Abstract

Richard Rorty’s defence of the public-private dichotomy has been much maligned and muchmisunderstood. Most commentators have faulted Rorty either for introducing a new dualism whileeschewing dualisms or for being ignorant of the oppressive consequences the public-private-dichotomyhas had in the past. However, if one reads Rorty’s defense of the private sphere in light of theconversational axis of his neopragmatism, it becomes clear that the private sphere is not a fixed realmbut rather a name for what is situationally cordoned off behind claims of privacy, a moving army ofstop signs the setting of which is always in social dispute