Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Recent scholarship, even if sympathetic to constructivism, suggests that the oft-employed Habermasian understanding of political rhetoric and framing is seriously flawed and does not reflect real-world communicative processes. Elites representing powerful interests can selfishly and successfully manipulate frames and political rhetoric so as to achieve their desired ends. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to isolate and ascertain the appeal of a particular rhetorical act or interpretive frame. Both concerns make problematic any kind of critical commitment to the construction of legitimate international order. To overcome these problems, this paper embraces the ideals of public sphere theory, but I join a number of critical scholars who study multiple and overlapping public spheres outside the dominant public sphere(s). Attention is directed at so-called "counterpublics" who invent and circulate discourses in opposition to those featured in the mainstream. Counterpublic spheres potentially make the predominant public sphere more inclusive and open to dissent. Some empirical attention is directed at the apparent success of the anti-war counterpublic, as reflected in their distinct minority status immediately after the 9/11 attacks in regard to war in Afghanistan in fall 2001 through opposition to the Iraq war in 2006.