In this article I explore the distance traveled by Jürgen Habermas from the pessimism expressed about the prospects for democracy in contemporary society in his early work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, to the optimistic resuscitation of democracy in a most recent work, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. I also discuss what I consider to be an inadequate treatment in the later work of the threat to democracy posed by the influence of the modern mass media allied with unchecked corporate power.
References
1.
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1998. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.
3.
Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.”American Political Science Review56: 474-484.
4.
Bagdikian, Ben H.1997. “The U.S. Media: Supermarket or Assembly Line?” In Iyengar, Shanto, and Richard Reeves, eds., Do the Media Govern?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Berle, Adolf A., and Gardiner C. Means. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan.
6.
Bohman, James F.1990. “Communication, Ideology, and Democratic Theory.”American Political Science Review84: 93-109.
7.
Bollier, David. 2003. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York: Routledge.
8.
Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
9.
Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley. 1981. [454 U.S. 290]. U.S. Supreme Court
10.
Cohen, Lizabeth. 2003. A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Communications in Postwar America. New York: Knopf.
11.
Converse, Philip. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In David Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.
12.
First National Bank v. Bellotti. 1978. [435 U.S. 765]. U.S. Supreme Court.
13.
Flink, Stanley E.1998. Sentinel Under Siege: The Triumphs and Troubles of America’s Free Press. Boulder, CO: Westview.
14.
French, Peter A.1984. Collective and Corporate Responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.
15.
Funkhouser, G. Ray. 1973. “The Issues of the Sixties: An Exploratory into the Dynamics of Public Opinion.”Public Opinion Quarterly37: 62-75.
16.
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
17.
Gierke, Otto. 1951 (1900). Political Theories of the Middle Age, trans. Frederic William Maitland. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Giroux, Henry A.2002. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere.”Harvard Educational Review72: 425-464.
19.
Greenwood, Daniel J. H.1998. “Essential Speech: Why Corporate Speech is not Free.”Iowa Law Review83: 995-995.
20.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. “Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence.”Inquiry13: 360-375.
21.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1973. “A Postscript to Knowledge and Human Interests.”Philosophy of the Social Sciences3: 157-189.
22.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
23.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989 (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norm s. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Hager, Mark M.1989. “Bodies Politic: The Progressive History of Organizational “Real Entity Theory.”Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Law Review50: 575-575.
26.
Hickey, Neil. 1998. “Money Lust: How Pressure for Profit is Perverting Journalism.”Columbia Journalism ReviewJuly/August28-36.
27.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002 (1947). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. (1982) “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.”American Political Science Review76: 848-858.
29.
Kellner, Douglas. 2000. “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and Democracy.” In Lewis Edwin Hahn, ed., Perspectives on Habermas. Chicago: Open Court.
30.
Kuttner, Robert. 1997. Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets. New York: Knopf.
31.
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Free Press.
32.
Lukes, Steven. 1994. Power: A Radical View. London: MacMillan.
33.
Mayer, Carl J.1990. “Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights.”Hastings Law Journal41: 577-577.
34.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.”Public Opinion Quarterly36: 176-187.
35.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. 1981. More Than News: Media Power in Public Affairs. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
36.
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Mitchell, Lawrence E.2001. Corporate Irresponsibility: America’s Newest Export. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
Morley, David. 1995. “Theories of Consumption in Media Studies.” In Daniel Miller, ed.,. Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies. New York: Routledge
39.
Needham, Catherine. 2003. “Citizen Consumers: New Labour’s Marketplace Democracy.” A Catalyst Working Paper. London: The Catalyst Forum.
40.
Shumar, Wesley. 1997. College for Sale: A Critique of the Commodification of Higher Education. New York: Routledge Falmer
41.
Steck, Henry. 2003. “Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science585: 66-83.
42.
Stille, Alexander. 2002. The Future of the Past. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
43.
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. 1976. [425 U.S. 748]. U.S. Supreme Court.
45.
Warren, Mark. 1989. “Liberal Constitutionalism as Ideology: Marx and Habermas.”Political Theory17: 511-534.
46.
Zaller, John R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
