I’ve recently read a work by the theorist Habermas and though he writes much later than the authors we are reading today, since some of his ideas are so directly related to parts of the reading today, I thought it would be worthwhile to bring them up. In Europe, The Faltering Project, Habermas discusses media and the way that, historically, it has mostly been asymmetrical and patriarchal. In this context, the transfer of information is given to the public from the few who possess the power of information. Wanting to democratize this flow of information sharing, Habermas argues for a deliberative model, concerned with “reasonableness of discourse and communications,” in which citizens discuss “divisive problems” in an inclusive, transparent, and equally participatory exchange of ideas with the “shared purpose of finding legitimate solutions” (144). Rather than a linear transfer of information and opinions, he argues that information should be shared, deliberated, and discussed in an inclusive way, with multiple perspectives and voices entering the discussion until a rational decision or consensus can be reached.

In “A Discussion Circle,” there seems to be this very same idea of a society which receives information and opinions not through a more traditional linear means of communicating information or by reading, but by collectively  exploring ideas through a rational discussion “until some conclusions had been reached” (373). The fact that this type of project and these assemblies are taking place, though it seems somewhat benign, is actually quite revolutionary and, whether intentionally or organically, challenges subtle patriarchal systems that are often taken for granted. The idea of having an open conversation, as opposed to just passing on information and opinions through writing, as some of the earlier articles in this issue cannot help but do, carries on in the next section “Correspondence”. The letters to the editor, though still not as “free and extensive” as a face-to-face discussion, allow readers to become writers, and to interact with the articles, and with current events, in an interesting way. The fact that the editor (in a few cases) is further engaging with those conversations seems to be helping to support this same purpose. Opinions of the reader-writers, even ones that different from those of the editor, are presented rationally, and when the editor chooses to continue the conversation by responding to them, she gives them fair consideration even if she does not accept them entirely.

Meaning, opinions, and information thus become a concern and an integral part of the community, rather than merely a concern or source of consumption for the individual.  Within the correspondence, the issues raised further support this larger idea. In the first letter to the editor, the writer states that “we must have money for these men’s defence” and that “any influence we can bring to bear…will be useful” (373). This one judicial case, suddenly becomes an issue that “we” or the community need to be concerned or involved in. There is no hesitation or qualm about this. In the next letter, the author states that “well-reared and well-educated young people are a national asset” thus arguing that the concerns of the domestic are actually concerns of the nation, an prespective that sums many early feminist arguments (373).

Altogether, this issue of The Freewoman shows that there seems to be a larger trend towards unity, but one that is inclusive of multiple and various viewpoints. Discussion, and rational deliberation are encouraged, not just in theory, but in practice through the structure of this journal and its dialogic exchange of opinions, as well as the priority of putting together assemblies to “thresh out…topics” (373). Thought the presence of the war, and its reverting linear propaganda may perhaps have caused this type of community discourse to cease, I think that it is extremely interesting that it gets picked up many years later with Habermas. 

Works Cited:
Habermas, Jurgen. Europe, the Faltering Project. Trans. Ciaran Cronin. Malden, MA: Polity, 2010.