Fundamental but not eternal: The public–private distinction, from normative projects to cognitive grid in Western political thought

Abstract

Although the public–private distinction is a historical construction it has been deeply internalized and taken for granted in Western ways of thinking about society and politics. Therefore, we often apply it uncritically as a way to categorizing and coding non-Western societies. Doing so unreflectively may distort our observations as well as policies of state- and peacebuilding. I outline the history of the public–private distinction by emphasizing its role in state-formation processes. This distinction was essential to the formation of the state and society as distinct categories. Indeed, it was and is a pre-condition of the autonomy of the state.

Keywords:

• public–private distinction
• state formation
• systems theory
• Luhmann

Notes

 1. Weintraub and Kumar ‘Preface’, xii; Weintraub ‘Theory and Politics’, 2.

 2. Weintraub and Kumar ‘Preface’, xii.

 3. Elias, Was Ist Soziologie?

 4. Luhmann, Social Systems.

 5. Åkerstrøm Andersen, Discursive Analytical Strategies, 63–92.

 6. Luhmann argues that the state is the self-description of the political system. Since the public–private distinction is central to the creation of the state, this code must be a pre-condition of the political system.

 7. Arendt, The Human Condition, 27; Weintraub, ‘Theory and Politics’, 10–12, 35.

 8. Weintraub, ‘Theory and Politics’, 13.

 9. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, 86.

10. Brunner, Land und Herrschaft, 4; Netterstrøm and Poulsen, Feud.

11. Janssen, ‘Krieg’, 574.

12. Hallberg and Wittrock, ‘From koinonìa politiké’, 37.

13. Weintraub, ‘Theory and Politics’ 13–14. For an overview, see Rainer, Das Römische Recht.

14. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 67, 70, 394–395.

15. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 71.

16. Gierke, Community in Historical Perspective, 114–115.

17. In Cutler, ‘Artifice, ideology and paradox’, 272.

18. In Cutler, ‘Artifice, ideology and paradox’, 263.

19. Horwitz, ‘Public/Private Distinction’, 1424.

20. Hallberg and Wittrock, ‘From koinonìa politiké’, 30, 45.

21. Habermas, Structural Transformation.

22. Foucault, ‘Governmentality’.

23. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 36–45.

24. Habermas, Structural Transformation.

25. Since the 1980s the public/private distinction has been eroded in many areas of legal doctrine. See Stone, ‘Corporate Vices’.

26. Flinders, ‘Public/Private’, 230.

27. Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

28. See, for example, Belloni, State Building; Paffenholz, Civil Society & Peacebuilding.

29. Kuper, ‘Lineage Theory’, 86.

30. Schatz, Modern Clan Politics; Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla.

31. Egnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, ahistorical and overambitious’, 43–44.

32. March and Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions, 23.

33. Austin and Urmson, How to Do Things with Words.

34. Thomas and Lauderdale, ‘State Authority and National Welfare Programs’.

35. Nietzsche, quoted in Strong, The Self and Political Order, 168.

36. Thomas and Lauderdale, ‘State Authority and National Welfare Programs’.