A Discussion on Equal Participation in the Public Sphere in Terms of Gender Equality
Hediye DumluThe concept of the public sphere is a political category and indispensable for the organization of political order and the democratic legitimacy of institutions in democratic societies. This is a central category of a well-functioning democratic society and was discussed for the first time with the model of the modern bourgeois public sphere. Although the principles of this public model such as openness to everyone, equal participation, free access, and free discourse arising from intersubjective mutual communicative relations represent democratic progress, these principles have not been fully realized in practice in terms of gender equality. One aim of this study is to discuss the sexist character of the bourgeois public sphere that formally excludes the equal participation of women in the public sphere, informally prevents their equal participation in public deliberation processes, and neglects the existence of alternative competing publics and inter-public relations. The also aims to explore ways to reformulate equal participation in the public sphere from a gender-sensitive perspective. This research discusses political theoretical approaches that can be applied to reformulate equal participation in the public sphere. The first of these is inclusive participation without formal exclusion. The second approach involves clearly thematizing and opening up for rational critical discussion the gender inequalities that are bracketed in public deliberative processes. The third approach involves how non-rational communication styles should be included in public deliberative processes in addition to the rational communication style and in a way that contributes to rational communication. The fourth approach involves a form of public life that makes room for multiple publics and for inter-public relations as opposed to a single understanding of the public. Nancy Fraser’s views in particular have been used throughout the study.
Kamusal Alana Eşit Katılımın Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Özelinde Tartışılması
Hediye DumluSiyasal bir kategori olan kamusal alan kavramı, demokratik toplumlarda siyasal düzenlerin örgütlenmesi ve kurumların demokratik meşruiyeti açısından vazgeçilmezdir. İyi işleyen demokratik bir toplumun merkezi kategorilerinden biri olan kamusal alan kavramı, ilk kez modern burjuva kamusal alan modeliyle birlikte tartışılmaya başlanmıştır. Öznelerarası karşılıklı iletişimsel ilişkilerden doğan bu kamu modelinin herkese açıklık, eşit katılım, serbest erişim ve özgür söylem ilkeleri demokratik bir ilerlemeyi temsil etse de bu ilkeler, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği açısından pratikte tam olarak gerçekleşememiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir taraftan, burjuva kamusal alanının, kadınların kamusal alana eşit katılımını formel olarak dışlayan, kamusal müzakere süreçlerine eşit katılımını enformel olarak engelleyen ve alternatif karşıt kamuların varlığını ve kamular arası ilişkileri ihmal eden cinsiyetçi karakterini tartışmaya açmaktır. Diğer taraftan ise kamusal alana eşit katılımı toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğine duyarlı bir bakış açısından yeniden formüle etmenin yollarını araştırmaktır. Bu araştırmada, kamusal alana eşit katılımı yeniden formüle etmek için başvurulabilecek politik teorik yaklaşımlar tartışılmıştır. Bunlardan ilki, formel dışlamanın olmadığı kapsayıcı katılımdır. İkincisi, kamusal müzakere süreçlerinde, paranteze alınan toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliklerinin, açık açık temalaştırılması ve rasyonel eleştirel tartışmaya açılmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, kamusal müzakere süreçlerinde, rasyonel iletişim tarzının yanında, rasyonel iletişime katkı sunacak şekilde rasyonel olmayan iletişim tarzlarının da içerilmesidir. Dördüncüsü, tek bir kamu anlayışına karşı, çoklu kamulara ve kamular arası ilişkilere yer açan bir kamusal yaşam biçimidir. Çalışma boyunca özellikle Nancy Fraser’ın görüşlerinden yararlanılmıştır.
This work focuses on the bourgeois public sphere, which is the field of political opinion and will formation. This study opens the boundaries of the bourgeois public sphere, which are not sensitive to gender equality, to critical discussion without abandoning the concept of the public sphere. The article discusses these boundaries and the political theoretical approaches to counter them under three headings. The first approach looks at inclusive participation versus genderspecific formal exclusion. Gender-specific formal exclusion derives from the social preconditions of equal participation in the bourgeois public sphere being constrained to male property owners. These social preconditions narrow the scope of equal participation. This narrowing of the political sphere prevents the normative principles of the bourgeois public sphere, which are formulated as openness to all, free access, equal participation, and free discourse, from being fully realized in practice. Expanding the narrowed political space is possible with an inclusive participation approach. As a matter of fact, inclusive participation supports the elimination of the formal exclusion that prevents equal participation in the public sphere and also supports the realization of the normative principles of the public sphere to a certain extent in practice.
