Reading Questions: Calhoun pp. 109-163 (chaps. By Fraser & Schudson)

1. Does Fraser feel that "the general idea of a public sphere" is important? Why or why not?
2. In the ideal, the bourgeois public sphere was based on principles of open access and inclusiveness. Fraser argues that in reality, the PS was based on exclusions. What were the axes of these exclusions?
3. According to Fraser, there was not one public, but several "competing publics." What does she mean?
4. In the ideal, inequalities in wealth or other power between participants in the PS were "bracketed" (put aside or ignored) during discussion. What does Fraser say about this the realities of such bracketing?
5. What does Fraser mean by "interpublic relations," and why is it important? What is a "counterpublic?"
6. What is Fraser’s main point about boundaries between public and private?
7. What is the difference between strong and weak publics, according to Fraser?

 Schudson

1. What are the two criteria or "defining features of [a] political public sphere" which Schudson chooses to focus on?
2. It is often stated that in the present day, the current generation of U.S. citizen "'participates less in the democracy than any before it " (Schudson quoting Oreskes, p. 144). How does Schudson reply to this claim, and what kind of evidence does he use to support his reply?
3. Are there ways, according to Schudson, in which participation has improved since the 1860s? If so, what are they?
4. How well, according to Schudson, did the press in 1700s fulfill the ideal of carrying on public discussion? How well did the press of 1840-1890 do it?
5. According to Schudson, what effects do political parties have on the ideals of participation and rational discussion?
6. What does Schudson conclude about the existence of a classical bourgeois public sphere historically in the U.S.?
7. Does Schudson feel that the ideal of a public sphere serves any useful purpose?