Private sphere: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→See also: styling |
No edit summary |
||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''private sphere''' is the complement or opposite to the [[public sphere]]. The private sphere is a certain sector of societal life in which an individual enjoys a degree of authority, unhampered by interventions from governmental or other institutions. Examples of the private sphere are [[family]] and [[home]]. |
{{Short description|The sphere opposite the public sphere centred on individuality and personal autonomy}} |
||
The '''private sphere''' is the complement or opposite to the [[public sphere]]. The private sphere is a certain sector of societal life in which an individual enjoys a degree of authority and tradition, unhampered by interventions from governmental, economic or other institutions. Examples of the private sphere are [[high society]], [[religion]], [[sex]], [[family]] and [[home]]. |
|||
In public-sphere theory, on the [[bourgeois]] model, the private sphere is that domain of one's life in which one works for oneself. In that domain, people work, exchange goods, and maintain their families; it is therefore, in that sense, separate from the rest of society.<ref>{{cite book |title= The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society|last= Habermas|first=Jurgen | |
In public-sphere theory, on the [[bourgeois]] model, the private sphere is that domain of one's life in which one works for oneself. In that domain, people work, exchange goods, and maintain their families; it is therefore, in that sense, separate from the rest of society.<ref>{{cite book |title= The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society|last= Habermas|first=Jurgen |translator1= Thomas Burger |translator2= Frederic Lawrence |year= 1989|publisher=MIT Press |location= Massachusetts|isbn= 978-0-262-58108-0}}</ref> |
||
==Shifting boundaries== |
==Shifting boundaries== |
||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
The parameters separating public and private spheres are not fixed but vary both in (cultural) space and in time. |
The parameters separating public and private spheres are not fixed but vary both in (cultural) space and in time. |
||
In the classical world, economic life was the prerogative of the household,<ref>M. I Finley, ''The World of Odysseus'' (1967) p. 69 and p. 91</ref> only matters which could not be dealt with by the household alone entered the public realm of the [[polis]].<ref>J. O'Neill, ''Sociology as a Skin Trade'' (1972) |
In the classical world, economic life was the prerogative of the household,<ref>M. I Finley, ''The World of Odysseus'' (1967) p. 69 and p. 91</ref> only matters which could not be dealt with by the household alone entered the public realm of the [[polis]].<ref>J. O'Neill, ''Sociology as a Skin Trade'' (1972) pp. 22–3</ref> In the modern world, the public economy permeates the home, providing the main access to the public sphere for the citizen become consumer.<ref>J. O'Neill, ''Sociology as a Skin Trade'' (1972) pp. 23–4</ref> |
||
In classical times, crime and punishment was the concern of the kinship group, a concept only slowly challenged by ideas of public justice.<ref>R. Fagles trans. ''Aeschylus: The Oresteia'' (1977) |
In classical times, crime and punishment was the concern of the kinship group, a concept only slowly challenged by ideas of public justice.<ref>R. Fagles trans. ''Aeschylus: The Oresteia'' (1977) pp. 21–2</ref> Similarly in medieval Europe the blood feud only slowly gave way to legal control,<ref>G. O. Sayles, ''The Medieval Foundations of England'' (1967) pp. 109, 234</ref> whereas in modern Europe only the [[Feud|vendetta]] would still attempt to keep the avenging of violent crime within the private sphere. |
||
Conversely, in early modern Europe, religion was a central public concern, essential to the maintenance of the state, so that details of private worship were hotly debated and controverted in the public sphere.<ref>J. H. Elliott, ''Europe Divided'' (1968) p. 93-5</ref> Similarly, sexual behavior was subject to a generally agreed code publicly enforced by both formal and [[informal social control]].<ref>F. Dabhoiwala, 'The First Sexual Revolution' ''The Oxford Historian'' X (2012) |
