Is it possible for women in the public sphere? -Take Fraser's criticism of Habermas' concept of public sphere as an example.

Author: Habermas's public sphere model of foreign war lacks a female perspective and is criticized as a "gender blind spot". Therefore, feminists try to establish a "female public sphere" including women. Nancy, an important feminist political philosopher in contemporary America? Fraser is one of them. She criticized the foundation of Habermas' concept of public sphere and tried to establish female public sphere through the diversification of public sphere. However, her own theory vacillates between the enlightenment values including equality and post-modern multiculturalism, so the field of female publicity she proposed is self-defeating and difficult to establish. Habermas's Structural Transformation in the Public Domain was published in 1962. Although this book has been silent for a long time since its publication in German, its importance in Habermas' academic career cannot be underestimated. Through this book, "Habermas not only established his own unique interdisciplinary internal critical methodology model, but also found an opportunity to criticize modern society, which is an ideal type of' public sphere', thus enabling him to construct his social evolution model along his own ideas, that is, the social communication model." It can be seen that the ideal type of public sphere is an important basic concept for Habermas to construct his theoretical building. In addition, compared with Habermas's later works, the structural transformation of the public sector actually had a wider impact. Especially since the English version of 1989 came out, the public sphere, as an ideal form, has promoted academic innovation in many fields, including communication, literature and sociology. It is not difficult to find that the public sphere in Habermas is not a specific historical category in a certain historical period, but an abstract ideal form with normative significance. However, it is precisely because of the standardization of the ideal form of the public sphere that the concept of the public sphere has played an important role in theoretical construction and caused widespread influence in British and American academic circles. At the same time, it also caused a long-lasting and extensive debate, which was questioned and challenged by many parties. Including: (1) the challenge of the theological circle. Theologians believe that Habermas's public sphere model denies the role of religious groups; (2) The challenge of left-wing scholars. In view of Habermas's ideal form of bourgeois public sphere, left-wing scholars are concerned about whether there is proletarian public sphere. (3) The challenge of feminists. For feminist scholars, Habermas's concept of public sphere ignores women. Is it possible to establish a public sphere for women? Although all the above challenges hold unique positions, their criticism is actually aimed at the standardization of Habermas' bourgeois public sphere model. In other words, Habermas' bourgeois public sphere model, a liberal model, must respond to the questions from theology, socialism and feminism, thus establishing its own standardization and becoming a philosophical category with theoretical significance. Among these numerous challenges, feminism's criticism of the concept of public sphere lasts for a long time and has a wide influence. Especially after the English version came out, a large number of critical documents of feminist scholars emerged. It should be said that the criticism of Habermas by feminist theorists has also attracted Habermas' attention. In the article 1990, Habermas responded: "The feminist research literature that grew up in this period made us more clearly realize that the public sphere itself has patriarchal characteristics." This sentence of Habermas reveals at least two important messages of this article. First, in the face of the query of feminist thinkers, Habermas did not directly refute the challenge of feminist thinkers, but came to the conclusion that the public sphere itself has patriarchal characteristics. In fact, he faced the challenge of feminist thinkers by defeating Tai Chi. This makes it necessary for us to examine their dialogue in the public sphere today. Secondly, the English version of the theoretical literature of feminist thinkers has been very rich. This makes it possible to comb and analyze the dialogue between feminists and Habermas in the field of public affairs. For the academic circles in China, great progress has been made in the translation and introduction of Habermas' theory, and Habermas' thought, including the concept of public sphere, has also attracted extensive attention and influence in the academic circles in China at the turn of the century. However, the doubts and challenges of European and American feminist thinkers have not attracted much attention and interest in China academic circles. Mr. Cao Weidong once briefly outlined this issue in From "Separation of Public and Private" to "Selflessness", and few people have talked about this issue since then. In view of the double significance of the concept of public sphere to Habermas' academic career and academic circles, the important efforts made by feminist thinkers to revise the concept of public sphere, and the lack of attention and discussion on this issue in China academic circles at present, this paper takes Nancy Fraser, an important contemporary feminist political philosopher in the United States, as an example, analyzes and establishes the theoretical basis of female public sphere, and tries to answer a theoretical question: Are women public spheres? Then, it discusses the influence of Habermas's concept of public sphere in the current context. First, the voice of the other: Fraser and the female theorists in the field of publicity gathered under the banner of feminism * * *, although they have different perspectives and different concerns, on the whole, their biggest criticism of the field of publicity can be attributed to "gender blindness". In other words, Habermas' grand theoretical narrative lacks gender dimension. Therefore, feminist theorists try to break through Habermas' concept of male single public sphere and establish