Page 113 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

government and as a basis for good government” (Thomassen, 2010, p. 40). While lengthy, these

points are worth noting in assessing the similarities and differences constituting deliberative

dialogue and the public sphere. Those engaged in discourse in the public sphere unconsciously or

otherwise are likely to practice an idealized version of dialogue, disregarding inequalities, displays

of interests based solely on reason, and a lack of inclusivity (Thomassen, 2010).

With respect to inclusion, Thomassen (2010) noted that although the public sphere rested

on the idea of inclusion, it was merely a formality of the practice. “The public sphere is obviously

biased and based on exclusions: of women, of the poor, of non-whites, of the illiterate and so on”

(Thomassen, 2010, p. 41). While the right of inclusion is a given, the ability of an individual to

fully participate may be limited by factors such as race, status, gender, and education. In time, the

notion of the bourgeois and their characteristics came to represent the norm with regard to the

public sphere. Thomassen (2010) explained, “the bourgeois [white, property owning males] comes

to see himself and to be seen by others as the natural subject of humanity” (p. 42). In reflecting

upon this idea when I read it wondered how it applies to myself.

Thomassen’s (2010) argument conditions rationality in the public sphere on the presence

of inclusivity. He detailed two forms of inclusiveness in deliberative processes; one form allows

participation in deliberative process as a matter of choice. The second form of inclusion pertained

to inclusion as it occurs in dialogue processes, specifically the ability of individuals to fully

participate in dialogue and have adequate understanding of information relative to the discourse.

In essence, Thomassen (2010) described inclusion as a phenomenon that manifests internal and

external to the dialogue process, and as part of the public sphere. Criticism of Habermas’ concept

of the public sphere centered on the extent to which dialogue is rational, and the ability of all

individuals to speak and have equal voice with regard to status and other determinants of social

94