The Public and its Problems From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Public and Its Problems is a book by John Dewey, an American philosopher, written in 1927. In this work, Dewey touches upon major political philosophy questions that have continued into the twenty-first century, specifically: can democracy work in the modern era? Is there such a thing as a "public" of democratic citizens, or is the public a phantom, as journalist Walter Lippmann argued in his 1927 book The Phantom Public (to which The Public and its Problems was a response). Dewey's Argument Dewey begins his argument by distinguishing between the "state," represented by elected lawmakers, and the "public," the diffuse, often incoherent body of citizens who elect the state. The public is called into being when ordinary citizens experience the negative externalities (or consequences) of exchanges beyond their control (such as market or governmental activities). A public then is made up of citizens whose common interest is focused on alleviating these negative externalities through legislation; in fact, Dewey argues that a public does not actually exist until a negative externality calls it into being. Dewey asserts that this occurs when people perceive how consequences of indirect actions affect them collectively: “Indirect, extensive, enduring and serious consequences of conjoint and interacting behavior call a public into existence having a common interest in controlling these consequences” (Dewey, 126). Hence, a public only develops when it has a reason and comes together around an issue of substantial or serious significance. In the second half of The Public and its Problems, Dewey concedes to the arguments of adversaries of modern democracy (such as Walter Lippman) by describing all the powerful forces at work that eclipse the public & keep it from articulating its needs. For example, Dewey explains how special interests, powerful corporate capital, numbing and distracting entertainment, general selfishness, and the vagaries of public communication make effective public deliberation difficult. Whereas Walter Lippman believed that the public had little capacity to be a rational participant in democracy and was essentially nonexistent, Dewey held a more optimistic view of the public and its potential. Dewey did not call for an abandonment of the public; rather, he hoped the public would regain a sense of self. The solution to this, he writes, is improved communication. Only then, with communication, will the public find itself and become a cohesive group. In addition to Dewey's proposition that the public cannot find itself because there are too many publics, he also blames the distractions of modern society. He points out that even in the past, the public has had other concerns than politics: "Political concerns have, of course, always had strong rivals" (Dewey, p. 137). In discussing the distractions of the past, Dewey explains that those distractions are farmore prevalent and bountiful in today's society. He cites technology as the main perpetrator. He uses examples of "the movie, cheap reading matter and [the] motor car as drawing peoples' attention away from politics. These technologies, Dewey explains, are far more desirable topics of discussion for the everyday person than the latest political news. Unfortunately, Dewey does not give a solution to the problem of technology taking away from interest in political affairs. However, Dewey does have hopes that society can someday use its technology to improve communication and thus improve public interest in politics. Furthermore, he asserts that local community is where democracy must happen so that people can become active and express issues of public concern. In this way, the local community can become the “Great Community.” He writes, “Without such communication the public will remain shadowy and formless…Till the Great Society is converted into a Great Community, the Public will remain in eclipse. Communication can alone create a great community” (Dewey, 142). The Public and Its Problems does much to stimulate thought on this vital issue that still plagues contemporary society. References Asen, Robert. "The Multiple Mr. Dewey: Multiple Publics and Permeable Borders in John Dewey's Theory of the Public Sphere." Argumentation and Advocacy 39 (2003). Bybee, Carl. "Can Democracy Survive in the Post-Factual Age?" Journalism and Communication Monographs 1:1 (Spring 1999): 29-62 Dewey, John. (1927). The Public and its Problems. New York: Holt. The Phantom Public From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Phantom Public is a book written in 1927 by journalist Walter Lippmann, in which he expresses his lack of faith in the democratic system, arguing that the public exists merely as an illusion, myth, and inevitably a phantom. As Carl Bybee wrote, “For Lippmann the public was a theoretical fiction and government was primarily an administrative problem to be solved as efficiently as possible, so that people could get on with their own individualistic pursuits” (48). Context The Phantom Public was written following Lippmann's experiences observing the manipulation of public opinion during World War I. It followed his better-known work Public Opinion (1921) and moves further toward disillusionment with democratic politics. The book provoked a response from philosopherJohn Dewey, who argued in The Public and its Problems (1927) that the public was not a phantom, but merely "in eclipse," and that a robust democratic politics is possible. Today, this "debate" between Lippmann and Dewey continues to be important for the critique of contemporary journalism, and press critics such as New York University's Jay Rosen invoke it to support moves toward civic journalism. Lippmann's Argument in The Phantom Public Lippmann argues that public affairs are really in no way our own affairs, and are instead managed at distant centers, from behind the scenes, by unnamed powers (3). He sees two main problems with the system as it is: (1) Democratic theory places completely unrealistic expectations on its citizens to be knowledgeable enough to truly make educated decisions on public affairs. He goes on to explain that he believes citizens have been asked to practice an unattainable ideal, and that from his perspective, he has not met anybody (including the President of the United States or a political science professor) who comes anywhere near to embodying the