Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
=============================
Abstract:
A denial of privacy to the contrary establishes and maintains a lack and loss
of esteem, respect and value in and for things and other persons.
As with most routine responses that have become maxims of contemporary society
and proverbs uttered in reply to trigger words, this statement is more
informative about the speaker than of the addressee or the subject of
discussion.
More often than not its underlying meaning should be rephrased to read "I am
uneasy, maybe even afraid, around people that hide something". As such it
carries the implied request to anyone hearing it, that they shall stop
covering and hiding things to relieve the speaker of his uneasiness.
But even when taken at face value, above sentence communicates that it is the
lack of fear that is the speakers justification for not protecting his
privacy. Apart from the simple rejection of this statement as being false in
the light of existing and relevant threats and the reference to the
blissfulness of ignorance, it is the exclusiveness of fear as the proposed
reason for privacy that warrants consideration.
Again it is not the focus of this analysis to show that protection of privacy
and admitting to doing so requires a bit more courage than to repeat common
proverbs, or that certain dangers exist that can be effectively answered by
privacy. Nor does it need emphasis that those who protect the privacy of
others often do so in the face of opponents that go a long way to ruin the
names, property, freedom and sometimes even health and life of those
courageous guards of privacy.
Instead it should be pointed out, that there are for more reasons to protect
ones privacy, and that of others, than fear of losing freedom or life or even
good reputation.
Leaving the analysis of the original statement one should now focus on the
negation of the privacy opponent's reply while keeping its completed meaning
in mind:
"Because I value and respect some things, I hide some things."
Complex opinions and bodies of knowledge that are valued highly by their
bearers are often only communicated under strict conditions to prevent
misunderstanding, misrepresentation, confusion and disintegration.
This is especially useful if the opinion is only held by a minority or if the
potential audience lacks the necessary context of knowledge to integrate and
consider the new information.
The strict conditions under which the information will be communicated serves
herein as the boundary between public and private. The more complex, valuable
and different from general knowledge the new information is, the stricter the
conditions of communicating them becomes. This can be seen in various areas.
Personal political or moral opinions, especially if they are held only by a
minority, will often not be communicated in situations that only allow
superficial or time restrained conversation.
These situations do not allow for the speaker to present and argue for their
position and thus risk for the information to be misunderstood and
misrepresented later.
The consequences of this disintegration of information can be witnessed in the
effects of hearsay that considers itself with minority groups and opinions,
leading to widespread false myths that often cannot be corrected afterwards
because they have become part of common knowledge.
Thus it is often favorable to conceal personal opinion and deprive the public
of correct information if otherwise the reinforcement of false information or
the support of slander are likely.
The quality of public and political debate as well as the celebrity and gossip
culture serve as evidence for this.
Numerous further examples about the protection of ideas through hiding exist
in history and shall only be mentioned for further reference: Pythagorism and
Platonism, the Apologists of early Christianity, the Orthodox Church liturgy,
natural science and political societies of the Enlightenment including Bacon
and Newton as members, Judaism, early Socialism.
Privacy in this regard serves to preserve the integrity, and often survival,
of information, ideas and opinions.
Another area of interest is privacy and the use of hiding for the sake of
other persons. To understand what role privacy plays in the context of
relationships between humans it is necessary to be aware of what communication
is.
Communication is any act of a sender to convey information to a receiver. This
involves forming signs - distinguishable and perceivable features - into
signals - the message to be transmitted.
The choice of signs and signals by the sender and their interpretation by the
receiver depend strongly on the context, what both parties perceive about each
other, themselves and their environment.
Another part of this context is the estimation of how difficult a sign is to
be produced which has an influence on as how truthful and intentional a signal
(message) is perceived.
A proverbial example for this is "to preach water and drink wine". One
immediately understands that abstaining form wine - which is more costly than
to consume it - increases the credibility of the message (and resolves the
otherwise apparent contradiction).
Maintaining privacy, in its various forms of hiding, concealing and silence,
is such an act of communication, a sign that carries a signal.
The sign of privacy, as it shall be called for sake of clarity, can carry a
variety of signals that depend on the context of the communication, and it can
be intended for a variety of recipients.
The "hijab" is an example which illustrates this well. Hijab refers to a veil
worn by many muslim women as soon as they enter marriageable age. It is always
worn in public and only taken off if no non-related men are present, such as
in exclusively female meetings or in the family circle. Her husband will be
the only non-related man that will see her hair, thus keeping her hair
private.
The woman, if she chooses to wear the hijab, hereby communicates towards her
husband and all other men, that she chooses to have an exclusive intimate
relationship only with her husband and that she values her husband as being of
a special high value to her. It is a pledge of allegiance to her husband, and
a separation of herself from the availability to other men.
