13 Ibid., pp.28ff.
14 Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Publibsp;Sphere, pp.36ff.
15 Benhabib,op.cit., p.200.
16 Benhabib, “Models of Publibsp;Spabsp;Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas.” In Craig Calhoun, ed.Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 73-98.
17 例如，收入上書的另一篇文章就說，哈貝馬斯的公共領域概念“也同古典共和主義形成了對照，後者把公共政治領域看成獨立公民參與行使一種至高無上的共同的政治意誌的場所，如阿倫特所認定的。哈貝馬斯所描繪的公共領域的創造，可以被理解為現代社會的一個重要特征，而不是古老城邦模式的複興。它的成員被詮釋為擴散到全社會的私人，而不是共和體中在一個政治論壇中共同聚集的公民；他們在批判性的討論中形成理性的、彼此同意的判斷，而不是為了達成共同意誌而互相競技”。Baker, Keith Michael. “Defining the Publibsp;Sphere in Eighteenth-tury Franbsp;Variations on a Theme by Habermas,”op.cit., pp. 187-8.
18 Fuss, Peter. “Hannah Arendt’s ception of Politibsp;unity.” In Melvyn A.Hill, ed.Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Publibsp;World. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979, pp. 172-173. Parekh,Bhikhu.Hannah Arendt and the Searbsp;for a New Political Philosophy. London:Macmillan, 1981, p. 177.
19 d’Entreves, Maurizio Pasrin. The Politibsp;Philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London:Rouledge, 1994, pp. 84-85.
20 江宜樺：《自由民主的理路》，新星出版社2006年版，第306—307頁。
21 阿倫特：《人的條件》，第182頁。
22 Arendt, “Philosophy and Politics,”Social Rearbsp;57: 1 (Spring, 1990), p. 80.轉引自江宜樺：《自由民主的理路》，第309—309頁。
23 Arendt, H.Between Past and Future. New York:Meridian, 1961, p.4.
24 Benhabib, “Models of Publibsp;Spabsp;Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, p. 78.
25 阿倫特的權力觀是和他人一起行使權力，而不是對他人行使權力，見阿倫特：《人的條件》，第200—204頁。
26 Arendt, The Human dition. 8th ed. Chicago: Uy of Chicago Press, 1973[1958], pp. 178ff.
27 Benhabib, The Relut Modernism of Hannah Arendt, p. 199.
28 , Oskar and Alexander Kluge. Publibsp;Sphere and Experienbsp;Toward an Analysis of the Beois and Proletarian Publibsp;Sphere. Minneapolis:Uy of Mia Press, 1993[1972].
29 Frar, Nanbsp;“Rethinking the Publibsp;Sphere: A tribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 109-142.
30 Frar, Nanbsp;“Rethinking the Publibsp;Sphere: A tribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, p. 125.