ABSTRACT
Studies on counterpublics have largely focused on how discourses of subordinated groups widen the public sphere so as to be more inclusive, suggesting that inclusivity, as a precondition of equality, is contingent on publicity (Felski, 1989; Fraser, 1992; Warner, 2002). Asen and Brouwer (2001) warned scholars, however, that an emphasis on counter discourses that expand the public sphere may “draw critical attention only to those movements from margin to center, thus neglecting the ways in which dominant or public topics are rendered marginal or private” (p. 9). Although Asen and Brouwer suggested that moves to marginalize or privatize dominant or public topics may not refl ect a counter discourse, their observation hinted that scholars may hold a bias toward the value of inclusion in counterpublic studies. Asen’s (2000) directive to focus on the discursive quality of counterpublics in order to avoid reducing counterpublics to persons, places, or topics further indicated that the study of counterpublics may not be as neat as scholars might wish.
