Page 46 - Democracy and the Public Sphere

Discursive Testing: The Public Sphere and its Critics 41

is a strong connection between one’s socio-economic status and one’s
ability to participate in the democratic process, but the correlation
is not simple or linear. At one extreme there are those who cannot
access even the most elementary resources for participation such as
basic information and access to the media or to education: such stark
levels of disenfranchisement exist in most Western democracies and
the problem is an extremely urgent one. There are also gender-related
issues (including access to childcare and disposable time, for example)
which are highly relevant to participatory parity. And, of course, at
the top end, corporate power, hereditary wealth and prestige are
all clearly factors affecting access to the upper levels of political
power. But it does not in any way follow that one citizen always has
more power to participate in the public sphere than another simply
because of his elevated socio-economic status. To talk of creating
minimum thresholds for improving participatory parity based on
the provision of universal education, public information services and
the like (however this may be complicated by the value judgments
involved in applying such a principle in concrete situations – what
kind of education or information is required?) is a more convincing
political or strategic ‘first base’ than the requirement of even
‘rough’ socio-economic equality. The point here is not to disregard
the importance of distributive justice. Rather, I want to claim that
the relationship between participatory parity and socio-economic

equality is oversimplified in Fraser’s critique.
This is not just a theoretical argument. If, as a political project, the
‘politics of the public sphere’ marks out social equality as prerequisite
to a legitimate democracy then the scope for progress is questionable.
Fraser glosses over the fact that the relationship between social
equality and participatory parity must be conceived as two-way. In
this interpretation, participatory status is affected by socio-economic
status but, also, socio-economic status is affected by participatory

status. Socially disadvantaged groups can find themselves trapped at
least partially by their low levels of access to the public sphere. If their
voices are not heard then their interests cannot be advanced and the
pursuit of greater social equality will be hindered. This is the vicious
circle of liberal democracy. There are various possible responses to
this vicious circle. One is to rely on the privileged few to speak up
on behalf of those lost voices and pursue equality on their behalf.
In a world of increasing material comfort for those on the right side
of the divide, for whom the underprivileged are largely sequestered

from first-hand experience (and subject to narrow stereotyping by

23/8/05 09:36:23
Goode 01 chaps 41
Goode 01 chaps 41 23/8/05 09:36:23