This blog represents the collaborative efforts of a writing professor and his students at the University of Denver, as they reflect on their experiences reading, thinking, and writing about HIV/AIDS, service-learning, and the public good.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Defining the term public
Based on your reading of Michael Warner’s essay, “Public and Private,” how would you define the term “pubic”? How is it different from or related to the term “private”? How might these definitions help you in your final essay for this class?
The term "public" and the term "private" are ultimately interchangeable based on the circumstances. They begin defined in a spatial sense, but eventually become something more abstract. There also seems to be a spectrum where something is more public or more private than something else. Something that may be considered private becomes public in order to achieve a goal or to bring light to an issue. It is political in its motives. People tend to use what is considered "private" to advance their own public agenda. The idea of the public good could also relate directly to private gain, depending on how you define private gain. In the end, the distinction between the two is very unclear. This could possibly relate to my final paper in defining "who" the public is that medicine serves or if the public good relates to the private gains of doctors and patients as well as the public good of society.
The term public is usually something that it associated with things that are acceptably to do in an area with numerous people that they can clearly see you doing. However, public can mean something that everyone has the possibility to see if they search for it such as books or movies. Public relates to things which are readily accessible to people and things which are either known very well or can be learned easily. Public is a very broad term that relates to things which are impersonal and holistic.
Private relates to things which are meant for either a small audience or even only a few select people. Private things and things that a person would only share or show to people whom they really trust. Private things are exclusive to certain people. These people are determined by the person who is discussing or sharing these private things. There are no easy ways for people who really want to keep something private to decide to make it public.
The term "public" will be extremely helpful in my essay because I am discussing social justice vs. the public good. Within my essay, I am discussing the actual definitions of these words and then discussing how they are related and how they differ. This essay as well as the Mansbridge essay will be helpful in coming up with scholarly supported definitions of the public good.
Public is accessible to everyone. It is often funded and run by the government, and economic status should not be a limiting factor. Private refers to something that is not available to everyone, only certain people with special privileges like money. It is much more exclusive. Private can also refer to something that should be kept behind closed doors, out of the eyes of the public. Private matters are those that involve a specific few, not the general public. Public and private often come into conflict, but they are both important facets that often converge and overlap to complement each other.
According to Warner, being in the public is a privilege. He links the words by defining them as opposites in a way. He connects the ideas of public and private with contrasting ideas such as "up" and "down" and "front" and "back." However, despite the opposite nature he assigns the two words, they are very closely related. He talks about what makes language public and how the tone of it changes when addressing certain people. When he says this, there seems to be a transition from private thought to public speech. He even says that body language is a form of public expression. On thing that he emphasizes is that expressing something publicly is a privilege. For example, expressing one's self politically is a privilege. Yet in all of this publicity, one is more likely to discover their own, private beliefs. In Warner's writing, there is a thin line between public and private and there is never one without the other and whether one term is used versus the other depends entirely on the circumstances present.
The distinction between public and private is based around sexuality, a person's body, and their home. Things that are privately owned, are considered private places. People own their homes, they are not a publicly owned building, and therefore the home is a private sanctuary. A person's body is theirs and theirs alone, and so it is also considered private. It explains that the lines can become blurry; people can have public gatherings within the privacy of their home, etc. So the definition of public vs private is very subjective. I would say that the definition of private and privacy has come to mean personal ideas, actions, and objects that the owner may choose to either keep to themselves privately, or display for the public. Should they choose to display these for the public, they are no longer private and can not become private again afterwards.
I may be able to use the definition of public/private in my paper in terms of the knowledge and technology involved in creating electric cars. Should this knowledge be public? Why has it been kept private all these years? What should the community do to ensure this becomes a public matter?
I would define "public" as being something that is often impersonal and gives people equal opportunity to access. I would define private as being something that is personal and only is allowable to access by a chosen group. Since my essay is based on the importance of service learning, these definitions are not particularly crucial. If I talk about how service learning is important to the "public" good though, then these definitions could become more important. At this point though, I'm not really planning to write my essay about how service learning effects the public good, my essay is more focused on the benefits that service learning has in regard to the people participating.
After reading Michael Warner’s essay “Public and Private,” I now know that the idea of public vs. private is much more complex than I had imagined. To me, public is something that is viewable by other people. I view what goes on in a person’s home as private and activities outside it as public. However, there are some restrictions to this idea. Any personal beliefs or thoughts are private, even if they occur to the person in public. The general public is not at liberty to know exactly what a person is thinking, even when they are in a crowded plaza. Another definition I would give to “public” is a group of people (for example, citizens of a country), that all have a commonality. This, unlike the other definition, does not have a counterpart definition for “private;” it stands alone. In my essay, I will use this definition to talk about how scientists help the public good by preserving their health. If the scientists were to fail, the public would all experience a common disease epidemic, or what have you, and the public’s good would not be protected.
