text:
ESSEC Business School

The École Supérieure des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales, more commonly known as ESSEC Business School or simply ESSEC, is a business school and grande école based in France. Founded in 1907, its principal campus is located in Cergy in the île-de-France region, but also has locations in La Défense, Rabat, and Singapore.

Founded by Jesuits in response to the creation of HEC Paris, it remained independent of any chamber of commerce and industry before passing it in 1981 under the control of the Versailles, which became the CCI of Paris Île-de-France in 2013. Today, ESSEC is a member of the CY Alliance, formerly Université Paris-Seine.

The ESSEC group delivers numerous training courses in administration and management, in particular through its post-preparatory class course called the "Grande École Program" conferring the master's degree. It also offers a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) through the ESSEC Global BBA program, a specialized masters (SM), a master's degree in business administration (MBA), and doctorates.

Historical rival of HEC Paris and ESCP Business School, ESSEC forms with the latters the group of "three Parisians", which designates the three most prestigious business schools in France.

Foundation (1907–1913)
The École Supérieure des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales (ESSEC) was founded in 1907 under the name of Economic Institute by Ferdinand Le Pelletier in Paris. Its creation followed the movement of other private business schools created under Catholic guardianship in the early twentieth century such as HEC Nord (which later became EDHEC) by the Catholic Institute of Lille or ESSCA by the Institute Catholic of Angers.

The establishment of Falloux Laws in 1854 allowed the development of religious secondary education. In a complex circumstances, marked by the Dreyfus affair (1895) and the law of separation of Church and State (1905), the Church sought to regain influence, in particular by disseminating its moral values in the economic world and by training a new generation of business leaders. ESSEC became the Catholic Church response to the creation of HEC in the context of struggle of religious congregations, especially between Jesuits against the secular and republican ideology of the state. The goal of the new institution was to "train leaders for a commercial and economic career, which requires competent men, imbued with Christian and human values". The school was located at the École Sainte Geneviève (created by Jesuits in 1854) in the Latin Quarter. The first class had seven students and studies lasted two years. In 1909, an optional third year was introduced.

The course did not stand out for its originality as it was structured around general subjects including law, accounting, languages and techniques. It was through the introduction of Christian moral values that ESSEC could stand out: students attended the apologetics conference every week in the chapel of the École Sainte Geneviève. Technical education (calligraphy, shorthand, drafting of commercial documents) was complemented with scientific education (physics, chemistry, factory visits).

1913–1940
With the application of the law of separation of State and Church of 1905, the school premises were confiscated in 1913, obliging ESSEC to be absorbed by Catholic Institute of Paris or ICP. As a consequence, the school resources were significantly reduced. For instance, it only had one amphitheater borrowed from ICP and the elementary section was abolished. During this time, the disciplines taught, which remained almost the same until 1960, include: languages, history of trade, commercial geography, political economy, law and accounting. An emphasize was given to language teaching, with 10 hours per week length (4 hours of English and German, 1 hour of Italian and Spanish).

The school experienced difficulty surviving during the First World War. In 1914, it had only four students in the first year and two in the second year. It temporarily closed doors and only reopened in 1915. The third optional year was dropped and the school did not regain financial stability until 1920 when it welcomed more than 50 students in the first year. In 1923 the students' association was created with a solidarity fund for war widows and orphans. In 1926, the first directory of graduates was published and three years later, the first courses in business ethics were given. By 1930, the number of students increased to 150 people.

Against the crisis of the 1930s, ESSEC had to reduce its tuition fees to attract students who have more preference toward public service or regular law studies. Due to gap year of 1914-1918 and the economic crisis, the situation became even more difficult. The school was forced to accept high school graduates, uncertified examiners, and even freelance auditors who took uncertified courses.

In 1932, the Student Office was created and in 1937 the first scholarships were distributed, marking the start of a social assistance policy

1940–1960
The reform was done under the effort of Camille Donjon from 1939 with the introduction of selection at the school entrance. A preparatory class for the exam was set up in 1941. During this time, ESSEC refused to join the unified system of écoles de commerce established by the decree of 3 December 1947 which mentioned that the State now supports the implementation of preparatory classes on the territory.

As HEC and ESCP joined this system, ESSEC positioned itself as a challenger and kept its own preparatory classes. To level its competition, ESSEC altered its school tenure from two to three years starting from 1947. This situation lasted until 1951, when ESSEC closed its own preparatory classes and opened to candidates of the public preparatory classes. In 1950, the first compulsory internship was set up which last for a period of three months and took place at the end of studies.

1960–1970
In 1960, Gilbert Olivier replaced Father Donjon as the dean of ESSEC. His arrival, coupled with developments linked to competition, would sway the Christian identity of the school. He began the transformation by launching a survey for students on the content of courses and the pedagogy. The result showed that only minority of students were satisfied with the teaching. Teaching was judged "Scholarly, serious and lacking in openness".

Given the results of this survey, a gradual reform was put in place. Technical subjects such as chemistry and physics were abandoned, teaching content adapted to the company demand and the human factor was taken into account with the introduction of courses in sociology and human resources. In 1965, marketing classes was introduced. Method of teaching such as conferences were set up, similar to what HEC Paris and Sciences Po offered. During this time, the school adopted the teaching style of the United States schools. Furthermore, the recruitment was diversified with the introduction of the Admis on Title in 1966 which also marked the opening of the school to women. However, preparatory classes not yet being open to them.

Associative life also began in the early 1960s with the creation of the ESSEC Mardis in 1961 and the Junior Enterprise in 1967. The former is student forum of ESSEC which occasionally invite speakers from French art, sport, politics and economic space every year. It also hosts the debates which led by two students from the association.

The entrance exam was reformatted in 1969 with the elimination of the chemistry and physics test and remodeling of the oral exam which now aimed to test the logical reasoning of the candidates and not only their general knowledge. Psychometric tests and personality interviews were also introduced. Gilbert Olivier also tried to reform the program of preparatory classes to bring them closer to commercial education but gave up due to opposition from HEC and other business schools.

1970–1990
With the reform in place, the number of students grew and the school was starting to run out of space. The school occupied three amphitheaters at the ICP and later, in 1971, administrative services would be moved to Boulevard Raspail. In 1965 a commission was set up to consider on the possibilities of moving the school location. Projects were planned in Bagneux or Gentilly, which ultimately abandoned. On July 5, 1967, a decision was taken by ESSEC to move to a new site in the town of Cergy-Pontoise where the current campus is located.

During this time, ESSEC was able to breaking free from the ICP. In 1968, the latter recognized the financial and administrative independence of the school. In 1969, the ESSEC group was founded, consisting of the school, CERESSEC, a Research Center and ISSEC, an institute for executives. ICP, however, retained one third of the seats of the Board of Directors and the appointment of the director of the school must still be approved by the rector of the ICP.

The acceptance of the move to Cergy-Pontoise by the community was polarized. It was less well received by student due to lack of public transportation to the area. Some teachers fueled the controversy, aware that such a move necessarily entails a potential of replacement of faculty members. The new school extended over and included a large amphitheater of 300 seats, eight small amphitheatres with 80 seats equipped with closed circuit television, a computer center, a large language laboratory, a library, a sports hall, a restaurant university and 48 classrooms. Its reception areas (foyers, cafeterias, chapel) were to be available to the public in Cergy. In exchange, the students could lived in housing around the city.

Before 1971, ESSEC relied mainly on executives working in companies as its teaching staff. However, the school started to setting up its permanent faculty. The grants awarded by FNEGE to finance studies of young professors or executives in the United States, who wished to return to teaching to fill the French "management gap", allowed ESSEC to build a pool of qualified teachers. In 1972, out of 20 professors, there were 9 former ESSECs having completed their training in the United States. The arrival of FNEGE Fellows, who had come back from the United States, would stimulate the reform of the curriculum. A common core curriculum was set up in the first year based on fundamentals while a course à la carte was introduced from the second year. This format is still in effect today. A minimum duration of 12 months of internship was also introduced. Furthermore. the ESSEC selectivity increased significantly with application numbers grew from 700 candidates in 1960 to 2,800 in 1973.

The decision to move to Cergy without support of public funds resulted in heavy debt to the Caisse d'Epargne and ANFESP (National Association for the Financing of Private School Equipment), the Council General of Val d'Oise. This resulted in obligation to repay an amount up to 4-5 million francs a year. These financial expenses represented 11.7% of the ESSEC budget in 1975 (compared to 5% for INSEAD). The operating budget exploded from 6 million francs in 1972 to 28 million in 1979. Tuition fees increased to one point it doubled that of HEC. In 1979, the financial crisis erupted, exacerbated by an environment of high interest rates and an economic slowdown related to the oil shock. Ultimately, the school hit a deficit of 10.4 million francs during this year. The apprenticeship tax, introduction of continuing education and the donation of student's parents were used as sources of funding. The consideration of the nationalization of ESSEC and possible attachment to the larger university were put on the table, with those ideas coming within the field of possibilities with the election of François Mitterrand to the presidency of the Republic.

