This week, I have considered how privacy manifests itself in college
life. Some of the main arguments in Kupfer’s work resonate with me as I
try to set boundaries despite being in a physically public setting. When
I think of intimacy and the new relationships that I have formed since
I’ve been here, the appearance of intimacy is an idea that I would like
to look further into - I am becoming great friends (or so I think) with
my roommates, but according to Kupfer, “the concept we have of
ourselves… includes our control… in determining who they are” (Kupfer
86). Harvard has determined who they are, and Kupfer claims that “the
appearance of intimacy [can be] created through loss of privacy, and the
ensuing loss of control over who can experience or know about us” (86).
This is an exciting idea as I know I am fortunate to have genuine
relationships with my suitemates and that my self-concept hasn’t been
threatened because my internal autonomy has not been infringed upon. I
can still think freely, but my concern is being able to act freely - a
loss of control. I do not have control over who gets to experience me,
and though Kupfer says that autonomy is being “[aware] of control over..
[one’s] access to us,” my actions are constantly subject to the scrutiny
of others. In Weintraub’s work, his overview of Ariès’ opinion on how
domesticity represents the private life and sociability describes the
public life also supports how my current situation lacks a clear
delineation.
I know these works are not absolute truth so I
am taking them with a grain of salt and so far, I feel as though I am
perfectly autonomous and would like to dig deeper into what makes me
feel this way as the readings were perfectly logical, but I have a
critique of Kupfer’s work. I do not think that privacy is only our
ability to determine who has access to us, but something that is
transitive. If I give up information to someone, my privacy is
contingent on their control over who can access this information about
me.