Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy

Nancy Fraser’s 1990 “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy” represents a critical juncture in the development of critical and feminist theory. This essay not only provides a deep critique of Habermas’s conception of the public sphere but, more importantly, introduces the influential concept of “subaltern counterpublics,” offering new theoretical tools for understanding inclusion and exclusion, participation and marginalization in contemporary democratic politics.

The Starting Point: Habermas’s Public Sphere

Fraser begins with Habermas’s 1962 classic “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.” Habermas describes the emergence of the bourgeois public sphere in 17th and 18th century Europe, idealizing it as a space of rational-critical discourse where private persons come together as a public, forming public opinion through rational debate to monitor and critique state power.

However, Fraser points out that Habermas’s description suffers from serious idealization. He mistakes the specific historical form of the bourgeois public sphere for a universal model, ignoring its inherent exclusivity and hierarchical nature. More importantly, Habermas fails to adequately recognize how gender, race, and class systematically shape the boundaries and operations of the public sphere.

Four Problematic Assumptions

Fraser systematically critiques four core assumptions underlying the bourgeois conception of the public sphere:

1. Social Inequalities Can Be Bracketed

The first assumption is that differences in social and economic status can be “bracketed” in the public sphere, allowing participants to deliberate “as if” they were equals. Fraser cites feminist research demonstrating that such bracketing is actually impossible.

The very protocols of deliberation embody specific cultural norms. For instance, particular styles of rational argumentation, prohibitions on emotional expression, and specific modes of language use reflect the cultural characteristics of dominant groups (typically white middle-class men). Forms of expression that don’t conform to these norms—women’s narrative styles, working-class directness, minority cultural rhetorics—are often dismissed as “irrational” or “irrelevant.”

Fraser emphasizes that deliberation can serve as a mask for domination. Superficially inclusive procedures may conceal deep mechanisms of exclusion. Only by confronting and challenging these inequalities, rather than pretending they don’t exist, can genuine democratic participation be achieved.

2. A Single Public Sphere Is Preferable to Multiple Publics

The second assumption is that a single, comprehensive public sphere is more conducive to democracy than multiple publics. Habermas worries that fragmentation of the public sphere would lead to communicative breakdown and the impossibility of consensus.

Fraser counters that in stratified societies, multiple publics actually better promote participatory parity. A single public sphere tends to be controlled by dominant groups, with its agenda, norms, and discursive styles reflecting the interests and perspectives of those groups. Marginalized groups need their own discursive spaces to develop counter-hegemonic interpretive frameworks and articulate their own needs and identities.

Historical experience supports this view. Feminist movements, labor movements, and civil rights movements all developed critical discourses first within their own counterpublics before effectively challenging mainstream public spheres. Without these independent spaces, the voices of marginalized groups are easily swallowed or distorted by mainstream discourse.

3. Public Spheres Should Focus Only on Common Concerns

The third assumption is that public sphere deliberation should be limited to matters of “common concern,” with private interests and issues excluded.

Fraser points out that the boundary between “public” and “private” is itself a product of power struggles. Defining certain issues as “private” often serves to exclude them from public discussion and political action. For example, domestic violence was long considered a “private matter,” a definition that protected patriarchal power relations from public scrutiny.

Feminism’s slogan “the personal is political” challenges precisely this public-private division. By bringing supposedly “private” issues—housework, sexual violence, reproductive rights—into public discussion, feminist movements revealed the political nature and systematic character of these issues. Fraser argues that democratic public spheres must be open to discussion of all issues, letting participants themselves decide what is of common concern.

4. The Separation of Public Sphere and State

The fourth assumption is that a healthy public sphere requires clear separation from the state, with the public sphere generating opinion but not directly exercising power.

Fraser considers this strict separation neither realistic nor desirable. First, the distinction between “weak publics” (opinion-forming only) and “strong publics” (both deliberating and decision-making, like parliaments) is too rigid. Second, in the welfare state era, boundaries between state and civil society have blurred, with many hybrid institutional arrangements containing both state and civil society elements.

More importantly, merely forming critical opinion is insufficient. If public sphere deliberation cannot translate into binding decisions and action, it remains at the level of “influence” and cannot truly change power relations.

The Concept of Subaltern Counterpublics

Fraser’s most important theoretical contribution is the concept of “subaltern counterpublics.” This term combines Gramsci’s “subaltern” with Felski’s “counterpublic” to designate parallel discursive spaces created by subordinated social groups.

Characteristics of Counterpublics

Counterpublics serve dual functions. On one hand, they are “spaces of withdrawal and regroupment” where marginalized groups can discuss their concerns in their own terms, away from dominant group surveillance, developing collective identities and solidarity. On the other hand, they are “training grounds” for agitational activities directed toward wider publics.