Gilbert Olivier strongly opposed to the plan, seeing it as a failure of the initial project of the school to emancipate itself from the higher education system. Financial condition ultimately improved permitting the school to operate without taking such decisions. The rescue was made possible by the Versailles Chamber of Commerce, which injected 10 million francs to cover the deficit of ESSEC, bought 51% of ESSEC's ownership for 12 million francs and committed to pay an annual subsidy of 6 millions of francs from 1982 to 1989. In exchange, ESSEC retained its legal autonomy (and did not become a service of the chamber like the case of HEC Paris and ESCP with the Paris Chamber of Commerce) but had a governance system with a management board and supervisory board. This intrusion of a supervision as well as the absence of representation of the students and the professors in the general assembly triggered strikes and the launching of petitions against the plan. The agreement was finally signed on April 6, 1981. The fear of control of the school and its pedagogy would ultimately prove to be unfounded.

2000–present
In 1999, the school decided to change the name of its Grande Ecole program to be an MBA (Master in Business Administration), an Anglo-Saxon standard normally reserved for executives who already have many years of experience. ESSEC intended to highlight its accreditation from the AACSB (American accreditation body) and the mandatory 18 months of internships of its students. The move was followed by other business schools, such as ICN Nancy and ESC Grenoble. ESSEC then reviewed its international agreements to bring the program to the MBA or Master level.

The repositioning of the program was heavily criticized by HEC Paris, EM Lyon and University Paris-Dauphine, so much so that Ali Laïdi in his book Secrets of the economic war (2004) said that HEC Paris would have mounted a destabilization operation toward ESSEC by attacking its MBA position. The case led to an opening of investigation and resolution by the Paris Chamber of Commerce.

In 2005, ESSEC expanded its campus with the inauguration of the Nautile building and further, in 2007, with the multipurpose room, the Dome (of which has 2,700 people capacity) and the Galion. The buildings were designed by Marc Seifert, son of Ivan Seifert who designed the original campus in 1973. In 2008, the library was expanded. Renovation of the restaurant area followed the following year.

In March 2006, ESSEC Business School inaugurated its new campus in Singapore within the National Library, the ESSEC Asian Center.

In 2010, ESSEC presented its strategic plan for 2010–2015. The program portfolio was repositioned: the EPSCI (post-baccalaureate program) became the bachelor of ESSEC, the name of MBA was abandoned and replaced with MSc in Management. The group's communication was unified under the name ESSEC Business School. A fundraising strategy of 150 million euros was announced. The school also aimed to be one of the 20 best Business Schools in the world, to join the 10 best schools in Asia and to make into top 5 in Europe. The abandonment of the name of MBA from its Grand Ecole program was a strategy pushback for the school. As the result, this program did not appear in the Financial Times ranking of Masters in Management since its creation in 2005 nor in the MBA because of its hybrid nature. The dean of the time, Pierre Tapie, however, did not regret this decision, because he believed that the school had gained reputation. In fact, in 2007, the Wall Street Journal ranked ESSEC Grande École program 7th in the world, ahead of HEC and INSEAD.

During this time, the school expanded its double-degree agreements with Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad in 2006, Centrale Paris, University of Keio in 2009, École du Louvre, ENSAE and Saint-Cyr in 2010, ENS in 2011, University of Queensland, three South Korean institutions in 2014 and Bocconi University in 2015.

In 2014, Jean-Michel Blanquer, the new dean of the school, announced the strategic plan "ESSEC 3I 2020" (Internationalisation, Innovation and Involvement). The internationalization went through, a new ESSEC Asia-Pacific campus was established, which opened in 2015, an ESSEC Africa campus was opened in 2017, collaboration through a strategic alliance with CentraleSupélec and involvement of students to create their own courses and mentorship program, among other things. The school also launched its first MOOCs, inaugurated its startup incubator, ESSEC Ventures and established an experimental research laboratory, K-Lab.

Grande école degrees
ESSEC Business School is a grande école, a French institution of higher education that is separate from, but parallel and often connected to, the main framework of the French public university system. Grandes écoles are elite academic institutions that admit students through an extremely competitive process, and a significant proportion of their graduates occupy the highest levels of French society. Similar to Ivy League schools in the United States, Oxbridge in the UK, and C9 League in China, graduation from a grande école is considered the prerequisite credential for any top government, administrative and corporate position in France.

The degrees are accredited by the Conférence des Grandes Écoles and awarded by the Ministry of National Education (France). Higher education business degrees in France are organized into three levels thus facilitating international mobility: the Licence / Bachelor's degrees, and the Master's and Doctorat degrees. The Bachelors and the Masters are organized in semesters: 6 for the Bachelors and 4 for the Masters. Those levels of study include various "parcours" or paths based on UE (Unités d'enseignement or Modules), each worth a defined number of European credits (ECTS). A student accumulates those credits, which are generally transferable between paths. A Bachelors is awarded once 180 ECTS have been obtained (bac + 3); a Masters is awarded once 120 additional credits have been obtained (bac +5). The highly coveted PGE (Grand Ecole Program) ends with the degree of Master's in Management (MiM)

Departments
The School is made up of eight research departments in different fields of human sciences: Accounting and Management Control; Business Law and Environment; Economy; Finance; Management; Operations management; Marketing; Information Systems, Decision Sciences and Statistics.

CERESSEC
The ESSEC research center or Centre de recherche ESSEC business school (CERESSEC) was created in 1969. Supervised by AERES since 2013, the research focus is around a scientific area in partnership with the Ministry of Higher Education and Research.

According to the HCERES report issued on 13 May 2019, CERESSEC is "a leading research laboratory at national and international level, it is a leading French center in the field of management and related disciplines." It supports the school's influence in national and international rankings. The research center brings together 165 professors, on two sites in Cergy and Singapore. The professors work on nine research themes: Accounting and management control; Economy; Finance; Information system ; Law, Negotiation and Consultation; Management; Marketing; Management of Operations; Statistics.

ESSEC Iréné
ESSEC Iréné is the Institute for Research and Education on Negotiation in Europe created in 1996. The research focus is in several topics related to negotiation, mediation, stakeholders dialogue, and conflict resolution. The stakeholder involved in the research include academics, senior civil servants, elected representatives, managers and employees of businesses, trade unionists, social mediators.

ESSEC Behavioral Research Lab
This institute is an interdisciplinary research platform which focus on the study of human behavior in a controlled environment. The study is mainly conducted in the fields such as behavioral marketing, behavioral management, behavioral and experimental economics.

Organization and governance
ESSEC is a nonprofit organization. Its management consists of a Director General (School Dean), assisted by its executive committee, made up in particular of the deans of programs, professors and research body. They reports to the board, which administers the association, and which is made up of two representatives of the Paris Ile-de-France CCI, a representative of the alumni association, and two qualified professionals.

The supervisory board is made up of twenty-eight members, six representatives of the Paris Ile-de-France CCI, two members of the Institut Catholique de Paris, five former students, one member of the Confederation of SMEs, four students, five professors including the dean of the professors, two members of the administrative staff of the school, and three qualified professionals.

The general assembly is the guarantor of the stability of the statutes of the association, and it is composed of the president of the CCI of Paris Île-de-France, a representative of the association of graduates, a representative of the Confederation of SMEs, the dean of professors, and the rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris (ICP).

Campuses
ESSEC has 4 campuses: Cergy, Singapore, La Défense and Rabat. An Africa-Indian Ocean campus project in Mauritius was announced in 2016 but was canceled in 2017.

Cergy campus
The main ESSEC campus is located in Cergy. Inaugurated in 1973, the site is located in the city and open to the public, mixing students and inhabitants in the area. In 2007, two new buildings were constructed: the Dome and the Galion, both significantly increased area of the Cergy campus. The Dome, which acts as a multipurpose room, can accommodate up to 2,700 people. It is used for business forums (Career Fairs), conferences, exam site and cultural and social activities. The Galion is an administrative and educational building. It houses 54 offices and meeting rooms, 8 amphitheaters, and 12 classrooms as well as open work spaces. At the end of 2018, the Campus 2020 project was announced, which intends to modernize the Cergy campus by 2023, for a total cost of 35 million euros (private and public funding). Among the main lines of this project are the construction of a sports center of nearly 2,000 m2, the redevelopment of the old gymnasium and the existing administrative building into spaces intended for research activities.

