نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشآموخته دکتری حقوق عمومی دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بینالملل دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
چکیده
ضعف دولتهای مدرن مبتنی بر سیستم نمایندگی در وضع قوانینی که نمودی از هنجارهای اجتماعی باشد، اندیشمندان سیاسی را بر آن داشت تا به تجدیدنظر در حوزه روابط فرد، جامعه و دولت بپردازند. حوزه عمومی بهعنوان راهحلی که در تلاش است با تامین رویههای گفتمان اخلاقی در بستری دموکراتیک، این هنجارها را شناسایی و پارلمان را در پرتو قدرت موسس، مکلف به تبعیت از هنجارهای برآمده از آبگیر حوزه عمومی نماید، بهمثابه اصلیترین نگرش سیاسی دوران مدرن مورد توجه این فلاسفه قرار گرفت. از سوی دیگر بیطرفی بهعنوان یکی از رویکردهای نوین به بازاندیشی در حوزه صلاحیت دولتها پرداخت. پرسش اصلی این است که آیا رویکرد بیطرفی از توانش لازم برای تامین بسترهای تحقق حوزه عمومی برخوردار است؟ فرضیه این است رویکرد مذکور علیرغم برخی نگرشهای ناسازگار، دارای هماهنگیهای مبنایی و آثاری با نظریه حوزه عمومی است که بستر مناسبی را برای ظهور این حوزه فراهم میسازد.
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
A Legal Approach to the Feasibility of Realizing the Public Sphere in the Context of Neutrality
نویسندگان [English]
- Hasan Mohammadi 1
- Ali Mashhadi 2
1 Ph.D, Public Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Public International Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
The emergence and expansion of the concept of the public sphere since the Enlightenment has played a pivotal role in the formation of modern societies. Conceived as a space for rational dialogue and the formation of public opinion, the public sphere has been examined through various theories, such as the theory of neutrality. The theory of neutrality, which emphasizes the state’s non-interference in matters of belief and values, provides a foundation for the flourishing of the public sphere. The present study aimed to examine the feasibility of realizing the public sphere in light of the theory of neutrality, addressing both the challenges and opportunities it presents. The research question is as follows: Is the realization of the public sphere feasible within the framework of the theory of neutrality? By elucidating the theoretical foundations of each concept and exploring their intersection, the study sought to provide a comprehensive account of how the public sphere and neutrality can coexist and reinforce each other. Finally, the analysis of concrete and practical examples helped propose solutions to strengthen this connection and enhance civic participation in contemporary societies.
Literature Review
The article “The Relationship Between Government and the Desired Life: An Assessment of Neutral and Perfectionist Approaches” (Rasekh & Rafiei, 2013) examined the foundations of neutrality and perfectionism, as well as their respective relationships with government and its connection to the people. In the Persian-language book titled Perfectionism and Neutrality and Their Effects on Power Structure and Public Law, Shirzad and Rahmatollahi (2019) discussed the general concepts of perfectionism and neutrality. In addition, in the article “A Reflection on the Concept and Foundations of a Perfectionist State,” Shirzad (2020) analyzed the foundations of perfectionism. However, no specific research has been identified that addresses the subject of the present research—namely, the feasibility of realizing the public sphere within the theory of neutrality.
Materials and Methods
The current study used analytical–descriptive and library research methods to examine and explain the feasibility of realizing the public sphere within the theory of neutrality.
