Warner brings attention to the state’s presence in the construction of publics. He states that a public "must be organized by something other than the state”(51). This is an assertion that I disagree with. While not all states are capable of being a public, some are inherently so. The Nazi Party, French and Bolshevik Revolutions, and even the American Revolutions can all be examples of how a public forms a state. Once a public become a state, does it remain a public?
The Nazi Party were the product a devastated Germany following the First World War. The people and government were destroyed by the largest conflict in history. Out of this ruin, a radical party arose. The Nazi Party, or National Socialist German Worker’s Party, delivered a message of order and progress to a society that was desperate for both. This formed a powerful public that was formed around anti-capitalism, anti-communism, and anti-Semitism. This party would then form the national party of the government.
The Nazi Party was formed around some of the very issues that the United States’ publics are addressing. Anti-capitalism is a burgeoning issue in the country. The Occupy Wall-Street movement of a few years ago could be described as an anti-capitalist one. Furthermore, the popularity of the Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders reflects this sentiment as well. The same issues were facing Germany following World War I, and similar publics formed then.
The primary issue for the Nazi Party was the strong presence of Jews in Europe. So much so that economic, foreign, and domestic policy were formed around it. I would assert that this makes the Nazi Party and its supporters very much a public. Once they rose into power in the state, they continued the same rhetoric and policy, so they must remain a public. When Warner makes his assertion, he may only be thinking of the United States, or similar nations. With this logic, I would agree that the state cannot be a public. Both nations are formed around a diversity of opinion. Also, both nations are by composition, democratic. Other nations, which are ruled by dictatorships, communism, and monarchies (historically) can have a very different method of presenting opinion, and perceiving what issues face the country. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, and its dictator Adolf Hitler shaped the public issues as he liked.Examples stretch beyond that of Nazi Germany as well.
The French revolution called for the destruction of the Monarchy, and formation of a more democratic state. This was a violent affair, and many publics attempted to usurp the throne. The French revolution presents another question; Do the publics that formed the rebellious side of the French revolution, form a collective public? If so, this is another example of a public becoming a state. This one is complicated, as many different publics rose to power, albeit briefly before Napoleon became the eventual victor. However, when a nations is in such turmoil, that the state is engaging in the same debate as a public, how can they not be considered one?
The American Revolution, an event close to home, also represents a public becoming a state. When the colonies rose against the British Crown, they formed a public. It started as protests such as the Boston Tea Party, and then became a war. Once the war was won, the early United States government could be considered a formation of many publics. The founding fathers were made up of federalists and republicans, Catholics and deists, and many other opposing parties. The early years of any nation can be considered a public, as there is not a prevailing rhetoric early on. This may contradict my example of Nazi Germany, but it represents the different forms a public can take in the state. Germany used a very public issue as the basis for its government, while the early United States government was made up of very different groups of individuals, each representing a public.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. A republican and federalist, respectively, each represented a very different United States. Madison wanted the States to hold the power, while Hamilton believed in a powerful central government. This discourse in the late 18th century would shape what would eventually become the modern United States of America. While this argument prevails today under the current political battleground, each party still holds a fundamentally similar structure for the state. The outcomes of debate following the revolution had drastic implications for what would become of the state.
One issue that is not addressed by Warner is whether nations interacting with one another can be considered publics. Two very different nations, the United States and the Soviet Union for example, could be considered publics on the scale of international relations. Each nation had very different rhetoric, and their interactions could be seen as a representation of two publics engaging in discourse, with global conflict on the line. This may be a strong assertion, but these are the questions that I have developed as a result of Warner’s claim.
Asen describes how “The nation resides in the “minds of each” inhabitant” (349). The nation, or state is then created by the public. With this, how can the state and public be separated by Warner? Asen continues to argue that publics are also imagined by its members. This establishes, according to Asen, that both the public and state are formed by its inhabitants. Warner does not address this as fully as Asen, but the claims raised by the latter are important. If the state and public are formed by the same means, a shared imagining, then why are they so different?
Rebuttals will surely follow my claims. The idea of a state not being able to be considered a public just doesn't sit right. The arguments made in defense of the state as a public may be in vain, as few seem to agree with the assertion. However, I will continue to fight for the state’s identity, and hopefully gain its place among the publics.
