institutionalized arena of discursive interaction. This arena is conceptually distinct from the state [and] from the official-economy. In her recent work, she has extended this analysis by drawing a distinction between public and Her ‘mainstream spheres’ ‘subaltern counter-publics’. suggestion is that, since what she calls of ‘a society’s authorized “means interpretation and to the advantage of privileged communication”’ operate groups, they can articulate their views and interests effectively in ‘mainstream public contrast, since those same dominant means of spheres’. By interpretation and communication work to the disadvantage of marginalized and excluded groups, they have had to create their own ‘subaltern in order newly to name the injustices from which they suffer. Fraser regards second-wave and promulgation of concepts feminists’ development such as and as exemplary in this regard. “date rape” “sexual harassment” It is now possible to understand what role Fraser thinks that spheres can play in escaping vicious circles of undemocratic injustice. Here it is necessary to refer to the transnational aspect of her account of democratic justice. Fraser begins by noting a growing gap between ‘civil society processes of contestation and state-centred processes of legislation and According to the there should be a administration’. ‘Westphalian vision’, close correspondence between these two processes, so that a national public articulates its collective opinions in a well-functioning public sphere, and those opinions then exert an appropriate and effective influence over the actions of the state. However, in our increasingly post-Westphalian world, a gap
institutionalized arena of discursive interaction. This arena is conceptually distinct from the state [and] from the official-economy. In her recent work, she has extended this analysis by drawing a distinction between ‘mainstream public spheres’ and ‘subaltern counter-publics’. Her suggestion is that, since what she calls ‘a society’s authorized “means of interpretation and communication”’ operate to the advantage of privileged groups, they can articulate their views and interests effectively in ‘mainstream public spheres’. By contrast, since those same dominant means of interpretation and communication work to the disadvantage of marginalized and excluded groups, they have had to create their own ‘subaltern in order newly to name the injustices from which they suffer. Fraser regards second-wave feminists’ development and promulgation of concepts such as “date rape” and “sexual harassment” as exemplary in this regard. It is now possible to understand what role Fraser thinks that spheres can play in escaping vicious circles of undemocratic injustice. Here it is necessary to refer to the transnational aspect of her account of democratic justice. Fraser begins by noting a growing gap between ‘civil society processes of contestation and state-centred processes of legislation and administration’. According to the ‘Westphalian vision’, there should be a close correspondence between these two processes, so that a national public articulates its collective opinions in a well-functioning public sphere, and those opinions then exert an appropriate and effective influence over the actions of the state. However, in our increasingly post-Westphalian world, a gap