When someone says that the public sphere is in crisis, what exactly are they saying?
They may be saying that access to political communication has narrowed. They may be saying that the quality of the reasons exchanged has deteriorated. Or they may be saying that power can no longer justify itself before citizens. The three claims require evidence of completely different kinds, may be true or false independently of one another — and are expressed in the same sentence, as though they were one and the same thing.
This book shows that they are not. Beneath one of the most influential expressions in contemporary political theory lie three distinct objects: a space of communication, a procedure of discussion, and a title of legitimacy. No one has ever said how these three fit together. From that omission arises an invalid inference that has been repeated for more than sixty years: a fact is established about the first, and a conclusion is drawn about the third, without any premise licensing the move.
The demonstration spares no one and is not directed at any single author. The same operation is found in eleven traditions that disagree with one another about virtually everything else — from Marxist critique to systems theory, from feminist critique to the designers of international democracy indices. Eight of them were written against the text to which the error is usually attributed.
The result is unsettling, and it is the heart of the book: when public opinion is invoked to demand obedience, there is no norm determining who is authorized to speak in its name. And an empty place does not remain inert — it becomes available to whoever gets there first and has the loudest voice.
With real cases on every page — a manifesto by intellectuals, international indices that disagree about the same country, experiments on social media, a jury trial, a citizens’ assembly selected by lot, a historical controversy in which both sides commit the same error — the book gives the reader a tool that cannot be unlearned: before drawing a conclusion, say which of the three you are talking about.
Les informations fournies dans la section « Synopsis » peuvent faire référence à une autre édition de ce titre.
Vendeur : California Books, Miami, FL, Etats-Unis
Etat : New. Print on Demand. N° de réf. du vendeur I-9798192107973
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, Etats-Unis
Paperback. Etat : new. Paperback. When someone says that the public sphere is in crisis, what exactly are they saying?They may be saying that access to political communication has narrowed. They may be saying that the quality of the reasons exchanged has deteriorated. Or they may be saying that power can no longer justify itself before citizens. The three claims require evidence of completely different kinds, may be true or false independently of one another - and are expressed in the same sentence, as though they were one and the same thing.This book shows that they are not. Beneath one of the most influential expressions in contemporary political theory lie three distinct objects: a space of communication, a procedure of discussion, and a title of legitimacy. No one has ever said how these three fit together. From that omission arises an invalid inference that has been repeated for more than sixty years: a fact is established about the first, and a conclusion is drawn about the third, without any premise licensing the move.The demonstration spares no one and is not directed at any single author. The same operation is found in eleven traditions that disagree with one another about virtually everything else - from Marxist critique to systems theory, from feminist critique to the designers of international democracy indices. Eight of them were written against the text to which the error is usually attributed.The result is unsettling, and it is the heart of the book: when public opinion is invoked to demand obedience, there is no norm determining who is authorized to speak in its name. And an empty place does not remain inert - it becomes available to whoever gets there first and has the loudest voice.With real cases on every page - a manifesto by intellectuals, international indices that disagree about the same country, experiments on social media, a jury trial, a citizens' assembly selected by lot, a historical controversy in which both sides commit the same error - the book gives the reader a tool that cannot be unlearned: before drawing a conclusion, say which of the three you are talking about. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability. N° de réf. du vendeur 9798192107973
Quantité disponible : 1 disponible(s)
Vendeur : PBShop.store US, Wood Dale, IL, Etats-Unis
PAP. Etat : New. New Book. Shipped from UK. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000. N° de réf. du vendeur L0-9798192107973
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : PBShop.store UK, Fairford, GLOS, Royaume-Uni
PAP. Etat : New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 4 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000. N° de réf. du vendeur L0-9798192107973
Quantité disponible : Plus de 20 disponibles
Vendeur : CitiRetail, Stevenage, Royaume-Uni
Paperback. Etat : new. Paperback. When someone says that the public sphere is in crisis, what exactly are they saying?They may be saying that access to political communication has narrowed. They may be saying that the quality of the reasons exchanged has deteriorated. Or they may be saying that power can no longer justify itself before citizens. The three claims require evidence of completely different kinds, may be true or false independently of one another - and are expressed in the same sentence, as though they were one and the same thing.This book shows that they are not. Beneath one of the most influential expressions in contemporary political theory lie three distinct objects: a space of communication, a procedure of discussion, and a title of legitimacy. No one has ever said how these three fit together. From that omission arises an invalid inference that has been repeated for more than sixty years: a fact is established about the first, and a conclusion is drawn about the third, without any premise licensing the move.The demonstration spares no one and is not directed at any single author. The same operation is found in eleven traditions that disagree with one another about virtually everything else - from Marxist critique to systems theory, from feminist critique to the designers of international democracy indices. Eight of them were written against the text to which the error is usually attributed.The result is unsettling, and it is the heart of the book: when public opinion is invoked to demand obedience, there is no norm determining who is authorized to speak in its name. And an empty place does not remain inert - it becomes available to whoever gets there first and has the loudest voice.With real cases on every page - a manifesto by intellectuals, international indices that disagree about the same country, experiments on social media, a jury trial, a citizens' assembly selected by lot, a historical controversy in which both sides commit the same error - the book gives the reader a tool that cannot be unlearned: before drawing a conclusion, say which of the three you are talking about. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability. N° de réf. du vendeur 9798192107973
Quantité disponible : 1 disponible(s)
Vendeur : AHA-BUCH GmbH, Einbeck, Allemagne
Taschenbuch. Etat : Neu. Neuware - When someone says that the public sphere is in crisis, what exactly are they saying They may be saying that access to political communication has narrowed. They may be saying that the quality of the reasons exchanged has deteriorated. Or they may be saying that power can no longer justify itself before citizens. The three claims require evidence of completely different kinds, may be true or false independently of one another - and are expressed in the same sentence, as though they were one and the same thing.This book shows that they are not. Beneath one of the most influential expressions in contemporary political theory lie three distinct objects: a space of communication, a procedure of discussion, and a title of legitimacy. No one has ever said how these three fit together. From that omission arises an invalid inference that has been repeated for more than sixty years: a fact is established about the first, and a conclusion is drawn about the third, without any premise licensing the move.The demonstration spares no one and is not directed at any single author. The same operation is found in eleven traditions that disagree with one another about virtually everything else - from Marxist critique to systems theory, from feminist critique to the designers of international democracy indices. Eight of them were written against the text to which the error is usually attributed.The result is unsettling, and it is the heart of the book: when public opinion is invoked to demand obedience, there is no norm determining who is authorized to speak in its name. And an empty place does not remain inert - it becomes available to whoever gets there first and has the loudest voice.With real cases on every page - a manifesto by intellectuals, international indices that disagree about the same country, experiments on social media, a jury trial, a citizens' assembly selected by lot, a historical controversy in which both sides commit the same error - the book gives the reader a tool that cannot be unlearned: before drawing a conclusion, say which of the three you are talking about. N° de réf. du vendeur 9798192107973
Quantité disponible : 2 disponible(s)