Characters in the Middle of Public Life: Consensus, Dissent, and Ethos

Abstract

The central dilemmas of public life are inherited, passed unresolved from generation to generation. Prohibited from burying their brother, Antigone and Ismene step outside the gates of the city to speak in private. Caught between the force of law and the faith of love, they argue over whether dissent can remake the collective order in the name of justice. Their disagreement is familiar. As bequeathed by modernity, the concept of the public sphere refers broadly to a deliberative arena in which individuals employ consensual forms of communication to develop a collective political will. This construction of the commons is both important and troublesome. Public deliberation can yield norms of material equality, democratic representation, and justice. However, experience teaches that public consensus-building is not always realistic or desirable. For one, modern society is not [End Page 336] a "natural" wellspring of mutual agreement. Among others, James Bohman (1996) in a recent study of public deliberation finds that "deep conflicts" frequently challenge the ability of citizens to find common ground, engage in deliberation, and reach consensus. What's more, principled commitments to consensus have been used to buttress a public sphere that trades human creativity, expression, and pluralism for rigidity, silence, and ideology. 1

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.