La Defense campus
ESSEC has had premises in the CNIT in La Défense since 1989, mainly used for continuing education and the MBA.

Singapore campus
The ESSEC Asia-Pacific campus in Singapore was announced in October 2012 by Pierre Tapie shortly before his departure. The new campus was inaugurated in May 2015 by Jean-Michel Blanquer. ESSEC has already been present in Asia since 1980 with a permanent office in Japan and in Singapore since 2005 through the ESSEC Asian Centre located in the National Library Building. After considering among Tokyo, Shanghai and Singapore, the school finally chose the latter in 2005, in particular for its position as a gateway to Asia. Located in Nepal Hill, the campus spans five levels, 6,500 m2, can accommodate 1,500 students per year and cost 24 million euros, fully funded by ESSEC. It was designed by Singaporean architect, Dr. Liu Thai Ker (former architect planning Singapore).

Rabat campus
The creation of this campus was announced in November 2015 by Jean-Michel Blanquer and was inaugurated in April 2017. Morocco was chosen for the already effective presence of ESSEC's partner CentraleSupélec, its proximity to France and the large number of Moroccan alumni. Located 15 km from Rabat, the campus covers 6,000 m2 and has a capacity of 480 students. The campus is located right in the Casablanca - Rabat - Kenitra axis. The campus was built specifically for ESSEC by the Addoha real estate group to which the school pays rent (proportional to the number of students hosted during the first three years, then €360,000 / year beyond), with the possibility of to buy back the premises after nine years. At its first school year, the campus had seventy students, including eighteen Moroccans.

ESSEC Global BBA
The undergraduate program was initially created in 1975 by ESSEC Group to prepare students to meet the needs of French firms launching operations on the international market. It was formerly known as EPSCI, "École des Practiciens du Commerce International", and is now referred to as "ESSEC Global BBA".

The Global BBA lasts for four years and is designed for candidates graduated from high school (in France "Baccalauréat").

At the end of the program, each student will have completed a minimum of 12 months of coursework abroad (each student will do two exchange programs abroad), a one-month humanitarian project and between 11 and 18 months of professional experience, which may also take place abroad.

Master of Science in Management - Grande École
ESSEC's postgraduate programme is its Master of Science in management, designed for students with no professional experience (instead of managers with 3–5 years of experience like US MBA programs). It is the flagship program of the school.

The ESSEC MSc in management has been historically designed for candidates who have completed French preparatory classes after high school diploma and passed a competitive entrance examination known as the concours, or have a university degree (Bachelor or Master). Application is now also open to non-French students: students with a university degree of three years or more received outside of France can also apply. Students from classe préparatoire will spend two to three years after Baccalauréat only to prepare for the national entrance examination of Grandes Ecoles which includes a written part (lasting three weeks) as well as an oral part (one to four days for each grande école). It is commonly considered the most prestigious path after High School in France (only 5% of a generation will be admitted to a prépa) with Law and Medicine, and consists in intensive courses in Mathematics, History and Geography, Economy, Literature, Philosophy, and two foreign languages. In 2015, among more than 20 000 students enrolled in classe préparatoire (business section), 5 614 applied to ESSEC concours (considered one of the most difficult), only 890 were invited to oral examination and 380 were eventually admitted. This means an acceptance rate of 6.77%.

ESSEC offer an à la carte program – whether following courses at ESSEC or at a partner institution, going abroad or focusing on an associative project etc.

Master in Finance
The Master in Finance replace the old Master Techniques Financières since 2016. The Master in Finance is recognized by the French Higher Education and Research Ministry as master's degree.

There are three specialized tracks:

 * Corporate Finance: M&A, Private Equity, ECM, DCM, Equity Research, Leveraged and Project Finance;
 * Financial Markets: Sales, Trading, Risk Management and Portfolio Management;
 * FinTech & Analytics: Quantitative Asset and Risk Management, Data-based Market Making and Trading and Quant Hedge Funds (with a solid Math/Physics degree).

The Master in Finance has a partnership with the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA).

ESSEC M.S. Advanced Masters
The Advanced master's degrees are accredited by the "Conférence des Grandes Ecoles" in France. These programs are specialised to allow students finishing their studies or young professionals to complete their initial training (usually scientific or engineering) by acquiring complementary knowledge.

ESSEC Global MBA
The Global MBA at ESSEC Business School is a 12-month, full-time MBA program with an emphasis on emerging markets and experiential learning. It offers two Majors allowing students to specialise in the following area: Luxury Brand Management, Strategy and Digital Leadership.

PhD in Business Administration
The PhD trains future professors, researchers and consultants. Before starting their dissertation work, students must follow a two-year program of courses and seminars that ends with Preliminary Examinations and a Dissertation Proposal. The curriculum starts with an intensive period of interdisciplinary training common to all students. This is followed by research training for the chosen field of specialization.

ESSEC Executive Education
More than 5,000 managers participate in ESSEC Exec Ed programs every year, primarily at La Défense campus, located in the heart of Paris' financial district and ESSEC's Singapore campus.

ESSEC & Mannheim Executive MBA
ESSEC and Mannheim Business School launched their joint Executive MBA Program in 2004. Building on the first established Executive MBAs in Europe by ESSEC since 1994, several modules are proposed in Mannheim, Paris, Singapore and various other locations worldwide in partner business schools.

International partnerships
ESSEC has developed partnerships with universities all over the world for exchange and double degree programs, including UC Berkeley, University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, Brandeis University, Cornell University, Peking University, Tsinghua University, Seoul National University, Keio University, National University of Singapore, IIM Ahmedabad, IE Business School, University of Mannheim, King's College London, Esic Business & Marketing School, Fundação Getúlio Vargas' EAESP, among many others.

ESSEC alumni
The association of graduates of the ESSEC or ESSEC Alumni group was founded in 1923, with the mission of connecting the 60,000+ graduates of ESSEC. It spans 75 countries and five continents. It organizes more than a thousand events per year through its two hundred volunteers and employees. The network partners with 60 corporations and consists of 17 regional clubs and 73 chapters around the world. The association also publishes the alumni magazine, Reflets, five times a year.

Since 2017, the association has maintained a physical office on the Cergy campus. The same year lifelong ESSEC Alumni membership became included in tuition fees.

Notable alumni
Business

 * Nicolas Hieronimus, CEO of L'Oréal Group
 * Sue Nabi, CEO of Coty Inc.
 * Marc Lelandais, Chairman of S. T. Dupont
 * Benoît Coquart, CEO of Legrand
 * Olivier Sichel, Deputy CEO of Caisse des dépôts et consignations, former CEO of Wanadoo
 * Véronique Bédague, CEO of Nexity
 * Antoine Bernard de Saint-Affrique, CEO of Danone
 * Michel Bon, CEO of Carrefour (1985–1992), CEO of France Telecom (1995–2002)
 * Patrick Cescau, CEO of Unilever
 * Pierre-André de Chalendar, CEO of Saint-Gobain
 * Corinne Vigreux, Co-founder of TomTom N.V.
 * Nicolas Namias, CEO of Group BPCE
 * Pierre Nanterme, CEO of Accenture
 * Yves Perrier, CEO of Amundi, former CFO of Société Générale
 * Pierre Denis, CEO of Jimmy Choo (fashion house)
 * Marie-Christine Lombard, CEO of TNT Express
 * Dominique Reiniche, CEO of Coca-Cola Europe
 * Gilles Pélisson, CEO of TF1, former CEO of Bouygues Telecom (2004–2006) and of Accor Group (2006–2011)
 * Charles Bouaziz, CEO of Monoprix S.A., Former CEO of PepsiCo (Europe)
 * Élisabeth Moreno, President of Hewlett-Packard Africa, Former President of Lenovo France
 * Thierry Peugeot, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Peugeot-Citroën
 * Jérôme Tafani, CEO of Burger King France

Politics

 * Charles Konan Banny, former Prime Minister of Ivory Coast
 * Oumar Tatam Ly, former Prime Minister of Mali
 * Cécile Duflot, ex-French Minister of Housing in the Ayrault Cabinet, formerly head of the French Green Party and now head of Oxfam France
 * Fleur Pellerin, ex-French Minister of Culture in the First Valls government.
 * Emmanuelle Mignon, ex-Cabinet secretary of French President Nicolas Sarkozy from 2008 to 2012
 * Alexis Kohler, Chief of Staff of President of France Emmanuel Macron

Academics

 * D. K. Bandyopadhyay, Indian scientific management researcher

Other well-known alumni

 * Gérald Caussé, Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * Marie-José Pérec, former sprinter, three times Olympic champion
 * Philippe Sollers, French writer

Controversies
In 2020, its campus in Singapore came under intense controversy when one of its students, Louise Pizon-Hébert, made multiple posts on Instagram during Chinese New Year by making slit-eyed gestures and using the pejorative term "ching chong" as a caption while wearing the cheongsam. The school has claimed that its discipline committee are currently "looking into the situation". However, to date the results from the committee have not been made public.

title: ESSEC Business School


text:
John Comyn III of Badenoch

John Comyn III of Badenoch, nicknamed the Red (c. 1274 – 10 February 1306), was a leading Scottish baron and magnate who played an important role in the First War of Scottish Independence. He served as Guardian of Scotland after the forced abdication of his uncle, King John Balliol (1292–1296), in 1296, and for a time commanded the defence of Scotland against English attacks. Comyn was stabbed to death by Robert the Bruce before the altar at the church of the Greyfriars at Dumfries.

His father, John Comyn II, known as the Black Comyn, had been one of the competitors for the Crown of Scotland, claiming his descent from King Donald III. His mother was Eleanor Balliol, sister of King John Balliol. He had, moreover, links with the royal house of England: in the early 1290s, he married Joan de Valence, cousin of King Edward I.

Comyn family
On the eve of the Wars of Independence, the Comyns were one of the dominant families of Scotland, with extensive landholdings in both the north and south of the country, and political influence and family connections with the crown. This Anglo-Norman family first made an appearance in Scotland during the reign of David I. In the thirteenth century they acquired the lordship of Badenoch, with extensive landholdings also in Lochaber, as well as the earldom of Buchan. On the death of Alexander III, John Comyn's father was appointed to the panel of Guardians to await the arrival of the infant Margaret, Maid of Norway, granddaughter of Alexander III. Her death in 1290 immersed the nation in crisis, finally solved in 1292 when John Balliol emerged as king, with the support of his Comyn kinsmen, a solution that was never accepted by the other main claimant, Robert Bruce of Annandale, grandfather of the future king. The Comyns were supporters of King John as was William Wallace.

Comyn at war
With the outbreak of war between England and Scotland, Comyn, his father, and his cousin, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, crossed the border and attacked Carlisle, defended for King Edward by Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, the father of the future king. The Wars of Scottish Independence thus began in a clash between the Bruces and Comyns. Having no siege equipment, the Comyns drew off and subsequently joined the main Scottish host at Haddington, which had been assembled to meet the advance of the English army along the east coast. On 27 April, the Scots were overwhelmed at the Battle of Dunbar, with John being among the many prisoners taken. While his father and cousin retreated north in the company of King John, he was sent south, to be imprisoned in the Tower of London.

John remained in prison for some months; but with the war in Scotland seemingly over he was finally released on condition that he take up service with Edward in Flanders, the main theatre of operations in his war against the French. While there he learned of the rising of William Wallace and Andrew Moray and their victory over the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. In March 1298, John was among Scots who deserted the English, finally ending up in Paris, where they appealed for aid to Philip IV of France. The only help they managed to get was a ship back to Scotland, arriving before the summer.

Battle of Falkirk
Earlier that year William Wallace emerged as Guardian after Moray died at Stirling or shortly after. The main task facing the Guardian was to gather a national army to meet an invasion by Edward, anxious to reverse the victory of Stirling Bridge. For cavalry, by far the weakest element of the Scottish host, Wallace depended on the Comyns and the other noble families. On 22 July Wallace's army was destroyed at the Battle of Falkirk, the light horse being driven off at an early stage by the heavy English cavalry.

It is possible that John Comyn was present at the battle, though the evidence is far from conclusive. The main Scottish sources, the chronicles of John Fordun and John Barbour, were composed decades after the event, long after the Comyns had been expelled from Scotland, and had a specific agenda, namely to magnify the later King, Robert the Bruce, and diminish John Comyn. According to Fordun, John and his kin hated Wallace and appeared on the battlefield only with premeditated treachery in mind – "For, on account of the ill-will, begotten of the sprig of envy, which the Comyns had conceived towards the aforesaid William, they, with their accomplices, forsook the field, and escaped unhurt." This is set alongside a commendation of Robert the Bruce, who, in Fordun's account, fought on the side of the English and "was the means of bringing about the victory." This is contested as no Bruce appears on the Falkirk roll of nobles present in the English army, and ignoring Blind Harry's 15th claim that Wallace burned Ayr Castle in 1297, two 19th-century antiquarians, Alexander Murison and George Chalmers, stated that Bruce did not participate in the battle and the following month decided to burn Ayr Castle to prevent it being garrisoned by the English. The contemporary English record of the Lanercost Chronicle simply blames the inadequacy of the Scottish cavalry in general. Soon after the defeat, John Comyn and Robert the Bruce were named as joint Guardians of the Realm in place of Wallace.

Guardian of Scotland
With no independent power base, Wallace, whose prestige had always been based on the success of his army, resigned or was removed as Guardian after Falkirk. In his place an unusual and difficult balancing act: John Comyn and Robert the Bruce, who had now joined the patriot party. The Scots were still fighting on behalf of the absent King John, so Bruce must have paid lip service to the cause, though his royal ambitions were openly known. The records give little or nothing in the way of insight into the feelings and motives of these men. At a meeting of a council of the magnates at Peebles in August 1299, an argument broke out relative to the property of Wallace, who was then in France. Comyn is said to have seized Bruce by the throat.

William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, was appointed as a third Guardian. Lamberton was a personal friend of both Wallace and Bruce. Bruce resigned before May 1300, when the restoration of King John was looking increasingly likely, leaving only Comyn and Lamberton. When parliament assembled at Rutherglen it elected Sir Ingram d'Umphraville to be one of the guardians of the realm in place of Bruce.

This was obviously an arrangement that suited Comyn, because Umphraville was a close political associate and a kinsman of King John. With the Guardianship taking Scotland one way Robert Bruce went the other, making his peace with Edward by February 1302 in a document in which he expressed the fear that "the realm of Scotland might be removed from the hands of the king, which God forbid, and delivered to John Balliol, or to his son."

The new triumvirate lasted to May 1301, when John de Soules emerged as senior Guardian, seemingly appointed by Balliol himself pending his return. The following year, with Soules leaving for France on a diplomatic mission, Comyn (who may have resigned the guardianship during Soules's tenure in 1301–2) became sole Guardian, occupying the position for the next two years. Comyn became Lord of Badenoch following his father's death that same year.

Defiance and surrender
There was a certain inevitability to the Comyn domination of Scottish government in the years before 1304: they were the most powerful of the noble families, having more military resources and more control, particularly in the north, than any other family. English invasions in 1298, 1300, and 1301 had been confined to the south of the country, leaving the north as the chief recruiting ground, and supply base, of the Scottish army. The Guardian's prestige increased still further when he and Sir Simon Fraser defeated an English reconnaissance force at the Battle of Roslin in February 1303.

There never was so desperate a struggle, or one in which the stoutness of knightly prowess shone forth so brightly. The commander and leader in this struggle was John Comyn, the son... John Comyn, then guardian of Scotland, and Simon Fraser with their followers, day and night, did their best to harass and to annoy, by their general prowess, the aforesaid kings officers and bailiffs... the aforesaid John Comyn and Simon, with their abettors, hearing of their arrival at Rosslyn and wishing to steal a march rather than have one stolen upon them, came briskly through from Biggar to Rosslyn, in one night, with some chosen men, who chose rather death before unworthy subjection to the English nation; and all of a sudden they fearlessly fell upon the enemy.

Politically, however, the outlook was bleak. Philip of France entered into a final peace with Edward, from which Scotland was excluded. John Balliol, whose star had risen briefly above the horizon, now sank into the twilight of history. In a mood of desperation the Scottish diplomats in Paris, who included Comyn's cousin Buchan, wrote words of encouragement; "For God's sake do not despair...it would gladden your hearts if you would know how much your honour has increased in every part of the world as a result of your recent battle with the English." However, for the first time since 1296 Edward was preparing an offensive that would take him deep into the north of Scotland. Unable to mount an effective resistance, and with his main base threatened with destruction, Comyn entered into peace negotiations, which concluded at Strathord near Perth on 9 February 1304.

Echoing the Treaty of Birgham, it was stipulated that laws, usages, and customs in place in the time of Alexander III should be retained. Comyn insisted that there should be no reprisals or disinheritance, which Edward accepted, with notable exceptions. Edward maintained his particular hatred for one former Guardian. Comyn was thus obliged to adhere to a condition in which he and other named individuals were to "capture Sir William Wallace and hand him over to the king, who will watch to see how each of them conducts himself so that he can do most favour to whoever shall capture Wallace..." There is no evidence to suggest Comyn made any effort to fulfil this condition.

Death in Dumfries
On 10 February 1306 Robert the Bruce participated in the killing of John Comyn before the high altar of the Greyfriars Church in Dumfries. Legend, possibly apocryphal, says Robert the Bruce called Comyn to a meeting. After Sir Richard Edgar encouraged Robert to slay the Red Comyn, Robert stabbed him and rushed out to tell Roger de Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick went in to finish the job uttering: "You doubt! I mak siccar!" ("I make sure!") while Sir Robert Fleming decapitated Comyn, presenting the head to Robert, stating: "Let the deed shaw" ("Let the deed show").

Apart from these bare facts, nothing certain can be gathered from contemporary accounts. While later Scottish sources all try to justify the crime by amplifying earlier accusations of malevolence and treachery against Comyn, the English sources portray Robert as a villain who lured Comyn into a church – taken as a guarantee of safety – to commit premeditated murder.

Some sources state that Bruce and Comyn had previously signed a pact, whereby one would take the crown in return for the lands of the other. As they stood before the high altar, Bruce accused Comyn of having betrayed him to the English and struck Comyn with a dagger. It is unknown if this account is true.

Bruce's companions struck him with their swords. Sir Robert Comyn, rushing to aid his nephew, was killed by a blow to the head by Bruce's brother-in-law, Christopher Seton.

Thirteen days after the event, a garbled version of the facts reached the court of Edward I at Winchester, where the murder was reported as "the work of some people who are doing their utmost to trouble the peace and quiet of the realm of Scotland." Once the picture became clear, Edward reacted in fury, authorising Aymer de Valence, Comyn's brother-in-law, to take extraordinary action against Bruce and his adherents by refusing quarter to them. King Edward also emphasised his blood relationship with the Comyns by ordering his cousin, Joan, to send John's young son and namesake to England, where he was placed in the care of Sir John Weston, guardian of the royal children. John IV Comyn grew to manhood in England, not returning to Scotland until 1314, when he was killed at the Battle of Bannockburn. The death of his father plunged Scotland into a brief but bloody civil war, largely concluded by 1308, but with political reverberations that were to last for decades.

Documentary and narrative

 * Barbour, John, The Bruce, trans. A. A. H. Duncan, 1964.
 * Bower, Walter, Scotichronicon, ed. D. E. R. Watt, 1987–1996.
 * Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, ed. J. Bain, 1881.
 * Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. H. Rothwell, Camden Society, vol. 89, 1957.
 * Fordun, John of, Chronicles, ed. W. F. Skene, 1871–2.
 * Gray, Sir Thomas, Scalicronica, trans. H. Maxwell, 1913.
 * Lanercost Chronicle, trans. H. Maxwell, 1913.
 * Palgrave, F., ed. Documents and Records Illustrating the History of Scotland, 1837.
 * Pluscarden, the Book of, ed. F. J. H. Skene, 1877–80.
 * Wyntoun, Andrew, Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, ed. D. Laing, 1872–9.

Secondary works

 * Barron, E. M., The Scottish War of Independence, 1934.
 * Traquair, Peter Freedom's Sword, 1999.
 * Barron, E. M., The Scottish War of Independence, 1934.
 * Traquair, Peter Freedom's Sword, 1999.
 * Traquair, Peter Freedom's Sword, 1999.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: John Comyn III of Badenoch


text:
Vaala

Vaala is a municipality in Finland. It is located in the North Ostrobothnia region. Established in 1954 (predecessor municipality Säräisniemi, established in 1867), the municipality has a population of 0 and covers an area of undefined km2 of which undefined km2 is water. The population density is undefined PD/km2. Previously Vaala was part of the Kainuu region but was transferred to Northern Ostrobothnia on 1 January 2016.

Half of Oulujärvi, the fifth largest lake of Finland is located in Vaala.

The municipality is unilingually Finnish.

Vaala is also an old Finnish word, which means the phase in a river just before rapids.

History
The original center of the area was Manamansalo, the largest island in the Oulujärvi with a village by the same name. Both it and Säräisniemi were first mentioned in 1555 when they were parts of the large Liminka parish. The parish of Oulujärvi, covering all of Kainuu with its center in Manamansalo, was separated from Liminka in 1559, but merged back into Liminka in the 1580s after Russians raided the island. In 1599, the area became a parish again, this time with its center in Paltaniemi, due to which the parish was now known as Paltamo.

Säräisniemi acquired its own church under Paltamo in 1779 and became a separate parish and municipality in 1864. Vuolijoki was separated from Säräisniemi as a parish in 1896 and as a municipality in 1915. Some parts of Kajaanin maalaiskunta were also used in the municipality's formation. The village of Vaala was transferred from Utajärvi to Säräisniemi in 1954, becoming the new administrative center of the municipality. The municipality itself was also renamed Vaala in the process.

Vaala was transferred from Kainuu to North Ostrobothnia in 2016.

Dialect
Vaala is located on the border between the Northern Ostrobothnian and Savonian (Kainuu) dialects.

Notable people

 * Anne Huotari (born 1959)
 * Maustetytöt, band
 * Tytti Seppänen (born 1980)

title: Vaala


text:
Public sphere

The public sphere (Öffentlichkeit) is an area in social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. A "Public" is "of or concerning the people as a whole." Such a discussion is called public debate and is defined as the expression of views on matters that are of concern to the public—often, but not always, with opposing or diverging views being expressed by participants in the discussion. Public debate takes place mostly through the mass media, but also at meetings or through social media, academic publications and government policy documents.

The term was originally coined by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas who defined the public sphere as "made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state". Communication scholar Gerard A. Hauser defines it as "a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them". The public sphere can be seen as "a theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk" and "a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed".

History
Describing the emergence of the public sphere in the 18th century, Habermas noted that the public realm, or sphere, originally was "coextensive with public authority", while "the private sphere comprised civil society in the narrower sense, that is to say, the realm of commodity exchange and of social labor". Whereas the "sphere of public authority" dealt with the state, or realm of the police, and the ruling class, or the feudal authorities (church, princes and nobility) the "authentic 'public sphere, in a political sense, arose at that time from within the private realm, specifically, in connection with literary activities, the world of letters. This new public sphere spanned the public and the private realms, and "through the vehicle of public opinion it put the state in touch with the needs of society". "This area is conceptually distinct from the state: it [is] a site for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical of the state." The public sphere "is also distinct from the official economy; it is not an arena of market relations but rather one of the discursive relations, a theater for debating and deliberating rather than for buying and selling". These distinctions between "state apparatuses, economic markets, and democratic associations... are essential to democratic theory". The people themselves came to see the public sphere as a regulatory institution against the authority of the state. The study of the public sphere centers on the idea of participatory democracy, and how public opinion becomes political action.

The ideology of the public sphere theory is that the government's laws and policies should be steered by the public sphere and that the only legitimate governments are those that listen to the public sphere. "Democratic governance rests on the capacity of and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate". Much of the debate over the public sphere involves what is the basic theoretical structure of the public sphere, how information is deliberated in the public sphere, and what influence the public sphere has over society.

Definitions
Jürgen Habermas claims "We call events and occasions 'public' when they are open to all, in contrast to closed or exclusive affairs". This 'public sphere' is a "realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens".

This notion of the public becomes evident in terms such as public health, public education, public opinion or public ownership. They are opposed to the notions of private health, private education, private opinion, and private ownership. The notion of the public is intrinsically connected to the notion of the private.

Habermas stresses that the notion of the public is related to the notion of the common. For Hannah Arendt, the public sphere is therefore "the common world" that "gathers us together and yet prevents our falling over each other".

Habermas defines the public sphere as a "society engaged in critical public debate".

Conditions of the public sphere are according to Habermas:

 * The formation of public opinion
 * All citizens have access
 * Conference in unrestricted fashion (based on the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association, the freedom to expression and publication of opinions) about matters of general interest, which implies freedom from economic and political control.
 * Debate over the general rules governing relations.

Jürgen Habermas: bourgeois public sphere
Most contemporary conceptualizations of the public sphere are based on the ideas expressed in Jürgen Habermas' book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, which is a translation of his Habilitationsschrift, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit:Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. The German term Öffentlichkeit (public sphere) encompasses a variety of meanings and it implies a spatial concept, the social sites or arenas where meanings are articulated, distributed, and negotiated, as well as the collective body constituted by, and in this process, "the public". The work is still considered the foundation of contemporary public sphere theories, and most theorists cite it when discussing their own theories.

"The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public; they soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor."

Through this work, he gave a historical-sociological account of the creation, brief flourishing, and demise of a "bourgeois" public sphere based on rational-critical debate and discussion: Habermas stipulates that, due to specific historical circumstances, a new civic society emerged in the eighteenth century. Driven by a need for open commercial arenas where news and matters of common concern could be freely exchanged and discussed—accompanied by growing rates of literacy, accessibility to literature, and a new kind of critical journalism—a separate domain from ruling authorities started to evolve across Europe. "In its clash with the arcane and bureaucratic practices of the absolutist state, the emergent bourgeoisie gradually replaced a public sphere in which the ruler's power was merely represented before the people with a sphere in which state authority was publicly monitored through informed and critical discourse by the people".

In his historical analysis, Habermas points out three so-called "'institutional criteria" as preconditions for the emergence of the new public sphere. The discursive arenas, such as Britain's coffee houses, France's salons, and Germany's Tischgesellschaften "may have differed in the size and compositions of their publics, the style of their proceedings, the climate of their debates, and their topical orientations", but "they all organized discussion among people that tended to be ongoing; hence they had a number of institutional criteria in common":

 * 1) Disregard of status: Preservation of "a kind of social intercourse that, far from presupposing the equality of status, disregarded status altogether. ... Not that this idea of the public was actually realized in earnest in the coffee houses, salons, and the societies; but as an idea, it had become institutionalized and thereby stated as an objective claim. If not realized, it was at least consequential." (loc.  cit.)
 * 2) Domain of common concern: "... discussion within such a public presupposed the problematization of areas that until then had not been questioned. The domain of 'common concern' which was the object of public critical attention remained a preserve in which church and state authorities had the monopoly of interpretation. ... The private people for whom the cultural product became available as a commodity profaned it inasmuch as they had to determine its meaning on their own (by way of rational communication with one another), verbalize it, and thus state explicitly what precisely in its implicitness for so long could assert its authority." (loc. cit.)
 * 3) Inclusivity: However exclusive the public might be in any given instance, it could never close itself off entirely and become consolidated as a clique; for it always understood and found itself immersed within a more inclusive public of all private people, persons who – insofar as they were propertied and educated – as readers, listeners, and spectators could avail themselves via the market of the objects that were subject to discussion. The issues discussed became 'general' not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate. ... Wherever the public established itself institutionally as a stable group of discussants, it did not equate itself with the public but at most claimed to act as its mouthpiece, in its name, perhaps even as its educator – the new form of bourgeois representation" (loc. cit.).

Habermas argued that the bourgeois society cultivated and upheld these criteria. The public sphere was well established in various locations including coffee shops and salons, areas of society where various people could gather and discuss matters that concerned them. The coffee houses in London society at this time became the centers of art and literary criticism, which gradually widened to include even the economic and the political disputes as matters of discussion. In French salons, as Habermas says, "opinion became emancipated from the bonds of economic dependence". Any new work, or a book or a musical composition had to get its legitimacy in these places. It not only paved a forum for self-expression but in fact had become a platform for airing one's opinions and agendas for public discussion.

The emergence of a bourgeois public sphere was particularly supported by the 18th-century liberal democracy making resources available to this new political class to establish a network of institutions like publishing enterprises, newspapers and discussion forums, and the democratic press was the main tool to execute this. The key feature of this public sphere was its separation from the power of both the church and the government due to its access to a variety of resources, both economic and social.

As Habermas argues, in due course, this sphere of rational and universalistic politics, free from both the economy and the State, was destroyed by the same forces that initially established it. This collapse was due to the consumeristic drive that infiltrated society, so citizens became more concerned about consumption than political actions. Furthermore, the growth of capitalistic economy led to an uneven distribution of wealth, thus widening economic polarity. Suddenly the media became a tool of political forces and a medium for advertising rather than the medium from which the public got their information on political matters. This resulted in limiting access to the public sphere and the political control of the public sphere was inevitable for the modern capitalistic forces to operate and thrive in the competitive economy. "Therewith emerged a new sort of influence, i.e., media power, which, used for purposes of manipulation, once and for all took care of the innocence of the principle of publicity. The public sphere, simultaneously restructured and dominated by the mass media, developed into an arena infiltrated by power in which, by means of topic selection and topical contributions, a battle is fought not only over influence but over the control of communication flows that affect behavior while their strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as possible."

Counterpublics, feminist critiques and expansions
Although Structural Transformation was (and is) one of the most influential works in contemporary German philosophy and political science, it took 27 years until an English version appeared on the market in 1989. Based on a conference on the occasion of the English translation, at which Habermas himself attended, Craig Calhoun (1992) edited Habermas and the Public Sphere – a thorough dissection of Habermas' bourgeois public sphere by scholars from various academic disciplines. The core criticism at the conference was directed towards the above stated "institutional criteria":

 * 1) Hegemonic dominance and exclusion: In "Rethinking the Public Sphere," Nancy Fraser offers a feminist revision of Habermas' historical description of the public sphere, and confronts it with "recent revisionist historiography". She refers to other scholars, like Joan Landes, Mary P. Ryan and Geoff Eley, when she argues that the bourgeois public sphere was in fact constituted by a "number of significant exclusions." In contrast to Habermas' assertions on disregard of status and inclusivity, Fraser claims that the bourgeois public sphere discriminated against women and other historically marginalized groups: "... this network of clubs and associations – philanthropic, civic, professional, and cultural – was anything but accessible to everyone. On the contrary, it was the arena, the training ground and eventually the power base of a stratum of bourgeois men who were coming to see themselves as a "universal class" and preparing to assert their fitness to govern." Thus, she stipulates a hegemonic tendency of the male bourgeois public sphere, which dominated at the cost of alternative publics (for example by gender, social status, ethnicity and property ownership), thereby averting other groups from articulating their particular concerns.
 * 2) Bracketing of inequalities: Fraser makes us recall that "the bourgeois conception of the public sphere requires bracketing inequalities of status". The "public sphere was to be an arena in which interlocutors would set aside such characteristics as a difference in birth and fortune and speak to one another as if they were social and economic peers". Fraser refers to feminist research by Jane Mansbridge, which notes several relevant "ways in which deliberation can serve as a mask for domination". Consequently, she argues that "such bracketing usually works to the advantage of dominant groups in society and to the disadvantage of subordinates." Thus, she concludes: "In most cases, it would be more appropriate to unbracket inequalities in the sense of explicitly thematizing them – a point that accords with the spirit of Habermas' later communicative ethics".
 * 3) The problematic definition of "common concern": Nancy Fraser points out that "there are no naturally given, a priori boundaries" between matters that are generally conceived as private, and ones we typically label as public (i.e. of "common concern"). As an example, she refers to the historic shift in the general conception of domestic violence, from previously being a matter of primarily private concern, to now generally being accepted as a common one: "Eventually, after sustained discursive contestation we succeeded in making it a common concern".

Nancy Fraser identified the fact that marginalized groups are excluded from a universal public sphere, and thus it was impossible to claim that one group would, in fact, be inclusive. However, she claimed that marginalized groups formed their own public spheres, and termed this concept a subaltern counter public or counter-public.

Fraser worked from Habermas' basic theory because she saw it to be "an indispensable resource" but questioned the actual structure and attempted to address her concerns. She made the observation that "Habermas stops short of developing a new, post-bourgeois model of the public sphere". Fraser attempted to evaluate Habermas' bourgeois public sphere, discuss some assumptions within his model, and offer a modern conception of the public sphere.

In the historical reevaluation of the bourgeois public sphere, Fraser argues that rather than opening up the political realm to everyone, the bourgeois public sphere shifted political power from "a repressive mode of domination to a hegemonic one". Rather than rule by power, there was now rule by the majority ideology. To deal with this hegemonic domination, Fraser argues that repressed groups form "Subaltern counter-publics" that are "parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs".

Benhabib notes that in Habermas' idea of the public sphere, the distinction between public and private issues separates issues that normally affect women (issues of "reproduction, nurture and care for the young, the sick, and the elderly") into the private realm and out of the discussion in the public sphere. She argues that if the public sphere is to be open to any discussion that affects the population, there cannot be distinctions between "what is" and "what is not" discussed. Benhabib argues for feminists to counter the popular public discourse in their own counter public.

The public sphere was long regarded as men's domain whereas women were supposed to inhabit the private domestic sphere. A distinct ideology that prescribed separate spheres for women and men emerged during the industrial revolution.

The concept of heteronormativity is used to describe the way in which those who fall outside of the basic male/female dichotomy of gender or whose sexual orientations are other than heterosexual cannot meaningfully claim their identities, causing a disconnect between their public selves and their private selves. Michael Warner made the observation that the idea of an inclusive public sphere makes the assumption that we are all the same without judgments about our fellows. He argues that we must achieve some sort of disembodied state in order to participate in a universal public sphere without being judged. His observations point to a homosexual counter public, and offers the idea that homosexuals must otherwise remain "closeted" in order to participate in the larger public discourse.

Rhetorical

Gerard Hauser proposed a different direction for the public sphere than previous models. He foregrounds the rhetorical nature of public spheres, suggesting that public spheres form around "the ongoing dialogue on public issues" rather than the identity of the group engaged in the discourse.

Rather than arguing for an all-inclusive public sphere, or the analysis of tension between public spheres, he suggested that publics were formed by active members of society around issues. They are a group of interested individuals who engage in vernacular discourse about a specific issue. "Publics may be repressed, distorted, or responsible, but any evaluation of their actual state requires that we inspect the rhetorical environment as well as the rhetorical act out of which they evolved, for these are the conditions that constitute their individual character". These people formed rhetorical public spheres that were based in discourse, not necessarily orderly discourse but any interactions whereby the interested public engages each other. This interaction can take the form of institutional actors as well as the basic "street rhetoric" that "open[s] a dialogue between competing factions." The spheres themselves formed around the issues that were being deliberated. The discussion itself would reproduce itself across the spectrum of interested publics "even though we lack personal acquaintance with all but a few of its participants and are seldom in contexts where we and they directly interact, we join these exchanges because they are discussing the same matters". In order to communicate within the public sphere, "those who enter any given arena must share a reference world for their discourse to produce awareness for shared interests and public opinions about them". This world consists of common meanings and cultural norms from which interaction can take place.

The rhetorical public sphere has several primary features:
 * 1) it is discourse-based, rather than class-based.
 * 2) the critical norms are derived from actual discursive practices. Taking a universal reasonableness out of the picture, arguments are judged by how well they resonate with the population that is discussing the issue.
 * 3) intermediate bracketing of discursive exchanges. Rather than a conversation that goes on across a population as a whole, the public sphere is composed of many intermediate dialogs that merge later on in the discussion.

The rhetorical public sphere was characterized by five rhetorical norms from which it can be gauged and criticized. How well the public sphere adheres to these norms determine the effectiveness of the public sphere under the rhetorical model. Those norms are:

In all this Hauser believes a public sphere is a "discursive space in which strangers discuss issues they perceive to be of consequence for them and their group. Its rhetorical exchanges are the bases for shared awareness of common issues, shared interests, tendencies of extent and strength of difference and agreement, and self-constitution as a public whose opinions bear on the organization of society."
 * 1) permeable boundaries: Although a public sphere may have a specific membership as with any social movement or deliberative assembly, people outside the group can participate in the discussion.
 * 2) activity: Publics are active rather than passive. They do not just hear the issue and applaud, but rather they actively engage the issue and the publics surrounding the issue.
 * 3) contextualized language: They require that participants adhere to the rhetorical norm of contextualized language to render their respective experiences intelligible to one another.
 * 4) believable appearance: The public sphere must appear to be believable to each other and the outside public.
 * 5) tolerance: In order to maintain a vibrant discourse, others opinions need to be allowed to enter the arena.

This concept that the public sphere acts as a medium in which public opinion is formed as analogous to a lava lamp. Just as the lamp's structure changes, with its lava separating and forming new shapes, so does the public sphere's creation of opportunities for discourse to address public opinion, thereby forming new discussions of rhetoric. The lava of the public which holds together the public arguments is the public conversation.

Media
Habermas argues that the public sphere requires "specific means for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it".

Habermas' argument shows that the media are of particular importance for constituting and maintaining a public sphere. Discussions about the media have therefore been of particular importance in public sphere theory.

As actors in the political public sphere
According to Habermas, there are two types of actors without whom no political public sphere could be put to work: professionals in the media system and politicians. For Habermas, there are five types of actors who make their appearance on the virtual stage of an established public sphere:

(a) Lobbyists who represent special interest groups;

(b) Advocates who either represent general interest groups or substitute for a lack of representation of marginalized groups that are unable to voice their interests effectively;

(c) Experts who are credited with professional or scientific knowledge in some specialized area and are invited to give advice;

(d) Moral entrepreneurs who generate public attention for supposedly neglected issues;

(e) Intellectuals who have gained, unlike advocates or moral entrepreneurs, a perceived personal reputation in some field (e.g., as writers or academics) and who engage, unlike experts and lobbyists, spontaneously in public discourse with the declared intention of promoting general interests.

Libraries have been inextricably tied to educational institutions in the modern era having developed within democratic societies. Libraries took on aspects of the public sphere (as did classrooms), even while public spheres transformed in the macro sense. These contextual conditions led to a fundamental conservative rethinking of civil society institutions like schools and libraries.

YouTube
Habermas argues that under certain conditions, the media act to facilitate discourse in a public sphere. The rise of the Internet has brought about a resurgence of scholars applying theories of the public sphere to Internet technologies.

For example, a study by S. Edgerly et al. focused on the ability of YouTube to serve as an online public sphere. The researchers examined a large sample of video comments using the California Proposition 8 (2008) as an example. The authors argue that some scholars think the online public sphere is a space where a wide range of voices can be expressed due to the "low barrier of entry" and interactivity. However, they also point at a number of limitations. Edgerly et al. say that the affirmative discourse presupposes that YouTube can be an influential player in the political process and that it can serve as an influential force to politically mobilize young people. YouTube has allowed anyone and everyone to be able to get any political knowledge they wish. The authors mention critiques that say YouTube is built around the popularity of videos with sensationalist content. It has also allowed people to broadcast themselves for a large public sphere, where people can form their own opinions and discuss different things in the comments. The research by Edgerly, et al. found that the analyzed YouTube comments were diverse. They argue that this is a possible indicator that YouTube provides space for public discussion. They also found that YouTube videos' style influences the nature of the commentary. Finally, they concluded that the video's ideological stances influenced the language of the comments. The findings of the work suggest that YouTube is a public sphere platform.

Additional work by S. Buckley reflected on the role that news content, specifically US cable news, contributed towards the formation of the public sphere. His research analysed a total of 1239 videos uploaded by five news organisations and investigated the link between content and user engagement. Through both content and sentiment analysis, it was suggested that the sentiment of the language used in the titles of the videos had an impact upon the public, with negatively sentimented titles generated more user engagement. Buckley suggested that due to the aspect of emotionality that is present in news content that due to the ongoing process of media hybridization, a new conceptual framework of the public sphere that acknowledges how both thoughtful discussions as well as ones which express feelings in an overt way needs to be developed.

Limitations of media and the internet
Some, like Colin Sparks, note that a new global public sphere ought to be created in the wake of increasing globalization and global institutions, which operate at the supranational level. However, the key questions for him were, whether any media exists in terms of size and access to fulfil this role. The traditional media, he notes, are close to the public sphere in this true sense. Nevertheless, limitations are imposed by the market and concentration of ownership. At present, the global media fail to constitute the basis of a public sphere for at least three reasons. Similarly, he notes that the internet, for all its potential, does not meet the criteria for a public sphere and that unless these are "overcome, there will be no sign of a global public sphere".

German scholars Jürgen Gerhards and Mike S. Schäfer conducted a study in 2009 in order to establish whether the Internet offers a better and broader communication environment compared to quality newspapers. They analyzed how the issue of human genome research was portrayed between 1999 and 2001 in popular quality newspapers in both Germany and the United States in comparison to the way it appeared on search engines at the time of their research. Their intention was to analyze what actors and what sort of opinions the subject generated in both print and the Internet and verify whether the online space proved to be a more democratic public sphere, with a wider range of sources and views. Gerhards and Schäfer say they have found "only minimal evidence to support the idea that the internet is a better communication space as compared to print media". "In both media, communication is dominated by (bio- and natural) scientific actors; popular inclusion does not occur". The scholars argue that the search algorithms select the sources of information based on the popularity of their links. "Their gatekeeping, in contrast to the old mass media, relies mainly on technical characteristics of websites". For Gerhards and Schäfer the Internet is not an alternative public sphere because less prominent voices end up being silenced by the search engines' algorithms. "Search engines might actually silence societal debate by giving more space to established actors and institutions". Another tactic that supports this view is astroturfing. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot said that Astroturfing software, "has the potential to destroy the internet as a forum for constructive debate. It jeopardizes the notion of online democracy".

Virtual
There has been an academic debate about how social media impacts the public sphere. The sociologists Brian Loader and Dan Mercea give an overview of this discussion. They argue that social media offers increasing opportunities for political communication and enable democratic capacities for political discussion within the virtual public sphere. The effect would be that citizens could challenge governments and corporations' political and economic power. Additionally, new forms of political participation and information sources for the users emerge with the Internet that can be used, for example, in online campaigns. However, the two authors point out that social media's dominant uses are entertainment, consumerism, and content sharing among friends. Loader and Mercea point out that "individual preferences reveal an unequal spread of social ties with a few giant nodes such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook and YouTube attracting the majority of users". They also stress that some critics have voiced the concern that there is a lack of seriousness in political communication on social media platforms. Moreover, lines between professional media coverage and user-generated content would blur on social media.

The authors conclude that social media provides new opportunities for political participation; however, they warn users of the risks of accessing unreliable sources. The Internet impacts the virtual public sphere in many ways, but is not a free utopian platform as some observers argued at the beginning of its history.

Mediated publicness
John Thompson criticises the traditional idea of public sphere by Habermas, as it is centred mainly in face-to-face interactions. On the contrary, Thompson argues that modern society is characterized by a new form of "mediated publicness", whose main characteristics are:

 * Despatialized (there is a rupture of time/space. People can see more things, as they do not need to share the same physical location, but this extended vision always has an angle, which people do not have control over).
 * Non dialogical (unidirectional. For example, presenters on TV are not able to adapt their discourse to the reactions of the audience, since they are visible to a wide audience but that audience is not directly visible to them. However, internet allows a bigger interactivity).
 * Wider and more diverse audiences. (The same message can reach people with different education, different social class, different values and beliefs, and so on.)

This mediated publicness has altered the power relations in a way in which not only the many are visible to the few but the few can also now see the many:

"Whereas the Panopticon renders many people visible to a few and enables power to be exercised over the many by subjecting them to a state of permanent visibility, the development of communication media provides a means by which many people can gather information about a few and, at the same time, a few can appear before many; thanks to the media, it is primarily those who exercise power, rather than those over whom power is exercised, who are subjected to a certain kind of visibility".

However, Thompson also acknowledges that "media and visibility is a double-edged sword" meaning that even though they can be used to show an improved image (by managing the visibility), individuals are not in full control of their self-presentation. Mistakes, gaffes or scandals are now recorded therefore they are harder to deny, as they can be replayed by the media.

The public service model
Examples of the public service model include BBC in Britain, and the ABC and SBS in Australia. The political function and effect of modes of public communication has traditionally continued with the dichotomy between Hegelian State and civil society. The dominant theory of this mode includes the liberal theory of the free press. However, the public service, state-regulated model, whether publicly or privately funded, has always been seen not as a positive good but as an unfortunate necessity imposed by the technical limitations of frequency scarcity.

According to Habermas's concept of the public sphere, the strength of this concept is that it identifies and stresses the importance for democratic politics of a sphere distinct from the economy and the State. On the other hand, this concept challenges the liberal free press tradition form the grounds of its materiality, and it challenges the Marxist critique of that tradition from the grounds of the specificity of politics as well.

From Garnham's critique, three great virtues of Habermas's public sphere are mentioned. Firstly, it focuses on the indissoluble like between the institutions and practices of mass public communication and the institutions and practices of democratic politics. The second virtue of Habermas's approach concentrate on the necessary material resource base for ant public. Its third virtue is to escape from the simple dichotomy of free market versus state control that dominates so much thinking about media policy.

Non-liberal theories
Oskar Negt & Alexander Kluge took a non-liberal view of public spheres, and argued that Habermas' reflections on the bourgeois public sphere should be supplemented with reflections on the proletarian public spheres and the public spheres of production.

Proletarian
The distinction between bourgeois and proletarian public spheres is not mainly a distinction between classes. The proletarian public sphere is rather to be conceived of as the "excluded", vague, unarticulated impulses of resistance or resentment. The proletarian public sphere carries the subjective feelings, the egocentric malaise with the common public narrative, interests that are not socially valorized
 * "As extraeconomic interests, they exist—precisely in the forbidden zones of fantasy beneath the surface of taboos—as stereotypes of a proletarian context of living that is organized in a merely rudimentary form."

The bourgeois and proletarian public spheres are mutually defining: The proletarian public sphere carries the "left-overs" from the bourgeois public sphere, while the bourgeois public is based upon the productive forces of the underlying resentment:
 * "In this respect, they " [i.e. the proletarian public spheres] " have two characteristics: in their defensive attitude toward society, their conservatism, and their subcultural character, they are once again mere objects; but they are, at the same time, the block of real life that goes against the valorization interest. As long as capital is dependent on living labor as a source of wealth, this element of the proletarian context of living cannot be extinguished through repression."

Production
Negt and Kluge furthermore point out the necessity of considering a third dimension of the public spheres: The public spheres of production. The public spheres of production collect the impulses of resentment and instrumentalizes them in the productive spheres. The public spheres of production are wholly instrumental and have no critical impulse (unlike the bourgeois and proletarian spheres). The interests that are incorporated in the public sphere of production are given capitalist shape, and questions of their legitimately are thus neutralized.

Biopolitical public
By the end of the 20th century, the discussions about public spheres got a new biopolitical twist. Traditionally the public spheres had been contemplated as to how free agents transgress the private spheres. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have, drawing on the late Michel Foucault's writings on biopolitics, suggested that we reconsider the very distinction between public and private spheres. They argue that the traditional distinction is founded on a certain (capitalist) account of property that presupposes clear-cut separations between interests. This account of property is (according to Hardt and Negri) based upon a scarcity economy. The scarcity economy is characterized by an impossibility of sharing the goods. If "agent A" eats the bread, "agent B" cannot have it. The interests of agents are thus, generally, clearly separated.

However, with the evolving shift in the economy towards an informational materiality, in which value is based upon the informational significance, or the narratives surrounding the products, the clear-cut subjective separation is no longer obvious. Hardt and Negri see the open source approaches as examples of new ways of co-operation that illustrate how economic value is not founded upon exclusive possession, but rather upon collective potentialities. Informational materiality is characterized by gaining value only through being shared. Hardt and Negri thus suggest that the commons become the focal point of analyses of public relations. The point being that with this shift it becomes possible to analyse how the very distinctions between the private and public are evolving.

title: Public sphere


text:
Blunderbore

Blunderbore (also recorded as Blunderboar, Thunderbore, Blunderbus, or Blunderbuss) is a giant of Cornish and English folklore. A number of folk and fairy tales include a giant named Blunderbore, most notably "Jack the Giant Killer". The stories usually associate him with the area of Penwith.

Cornish folklore remembers Blunderbore as living in Ludgvan Lese (a manor in Ludgvan), where he terrorized travelers heading north to St Ives. In "Jack the Giant Killer" he is the second or third giant (along with his brother Rebecks) killed by the hero Jack. Under the influence of that story, the name "Blunderbore" is frequently appropriated by other legendary giants; the later fairy tale "Tom the Tinkeard", a local Cornish variant of "Tom Hickathrift", contains a similar account of the hero's battle with a giant named Blunderbore. Likewise, it is usually given as the name of the ogre in "Jack and the Beanstalk".

Appearances
Blunderbore first appears in the fairy tale "Jack the Giant Killer". In the version recorded by Joseph Jacobs, Blunderbore lives in Penwith, where he kidnaps three lords and ladies, planning to eat the men and make the women his wives. When the women refuse to eat their husbands with the giant, he hangs them by their hair in his dungeon and leaves them to starve. Shortly, the hero Jack stops along the highway from Penwith to Wales to get a drink from a fountain and take a nap. Blunderbore discovers the sleeping Jack. Recognizing him by his labeled belt and having known of him killing Cormoran, carries him to his castle and locks him in a cell. While off inviting his friend Rebecks to come help him eat Jack, Jack creates nooses from some rope. When the giants arrive, he drops the nooses, slides down the rope, and slits their throats.

A giant named Blunderbore appears in the similar Cornish fairy tale "Tom the Tinkeard" (or "Tom the Tinkard"), a local variant of the more famous "Tom Hickathrift". Here, Blunderbore has built a hedge over the King's Highway between St Ives to Marazion, claiming the land as his own. The motif of the abduction of women appears in this version, as Blunderbore has kidnapped at least twenty women as his wives. The hero Tom awakes the giant from a nap while taking a wagon and oxen back from St Ives to Marazion. Blunderbore tears up an elm to swat Tom off his property, but Tom slides one of the axles from the wagon and uses it to fight and eventually fatally wound the giant. In his dying breaths, the giant confers all his wealth to Tom and requests a proper burial.

In popular culture
Blunderbore appears as a monster type in the computer game Diablo II.

title: Blunderbore