The rhetorical constitution of late twentieth century American public spheres

The extent to which American social structures enable deliberative decision making provokes continuing argument. Centered on the idea of a "public sphere," scholars of politics, communication (with colleagues in journalism and media studies), argumentation, sociology and history have launched attacks not only on whether such a sphere exists, but against the possibility of discussion protocols that would not invariably privilege experts, patriarchs, and bureaucrats. The still-dominant influence of German social theorist Jurgen Habermas, because it seems to short-change these concerns, has been an ongoing site of debate, and has also given a decidely European emphasis to the historical controversy.;This thesis aims to advance claims more attuned to the American experience. It focuses on the concrete practices of American advocates who attempted to renegotiate their status and claims to the imperatives of mass mediation and political fragmentation. Three case study chapters follow a review of philosophical and American public sphere contexts. First, lectures given by J. Robert Oppenheimer (post-security clearance removal) are analyzed as exemplifying the "cult of expertise" accused of silencing genuine broad-based participation. Second, 1960s public interest law advocacy is analyzed to engage the Habermasean charge that bureaucratization inevitably calcifies deliberation. Third, the ascendency of modern American conservatism (centered on the Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush presidential campaigns) is analyzed to engage the view that liberalism's publics are sterile, procedurally fixated, and inevitably ethically adrift. The conclusion considers whether the postmodern critique that mass mediation has reduced deliberation to simulacra can be assessed by analysis of similar political arguments, and suggests potential new directions for research.;The overall promise of deliberation revealed by these studies is mixed. The conflicted relationship between science and politics illustrated by Oppenheimer reveals that science's presumptive power to divert discussion out of the popular idiom is at least partially offset, if not fully neutralized, by its alienating status. And the rhetorical and political ascendency of modern American conservatism reveals that while "virtuous publics" can be envisioned and made appealing, their sustenance poses a considerably more difficult, perhaps intractable, problem.