Results and Discussion
The theoretical and analytical review of the present article led to the following key findings regarding the feasibility of realizing the public sphere within the framework of the theory of neutrality. The theoretical and analytical review conducted in this article yielded several key findings regarding the feasibility of realizing the public sphere within the theory of neutrality. A substantive link was identified between the concept of the public sphere, understood as a free space for rational discourse, and the theory of neutrality, which emphasizes the state’s non-interference in ideological and value-related matters. By guaranteeing fundamental freedoms, neutrality provides the necessary foundation for the independent functioning of the public sphere. The study also found that mere and passive state neutrality, while guaranteeing freedom of expression, can in practice overlook structural inequalities and unequal access for marginalized groups to the public discourse. This limitation hinders the realization of an inclusive and just public sphere. For this reason, the analysis highlighted the necessity of active neutrality. Effective realization of the public sphere requires more than simple non-interference; it calls for policies aimed at removing barriers to participation, ensuring equal access to information, and supporting independent civil institutions. Moreover, neutrality, by supporting pluralism and respecting diverse beliefs, provides a unique opportunity for enriching public discourse. Pluralism prevents the monopolization of discourse by a specific group or ideology and ensures the dynamism of the public sphere.
Based on the above findings, it can be argued that the realization of the public sphere within the theory of neutrality is not only an ideal but also a necessity for democratic societies. However, its realization requires a precise and subtle understanding of the concept of neutrality. It should not be interpreted as the state’s indifference to the fate of public discourse or its lack of responsibility for the fair participation of citizens. Instead, active neutrality tends to create and maintain the necessary infrastructure for free and equal discourse, thereby playing a central role in enhancing the public sphere. The main challenge lies in defining and implementing neutrality in a way that both guarantees individual and group freedoms and addresses existing inequalities in access to public discourse. This requires the state, while maintaining its neutrality regarding the content of beliefs, to take active steps toward removing structural barriers that hinder the participation of certain groups. Supporting media literacy education, encouraging independent and diverse media, and creating fair digital platforms for dialogue are examples of active neutral measures that can reinforce and expand the public sphere. It should also be emphasized that the dynamism of the public sphere is not determined solely by state actions. The role of civil society, scholars, and citizens in creating free spaces for dialogue and safeguarding the independence of the public sphere from political and economic pressures is equally crucial. Within a society grounded in the theory of neutrality, independent institutions can contribute to shaping public opinion without fear of state interference. Finally, the public sphere and the theory of neutrality can complement one another and together strengthen democracy. The realization of this coexistence depends on a proper understanding and thoughtful application of neutrality, one that ensures both freedom and justice in access to the public sphere.
Conclusion
The current study examined the feasibility of realizing the public sphere within the theory of neutrality. The research findings revealed a strong connection between these two concepts, as state neutrality in matters of belief and values provides a secure and open space for citizen dialogue and the exchange of ideas—conditions essential for the formation of a dynamic public sphere. However, an exclusive focus on passive neutrality can pose challenges, particularly by overlooking structural inequalities that may hinder the equal participation of all groups in public discourse. Therefore, it is concluded that the realization of an effective and inclusive public sphere requires a kind of active neutrality. This approach, which goes beyond mere non-interference, involves actions by the state and civil institutions to remove barriers to participation, ensure equitable access to information, and support independent media and organizations. The pluralism fostered by neutrality enriches public discourse and prevents the homogenization of ideas. Ultimately, the successful coexistence of the public sphere and the theory of neutrality can strengthen democracy and promote civic participation, provided that neutrality is accurately understood and actively applied to guarantee both justice and freedom in the public sphere.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Public Sphere
- Theory of Neutrality
- Democracy
- Civic Participation
- بشیریه، حسین، تاریخ اندیشههای سیاسی در قرن بیستم: لیبرالیسم و محافظهکاری، جلد دوم (تهران: نشر نی، 1380).
- بشیریه، حسین، عقل در سیاست: سی و پنج گفتار در فلسفه، جامعهشناسی و توسعه سیاسی (تهران: انتشارات نگاه معاصر، 1382).
- توماسن، لاسه، معمای هابرماس، ترجمه محمدرضا غلامی (تهران: انتشارات دنیای اقتصاد، 1395).
- جوان آراسته، حسین، حقوق اجتماعی و سیاسی در اسلام، چاپ پنجم (قم: دفتر نشر معارف، 1388).
