Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 261-280).

No description available.

The eighteenth century public sphere has been defined by Habermas in terms of its rational, critical style of debate and egalitarian ideals. In eighteenth century America the public sphere comprised mainly elite merchants. This group mediated between civil society and the state in order to influence government decisions. Motivated largely by commercial interests, they nevertheless claimed to represent the entire society. But around the mid-nineteenth century, the American public sphere began to expand, mainly due to the emergence of a middle class. Debate over Shakespearean drama had a profound effect on the ways in which 19th century civil society presented and considered arguments related to public issues. Increasingly, the credibility of an individual's public utterance, rather than his or her social or intellectual status, was of primary import in determining the merit of an argument. The discursive behaviour adopted in discussion of Shakespeare plays in numerous clubs and societies helped to form habits of rational critical debate which characterized public decision-making in the latter part of the century. Those largely excluded from public debate, such as blacks and women, began to publicly argue for rights previously extended only to white males. The major spread of mass entertainment and its perceived ills toward the end of the century, however, rendered Shakespeare the chief weapon in the resistance to modern vulgarity and commercialism. The wedge which developed in Shakespeare discussion between amateurs and academics at this time may be partly explained by a developing mass consumption mentality which Habermas contends segmented the public into protective, specialized minorities and an often uncritical mass of consumers.

Taking as a case study the Theatre-Italien, here considered both as a particular theatrical practice and as a specific stage in Paris---one of the most popular at the time---this dissertation asks what role this theatre played in the novel competition of discourses which characterized political culture in the era of Revolutions. All too often, historians have overestimated print culture as the main medium through which discourses were produced in the eighteenth century, and this despite the fact that theatre played a fundamental role in the public life of this period. Furthermore, when theatre is studied, historians emphasize too often the written form of the plays. / The dissertation's structure seeks to underline the specificity of the cultural practice represented by the theatre. The discrepancies between the meaning of a play written by a particular author and the same play as it is performed on stage are emphasized. Political messages emerge out of the language of the actors and actresses without any possibility to control them, so that the players become, in effect, co-authors of the play. Similarly, the variety of the nature of the audience and the way in which it becomes at once judge, co-author and co-actor make the public, neither intangible nor invisible, but simply gathered, a crucial feature of this cultural practice which allows us to argue that theatre was actually a very bad instrument of propaganda. Instead, theatre can be seen at the time to be a public scene of immediate political debate. The conflicting opinions expressed there turn theatre not into the minor of political reality intended by various regimes confronted to the diversity of the polity---what some people have called "a school for the people"---but rather as the mirror of the reality experienced by a large number of Parisians at the time. It is in this sense that we relate the theatrical practices studied with the concept of public spirit, expressing the people's understanding of the general interest, instead of that of public opinion, expressing the unified message imposed by a dominant political group.

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Western Sydney, 2002. / A thesis submitted in full requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Social Ecology and Lifelong Learning, University of Western Sydney, May 2002. Bibliography : p. [369]- 395.

Thesis (D. Miss.)--Western Seminary, Portland, OR, 2004. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 321-335).

Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Paris IV, 1980. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 1275-1312) and index.

Thesis (D. Miss.)--Western Seminary, Portland, OR, 2004. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 321-335).

Thesis (M.A.)--Acadia University, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 65-66). Also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego and University of California, Irvine, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 285-297).