I concerned myself when I got into the chapter because I wasn't quite sure if I was grasping what I was reading. It just seemed so common sense that I was scared I had missed the point. So like any good student I turned to Wikipedia to solve my problems, per-usual. When 'public discourse' didn't come up I almost lost all hope, and as I read on I found myself pondering more and more points within the chapter. The public arena is where I was getting all wrapped up. This notion that the public arena as a place to freely express opinion and ideas doesn't resonate with me exactly. I agree with the idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that there is a time and place for such expression but where do you encounter such instances and how? It got me to thinking more in-depth about the public arena, and maybe I missed a point here, but it seems to be very specific. A public arena has to be a place where everyone ultimately shares something, has some connection to one another, whether it be their opinion, a problem, etc.
I came to this conclusion when I read on page 105 about the private sphere and public sphere. The examples given all discuss the engagement of discourse but with people that you share some sort of mutual connection, like a college class, or a living situation. I feel like the only 'safe' place to exercise some sort of opinion, whether it be oppositional or not, would be in an environment where other people have the same concerns or understanding of the context etc. In the section "The Public as Sacred Space" on page 109 it is stated that "we protect diversity in the public domain" and this baffled me because I just feel that this notion of westernized culture that we practice has this "if you want to be different be normal" mentality that crushes diversity and pushes everyone in the same direction.
On page 103 it is stated that "the public arena promotes a safe space
for contesting ideas, making it possible for us to figure out the particulars from a wealth of possibilities" but I just can't wrap my head around how this public arena "promotes a safe space". Maybe I have gotten too consumed and have overlooked a point but in today's day and age I just don't understand how it is possible for the public sphere to be some sort of promising safe haven unless it is in an educational sense like in our class during discussion for example. I'm not saying there is no safe place to talk openly or safely, I just think there is more to it than what was discussed in the book.
I agree that it's difficult to imagine the public arena as a communicatively safe place. Indeed, the idea seems impossible in this historical moment of narrative and virtue contention. How can the vast wealth of human difference and ethical positions form a space in which new understandings can be reached through pragmatic decision-making through learning? I think it's more useful to think of the public arena, at least as described in our book, as an ideal to strive for. Much of the content we study seems too lofty to universally apply to our daily lives, but I see that as the point of this class: to turn us into willing learners ready to transform communicative spaces with pragmatism and recognition of the Other.
ReplyDeleteActually, it might be helpful to imagine the private domain of communication as a testing ground for future public discourse, as I did in my blog post. I often find that I can safely test my opinions in intimate contexts with family, trusted friends, and my significant other. The understandings we come to in these private spaces (essentially, very small public spaces) prepare me for discourse in the public by opening my mind to other voices and making me accustomed to the process of reconciling those other opinions with my own. Then, I can go into the public domain with a renewed interest in and preparation for the process of learning, pushing the public domain closer to the ideal-world scenario that the book describes.