare state but its major decline was due to criticism by various groups. The public sphere was claimed to exclude numerous groups from its operations as already mentioned, most of which are considered important for the ideology of a public sphere to continue in existence. Another group that was majorly excluded was the feminist groups among other minority groups, writes Fraser. Minority groups included slaves, criminals, migrants and the poor. With the exclusion of these groups, the ideal form of the public sphere is soiled as public matters affect each individual in the society, including these groups.10 Fraser explains to us how feminist groups and minority groups were considered to be subordinate to this upper class as they were not as educated and as wealthy as them. Individuals who possessed excellent education and those who owned property were related to the upper-class strata in the society. This classification was biased as one cannot be regarded as inferior simply because one did not have the opportunity to be educated or to own property. The upper class even saw themselves legible for governing positions due to this classification. The subordinate groups especially feminist groups began to feel unwelcome and their opinions greatly disregarded. Feminist groups were then completely excluded and with this exclusion, the matters discussed in public spheres are only those that affect the upper class. As a result, there is inadequate representation of the views of the public to the state during these gatherings. Fraser goes on to show us how feminist groups responded to the bias public sphere that emerged and claimed that if without gender equality, the spheres cannot exist in real sense. Such groups that voiced their criticism include Marxist feminists who claimed that once class oppression is overcome, then gender oppression can then are overcome.11 Other feminist groups include liberal feminists who seek the equality of women and men through legal and political reform without necessarily altering the societal structure. These counter groups among many others such as Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) have enabled great societal changes such as increased education of women, women suffrage as well as increased pay of women such that the disparity from men in legal and political arenas has been immensely reduced over the years.12 Conclusion For Habermas for a notion to become a reality, certain elements ought to be included for effective democratic participation to come alive.13 Fraser elaborates to us how there has to be an evident heterogeneous conception attached to the public gathering sphere. The political analysis also has to be expanded to new wider realms to accommodate political representation of all minority groups’ especially feminist groups. All gender categories are very vital organizing principles and guidelines in the social aspect of a community.14These steps will ensure that discourses include all relevant and important aspects of the lives of all people, regardless of their differences. This paper had a starting point that registered the debate on how the bourgeois based public sphere has affected the rights of females, the feminist movement and other minority groups. With great contribution from Nancy Fraser, it aims at instigating further discussion on the emergence of the bourgeois class in the already existing public spheres and how excluding the feminist and minority groups from the public spheres has affected them. This discussion is done in light of the rights of women as well as the rights of feminist groups. I have laid out an argument that for public matters to be discussed openly and effectively, the inequality brackets that discriminate against women, feminist and minority groups have to be removed if at all we desire societal change. References Adams, Christine. A Taste for Comfort and Status: A Bourgeois Family in Eighteenth-Century France. University Park, Pa., 2000. Burton J. Bledstein and Robert D. Johnston Bellassai, Sandro. (2005). "The masculine mystique: anti-modernism and virility in fascist Italy." Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 3, pp. 314–335. Benhabib, Seyla (2002), The Claims of Culture. Equality and Diversity in the Global Era, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Christopher Hill, (1980) The Century of Revolution: 1603-1714 England: Routledge Émile Zola, Les Rougon-Macquart cycle, 1871–1893. Eyal Rabinovitch. Gender and the Public Sphere: Alternative Forms of Integration in Nineteenth- Century America. Sociological Theory 2002, Volume 19, Issue 3, pages 344–370. Feree, M. M., W. A. Gamson, J. Gerhards and D. Rucht (2002), “Four models of the Public Sphere in modern democracies”, Theory and Society, 31, 289-324. Fraser, N. (1997): Justice Interruptions. Critical Reflections on the “Post-socialist” Condition. London: Routledge. Habermas, Jürgen (1992), Calhoun, ed., Further Reflections on the Public Sphere: Habermas, and the Public Sphere: Cambridge Mass.: MIT press, p. 437, ISBN 0-262-53114-3 Jürgen Habermas The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (excerpts). Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge, Polity; 31- 43: 181-95. 1991 Kale, Steven D., 1957 Women, the Public Sphere, and the Persistence of Salons French Historical Studies - Volume 25, Number 1, Winter 2002, pp. 115-148 Duke University Press Nancy Fraser ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: a Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’, in The Cultural Studies Reader (2nd edition), ed Simon During. London: Routledge, 1997; 518-36. Omer, C: The Death of Feminism as an Antisystemic Movement or the Success of Feminism to Change the System from Within? democracy & nature: The international journal of inclusive democracyvol.9, no.2, July 2003. The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, Works of Karl Marx, 1850 Read More