Who decides the public? Selectivity, subalternity, and the struggle for human rights

Abstract

The dominant public sphere often marginalizes subaltern voices, perpetuating inequalities and compromising the effectiveness of human rights policies. This study investigates the mechanisms of exclusion present in the hegemonic public sphere and explores emerging alternatives that seek to promote greater inclusion and equity. The first hypothesis suggests that the public sphere is structured by processes that favor hegemonic groups, excluding divergent perspectives. Chantal Mouffe, in her theory of agonistic democracy, argues that conflict is inherent in democratic societies and that the suppression of dissent limits the plurality necessary for democratic vitality. The second hypothesis points to the emergence of subaltern public spheres as spaces of resistance and political rearticulation. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, through the epistemologies of the South, emphasizes the importance of recognizing and valuing knowledge and practices emerging from these spheres, challenging the monoculture of knowledge imposed by Western hegemony. The third hypothesis proposes that human rights policies are more effective when they incorporate the perspectives of marginalized spheres. James C. Scott, by analyzing everyday forms of resistance, reveals how hidden infrastructures can inform public policies more sensitive to the realities of subaltern groups. The adopted methodology consists of a critical literature review, analyzing the contributions of Mouffe, Santos, and Scott. The results indicate that the selectivity of the public sphere reinforces social hierarchies, while subaltern spheres offer essential counter-narratives for the construction of more inclusive and representative public policies.