a public sphere model that includes and recognizes women. American scholar Nancy? Fraser has written many articles about Habermas' concept of public sphere, and her theoretical attempt to rethink the public sphere is quite representative. Fraser first affirmed Habermas' concept of public sphere from the standpoint of feminism, and thought that Habermas provided an analytical framework different from traditional political philosophy. The concept of public sphere is of positive significance for promoting women's liberation. However, Fraser also pointed out sharply and clearly that this concept of public sphere lacks a female perspective, and its essence is an idealized bourgeois public sphere, lacking the investigation of those non-free, non-capitalist and non-competitive public spheres, thus ignoring the role and significance of female public sphere. In fact, women's participation in the public sphere has been produced since the birth of the capitalist public sphere and continues to this day. In order to reflect and revise Habermas' concept of public sphere, Fraser fully investigated Habermas' theoretical hypothesis of the concept of public sphere, and tried to establish an optional concept of public sphere in the late capitalist society on this basis. One is the assumption of equal access to the public domain. Habermas, like many bourgeois liberal intellectuals, agrees to bracket social inequality and does not regard equality as a necessary condition for political democracy in public space. Fraser believes that shelving equality issues is usually beneficial to the ruling groups in society and inhibits the active participation of the public. In reality, especially in our stratified society, vulnerable groups are ignored as always. As the biggest vulnerable group, women still cannot enter the public sphere equally in many cases. Therefore, only by truly eliminating social inequality can we ensure people's active participation in the public sphere. For women, equality remains a goal. The second is whether the public domain is single. Habermas provides a single and all-encompassing public domain model. Fraser, on the other hand, thinks that the connection of multiple public domains has advantages over a single public domain. If there is only one public sphere, the lower classes will inevitably be excluded. Therefore, in a single public sphere, women are excluded. However, if a diversified sub-public sphere can be established, it is possible for the ruled social groups, including women, to establish their own sub-public sphere. The third is about what topics should be discussed in the field of public affairs. Habermas believes that different from private topics, the topics discussed in the field of public affairs should be related to public interests and public affairs. This naturally can't satisfy feminist theorists including Fraser. In Fraser's view, the difference between public and private is not predetermined, and participants will decide what is worth talking about and what they care about. Because the topics discussed are limited, even if women participate in the discussion of public space, they have not played their due role. Generally speaking, Fraser clarified several basic assumptions of Habermas' concept of public sphere from the aspects of the entry of public sphere, the types and connections of public sphere and the topics discussed in public sphere. Fraser opposes the concept of equality, which lays the foundation for women to actively participate in public space. She emphasized that the topics discussed in the field of public affairs should be open and inclusive of those topics that are usually considered as women's concerns, which actually expanded the connotation of the so-called "public affairs" and affirmed women's participation in theory. The most important point is that Fraser emphasizes the integration of multiple fields and opposes the single grand concept of public sphere, which essentially lays the foundation for the establishment of female public sphere through the diversification of public sphere. Third, theoretical schizophrenia Fraser tried to construct the so-called "post-capitalist female public sphere" through the diversification of the public sphere. But there are also some insurmountable problems in her efforts, which can be simply summarized as: theoretical schizophrenia. Fraser put forward the concepts of "open access", "participation equivalence" and "social equality". These "universal" concepts require men and women to be fully equal in social status and social power, which requires social integrity and structural change. What she emphasizes here is the ethical value of "equality" and "openness", rather than being immersed in the carnival of "difference". In a word, Fraser started from these basic values of enlightenment. In addition, when reflecting on the field of public affairs, she paid attention to key words such as "democracy" and "liberation" from the perspective of critical theory. It is believed that "the social critical theory about the limitations of late capitalist democracy is more timely than ever." And try to "expose the limitations of a specific form of democracy in contemporary capitalist society", "strive to overcome this limitation" and "give advice to the people of those countries that try to implement this democracy." It can be seen that Fraser not only maintains the serious consciousness of social criticism and social transformation, but also maintains the classic grand narrative and critical discourse. However, in order to overcome the "gender blind spot" of Habermas' concept of public sphere, Fraser abandoned the so-called "modern design" and adopted post-structuralism and multiculturalism. On the question of what is public affairs, Fraser inherited Foucault's view of knowledge rights. Foucault believes that many issues were judged in the private field before, and public discussion was forbidden, such as women's issues, homosexuality and so on. The assumption of public interest has become the ideology of the ruling class. Fraser is using this view to think that Habermas's statement that public affairs can only be discussed in the field of public affairs is inaccurate, because what is public affairs itself is a problem. She advocates that members