Privacy and the Common Good: G. H. Mead and the Social Value of Privacy

Abstract

This article explores the social value of privacy and the intricate relationship between personal autonomy and societal cohesion within the realm of privacy. It contrasts George Herbert Mead’s two models of social organization—hostility and integration—in terms of their impact on the interplay between individuals and society. The model of hostility envisions individuals and society engaged in a zero-sum game, resulting in diminished individuality and an atomistic view of autonomy. In contrast, the model of integration recognizes the interdependence of entities, fostering individuality and promoting a relational understanding of autonomy. Applying these models to privacy theory, the article argues that privacy has often been conceived in terms of hostility, pitting individuals against society. Instead, the article advocates for embracing the model of integration, in which privacy is seen as fundamental to a society where individuals maintain their uniqueness while pursuing a common good. The right to privacy, rooted in this integrative model, allows individuals to preserve their distinct social selves while participating in joint social organization. Furthermore, understanding privacy through the lens of integration highlights the importance of the common good as a necessary condition for both individuality and autonomy. This relational perspective positions privacy as an essential aspect of a democratic and moral society, where diverse individuals mutually constitute themselves and the broader social fabric. By presenting this view, the article offers a fresh understanding of privacy's social value and its implications for societal organization, democracy, and morality.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The Right to Privacy.Lloyd L. Weinreb - 2000 - Social Philosophy and Policy 17 (2):25.
Privacy and Democracy.Paul Voice - 2016 - South African Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):1-9.
The Right to Privacy*: LLOYD L. WEINREB.Lloyd L. Weinreb - 2000 - Social Philosophy and Policy 17 (2):25-44.
New Ways of Thinking about Privacy.B. Roessler - 2006 - In Anne Philips Bonnie Honig & John Dryzek (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford University Press. pp. 694-713.
privacy, democracy and freedom of expression.Annabelle Lever - 2015 - In Beate Rossler & Dorota Mokrosinska (eds.), The Social Dimensions of Privacy. cambridge University Press.
Privacy and social interaction.Beate Roessler & Dorota Mokrosinska - 2013 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (8):771-791.
The Internet and Privacy.Carissa Veliz - 2019 - In David Edmonds (ed.), Ethics and the Contemporary World. New York: Routledge. pp. 149-159.
The Social Dimensions of Privacy.Beate Roessler & Dorota Mokrosinska (eds.) - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.
On the need for a right to cognitive privacy.Kyle Slominski - 2018 - Oxford Philosophical Society Annual Review 40:43-45.
Constitutional law and privacy.Anita L. Allen - 1996 - In Dennis Patterson (ed.), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 145–159.
Privacy.William A. Edmundson - 2004 - In Martin P. Golding & William A. Edmundson (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 271–283.
Does privacy undermine community.Mark Tunick - 2001 - Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (4):517-534.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-08-15

Downloads
226 (#90,183)

6 months
168 (#19,127)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Yuval Goldfus
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references