Conversely, in early modern Europe, religion was a central public concern, essential to the maintenance of the state, so that details of private worship were hotly debated and controverted in the public sphere.<ref>J. H. Elliott, ''Europe Divided'' (1968) p. 93-5</ref> Similarly, sexual behavior was subject to a generally agreed code publicly enforced by both formal and [[informal social control]].<ref>F. Dabhoiwala, 'The First Sexual Revolution' ''The Oxford Historian'' X (2012) pp. 41–6</ref> In [[postmodern]] society, both religion and sex are now generally seen as matters of private choice. |
||
===Gender politics=== |
===Gender politics=== |
||
Throughout many decades, the public and private sphere have incorporated traditional [[Gender role|gender roles]]. Women were mostly kept to the private sphere by staying at home, taking care of their children and attending to house chores. They were not able to participate in the [[public sphere]], which was dominated by men. <ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=King|first=Kathryn R.|date=1995|title=Of Needles and Pens and Women's Work|journal=Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature|volume=14|issue=1|pages=77–93|doi=10.2307/464249|jstor=464249|issn=0732-7730}}</ref> |
|||
The private sphere was long regarded as women's "proper place" whereas men were supposed to inhabit the public sphere.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Vickery |first1= Amanda | authorlink1 = Amanda Vickery |year= 1993 |title= Golden age to separate spheres? A review of the categories and chronology of English women's history |journal= [[The Historical Journal]] |volume= 36 |issue= 2 |pages= 383–414|publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]]|doi= 10.1017/S0018246X9300001X|url= |accessdate= }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1= Tétreault |first1= Mary Ann |year= 2001 |title= Frontier Politics: Sex, Gender, and the Deconstruction of the Public Sphere |journal= [[Alternatives: Global, Local, Political]] |volume= 26 |issue= 1 |pages= 53–72 |publisher= [[SAGE Publications]]|doi= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= May | first1= Ann Mari | title= The 'woman question' and higher education: perspectives on gender and knowledge production in America |chapter = Gender, biology, and the incontrovertible logic of choice |chapterurl= http://books.google.com/books?id=rhr12MIJ1fkC&pg=PA39 |year= 2008 |publisher= [[Edward Elgar Publishing]] |location= Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA |language= |isbn= 978-1-84720-401-1 | page= 39}}</ref> A distinct ideology that prescribed [[separate spheres]] for women and men emerged during the [[industrial revolution]].<ref>{{cite book |last1= Wells | first1= Christopher |editor1-first= Elizabeth |editor1-last= Kowaleski-Wallace |editor1-link= |others= |title= Encyclopedia of feminist literary theory |chapter = Separate Spheres | chapterurl= http://books.google.com/books?id=blI0_52wIwYC&pg=PA519 |year= 2009 |publisher= [[Routledge]] |location= London, New York |language= |isbn= 978-0-415-99802-4 | page= 519}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Adams |first1= Michele |editor1-first= George |editor1-last= Ritzer |editor1-link= |editor2-first= J. Michael | editor2-last= Ryan | others= |title= The concise encyclopedia of sociology |chapter = Divisions of household labor | chapterurl= http://books.google.com/books?id=Dz4wU64f_JYC&pg=PA156 |year= 2011 |publisher= [[Wiley-Blackwell]] |location= Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.; Malden, MA |isbn= 978-1-4051-8353-6| pages= 156–57}}</ref> |
|||
