Comments on: The resurrection of God: A musing on the of the ethnocentrized, Americanized, technologized & capitalized g[]d of the 21st century. http://www.thenewstate.com/2010/01/12/the-resurrection-of-god-a-musing-on-the-of-the-ethnocentrized-americanized-technologized-capitalized-gd-of-the-21st-century/ A new Approach to Public Administration Theory and Practice Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:12 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jeffrey Callen http://www.thenewstate.com/2010/01/12/the-resurrection-of-god-a-musing-on-the-of-the-ethnocentrized-americanized-technologized-capitalized-gd-of-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Jeffrey Callen Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:19:12 +0000 http://thenewstate.com/?p=300#comment-30 <blockquote>"thus what was once considered private is now simply considered a constituent of a new identity created in a world where privacy may hold little meaning"</blockquote> …or different meaning. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=PG4UAAAAYAAJ&dq=dictionary%20subject%3A%22English%20language%22&as_brr=1&pg=PA334&ci=653%2C248%2C304%2C63&source=bookclip" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://books.google.com/books?id=PG4UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA334&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2MMnLD5PkKq554Vg6EEqmbU0K9dQ&ci=653%2C248%2C304%2C63&edge=0"/></a> It is interesting that the 'private' in privacy today is more associated with liberalism than psychology. Consider the definition from Webster's 1878 Dictionary of the English language: 1 A state of retirement 2 A place of seclusion; retreat 3 Concealment; secresy Compared to today (New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd edition): 1 the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people 2 the state of being free from public attention In the contemporary definition the state, or condition, of being free lends itself nicely to the Libertarian world view of Zuckerberg. Privacy is about being free and not being human. It is political and not existential and such is contingent upon the state. If we consider the hollowing out of the state, the privatization of the state, we see that privacy hasn't devolved— it has been privatized and the distribution of privacy is now determined by the market compared to guaranteed by the state. In this, we have sacrificed our privacy to the Web to achieve a lifestyle of convenience and immediacy only known to past generations by the wealthy. Ironically, today the wealthy now enjoy the privacy that we once took for granted and can no longer afford. That which remains psychologically private… does it remain so only because it has not yet been commodified or because it is not able to become a commodity? What of our self could become a commodity but poses too great a risk, removes something 'core' to our personhood?

“thus what was once considered private is now simply considered a constituent of a new identity created in a world where privacy may hold little meaning”

…or different meaning.


It is interesting that the ‘private’ in privacy today is more associated with liberalism than psychology. Consider the definition from Webster’s 1878 Dictionary of the English language:

1 A state of retirement
2 A place of seclusion; retreat
3 Concealment; secresy

Compared to today (New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd edition):
1 the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people
2 the state of being free from public attention

In the contemporary definition the state, or condition, of being free lends itself nicely to the Libertarian world view of Zuckerberg. Privacy is about being free and not being human. It is political and not existential and such is contingent upon the state. If we consider the hollowing out of the state, the privatization of the state, we see that privacy hasn’t devolved— it has been privatized and the distribution of privacy is now determined by the market compared to guaranteed by the state.

In this, we have sacrificed our privacy to the Web to achieve a lifestyle of convenience and immediacy only known to past generations by the wealthy. Ironically, today the wealthy now enjoy the privacy that we once took for granted and can no longer afford.

That which remains psychologically private… does it remain so only because it has not yet been commodified or because it is not able to become a commodity? What of our self could become a commodity but poses too great a risk, removes something ‘core’ to our personhood?

]]> By: Brandon Ching http://www.thenewstate.com/2010/01/12/the-resurrection-of-god-a-musing-on-the-of-the-ethnocentrized-americanized-technologized-capitalized-gd-of-the-21st-century/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Brandon Ching Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:48:15 +0000 http://thenewstate.com/?p=300#comment-29 I find it interesting that Mr. Zuckerberg thinks that "privacy will soon be a term of the past." For those who voluntarily participate and "give up" their privacy through mediums like Facebook, it could be argued that they never really had privacy to begin with. Privacy, like safety (and terrorism, for that matter) are simply states of mind; you can only have them if you believe that you have them. Thus, privacy is not necessarily a social norm that can be removed through participation in a system. Rather, the "devolution of privacy" might simply be the degree to which we consider something to be private, that is shifting. I suppose David Farmer might say that what is happening is that we need to think of a new term for what the symbol of privacy now means; applied through social (or technological) evolution. In this sense, it may, as Jeff says, "give birth to new identities" and thus what was once considered private is now simply considered a constituent of a new identity created in a world where privacy may hold little meaning. I find it interesting that Mr. Zuckerberg thinks that “privacy will soon be a term of the past.” For those who voluntarily participate and “give up” their privacy through mediums like Facebook, it could be argued that they never really had privacy to begin with. Privacy, like safety (and terrorism, for that matter) are simply states of mind; you can only have them if you believe that you have them. Thus, privacy is not necessarily a social norm that can be removed through participation in a system. Rather, the “devolution of privacy” might simply be the degree to which we consider something to be private, that is shifting.

I suppose David Farmer might say that what is happening is that we need to think of a new term for what the symbol of privacy now means; applied through social (or technological) evolution. In this sense, it may, as Jeff says, “give birth to new identities” and thus what was once considered private is now simply considered a constituent of a new identity created in a world where privacy may hold little meaning.

]]>