of public space can decide their own topics independently, and vulnerable groups can also fight for their due rights. Besides post-structuralism, Fraser is obviously influenced by post-modern multiculturalism. Different from Habermas, Fraser no longer pursues the grand and all-encompassing public sphere, but provides us with a new and diversified public sphere, that is, a multi-dimensional space that can be arbitrarily combined, decomposed and reconstructed. Her public sphere is not only a place to form discourse, but also a place to promulgate social identity and form identity. People identify with different identities and enter their own public sphere. In this way, women's identity overcomes the universal essence of the so-called "person". Fraser's female public sphere model is also based on diversity. In short, on the one hand, Fraser did not give up the enlightened and modern values; On the other hand, she is immersed in "postmodern" thoughts such as post-structuralism and multiculturalism. This is Frazier's theory of schizophrenia. Therefore, her theory itself has a natural tension, and it can even be said that her theory in the field of women's public affairs is in danger of self-frustration. According to Fraser's principle of multiculturalism, each group can establish various different public spheres. But according to the principle of multiculturalism, there will still be stratification and inequality within any small "public". For example, there will still be class, race, sexual orientation and so on. Within the female public sphere, the disadvantaged groups still demand further differentiation, and advocate and identify with smaller public spheres, such as black women, immigrant women, Asian women and qeer (lesbians). That is to say, although the "gender blind spot" has been solved, there will be other "blind spots" in women's public sphere, such as "national blind spot", "race blind spot", "class blind spot" and "sexual orientation blind spot". Once the public sphere is constantly divided with the encouragement of multiculturalism, the "female public sphere" cannot become the unified female public sphere envisioned by Fraser. According to Fraser's theory, these diverse fields can only be divided into smaller fields similar to "immigrant women's fields" and "black women's fields", which leads to "separatism". The unity of women has been destroyed, and women's body identity as a * * * body will be weakened and dissolved under the stimulation and encouragement of multiculturalism. In this case, the classic binary division between men and women may no longer have such significance today, and more differences are rising. I'm afraid the inequality between men and women will only be regarded as one of the differences. The unity of women as * * * has been destroyed, and it is meaningless to talk about "equality" and "equivalence". In fact, Fraser herself has realized the danger of self-frustration and "separatism" in her own theory, so she also defended it, thinking that these diverse "Gong * * *" are "Gong * * * Doctrine", and their purpose is to spread words, because their members realize that they are part of a larger "Gong * * *". So in the long run, it will not lead to division. I'm afraid Fraser's excuse is feeble. Just as in Habermas's public sphere model, participants also aim at spreading words, and male participants can realize that they are human beings, not just men, but the problem of "gender blind spot" still excludes women. Fraser still can't explain why there are no "national blind spots", "class blind spots" and "sexual orientation blind spots" in women. Four. Conclusion From the above discussion, our feminist thinker Nancy? Fraser's female public sphere model is understandable. Then, have feminist theorists represented by Fraser broken through Habermas' concept of public sphere and established the concept of female public sphere, including women? Is it possible for women to enter the public sphere? I'm afraid the answer is not so optimistic. It is true that feminists represented by Fraser are very sensitive to the "gender blind spot" in Habermas' public sphere model and try to solve this problem theoretically. Nancy. Fraser's reflection on the field of public affairs, with the help of the theoretical resources of post-structuralism and multiculturalism, affirmed female discourse. By diversifying the public sphere, it is possible for women and other vulnerable groups to participate in public discussions and establish public spheres. It should be said that in the face of Habermas' ideal model in the field of * * *, Fraser put forward some meaningful criticisms, which are important efforts and contributions of feminists represented by Fraser. However, as stated in the above analysis of Fraser's theory, while trying to solve the problem of "gender blind spot", Fraser dispelled the unity of women as * * * isomorphism through post-structuralism and multiculturalism, which also dispelled the modern significance of Habermas' concept of public sphere. It also makes the female public sphere model self-defeating and self-dispelling. Therefore, we can only say that feminists highlight the problem of "gender blind spot" and try to construct women's public sphere through the diversification of public sphere. But in fact, feminists have no right to provide an analytical framework beyond Habermas' concept of public sphere. Frazier's female public sphere model has great problems. This model of women's public sphere is actually "reflexive" and self-deconstructive under the trend of diversification. Attempts in the field of women's public affairs are untenable in theory. The construction of women's public sphere is not successful. From this, we can find that in the current context, although Habermas's concept of public sphere has been challenged by various kinds including feminism, the feminist design of female public sphere has not subverted Habermas's public sphere model. I'm afraid the efforts to build women's public sphere will continue. For Habermas, his concept of public sphere is obviously influenced by postmodernism, multiculturalism and other theories. He revised the concept of public sphere three times, and his theoretical revision will probably continue in the face of constant challenges.