Editing Public sphere (section)

==Rhetorical==
[[File:StopEssaisManif.jpg|thumb|right|Demonstration against [[France and weapons of mass destruction|French nuclear tests]] in 1995 in Paris "This interaction can take the form of... basic "street rhetoric" that "open[s] a dialogue between competing factions".<ref name="Hauser 1998, p. 90">{{Harvnb|Hauser|1998|p=90}}</ref>]]

[[Gerard A. Hauser|Gerard Hauser]] proposed a different direction for the public sphere than previous models. He foregrounds the [[rhetoric]]al nature of public spheres, suggesting that public spheres form around "the ongoing dialogue on public issues" rather than the identity of the group engaged in the discourse.<ref>{{Citation
 | last = Hauser
 | first = Gerard
 | title = Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres
 | publisher = University of South Carolina
 | year = 1999
 | location = Columbia
 | isbn = 978-1-57003-310-0
 }}, pp. 46, 64</ref>

Rather than arguing for an all-inclusive public sphere, or the analysis of tension between public spheres, he suggested that publics were formed by active members of society around issues.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hauser|1998|p=86,92}}</ref> They are a group of interested individuals who engage in vernacular discourse about a specific issue.<ref name="Hauser 1998, p. 92">{{Harvnb|Hauser|1998|p=92}}</ref> "Publics may be repressed, distorted, or responsible, but any evaluation of their actual state requires that we inspect the rhetorical environment as well as the rhetorical act out of which they evolved, for these are the conditions that constitute their individual character".<ref>{{Harvnb|Hauser|1999|pp=80–81}}</ref> These people formed rhetorical public spheres that were based in discourse, not necessarily orderly discourse but any interactions whereby the interested public engages each other.<ref name="Hauser 1998, p. 92"/> This interaction can take the form of institutional actors as well as the basic "street rhetoric" that "open[s] a dialogue between competing factions."<ref name="Hauser 1998, p. 90"/> The spheres themselves formed around the issues that were being deliberated. The discussion itself would reproduce itself across the spectrum of interested publics "even though we lack personal acquaintance with all but a few of its participants and are seldom in contexts where we and they directly interact, we join these exchanges because they are discussing the same matters".<ref name="Hauser 1999, p. 64">{{Harvnb|Hauser|1999|p=64}}</ref> In order to communicate within the public sphere, "those who enter any given arena must share a reference world for their discourse to produce awareness for shared interests and public opinions about them".<ref>{{Harvnb|Hauser|1999|p=70}}</ref> This world consists of common meanings and cultural norms from which interaction can take place.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hauser|1999|p=69}}</ref>
[[File:Sblondon-elecgraffiti05.jpg|thumb|Political [[Graffiti]] on the South Bank of the Thames in London 2005, "even though we lack personal acquaintance with all but a few of its participants and are seldom in contexts where we and they directly interact, we join these exchanges because they are discussing the same matters".<ref name="Hauser 1999, p. 64"/>]]

The rhetorical public sphere has several primary features:
# it is discourse-based, rather than class-based.
# the critical norms are derived from actual discursive practices. Taking a universal reasonableness out of the picture, arguments are judged by how well they resonate with the population that is discussing the issue.
# intermediate bracketing of discursive exchanges. Rather than a conversation that goes on across a population as a whole, the public sphere is composed of many intermediate dialogs that merge later on in the discussion.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hauser|1999|pp=61–62}}</ref>

The rhetorical public sphere was characterized by five rhetorical norms from which it can be gauged and criticized. How well the public sphere adheres to these norms determine the effectiveness of the public sphere under the rhetorical model. Those norms are:

# ''permeable boundaries'': Although a public sphere may have a specific membership as with any social movement or deliberative assembly, people outside the group can participate in the discussion.
# ''activity'': Publics are active rather than passive. They do not just hear the issue and applaud, but rather they actively engage the issue and the publics surrounding the issue.
# ''contextualized language'': They require that participants adhere to the rhetorical norm of contextualized language to render their respective experiences intelligible to one another.
# ''believable appearance'': The public sphere must appear to be believable to each other and the outside public.
# ''tolerance'': In order to maintain a vibrant discourse, others opinions need to be allowed to enter the arena.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hauser|1999|pp=79–80}}</ref>
In all this Hauser believes a public sphere is a "discursive space in which strangers discuss issues they perceive to be of consequence for them and their group. Its rhetorical exchanges are the bases for shared awareness of common issues, shared interests, tendencies of extent and strength of difference and agreement, and self-constitution as a public whose opinions bear on the organization of society."<ref name="Hauser 1999, p. 64"/>

This concept that the public sphere acts as a medium in which public opinion is formed as analogous to a lava lamp. Just as the lamp's structure changes, with its lava separating and forming new shapes, so does the public sphere's creation of opportunities for discourse to address public opinion, thereby forming new discussions of rhetoric. The lava of the public which holds together the public arguments is the public conversation.