Not only have the Greeks given us our word for democracy, which means literally that ' kratos' is in the hands of the ' demos'; we have also inherited from them a barely less noteworthy set of spatial distinctions. The most important of these are between ' oikos', ' agora' and ' ekklesia'. Each defines a space with its own logic.1 The oikos is the sphere of the private household, where one is shielded against the effects of political power. The agora is the market place, in which commercial transactions take place and private and public affairs can be discussed. The ekklesia, finally, refers to the formally organized political sphere, wherein citizens convene to make collectively binding decisions. Some compelling arguments can be made by thinking of these spatial distinctions first and foremost as metaphors that should not be understood literally as physical spaces. As such, they can refer to three distinct epistemic attitudes. First there is the stance that comes with solipsistic thought, and which is characterized by unrestricted yet dangerously claustrophobic freedom. Then there is the looser attitude that one enjoys in conversation with friends and peers, where uncharted ideas can be explored and one can change one's mind without losing face. Finally, with the rigid and formalized attitude of public speech, one's ideas and words are of necessity somewhat restrained, so that they can be justified to all. © 2009 Springer Netherlands.
CITATION STYLE
Geenens, R., & Tinnevelt, R. (2009). Truth and public space: Setting out some signposts. In Does Truth Matter?: Democracy and Public Space (pp. 1–12). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8849-0_1
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.