Uppsatsen syftar till att underso?ka kulturtidskrifternas roll och status i det svenska samha?llet idag, bland annat genom intervjuer med verksamma redakto?rer pa? olika kulturtidskrifter. Som problembakgrund presenteras den paradoxala situation som kulturtidskrifterna sta?lls emot: de anses som viktiga fo?r yttrandefrihet, demokrati och ma?ngfald men blir a?nda? fo?rsummade och underprioriterade inom politik och forskning. Utifra?n detta formuleras tre fra?gesta?llningar:Hur ser redakto?rerna pa? den politik som drivs kring kulturtidskriften?Vad anser redakto?rerna att kulturtidskriften har fo?r roll och status i samha?llet?Hur kan kulturtidskriftens roll och status tolkas utifra?n de intervjuaderedakto?rernas svar, den ra?dande kulturpolitiska diskussionen, kulturteorier ochtidigare forskning?Dessa fra?gor analyseras utifra?n intervjusvaren, tidigare forskning, Horkheimer ochAdornos teoretisering av kulturindustrin, Habermas teorier om det offentliga rummet samt Bourdieus fa?ltteori och teori om ekonomiskt och kulturellt kapital.

?Liberal Democracy? is a common term in political theory, and it is used as if it had a commonly accepted referent, with both normative and descriptive content. This is certainly the case in democratic theory, where it on the one hand seems to refer to a normative democratic model; on the other hand it is used descriptively, to refer to real-life democracies. The deliberative democratic sub-field is not an exception; on the contrary, the term is frequently used albeit rarely defined; yet the concept it refers to is supposedly developed enough to allow detailed propositions about its citizens?s political behaviour.This essay is an attempt to analyze how Liberal Democracy is used by three deliberative democrats (Jürgen Habermas, John Dryzek and Stephen Elstub), in order to understand the democratic model (or models), whether normative or descriptive, they refer to.

?Liberal Democracy? is a common term in political theory, and it is used as if it had a commonly accepted referent, with both normative and descriptive content. This is certainly the case in democratic theory, where it on the one hand seems to refer to a normative democratic model; on the other hand it is used descriptively, to refer to real-life democracies. The deliberative democratic sub-field is not an exception; on the contrary, the term is frequently used albeit rarely defined; yet the concept it refers to is supposedly developed enough to allow detailed propositions about its citizens?s political behaviour.This essay is an attempt to analyze how Liberal Democracy is used by three deliberative democrats (Jürgen Habermas, John Dryzek and Stephen Elstub), in order to understand the democratic model (or models), whether normative or descriptive, they refer to.