Gambetti 111Notes
- bear the guilt of oversimplification by lumping together a range of anthro- I
pological, cultural and historical studies under the convenient title of
“anthropological studies” or, further on in the text, “anthropology.” The
main rationale for such an aberration is merely to distinguish these from
mainstream political science. I have in mind, particularly, the contributors
to the special issue of Public Culture (14, no. 1 [2002]) on public spheres:
Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar, Arjun Appadurai, Craig Calhoun, Michael
Warner, Nilüfer Göle, Benjamin Lee and Edward LiPuma, but also histori-
ans, such as Joan Landes, Geoff Eley and Mary Ryan.
2.ichael Warner, “Publics and Counterpublics,” M Public Culture 14, no. 1
(2002): 49–90.
3.. Homi Bhabha, “DissemiNation: Time, Narrative, and the Margins of Cf
the Modern Nation,” in Nation and Narration, edited by Homi K. Bhabha
(London: Routledge, 1990), 299.
4.eena Das, “The Signature of the State: The Paradox of Illegibility,” in V
Anthropology in the Margins of the State, edited by Veena Das and Deborah
Poole (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford, UK:
James Currey, 2004), 225–252. - Warner, “Publics and Counterpublics,” 88.
6.ccording to Aristotle, citizens in the Greek polis belonged to two orders of A
existence: what is one’s own (idion) and what is communal (koinon). Arendt
draws on this distinction to found her notion of the public realm. She writes
that this distinction “was not just an opinion or theory of Aristotle, but a
simple historical fact that the foundation of the polis was preceded by the
destruction of all organized units resting on kinship.” Hannah Arendt, The
Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 24.
7.. particularly Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Cf
Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” and Geoff
Eley, “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the
Nineteenth Century,” both in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by
Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), 109–142 and 318–331,
respectively.
8.ürgen Habermas, J The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991).