이 논문은 하버마스의 토의민주적 공영역론에 대한 비판적 논의를 시도한다. 하버마스는 현대 민주주의의 규범적 모델로서 토의민주주의 이론을 제시하면서 공영역의 정치적 기능에 대해 다시 한 번 주목하였다. 하버마스는기존 입장에서 공영역의 정치적 기능이 변질되었다고 주장하였으나 오늘에 와서는 정치적 공영역의 역할을 적극적으로 조명하고 있다. 하지만 토의민주적 관점에서 재조명된 정치적 공영역에 대한 이론적 해명은 문화적 다양성이라는 조건 하에서 형성된 다원사회적 현실을 진지하게 고려하지 않는다는 혐의를 품게 한다. 반면에 프레이저는 다원사회적 현실을 고려하면서 공영역에 대한 새로운 이해를 펼쳐나간다. 나는 프레이저의 입장을 받아들여 ‘강한 공영역’의 공론 형성 기능 못지않게 ‘약한 공영역’의 가치 이해의 역할이 현대 다원주의 사회 구성원 간의 민주적 연대에 중요한 의미를 지닌다는 점을 논구하고자 한다.

Habermas, in his Faktizitat und Geltung (1992), tries to explicate his theory of public sphere based on the procedural model of deliberative democracy. He explains the structure of democratical constitutional states from a normative pointof view. Introducing the sluice-gate model of political public sphere, he clarifies the democratic procedure of constitutional states. However, Habermas` theory of public sphere is faced with the challenge of the postnational constellation and a pluralistic society. Problems of pluralism have been intensified with the spread of globalization. But Habermas` theory of political public sphere, as some critics say, is not fully able to handle the challenge. So Nancy Fraser suggests that Habermas` theory of political public sphere should be rethought. As she has said, Habermas` theory of political public sphere has to be rethought under the condition of pluralism. However, I think that the task is not confined to there thinking of political public sphere. In my view, the problem needs to be approached on two levels: the political and the cultural. For the contemporary political problems are caused by the change of culture in the postnational constellation with a pluralism. Taking political problems of a pluralistic society seriously, we should begin to research the structure of public communication networks in postmodern culture. For the political problems in a postnational pluralistic society reflect the cultural transformation in the age of postnational pluralism. For that reason, I suggest that we inquire a cultural public sphere in a postnational pluralistic society. This may lead us to study about “postmodern structural transformation of the public sphere”. But my dissertation does not deal with the issue. In the final analysis, I only aim to argue about two matters: the one is to explain how serious political problems which Habermas` theory of political public sphere encounters are. The other concerns the question whether the theory is able to solve the problem adequately. First of all, I try to explain Habermas` theory of modern public sphere. In the second, I plan to explicate his new theory of political public sphere based on the procedural model of deliberative democracy. Then I propose that Habermas` theory of publicsphere be rethought for the challenge of pluralistic society. In the process, I will introduce Nancy Fraser`s critical opinion to Habermas` theory of political public sphere. Finally, I will suggest that we should research not only the structure of political public sphere but also that of cultural public spherein the era of pluralistic society.