- راسخ، محمد، حق و مصلحت؛ مقالاتی در فلسفۀ حقوق، فلسفه حق و فلسفه ارزش (تهران: انتشارات طرح نو، 1392).
- رالز، جان، اولویت حق و تصورات خیر، ترجمه علی حقی (تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر، 1399).
- هابرماس، یورگن، دگرگونی ساختاری حوزه عمومی: کاوشی در باب جامعه بورژوایی، ترجمه جمال محمدی (تهران: نشر افکار، 1399).
مقالهها
- احمدی، بابک، «گستره همگانی در نگرش انتقادی هابرماس»، فصلنامه فرهنگی و اجتماعی گفتگو، شماره 1، (1372).
- بوستانی، مهدی و کمال پولادی، «بررسی عناصر تشکیل دهنده حوزه عمومی در اندیشه هابرماس»، فصلنامه تخصصی علوم سیاسی، سال 13، شماره 38، (1396).
- هندال، پتر، «یورگن هابرماس: سیطره عمومی»، ترجمه هاله لاجوردی، نشریه ارغنون، شماره 20، (1381).
- محمودیان، رفیع، «گوناگونی حوزههای عدالت: نگاهی به فلسفه سیاسی مایکل والزر»، اطلاعات سیاسی و اقتصادی، شمارههای 131 و 132، (1377).
پایاننامه
- میدانی، اکبر، حق بر خطا بودن در اسناد حقوق بشر و رابطه آن با امر به معروف و نهی از منکر، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد حقوق عمومی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، (1385).
References
Books
- Ackerman, Bruce A, Social Justice in the Liberal State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980).
- Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition, Second Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2018).
- Cragg, Wesley, Two Concepts of Community: in The Cambridge Handbook of Philosophy of Management, ed. Christopher Hart and Peter Hart (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
- Dworkin, Ronald, A Matter of Principle (Harvard University Press, 1985).
- Feinberg, Joel, Harm to Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press USA, 1987).
- Gaus, Gerald F, The Place of Autonomy Within Liberalism: in Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
- Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. W. Rehg (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).
- Jones, Peter, The Ideal of the Neutral State: in Liberal Neutrality, Edited by Robert E. Goodin and Andrew Reeve (New York: Routledge, 1989).
- Larmore, Charles E, Patterns of Moral Complexity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
- Madanipour, A, Culture and Tolerance in Public Space: in Stefano Moroni and David Weberman, eds, Space and Pluralism: Can Contemporary Cities be Places of Tolerance? (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2016).
- Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).
- Rawls, John, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
- Raz, Joseph, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, 1986).
- Sideman, Steven, Jurgen Habermas on Society and Politics (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989).
- Wirth, Louis, On Cities and Social Life: Selected Papers (Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1981).
Articles
- Balint, Peter, “Toleration, Neutrality, and Freedom: A Reply”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 23, No. 2, (2020).
- Guy-Uriel, Charles & Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, “Habermas, the Public Sphere, and the Creation of a Racial Counterpublic”, Michigan Journal of Race & Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, (2015).
- Jones, Peter, “Toleration, Neutrality, and Exemption”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 23, No. 2, (2020).
- Kymlicka, Will, “Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality”, Ethics, Vol. 99, No. 4, (1989).
- Sinopoli, Richard C, “Liberalism and Contested Conceptions of the Good: The Limits of Neutrality”، The Journal of Politics, Vol. 55, No. 3, (1993).
- Schaller, Walter E, “Liberal Neutrality and Liberty of Conscience”, Law and Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 2, (2005).
- Herstein, Ori J, “Defending the Right To Do Wrong”, Law and Philosophy, Vol. 31, No. 2, (2012).
- Rawls, John, “The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 4, (1988).
Document
- UNESCO, (1996), Resolutions, Records of the General Conference, Twenty-eights session, Volume 1, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
)