>I think, for instance, Habermas's recounting of the significance of >French >salons and British tea houses (the 'bourgeois public sphere') is >important >stuff. There, the nascent bourgeoisie articulated and substantiated the >great (bourgeois) revolutionary age. Humanity was redefined, and human >culture enriched. From where I sit (poor historically contingent thing >that >I am) progress was made - and in giant leaps. In so far as the "bourgeois public sphere" is concerned, I would not simply disregard Habermas's early work too (which was his doctoral thesis btw). It is a profound historical inquiry into the categories of early bourgeois culture and modernity. Very many social details and sociological sensitivity. In my view, the importance of the work rather comes from its critical encounter with Weber and Frankfurt School's collapsing of rationality to instrumental rationality or the rationality of capitalism. Implicit in Habermas's theory is the possibility of rationalities other than instrumental reason (means-ends). Accordingly, he historicizes this possibility (as a counter-narrative reading of history) in this work, and then later develops as "communicative rationality in his recent works. The problem with the work lies in its "bourgeois idealism". This critique came from Gramscian historians studying the public sphere within the framework of sub-altern studies (See Geoff Elley, Mary Ryan, etc).By idealizing the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in sociological terms, Habermas disregards the public spheres other than the bourgeois public sphere (working class, women, peasent, etc..).there is no dicussion of marginalized publics in his work. Their voices are unheard. Actually,Habermas has encountered these critics recently..This is another discussion though.. Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany
