Abstract
The roles of dissent in the public sphere are explored. Specifically, I will explain the discussion about the proposal made by Kendall R. Phillips and G. Thomas Goodnight's critical response. Then, the three roles that Phillips identifies are scrutinized. For instance, the obstacle function to continue the work of public deliberation is important in making sociological arguments, the heuristic function to expand the knowledge of the public sphere is important in making technological arguments, and the corrective function to improve the procedure of deliberative practice is important in making political and ethical arguments. I will examine Chomsky's arguments to criticize the Bush administration after 9/11 as a paradigm case to illustrate the significance of public dissent. In conclusion, it is argued that the lack of reasonable disagreement in the public sphere inhibits the full functioning of the legitimate democratic states.
