Earlier today, I listened to your audio-book on privacy, "The Hidden History of Big Brother". I have a slightly different take on privacy, which I believe is relevant to your column today. I don't think "privacy" is by nature a phenomenon of human culture, people lived and worked together in common (hunter-gatherers), and even afterwards…
Earlier today, I listened to your audio-book on privacy, "The Hidden History of Big Brother". I have a slightly different take on privacy, which I believe is relevant to your column today. I don't think "privacy" is by nature a phenomenon of human culture, people lived and worked together in common (hunter-gatherers), and even afterwards in smaller villages when settling. There was little need for privacy, in fact it could be detrimental to the community's survival if individuals withdrew "privately". But even after communities began to grow into kingdoms and the individuals involved in doing work, slaves, peasants, servants were never granted privacy, only the lords or lieutenants, etc. The idea of privacy is essentially attached to property, and until recent post-20th century culture was it ever entrusted to the non-elite. But as you point out, that grant was always attached to govt, and business trying to "spy" on those who they now might have granted certain rights of privacy too. My point being I don't think privacy should be necessary, but is necessary for all the reasons you point out in your book. People need "privacy" for protection from those who tread into their public lives.
When I grew up homosexuality of any kind was forced into dark corners of privacy because they could not openly be public. I don't think I even conceived that there were any other ways of expressing intimacy, I had never heard of it. Some of my classmates didn't even "know how babies are made" until they made one because it was so repressed that a lot of us really didn't exactly make the connection. We knew we had desires but sex was so private we never really learned exactly what our passions meant or the consequences, but we were told the consequences were bad--we would go the bad place. In the 60's,as I was maturing, everything began to change and we could be public. Women could only challenge bosses who attempted to seduce and gays could be "proud". The return to the public sphere gave people feelings of dignity, dignity of individuals could challenge those who might try to control their behavior or demand their submission. It gave rise to a threat, or a perceived threat, to those who might believe they were entitled to all of the dignity, and all of the authority. At first, when workers' rights began becoming suppressed, people could still publicly proclaim certain rights of dignity, choosing an abortion or not; attending a gay pride march.
Now I'm not overly concerned about "maga followers" because, as you pointed out, they are being algorithmically programmed to follow. What does concern me though, is the megaphones that are in the hands of those who are leading the charge away from "democracy". Because you only have to look at history to know that the majority cannot prevent a coterie of oligarchs successfully overthrowing a government. I'm quite sure in the first civilized grain governments there was no majority consensus that they wanted to be enslaved and provide food for the leaders. And I fear that what everyone is misunderstanding from the "left" is that the majority will vote to stop the erosion of liberties. If there is enough chaos created by the minority, the majority will vote to end the chaos, and ironically, history has repeatedly shown, ends up being blamed not by the creators of those who create it, but on those who don't end it. Therein becomes my problem. How do you then end the chaos without exercising authoritarianism against the chaos? Authoritarians thrive by making people need to retreat to being private, as you illustrate with your story about your trip to Singapore.
It is playing into the hands of those who are attempting to shut people out of the public sphere by complaining about taking away the rights of privacy. To accept others we must embrace them publicly, and shut us up, out of fear against being exposed.If I fear someone will steal my money, my identity, my thoughts, or whatever, then I must retreat back to my private self and rescind from my public participation. Privacy becomes necessary only when our openly public identities become threatened.
Earlier today, I listened to your audio-book on privacy, "The Hidden History of Big Brother". I have a slightly different take on privacy, which I believe is relevant to your column today. I don't think "privacy" is by nature a phenomenon of human culture, people lived and worked together in common (hunter-gatherers), and even afterwards in smaller villages when settling. There was little need for privacy, in fact it could be detrimental to the community's survival if individuals withdrew "privately". But even after communities began to grow into kingdoms and the individuals involved in doing work, slaves, peasants, servants were never granted privacy, only the lords or lieutenants, etc. The idea of privacy is essentially attached to property, and until recent post-20th century culture was it ever entrusted to the non-elite. But as you point out, that grant was always attached to govt, and business trying to "spy" on those who they now might have granted certain rights of privacy too. My point being I don't think privacy should be necessary, but is necessary for all the reasons you point out in your book. People need "privacy" for protection from those who tread into their public lives.
When I grew up homosexuality of any kind was forced into dark corners of privacy because they could not openly be public. I don't think I even conceived that there were any other ways of expressing intimacy, I had never heard of it. Some of my classmates didn't even "know how babies are made" until they made one because it was so repressed that a lot of us really didn't exactly make the connection. We knew we had desires but sex was so private we never really learned exactly what our passions meant or the consequences, but we were told the consequences were bad--we would go the bad place. In the 60's,as I was maturing, everything began to change and we could be public. Women could only challenge bosses who attempted to seduce and gays could be "proud". The return to the public sphere gave people feelings of dignity, dignity of individuals could challenge those who might try to control their behavior or demand their submission. It gave rise to a threat, or a perceived threat, to those who might believe they were entitled to all of the dignity, and all of the authority. At first, when workers' rights began becoming suppressed, people could still publicly proclaim certain rights of dignity, choosing an abortion or not; attending a gay pride march.
Now I'm not overly concerned about "maga followers" because, as you pointed out, they are being algorithmically programmed to follow. What does concern me though, is the megaphones that are in the hands of those who are leading the charge away from "democracy". Because you only have to look at history to know that the majority cannot prevent a coterie of oligarchs successfully overthrowing a government. I'm quite sure in the first civilized grain governments there was no majority consensus that they wanted to be enslaved and provide food for the leaders. And I fear that what everyone is misunderstanding from the "left" is that the majority will vote to stop the erosion of liberties. If there is enough chaos created by the minority, the majority will vote to end the chaos, and ironically, history has repeatedly shown, ends up being blamed not by the creators of those who create it, but on those who don't end it. Therein becomes my problem. How do you then end the chaos without exercising authoritarianism against the chaos? Authoritarians thrive by making people need to retreat to being private, as you illustrate with your story about your trip to Singapore.
It is playing into the hands of those who are attempting to shut people out of the public sphere by complaining about taking away the rights of privacy. To accept others we must embrace them publicly, and shut us up, out of fear against being exposed.If I fear someone will steal my money, my identity, my thoughts, or whatever, then I must retreat back to my private self and rescind from my public participation. Privacy becomes necessary only when our openly public identities become threatened.