治安意见:精英、科学与民意

IF 1.7 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Paul Beaud, L. Kaufmann
{"title":"治安意见:精英、科学与民意","authors":"Paul Beaud, L. Kaufmann","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1999.11008701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractDifferent socio-historical conceptualisations of the emergence of public opinion in the eighteenth century, which have given rise to the works of Habermas about the public sphere, in particular, allow us to think about the actual social referent of the public opinion phenomenon. The classical focus on prerevolutionary, enlightened public opinion and the hypothetical causal effect of the Enlightenment conceal the anthropological invariants of opining as a procedure of sharing differences and individual interests. This “intello-centric” approach reproduces the elitist ideology in this analysis that limits the procedural universality to the pseudo-public sphere of the “true” citizens, although it declares, as a matter of principle, that all citizens ought to participate in government. After having proven the segregating stakes in these processes, the article shows that the concept of public opinion is not reduced to a normative definition ― either in the cultivated sense of a rational discussion or i...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":"48 1","pages":"5-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policing Opinions: Elites, Science and Popular Opinion\",\"authors\":\"Paul Beaud, L. Kaufmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13183222.1999.11008701\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractDifferent socio-historical conceptualisations of the emergence of public opinion in the eighteenth century, which have given rise to the works of Habermas about the public sphere, in particular, allow us to think about the actual social referent of the public opinion phenomenon. The classical focus on prerevolutionary, enlightened public opinion and the hypothetical causal effect of the Enlightenment conceal the anthropological invariants of opining as a procedure of sharing differences and individual interests. This “intello-centric” approach reproduces the elitist ideology in this analysis that limits the procedural universality to the pseudo-public sphere of the “true” citizens, although it declares, as a matter of principle, that all citizens ought to participate in government. After having proven the segregating stakes in these processes, the article shows that the concept of public opinion is not reduced to a normative definition ― either in the cultivated sense of a rational discussion or i...\",\"PeriodicalId\":46298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"5-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1999.11008701\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost-The Public","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1999.11008701","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要对18世纪公共舆论产生的不同社会历史概念催生了哈贝马斯关于公共领域的著作,这些概念使我们能够思考公共舆论现象的实际社会参照。经典的关注前进化,开明的公众舆论和启蒙运动的假设因果效应掩盖了作为分享差异和个人利益的过程的意见的人类学不变。这种“以情报为中心”的方法再现了这种分析中的精英主义意识形态,这种分析将程序普遍性限制在“真正”公民的伪公共领域,尽管它宣称,作为一个原则问题,所有公民都应该参与政府。在证明了这些过程中的隔离利害关系之后,文章表明,公众舆论的概念并没有被简化为一个规范的定义——无论是在理性讨论的培养意义上,还是在理性讨论的培养意义上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policing Opinions: Elites, Science and Popular Opinion
AbstractDifferent socio-historical conceptualisations of the emergence of public opinion in the eighteenth century, which have given rise to the works of Habermas about the public sphere, in particular, allow us to think about the actual social referent of the public opinion phenomenon. The classical focus on prerevolutionary, enlightened public opinion and the hypothetical causal effect of the Enlightenment conceal the anthropological invariants of opining as a procedure of sharing differences and individual interests. This “intello-centric” approach reproduces the elitist ideology in this analysis that limits the procedural universality to the pseudo-public sphere of the “true” citizens, although it declares, as a matter of principle, that all citizens ought to participate in government. After having proven the segregating stakes in these processes, the article shows that the concept of public opinion is not reduced to a normative definition ― either in the cultivated sense of a rational discussion or i...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Javnost-The Public
Javnost-The Public COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Javnost - The Public, an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed social and cultural science journal published by the European Institute for Communication and Culture in association with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, addresses problems of the public sphere on international and interdisciplinary levels. It encourages the development of theory and research, and helps understand differences between cultures. Contributors confront problems of the public, public communication, public opinion, public discourse, publicness, publicity, and public life from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信