The terms “public” and “private” are often defined spatially – the home fits within the private sphere, school or work within the public – and usually have fairy distinct boundaries. There may be differing levels of “private-ness” or “public-ness” – the bedroom is more private than the living room, which is more private than the front yard, which is more private than a restaurant, etc. However, “public” and “private” can (and should) be defined socially as well. The concepts are not merely about physical location, but about what sorts of behaviors are acceptable in these spaces, what sort of information can or should be shared in such venues, and in what ways. People are public and private beings. We present ourselves differently in public than we might at home around our families, which in turn is different from how we would present ourselves at home alone. We reveal certain information about ourselves to the general public while we keep certain things secret, and the levels of intimacy vary within different relationships, determining how much information we reveal.
This concept is incredibly important in discussions about religion in today’s society. Some of my resources have even mentioned the undeniable “privatization” of religion in modern America. Religion is for the church and the home, and it is increasingly unacceptable to practice or share one’s faith in public. This may affect the relationship between religion and volunteerism – if it is less acceptable to share religion publicly, is it less acceptable to volunteer for religious reasons, or at least to share those reasons? Does society promote a more secularized view of volunteering, in which people should serve not out of some religious belief but simply because it is the right thing to do? If people are volunteering anyway, does any of this even matter?
I would define "public" as being widely available to everyone, whereas private is restricted in some kind of matter. Private does not necessarily mean the opposite of public and they can often overlap. I think these definitions can help me in writing my final essay by showing that public good can still be accomplished even within a private company. Private enterprises often benefit from the public, just like private companies can benefit from doing public good. I think it is also important to note that the term “public” changes meaning when “good” is attached to it. Public good tends to have a meaning of volunteer work and community service.
I define public as the community. Something that is for the public good benefits everyone, all of society. It is collective good. Things in the interest of the public good are often government run, or sometimes they are even international organizations. This definition helps me with my paper because I am writing about motives to volunteer, or to serve the public good. In order to understand what the motivations for volunteers are, I have to understand who they are trying to serve.
The term "public" and the term "private" are ultimately interchangeable based on the circumstances. They begin defined in a spatial sense, but eventually become something more abstract. There also seems to be a spectrum where something is more public or more private than something else. Something that may be considered private becomes public in order to achieve a goal or to bring light to an issue. It is political in its motives. People tend to use what is considered "private" to advance their own public agenda. The idea of the public good could also relate directly to private gain, depending on how you define private gain. In the end, the distinction between the two is very unclear. This could possibly relate to my final paper in defining "who" the public is that medicine serves or if the public good relates to the private gains of doctors and patients as well as the public good of society.
ReplyDeleteThe term public is usually something that it associated with things that are acceptably to do in an area with numerous people that they can clearly see you doing. However, public can mean something that everyone has the possibility to see if they search for it such as books or movies. Public relates to things which are readily accessible to people and things which are either known very well or can be learned easily. Public is a very broad term that relates to things which are impersonal and holistic.
ReplyDeletePrivate relates to things which are meant for either a small audience or even only a few select people. Private things and things that a person would only share or show to people whom they really trust. Private things are exclusive to certain people. These people are determined by the person who is discussing or sharing these private things. There are no easy ways for people who really want to keep something private to decide to make it public.
The term "public" will be extremely helpful in my essay because I am discussing social justice vs. the public good. Within my essay, I am discussing the actual definitions of these words and then discussing how they are related and how they differ. This essay as well as the Mansbridge essay will be helpful in coming up with scholarly supported definitions of the public good.
