Privacy and publicity as socio-spatial categories
Philosophy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-2-202-211Keywords:
sociology of space, spatial turn, space production, private space, public space, local privacy, gender rolesAbstract
In recent decades, there have been changes in research strategies concerning the study of space. It used to be perceived as a motionless «container», a receptacle for people and objects that does not affect social processes in any way, but now reciprocal relations between space and society are recognized. Space affects human behavior, and people transform it in accordance with the economic, political and cultural characteristics of their era. The same approach can be applied to the study of publicity and privacy. The public space is generally understood as an environment open to the public: streets, parks, etc., while the private area is primarily a place of living, a place of family life. Being sociocultural constructs, public and private spaces are not originally specified. In European societies of the Modernity, due to the processes of urbanization and individualization, the need for one’s own accommodation, closed from outsiders, is gradually increasing. Being in a public or private space affects the behavior of a person, who is forced to play a social role in public and can behave naturally in the family circle. The separation of the public and the private in the 19th century is perceived as a dichotomous example of the social order, considered to be natural. There are formed strictly differentiated gender roles that influence the norms of male and female behavior. A man should spend most of his life outside the home, earning money to maintain his family It is a woman’s responsibility to create home comfort and care for children. However, in the modern sense, social constructs of publicity and privacy are not considered «innate» or «natural». Public and private spaces always depend on sociocultural processes and therefore do not have an ontologically determined character.References
Арендт Х. Vita activa, или О деятельной жизни / пер. с нем. и англ. В.В. Бибихина. СПб.: Алетейя, 2000. 437 с.
Бурдье П. Социология социального пространства / пер. с фр. Н.А. Шматко. М.: Ин-т экспериментальной социологии; СПб.: Алетейя, 2007. 288 с.
Виноградова Н.Л. Социальное пространство и социальное взаимодействие // Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2005. № 2. С. 39–54.
Вулф В. Своя комната / пер. с англ. Д. Горяниной. М.: Манн, Иванов и Фербер, 2019. 144 с.
Гофман И. Представление себя другим в повседневной жизни / пер. с англ. А.Д. Ковалева. М.: КАНОН-пресс-Ц, 2000. 304 с.
Зиммель Г. Большие города и духовная жизнь // Логос. 2002. № 3(34). URL: https://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/34/02.pdf (дата обращения: 07.02.2021).
Лефевр А. Производство пространства / пер. с фр. И. Стаф. М.: Strelka Press, 2015. 432 c.
Лотман Ю.М. История и типология русской культуры. СПб.: Искусство-СПБ, 2002. 768 с.
Макогон Т.И. «Пространственный поворот» и возможность новационных подходов в социально-философском дискурсе // Известия Томского политехнического университета. 2012. Т. 321, № 6. С. 167–172.
Мельников М.В. Общественное пространство города и его приватизация: анализ социологических подходов // Теория и практика общественного развития. 2017. № 9. С. 8–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2017.9.1
Филиппов А.Ф. Социология пространства. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2008. 290 с.
Eibach J. Das Haus in der Moderne // Das Haus in der Geschichte Europas: ein Handbuch / hg. von J. Eibach, J. Schmidt-Voges. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015. S. 19–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358988-004
Keckeis C. Privatheit und Raum — zu einem wechselbezüglichen Verhältnis // Räume und Kulturen des Privaten / hg. von E. Beyvers, P. Helm, M. Hennig, C. Keckeis. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2017. S. 19–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14632-0_2
Rössler B. Autonomie. Ein Versuch über das gelungene Leben. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2018. 443 S.
Rössler B. Der Wert des Privaten. Fr. a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2001. 384 S.
Ruhne R. Raum. Macht. Geschlecht. Zur Soziologie eines Wirkungsgefüges am Beispiel von (Un)sicherheiten im Öffentlichen Raum. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2011. 238 S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93355-9
References
Arendt, H. (2000). Vita activa, ili o deyatelnoy zhizni [The human condition]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 437 p.
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Sotsiologiya sotsial’nogo prostranstva [Sociology of social space]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 288 p.
Eibach,J. (2015). [The house in the modern]. Das Haus in der Geschichte Europas: ein Handbuch [The house in the history of Europe: a handbook]. Berlin: De Gruyter Publ., pp. 19–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358988-004
Filippov, A.F. (2008). Sotsiologiya prostranstva [Sociology of space]. Saint Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 290 p.
Goffman, E. (2000). Predstavleniye sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni [The presentation of self in everyday life]. Moscow: KANON-Press-C Publ., 304 p.
Keckeis, C. (2017). [Privacy and space — to an interchangeable relationship]. Räume und Kulturen des Privaten [Spaces and cultures of the private]. Wiesbaden: Springer Publ., pp. 19–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-14632-0_2
Lefebvre, H. (2015). Proizvodstvo prostranstva [The production of space]. Moscow: Strelka Press Publ., 432 p.
Lotman, Yu.M. (2002). Istoriya i tipologiya russkoy kul’tury [History and Typology of the Russian Culture]. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB Publ., 768 p.
Makogon, T.I. (2012). [«Spatial turn» and the possibility of innovative approaches in social and philosophical discourse]. Izvestiya Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University]. Vol. 321, no. 6, pp. 167–172.
Mel’nikov, M.V. (2017). [The urban public space and its privatization: the analysis of sociological approaches]. Teoriya i praktika obschestvennogo razvitiya [Theory and Practice of Social Development]. No. 9, pp. 8–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2017.9.1
Rössler, B. (2001). Der Wert des Privaten [The value of the private]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag Publ., 384 p.
Rössler, B. (2018). Autonomie. Ein Versuch über das gelungene Leben [Autonomy. An attempt at successful life]. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag Publ., 443 p.
Ruhne, R. (2011). Raum. Macht. Geschlecht. Zur Soziologie eines Wirkungsgefüges am Beispiel von (Un)sicherheiten im Öffentlichen Raum [Room. Makes. Gender. On the sociology of an effect structure using the example of (uncertains) in public space]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Publ., 238p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93355-9
Simmel,G. (2002). Bol’shie goroda i dukhovnaya zhizn’ [Big cities and spiritual life]. Logos. No. 3(34). Available at: https://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/34/02.pdf (accessed 07.02/2021).
Vinogradova, N.L. (2005). [Social space and social interaction]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye nauki [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Humanities]. No. 2, pp. 39–54.
Woolf, V. (2019). Svoya komnata [A room of one’s own]. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber Publ., 144 p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.