Privacy in today’s United States has surpassed the level of a topic or a theoretical idea. As information technology and people’s dependence on virtual platform networking keep growing, privacy has turned into a highly marketable business and become an inseparable part of the US economy. When the word privacy first appeared in literature in 1534 according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it would have been difficult to imagine such single-dimensional idea would grow into a capital influence to society. In common context, privacy denotes a state of seclusion by choice. Today after four and a half centuries, the definition of privacy has not changed a great deal. However the domain of privacy has been vastly expanded due to the new risks, challenges and technological advancement people are faced with.
The idea of privacy has a strong association with security, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Humans reside and function in communities yet individuals constantly maintain certain distance from one another to achieve a stable level of comfort and safety. As a result, certain personal information, for instance physical address, earning profiles and medical records, is universally classified as private in modern civilized societies. Unauthorized disclosure of this sensitive information inconveniently shortens or even eliminates interpersonal distance by providing a full exposure of people. Not willing to risk the possibility of invasion to personal comfort zone and security, people today emphasize more and more and privacy.
A beautiful aspect of the United States is its respect for people and individuality. In such spirit, the promotion of privacy is a realization of this American value. Not only does privacy maintains distance between individuals, it also reserves people from public examination. Not having to justify every decision and action, people can arguably be more true and honest to themselves. In other word, under the protection of privacy, people are able to freely develop into the characters and personalities they wish. In addition, the more and more frequent use of “private/personal opinion” or “private/personal voice” when people make a comment is also worth discussing. By classifying a message being private, the commentator consciously disassociates from “the majority’s point of view” and declares the personal value as he/she speaks, which in fact magnifies individuality.
In addition, privacy functions as a signifier of status symbol in a hierarchical society. In the US, privacy denotes a sense of exclusiveness. For example, a party classified private demands participants belong to certain social groups. The expression of private house and private vehicle implies the possession of wealth and a high standard of living. In other words, access to privacy requires meeting certain preconditions, whether it is specific social affiliation or income levels. It is interesting to observe the group of people in our society demanding the highest level of privacy: Hollywood celebrities. As public figures, these stars and artists obviously belong to the highest income group in the country, which enables them to afford tank-like vehicles and personal castles to avoid unnecessary camera exposure outside of work. However, their action to achieve higher and higher level of privacy appears to be counterintuitive for exposure is their very means to generate even greater income.
Since it helps us maintain personal security and define ourselves as unique individuals, it appears to be completely justifiable to put heavy emphasis on privacy. However, a dilemma is created when our certain practices contradict with our intent to value privacy. The popularity of online networking and communication encourage people to be more and more accessible to each other. Also in our society, legal and governmental actions oftentimes override individual privacy, for instance the PATRIOT act and income tax laws. Must accessibility be strictly against privacy? Would it be possible to achieve a harmonious balance between the two? A fair conclusion is difficult to be drawn for we are in a time where privacy is a well-oiled machine in the economy.
Works Cited
“Privacy.” Oxford English Dictionary. March 2008. https://vpn.lib.ucdavis.edu/cgi/entry/,DanaInfo=dictionary.oed.com+50188914?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=privacy&first=1&max_to_show=10
“Privacy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 14th, 2002. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/
Sport
16 years ago
2 comments:
Your post points out very good articulation point, but i think it's fair to also mentioned some of the drawbacks and consequences that privacy has. In the 21st century, privacy have become more and more vulnerable. The simplest privacy threat is your convenience store card such as Safeway, Costco, and Wal-Mart. Think about the information that they have, address book, names, and maybe social security numbers and keep in mind that those information is not hold by the Government, but by the corporate company.
Furthermore, when I think about cards, we have to give some degree of our privacy in order to receive the benefit of technology; credit cards.
well, like i have mentioned from my post, the advantages and disadvantages truly co-exist in our life, it's just a matter of our ways in embracing it.
Great post, you connect privacy in U.S. with individualism and freedom, and i think that's the other way to look at the positive side of privacy
I find it interesting that people often have the need to qualify their statements (especially on our class) with utterances such as "personally, I feel, to me..."—these phrases seem oddly redundant and unnecessary: if you are saying something, isn't it implicitly "to you"? These types of qualifiers are linked to your observation that 'privacy' has become a way that we frame certain self-expressions, rather than being the implied *basis of* self-expression. So it would be worth asking: when we have to insist that we are saying something from our 'private' selves, do we really believe in these private selves, or are they things we have to keep alive in discourse precisely because they have no real inner form of existence? Eddy is right, too, to point out the ways in which consumerism both demands that we have private lives, and that we grant access to these lives at every turn. This is a fascinating subject, Rick, and you've gotten us into the thick of it.
Post a Comment