The private sphere was long regarded as women's "proper place" whereas men were supposed to inhabit the public sphere.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Vickery|first1=Amanda|year=1993|title=Golden age to separate spheres? A review of the categories and chronology of English women's history|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BAD618F258B35B87F7D198F8ED74B1A7/S0018246X93000019a.pdf/golden_age_to_separate_spheres_a_review_of_the_categories_and_chronology_of_english_womens_history.pdf|journal=[[The Historical Journal]]|volume=36|issue=2|pages=383–414|doi=10.1017/S0018246X9300001X|s2cid=53508408 |author-link1=Amanda Vickery}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tétreault|first1=Mary Ann|year=2001|title=Frontier Politics: Sex, Gender, and the Deconstruction of the Public Sphere|journal=[[Alternatives: Global, Local, Political]]|volume=26|issue=1|pages=53–72|doi=10.1177/030437540102600103|s2cid=141033858}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=May|first1=Ann Mari|title=The 'woman question' and higher education: perspectives on gender and knowledge production in America|publisher=[[Edward Elgar Publishing]]|year=2008|isbn=978-1-84720-401-1|location=Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA|page=39|chapter=Gender, biology, and the incontrovertible logic of choice|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rhr12MIJ1fkC&pg=PA39}}</ref> Although feminist researchers such as [[V. Spike Peterson]] have discovered roots of the exclusion of women from the public sphere in ancient Athenian times,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Peterson|first=V. Spike|date=2014-07-03|title=Sex Matters|journal=International Feminist Journal of Politics|language=en|volume=16|issue=3|pages=389–409|doi=10.1080/14616742.2014.913384|s2cid=147633811|issn=1461-6742}}</ref> a distinct ideology that prescribed [[separate spheres]] for women and men emerged during the [[Industrial Revolution]] because of the severance of the workplace from places of residence that occurred with the build up of urban centres of work.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wells|first1=Christopher|title=Encyclopedia of feminist literary theory|publisher=[[Routledge]]|year=2009|isbn=978-0-415-99802-4|editor1-last=Kowaleski-Wallace|editor1-first=Elizabeth|location=London, New York|page=519|chapter=Separate Spheres|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=blI0_52wIwYC&pg=PA519}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Adams|first1=Michele|title=The concise encyclopedia of sociology|publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]]|year=2011|isbn=978-1-4051-8353-6|editor1-last=Ritzer|editor1-first=George|location=Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.; Malden, MA|pages=156–57|chapter=Divisions of household labor|editor2-last=Ryan|editor2-first=J. Michael|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dz4wU64f_JYC&pg=PA156}}</ref> Even [[writing]] was traditionally considered forbidden, as "In the anxious comments provoked by the 'female pen' it [was] easy enough to detect fear of the writing woman as a kind of castrating female whose grasp upon that instrument seems an arrogation of its generative power".<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
During this period, the telephone has helped create a physical separation of women's private sphere and men's public sphere as it helped the isolation of the home and individual women within them. By having the telephone, it has created a sense of connection which allowed them to keep in touch with others, making them cope with the separation of private sphere easier. By having the telephone, it served as a distraction that allowed them to forget about the fact that they're only allowed to leave the house twice within three months which also helped increase the isolation of these housewives from the public. <ref>Lana F. Rakow, ''Women and the Telephone: The Gendering of Communications Technology'' (1988) p. 209-210</ref> |
|||
Feminists have challenged the ascription in a number of (not always commensurate) ways. In the first place, the slogan "the personal is political" attempted to open up the 'private' sphere of home and child-rearing to public scrutiny as well as call to attention how the exclusion of women from the public sphere makes the private sphere political.<ref>J. Childers/G. Hentzi ed., ''The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism'' (1995) p. 252</ref> At the same time, there was a new valorisation of the personal – of [[experiential knowledge]] and the world of the body – as against the (traditional) male preserves of public speech and theory.<ref>Mary Eagleton ed., ''Feminist Literary Criticism'' (1991) p. 6</ref> |
|||
All the while, the public sphere of work, business, politics and ideas were increasingly opened up to female participation.<ref>Susan Faludi, ''Stiffed'' (1999) |
All the while, due to the activism of feminists, the public sphere of work, business, politics and ideas were increasingly opened up to female participation.<ref>Susan Faludi, ''Stiffed'' (1999) pp. 9, 35</ref> |
||
==Critical theory== |
==Critical theory== |
||
[[Martin Heidegger]] argued that it is only in the private sphere that one can be one's authentic self, as opposed to the impersonal and identikit [[Generalised other|They]] of the public realm.<ref>J. Collins and H. Selina eds., ''Heidegger for Beginners'' (1998) |
[[Martin Heidegger]] argued that it is only in the private sphere that one can be one's authentic self, as opposed to the impersonal and identikit [[Generalised other|They]] of the public realm.<ref>J. Collins and H. Selina eds., ''Heidegger for Beginners'' (1998) pp. 64–9</ref> |
||
[[ |
Contrary to Heidegger, [[Hannah Arendt]] argued that (public) [[The Human Condition (Arendt book)#V – Action|action]] is the only way to manifest "who" somebody is, as opposed to describing "what" they are. She argued that only in public realm it is possible to fully express oneself. <ref>Hannah Arendt, ''The Human Condition'' (1958)</ref> |
||
[[Richard Sennett]] opposed what he saw as the Romantic idealization of the private realm of intimate relations, as opposed to the public sphere of action at a distance.<ref>[[Richard Sennett]], ''The Fall of Public Man'' (1976)</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | [[Deleuze and Guattari]] saw [[postmodernism]] as challenging the traditional split between private and public spheres, producing instead the supersaturated space of immediate presence and media-scrutiny of [[late capitalism]].<ref>M. Hardt/K. Weeks eds., ''The Jameson Reader'' (2000) |
||
| ⚫ | [[Deleuze and Guattari]] saw [[postmodernism]] as challenging the traditional split between private and public spheres, producing instead the supersaturated space of immediate presence and media-scrutiny of [[late capitalism]].<ref>M. Hardt/K. Weeks eds., ''The Jameson Reader'' (2000) pp. 329–30, 280</ref> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
| Line 36: | Line 39: | ||
* [[Gender studies]] |
* [[Gender studies]] |
||
* [[Glass ceiling]] |
* [[Glass ceiling]] |
||
* [[Lana Rakow]] |
|||
* [[Privacy]] |
* [[Privacy]] |
||
Latest revision as of 22:09, 25 November 2024
The private sphere is the complement or opposite to the public sphere. The private sphere is a certain sector of societal life in which an individual enjoys a degree of authority and tradition, unhampered by interventions from governmental, economic or other institutions. Examples of the private sphere are high society, religion, sex, family and home.
In public-sphere theory, on the bourgeois model, the private sphere is that domain of one's life in which one works for oneself. In that domain, people work, exchange goods, and maintain their families; it is therefore, in that sense, separate from the rest of society.[1]
Shifting boundaries
[edit]The parameters separating public and private spheres are not fixed but vary both in (cultural) space and in time.
In the classical world, economic life was the prerogative of the household,[2] only matters which could not be dealt with by the household alone entered the public realm of the polis.[3] In the modern world, the public economy permeates the home, providing the main access to the public sphere for the citizen become consumer.[4]
In classical times, crime and punishment was the concern of the kinship group, a concept only slowly challenged by ideas of public justice.[5] Similarly in medieval Europe the blood feud only slowly gave way to legal control,[6] whereas in modern Europe only the vendetta would still attempt to keep the avenging of violent crime within the private sphere.
Conversely, in early modern Europe, religion was a central public concern, essential to the maintenance of the state, so that details of private worship were hotly debated and controverted in the public sphere.[7] Similarly, sexual behavior was subject to a generally agreed code publicly enforced by both formal and informal social control.[8] In postmodern society, both religion and sex are now generally seen as matters of private choice.