Public is accessible to everyone. It is often funded and run by the government, and economic status should not be a limiting factor. Private refers to something that is not available to everyone, only certain people with special privileges like money. It is much more exclusive. Private can also refer to something that should be kept behind closed doors, out of the eyes of the public. Private matters are those that involve a specific few, not the general public. Public and private often come into conflict, but they are both important facets that often converge and overlap to complement each other.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Warner, being in the public is a privilege. He links the words by defining them as opposites in a way. He connects the ideas of public and private with contrasting ideas such as "up" and "down" and "front" and "back." However, despite the opposite nature he assigns the two words, they are very closely related. He talks about what makes language public and how the tone of it changes when addressing certain people. When he says this, there seems to be a transition from private thought to public speech. He even says that body language is a form of public expression. On thing that he emphasizes is that expressing something publicly is a privilege. For example, expressing one's self politically is a privilege. Yet in all of this publicity, one is more likely to discover their own, private beliefs. In Warner's writing, there is a thin line between public and private and there is never one without the other and whether one term is used versus the other depends entirely on the circumstances present.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between public and private is based around sexuality, a person's body, and their home. Things that are privately owned, are considered private places. People own their homes, they are not a publicly owned building, and therefore the home is a private sanctuary. A person's body is theirs and theirs alone, and so it is also considered private. It explains that the lines can become blurry; people can have public gatherings within the privacy of their home, etc. So the definition of public vs private is very subjective. I would say that the definition of private and privacy has come to mean personal ideas, actions, and objects that the owner may choose to either keep to themselves privately, or display for the public. Should they choose to display these for the public, they are no longer private and can not become private again afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI may be able to use the definition of public/private in my paper in terms of the knowledge and technology involved in creating electric cars. Should this knowledge be public? Why has it been kept private all these years? What should the community do to ensure this becomes a public matter?
I would define "public" as being something that is often impersonal and gives people equal opportunity to access. I would define private as being something that is personal and only is allowable to access by a chosen group. Since my essay is based on the importance of service learning, these definitions are not particularly crucial. If I talk about how service learning is important to the "public" good though, then these definitions could become more important. At this point though, I'm not really planning to write my essay about how service learning effects the public good, my essay is more focused on the benefits that service learning has in regard to the people participating.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Michael Warner’s essay “Public and Private,” I now know that the idea of public vs. private is much more complex than I had imagined. To me, public is something that is viewable by other people. I view what goes on in a person’s home as private and activities outside it as public. However, there are some restrictions to this idea. Any personal beliefs or thoughts are private, even if they occur to the person in public. The general public is not at liberty to know exactly what a person is thinking, even when they are in a crowded plaza. Another definition I would give to “public” is a group of people (for example, citizens of a country), that all have a commonality. This, unlike the other definition, does not have a counterpart definition for “private;” it stands alone. In my essay, I will use this definition to talk about how scientists help the public good by preserving their health. If the scientists were to fail, the public would all experience a common disease epidemic, or what have you, and the public’s good would not be protected.
ReplyDeleteThe terms “public” and “private” are often defined spatially – the home fits within the private sphere, school or work within the public – and usually have fairy distinct boundaries. There may be differing levels of “private-ness” or “public-ness” – the bedroom is more private than the living room, which is more private than the front yard, which is more private than a restaurant, etc. However, “public” and “private” can (and should) be defined socially as well. The concepts are not merely about physical location, but about what sorts of behaviors are acceptable in these spaces, what sort of information can or should be shared in such venues, and in what ways. People are public and private beings. We present ourselves differently in public than we might at home around our families, which in turn is different from how we would present ourselves at home alone. We reveal certain information about ourselves to the general public while we keep certain things secret, and the levels of intimacy vary within different relationships, determining how much information we reveal.
ReplyDeleteThis concept is incredibly important in discussions about religion in today’s society. Some of my resources have even mentioned the undeniable “privatization” of religion in modern America. Religion is for the church and the home, and it is increasingly unacceptable to practice or share one’s faith in public. This may affect the relationship between religion and volunteerism – if it is less acceptable to share religion publicly, is it less acceptable to volunteer for religious reasons, or at least to share those reasons? Does society promote a more secularized view of volunteering, in which people should serve not out of some religious belief but simply because it is the right thing to do? If people are volunteering anyway, does any of this even matter?
I would define "public" as being widely available to everyone, whereas private is restricted in some kind of matter. Private does not necessarily mean the opposite of public and they can often overlap. I think these definitions can help me in writing my final essay by showing that public good can still be accomplished even within a private company. Private enterprises often benefit from the public, just like private companies can benefit from doing public good. I think it is also important to note that the term “public” changes meaning when “good” is attached to it. Public good tends to have a meaning of volunteer work and community service.
ReplyDeleteI define public as the community. Something that is for the public good benefits everyone, all of society. It is collective good. Things in the interest of the public good are often government run, or sometimes they are even international organizations. This definition helps me with my paper because I am writing about motives to volunteer, or to serve the public good. In order to understand what the motivations for volunteers are, I have to understand who they are trying to serve.
ReplyDelete