When thinking of the terms publics and counter publics, many social movements come to mind. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, the LGBT movement of the last decade, and many others. One that comes to mind for me is the rise of the Nazi Party in Post-war Germany. This example raises an important question. When a public or counter public becomes the State, are they still considered either?
According to Warner's classification, a public "must be organized by something other than the State." In the example of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, it began as a public, then formed into the party of the German government. Does this mean that the Nazi Party is no longer considered a public? I think not. Unlike most political parties, the Nazi Party shaped its policy and discourse around their issue of Jews in Europe. This anti-Semitic rhetoric was the basis of most of the actions of Germany from the mid 1930s until their demise in 1945.
In post-World War 1 Germany, the rise of the Nazi party served as a counter public to many of the political movements at the time. It had a specific anti-Semetic and anti-communist rhetoric, as well as being a strong critic of capitalism. All these discourses could have singular publics formed around them, but they all fell under the Nazi party. Once they rose to power, their membership in the public was not revoked, as Warner would assert, but rather empowered.
So I disagree with Warner's claim that a public cannot be organized by the State. Perhaps in the U.S. where the government is not motivated by a specific social issue, or imperative, his assertion may stand. When a public transitions into the role of the State, it cannot be denied that it remains a public.
According to Warner's classification, a public "must be organized by something other than the State." In the example of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, it began as a public, then formed into the party of the German government. Does this mean that the Nazi Party is no longer considered a public? I think not. Unlike most political parties, the Nazi Party shaped its policy and discourse around their issue of Jews in Europe. This anti-Semitic rhetoric was the basis of most of the actions of Germany from the mid 1930s until their demise in 1945.
In post-World War 1 Germany, the rise of the Nazi party served as a counter public to many of the political movements at the time. It had a specific anti-Semetic and anti-communist rhetoric, as well as being a strong critic of capitalism. All these discourses could have singular publics formed around them, but they all fell under the Nazi party. Once they rose to power, their membership in the public was not revoked, as Warner would assert, but rather empowered.
So I disagree with Warner's claim that a public cannot be organized by the State. Perhaps in the U.S. where the government is not motivated by a specific social issue, or imperative, his assertion may stand. When a public transitions into the role of the State, it cannot be denied that it remains a public.
I disagree that a political party could be a public. The general people voting for, and vocal for, a party could be a particular leaning of public, but I'm not sure the actual political organization could be.
ReplyDeleteWarner talks about active participation and interaction between strangers as key elements of a public, but the discourse of a political party is limited. It must meet guidelines and it is screened to ensure it agrees with those guidelines. It is the nature of a public that any stranger who feels like they share its interests may contribute to its discourse. As soon as a public becomes named, and organized, and limited in its rhetoric I think it ceases to be a public and becomes something else.
I agree the case of Nazi Germany is an example of the state becoming a public, and here's why:
ReplyDelete-The Nazi party started as this group advocating for Europe as this Aryan Utopia, and when Hitler fell into power, the values of that public became "rule" but...
Even though Hitler was able to get a big part of Germany on board, the rest of the world was like "WTF! Nooo." (for the most part), making Nazism part of the minority (on a world-wide scale) and therefore part of counterpublic discourse.
So in this case, we might call Nazi Germany a counterpublic. But since Nazi Germany WAS the state, it was considered the "majority". Take current government discourse for example. Often the president and the other branches of our government are portrayed as "representing the public", but do we always agree with everything the state is putting out there? Not exactly.
I'm not sure that answers any questions, but it's interesting to think about.
---Kristie
I agree that the political party is a public. There are so many candidates out there with their own parties that operate and give talks and this is a political spectrum which is a public. There are so many debates where candidates are biting at each other and defending themselves, and because this is such a large election process, I don't see why it cant be a public.
ReplyDelete