As can be seen in this example, hiding becomes a tool to communicate a value
perception and status of relationship in a discriminatory way.
Similar signs exist in western cultures as well. For example, the revelation
of the family's secret receipt towards the fiancee of a child serves as sign
of acceptance and inclusion into the family.
Similarly some topics of conversation are usually preserved for the close
relationship between couples, or that of good friends. This not only is a sign
of uptightness, if at all, but also a toll to show and maintain the deepness
of a special and exclusive relationship that is built on the mutual holding of
the other in high esteem.
The opposite, divulging information indiscriminately, thus communicates that
others are not held in high esteem and that the communicating party is
unwilling or unable to come to different evaluations of others.
Likewise the sharing of information with the public, if this information was
gained within a special relationship, should rightly be viewed as an act of
betrayal since it communicates that the thus damaged person is held in lower
regard than the receiving masses, even as assured of the opposite.
To conclude the use of privacy for the sake of others, one should also
consider the effects of actions on observers. As mentioned before, the
interpretation of signs as signals depends, among other things, on the
receiver's perception of the sender. This becomes relevant for the question of
privacy especially if the sender is perceived as a role model or bad example.
Here the behavior is a sign easily interpreted by the observer as sanctioning
of the action or its proscription if the action is not considered separately
from the sender.
Examples of this can be seen when bad actions of public figures are used as
justification for one's own actions, when otherwise laudable behavior is
viewed with suspicion when associated with persons of disgrace or when people
imitate celebrities even in their failures and bad judgement.
For additional consideration on privacy for the sake of others, an old book
shall be mentioned as reference: "Ueber den Umgang mit Menschen" by Freiherr
von Knigge.
The last area to examine here as an example of preserving value through hiding
is the human person itself.
At the core of this matter lies the question of what makes a person a "self"
instead of "an-other", and how this self can refer to itself over time as in
"I myself went to the park yesterday". What is this "I" or "self" we refer to,
and how does it come to be what it is instead of being something else.
There is no current consensus how to answer these questions, nor should it be
the task of this text to present and weigh the different views, nor to fully
develop a theory of personhood on its own.
Instead it will touch the process of the change of a person. How has a person
become what it is now, and how will it become what it will be in the future?
How does the process differentiate the self from another?
The popular answer is that genes, upbringing and society are the shapers of
persons, in different proportions depending on who one asks. Nevertheless
individuals are treated as moral agents, acting by decision and responsible
for the decisions made. It is a person who is punished for a crime, and not
schools, parents, evolution or society.
It is persons that are persuaded by others, asked to consider moral and
ethical categories, respected or disgraced for individual actions.
Clearly it is understood by most that a person is not shaped exclusively by
that which is not part of him, but also by himself.
Certainly genes, upbringing, society and the situative environment are
influences, but it is also the self that forms the self.
This self-forming takes place with every decision made, changing the status,
the shape of oneself, the individual path of the person through life.
Some might argue that every decision made is already and exclusively
determined by the previous state of the person and its environment, and that
as such no real decision is made because there is no choice but only the
effect of the cause which is the state of the universe.
For this to be effectually true, the influence of free will in the person's
decisions must be maximized so that it is will that dominates the decision in
freedom.
At that point privacy achieves its ultimate importance. Only in privacy can a
decision be contemplated in separation from the influence of other persons and
the own person, the self, actualized freely.
Hiding in privacy removes the tainting of the decision through outside
preselection of facts, outside censorship, the promise of reward and
punishment by other humans, hubris, pride and shame. Here honesty towards
one's self is possible.
It is only through and in privacy where a potential equilibrium of choices can
be discovered, just to be resolved through the action of the free will of the
Self.
If one is in any way determined to work on one's own self and aware of the
responsibility this entails, then privacy in this regard must be maintained.
Though even through giving up to develop one's self, a choice has been made
with the responsibility for it as it's consequence - except that this choice
is to be a product determined by others instead of a self.
A disregard for maintaining privacy in this area thus equals the utter
disrespect for the Self one is, and the potential selves one could become. It
is the denial and defiling of oneself as an individual person.
---
---
So far, the privacy opponent's reply "I have nothing to hide because I have
nothing to fear" has been shown to be a rhetoric trap, or at least an
insufficiently contemplated cultural maxim. It has also been shown that there
exist good reasons to embrace privacy, hiding and concealment.
However, this text cannot be complete without some short answers to those,
that identify privacy and secrecy as roots of evil in society that erode every
social and political system and relationship.
Their primary argument is, that privacy encourages and facilitates all kinds
of corruption and abuse of power.
Furthermore they claim that privacy results in the disintegration of the
interpersonal bonds that hold society together.