Gender politics
[edit]Throughout many decades, the public and private sphere have incorporated traditional gender roles. Women were mostly kept to the private sphere by staying at home, taking care of their children and attending to house chores. They were not able to participate in the public sphere, which was dominated by men. [9]
The private sphere was long regarded as women's "proper place" whereas men were supposed to inhabit the public sphere.[10][11][12] Although feminist researchers such as V. Spike Peterson have discovered roots of the exclusion of women from the public sphere in ancient Athenian times,[13] a distinct ideology that prescribed separate spheres for women and men emerged during the Industrial Revolution because of the severance of the workplace from places of residence that occurred with the build up of urban centres of work.[14][15] Even writing was traditionally considered forbidden, as "In the anxious comments provoked by the 'female pen' it [was] easy enough to detect fear of the writing woman as a kind of castrating female whose grasp upon that instrument seems an arrogation of its generative power".[9]
Feminists have challenged the ascription in a number of (not always commensurate) ways. In the first place, the slogan "the personal is political" attempted to open up the 'private' sphere of home and child-rearing to public scrutiny as well as call to attention how the exclusion of women from the public sphere makes the private sphere political.[16] At the same time, there was a new valorisation of the personal – of experiential knowledge and the world of the body – as against the (traditional) male preserves of public speech and theory.[17]
All the while, due to the activism of feminists, the public sphere of work, business, politics and ideas were increasingly opened up to female participation.[18]
Critical theory
[edit]Martin Heidegger argued that it is only in the private sphere that one can be one's authentic self, as opposed to the impersonal and identikit They of the public realm.[19]
Contrary to Heidegger, Hannah Arendt argued that (public) action is the only way to manifest "who" somebody is, as opposed to describing "what" they are. She argued that only in public realm it is possible to fully express oneself. [20]
Richard Sennett opposed what he saw as the Romantic idealization of the private realm of intimate relations, as opposed to the public sphere of action at a distance.[21]
Deleuze and Guattari saw postmodernism as challenging the traditional split between private and public spheres, producing instead the supersaturated space of immediate presence and media-scrutiny of late capitalism.[22]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Habermas, Jurgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger; Frederic Lawrence. Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-58108-0.
- ^ M. I Finley, The World of Odysseus (1967) p. 69 and p. 91
- ^ J. O'Neill, Sociology as a Skin Trade (1972) pp. 22–3
- ^ J. O'Neill, Sociology as a Skin Trade (1972) pp. 23–4
- ^ R. Fagles trans. Aeschylus: The Oresteia (1977) pp. 21–2
- ^ G. O. Sayles, The Medieval Foundations of England (1967) pp. 109, 234
- ^ J. H. Elliott, Europe Divided (1968) p. 93-5
- ^ F. Dabhoiwala, 'The First Sexual Revolution' The Oxford Historian X (2012) pp. 41–6
- ^ a b King, Kathryn R. (1995). "Of Needles and Pens and Women's Work". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature. 14 (1): 77–93. doi:10.2307/464249. ISSN 0732-7730. JSTOR 464249.
- ^ Vickery, Amanda (1993). "Golden age to separate spheres? A review of the categories and chronology of English women's history" (PDF). The Historical Journal. 36 (2): 383–414. doi:10.1017/S0018246X9300001X. S2CID 53508408.
- ^ Tétreault, Mary Ann (2001). "Frontier Politics: Sex, Gender, and the Deconstruction of the Public Sphere". Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 26 (1): 53–72. doi:10.1177/030437540102600103. S2CID 141033858.
- ^ May, Ann Mari (2008). "Gender, biology, and the incontrovertible logic of choice". The 'woman question' and higher education: perspectives on gender and knowledge production in America. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 39. ISBN 978-1-84720-401-1.
- ^ Peterson, V. Spike (2014-07-03). "Sex Matters". International Feminist Journal of Politics. 16 (3): 389–409. doi:10.1080/14616742.2014.913384. ISSN 1461-6742. S2CID 147633811.
- ^ Wells, Christopher (2009). "Separate Spheres". In Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth (ed.). Encyclopedia of feminist literary theory. London, New York: Routledge. p. 519. ISBN 978-0-415-99802-4.
- ^ Adams, Michele (2011). "Divisions of household labor". In Ritzer, George; Ryan, J. Michael (eds.). The concise encyclopedia of sociology. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 156–57. ISBN 978-1-4051-8353-6.
- ^ J. Childers/G. Hentzi ed., The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism (1995) p. 252
- ^ Mary Eagleton ed., Feminist Literary Criticism (1991) p. 6
- ^ Susan Faludi, Stiffed (1999) pp. 9, 35
- ^ J. Collins and H. Selina eds., Heidegger for Beginners (1998) pp. 64–9
- ^ Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (1958)
- ^ Richard Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (1976)
- ^ M. Hardt/K. Weeks eds., The Jameson Reader (2000) pp. 329–30, 280
Further reading
[edit]Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (1958)
Zizi A. Papacharissi, A Private Sphere (2013)
Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967)