Participants: Ully, Olga, Meghan


Part 1 6:50-7:30
1) Review the annotated bibliography for Warner “Publics and Counterpublics.” Revise for clarity and effectiveness.

Warner, Michael. “Chapter Two: Public and Counterpublics.” Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2002. 65-124
In chapter two, Warner defines what public means, and at the same time identify what counterpublic means. According to him, everyone intuitively understands what public means and how it works (p.67). p.66: The kind of public that comes into being only in relation to texts and their circulation.

However his purpose in this chapter is to bring some of our intuitive understanding into the open in order to speculate about the history of the form and the role it plays in constructing our social world (p.67). For Warner, a public is (1) self-organized (and it exists by virtue of being addressed), (2) a relation among strangers. Moreover (3) the address of public speech is both personal and impersonal. (4) A public is constituted through mere attention. (5) A public is the social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse. P. 91: Circulation also accounts for the way a public seems both internal and external to discourse, both notional and material. (6) Publics act historically according to the temporality of their circulation. P.95: The temporality of circulation is not continuous or indefinite; it is punctual. P. 97: Publics have an ongoing life: one doesn’t publish to them once for all (as one does, say, to a scholarly archive). It’s the way texts circulate, and become the basis for further representations, that convince us that publics have activity and duration. A text, to have a public, must continue to circulate through time, and becauser this can only be confirmed through an intertextual environment of citation and implication, all publics are intertextual, even intergeneric. (7) A public is poetic world making. Counterpublics, on the other hand, is “a dominated groups aspires to re-create itself as a public and in doing so finds itself in conflict not only with the dominant social group but with the norms that constitute the dominant culture as public” (p.112). P. 119: In the sense of the term I am advocating here, such publics are indeed counterpublics, and in a stronger sense than simply comprising subalterns with a reform program. A counterpublic maintains at some level, conscious or not, an awareness of its subordinate status.

Keywords: public, counterpublics, subaltern

2) How are publics and counterpublics distinguished and defined? What definitions/perceptions are associated and/or forwarded by which theorists, under what circumstances?

Part 2 7:30-7:55
Review the four major characteristics of vernacular rhetoric (Hauser and mc clellan 30), and three defining characteristics for those who identify with resistors (Hauser and mc clellan 36-38). In your groups, look for images, quotes, media framing, and the like, that illustrates the vernacular quality of the “Occupy” campaigns that are spreading around the nation (in terms of agency, strategies, confrontational nature, etc).