The second approach involves democratic public deliberation against gender-specific informal exclusions. One of the gender-specific informal exclusions is the bracketing of gender-based inequalities in public deliberation processes. This gender-specific informal exclusion takes place even when the bourgeois public sphere is not formally excluded. Therefore, equal participation in the public sphere cannot be reduced to the mere discussion of eliminating formal exclusion but also requires looking at public deliberation processes. This is because the bourgeois model of the public sphere brackets inequalities in the public deliberation processes, so everyone interacts discursively as if they were equals. In reality, however, these processes have unequal participants and work to marginalize women. Conversely, in order to enable some degree of gender-sensitive equal participation, the brackets around gender inequalities should be removed by thematizing and discussing these inequalities in public deliberation processes. In other words, the public sphere should be located in a social context that is undisturbed by unequal relations.
Another gender-specific informal exclusion involves the lack of room for different communication styles in public deliberations apart from the rational communication style. The rational communication style may not always be sufficient for exploring the meanings of modern femininity. In order to uncover these meanings, room must be made alongside the rational communication style for non-rational communication styles, which involve multiple forms of everyday communication. Non-rational communication styles contribute to public deliberations in various ways. As one of these communication styles, storytelling is effective for reaching collective judgments by critically rebuilding memory and ensuring accountability. Storytelling is decisive in creating new themes of public interest and embodying justice, as well as facilitating the creation of better arguments and mutual understanding in public discussions. Storytelling connects some suffering with injustice, which is the subject of a more general discussion, and is effective in revealing social knowledge by playing a role in the mutual transfer and translation of experiences and values. It also contributes to a mutual learning that expands thinking. Another non-rational style of communication is rhetoric, which includes the emotional aspects of communication, figures of speech, and different use of symbols. Rhetoric and its impressive, formal, and concrete aspects make public communication more effective and increase mutual understanding and the power to persuade an audience. It helps participants appropriately and understandably communicate their claims and arguments to the audience.
In addition to the positive aspects of non-rational communication styles, negative aspects also exist that can disrupt communicative interactions. These negative aspects are associated with strategic action. Strategic action involves people instrumentalizing others to serve their own ends. In strategic action, participants aim to influence those with whom they interact for their own purposes by resorting to methods such as manipulation, deception, pressure, bribery, threats, and coercion. In communicative action and opposite strategic action, participants consider those with whom they are interacting not as a means to their own ends but as the ends in and of themselves, namely as autonomous actors whose capacity to judge must be respected. Of course, this distinction between strategic action and communicative action does not entail giving up the positive aspects of the non-rational modes of communication. Instead, non-rational communication styles should be considered for their positive contribution to public deliberation while also excluding the aspects associated with strategic action.
The third approach involves a reconceptualization of the public sphere as opposed to the neglect of the multiplicity of competing publics and inter-public relations. Alternative historiography reveals that the bourgeois model of the public sphere neglects the multiplicity of competing publics and inter-public relations. Alternative historiography also documents the existence of multiple informal publics and inter-public relations through examples that have shown the bourgeois public to not be the whole of the public and women to have different ways of accessing public life. These days, however, public relations are not limited to informal multi-public relations solely for forming opinions. Public relations also encompass formal public spheres that involve both the formation of public opinion and decision-making processes. Formal publics are accountable to informal publics and translate public opinion into laws, thereby increasing the power of public opinion.
All three theoretical public approaches to the boundaries of the bourgeois public sphere contribute to the reformulation of equal participation in the public sphere from a gendersensitive perspective. Inclusive participation helps to eliminate gender-specific formal exclusion. Democratic public deliberation plays a role in overcoming gender-specific informal exclusions, and the reconceptualization of the public sphere requires considering the multiplicity of competing publics and inter-public relations.