Examples of such spaces include:

• Feminist consciousness-raising groups
• Black churches and community organizations
• Working-class pubs and clubs
• LGBTQ community centers
• Immigrant cultural associations

In these spaces, marginalized groups develop their own terminology, narratives, and interpretive frameworks. For instance, concepts like “sexual harassment,” “date rape,” and “double burden” were developed within feminist counterpublics before entering mainstream discourse.

Creating Counterdiscourses

The key function of counterpublics is creating “counterdiscourses”—alternative discursive forms that challenge dominant narratives and interpretations. These discourses don’t merely express different viewpoints but redefine problems, reframe issues, and introduce new evaluative criteria.

For example, when mainstream discourse frames poverty as personal failure, working-class counterpublics develop structural critiques understanding poverty as the result of capitalist exploitation. When mainstream medicine pathologizes women’s psychological distress, feminist counterpublics develop analyses linking such distress to patriarchal oppression.

Circulation and Dissemination

Fraser emphasizes that counterpublics are not isolated enclaves. Their discourses circulate among different publics, sometimes entering mainstream public spheres to challenge and transform dominant discourses. This circulation process is a crucial mechanism of social change.

Successful examples include feminism’s redefinition of gender violence, environmental movements’ critique of development models, and indigenous movements’ claims to land rights. These discourses, originally developed in counterpublics, gradually entered and transformed mainstream public discourse.

Public Spheres in Unequal Societies

Fraser’s analysis confronts a key question: How can democratic public spheres be achieved in structurally unequal societies? Her answer doesn’t involve utopian assumptions about existing equality but takes inequality seriously and considers strategies for addressing it.

Deliberation that Acknowledges Difference

Fraser advocates a mode of deliberation that acknowledges difference. This doesn’t mean abandoning rational discussion but expanding our understanding of reason and argumentation to accommodate diverse forms of expression and argumentative styles. This requires:

• Recognizing diverse communicative modes (narrative, testimony, emotional expression)
• Valuing experiential knowledge and practical wisdom
• Maintaining critical reflection on dominant discursive norms
• Creating institutional arrangements that allow different voices to be heard

The Necessity of Structural Reform

Fraser clearly recognizes that changing deliberative procedures alone is insufficient. Genuine participatory parity requires changes in material conditions—redistribution of economic resources, equal educational opportunities, democratization of political power. Democratization of the public sphere and socioeconomic democratization are inseparable.

Theoretical Impact and Subsequent Development

Fraser’s essay has had profound theoretical and practical impacts:

The Turn in Deliberative Democratic Theory

The essay pushed deliberative democratic theory from focusing on ideal procedures toward addressing real inequalities. Subsequent theoretical development has focused more on:

• Power relations in deliberation
• Inclusive institutional design
• Interactions among multiple publics
• Mechanisms for transforming deliberation into decision

Social Movement Studies

The concept of “counterpublics” has become an important tool for analyzing social movements. Researchers use it to understand:

• Processes of collective identity formation
• Development of protest discourses
• Construction of movement networks
• Forms of cultural resistance

Media and Communication Studies

In the digital age, the concept of counterpublics gains new relevance:

• Online communities as counterpublics
• Discursive struggles on social media
• The role of alternative media
• Digital divides and participatory inequalities

Contemporary Significance and Challenges

In the current political context, Fraser’s analysis remains powerfully insightful:

Polarization and Fragmentation

Contemporary public sphere polarization seems to validate Fraser’s points about multiple publics. Different groups indeed need their own discursive spaces. But simultaneously, how to maintain some degree of common dialogue while acknowledging difference remains challenging.

Platform Capitalism

Large tech platforms control many public discursive spaces, creating new forms of exclusion. Algorithms, censorship policies, and business models all affect who can speak, what can be said, and who can be heard. How can counterpublics maintain autonomy under platform capitalism?

Transnational Public Spheres

Globalization requires us to think about public spheres beyond national boundaries. Fraser’s later work explores the possibilities and challenges of “transnational public spheres,” including issues of language barriers, cultural differences, and power asymmetries.

Conclusion: Toward Critical Democratic Practice

The enduring value of “Rethinking the Public Sphere” lies in its refusal of simple idealization, insisting on viewing democratic practice from a critical perspective. Fraser reminds us that public spheres are never neutral deliberative spaces but arenas filled with power struggles.

This doesn’t mean abandoning democratic ideals but recognizing more clearly the complexity of realizing them. Acknowledging inequality, respecting difference, supporting counterpublics, promoting structural reform—these aren’t obstacles to democracy but necessary conditions for advancing democracy in unequal societies.

As Fraser states, “The key to participatory parity is not that everyone participates in the same public sphere, but that everyone can participate in various public spheres, including those counterpublics that can effectively challenge dominant discourses and power structures.” This insight continues to guide our thinking and practice toward more inclusive, more democratic public life.