"Some popular and academic writers worry that the public sphere in Western countries is fragmenting. There's too much choice" (140).
Too much choices eh? Well isn't that what everyday life is based upon? Choices? The more I read about the P.S. and the modernist point of view, I realize that their p.o.v can come off a bit selfish. The reason being is that they are unwilling to open the "sphere" up for other's to speak on issues that are affecting them. For instance in "The Public Sphere," it uses an example of Gays/Lesbians fighting for their rights. From a modernist point of view this is a "selfish orientation" because it is only dealing with a certain group and not dealing with at society as a whole. Yet, for a post-modernist point of view, not dealing with this issue means that we are shutting out a group of people who need their voices heard, therefore making us selfish for not listening. I believe that when it comes to the public sphere there is room for choices and everyone's voice to be heard.
“Should we look for similarity with other people, or for difference from them?” ([Benhabib, ed., 1996], 144 McKee) I agree with you that people should have their own voices and be able to be heard. I don’t have the answers behind if we should look at the similarities or differences of people, I just know that both are what connects us to other people in our society; connections with friends, family, as well as connections with people of the opposite political parties. What all of these groups have in common is that they make us think about ourselves and the way we think as well and how those around us think. That is what makes the United States a great public sphere as opposed to other countries.
ReplyDelete