After posting that piece on “The Public Interest” according to UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, who stated “Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear, absolutely nothing,” and who was then taken to task for it by The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins, I decided to do a bit of research into the historical meaning and etymology of the word “privacy”. It seems the meaning of the word “privacy” is being unilaterally and arbitrarily redefined.

This itself may be the real issue of the sought after “debate” about surveillance and the powers of the techno-corporate state — who controls meaning?

I repeat, Mr. Hague and those who make similar arguments that “law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear, absolutely nothing” are being perfidious and disingenuous. Since much of our legal language and political conceptions descend from Roman law, how did the Romans understand the relation between public and private (both Latin words)?

The Latin verb “privare” is a strange one. It has an essential ambiguity. On the one hand, it means to deprive, steal or rob. It also means to free, liberate, or release. So you can see, perhaps, where Marx’s charge that “property is theft” has an historical ring of truth to it. It appears to be implicit in the very meaning of the word “private”. Is “private enterprise” liberation? Or is it organised pillage and theft?  The meaning of “privacy” is ambiguous in that respect, for it may well be both. “Privatise” is theft from the commonwealth or public. The word “private” is connected to the word “pirate”, although to the pirate, “privatise” is, in a sense, “liberate”.

The word “privatus” means “apart from the state”, so the “private” soldier was, in that sense, apparently a citizen soldier who was not part of the state apparatus — not part of the standing or professional army. “Privatus” has a host of other meanings. My Latin dictionary includes the following: “personal, individual, peculiar, isolated , withdrawn, ordinary (language)”, but also as noun form, “civilian, privacy, retirement”.

But given the ambiguity of the word “private”, it can be considered also something criminal and anti-social, implying concealment, hiding, segregation, keeping or secreting away secrets, a theft, a robbery.

There is a close connection between the meanings “privatus” as “apart from the state” and the meaning of “individual”, therefore.

But to hold and maintain oneself “apart from the state” is itself ambiguous also. One of the meanings of the verb form “privare” is “to set apart”, and “to set apart” is also the meaning of “exile” — ex-silium. The suffix “silium” is connected with “silence”. So, exile is silencing. What is called “internal exile” today, is silencing, as radically enforced “setting apart”, or isolation from the res publica, and as the extreme form of privatisation.

The hermit is a voluntary exile, who goes freely into the silence and isolation. The internal exile is an involuntary hermit, whose silence and isolation is imposed.

When surveillance is universal and ubiquitous, then the meaning of “private” as distinct, separate, and “apart from the state” is nullified. And therewith, also the meaning of “individual” too. In terms of the “new normal”, privacy is concealment. But then, so must be individuality, for the concepts of private and individual are very closely related.

That’s the import of Mr. Hague’s argument. One can no longer maintain one’s status as “apart from the state”, because mass surveillance abolishes the very meaning of “private”. But, consequently, also of the very meaning of the “individual”.

Alright. If that is the case, and that mass surveillance basically annuls the whole meaning of “privacy” as the “individual”, and reinterprets privacy as “concealment” or “hiding”, then we have here that insight Jean Gebser had into our situation over 60 years ago, when he wrote,

The current situation manifests on the one hand an egocentric individualism exaggerated to extremes and desirous of possessing everything, while on the other it manifests an equally extreme collectivism that promises the total fulfillment of man’s being. In the latter instance we find the utter abnegation of the individual valued merely as an object in the human aggregate; in the former a hyper-valuation of the individual who, despite his limitations, is permitted everything. This deficient, that is destructive, antithesis divides the world into two warring camps, not just politically and ideologically, but in all areas of human endeavor.

Since these two ideologies are now pressing toward their limits we can assume that neither can prevail in the long run. When any movement tends to the extremes it leads away from the center or nucleus toward eventual destruction at the outer limits where the connections to the life-giving center finally are severed. It would seem that today the connections have already been broken, for it is increasingly evident that the individual is being driven into isolation while the collective degenerates into mere aggregation. These two conditions, isolation and aggregation, are in fact clear indications that individualism and collectivism have now become deficient” — Jean Gebser, The Ever-Present Origin, 1949, p. 3

Therein lies the issue of “ironic reversal” at the extremity, and the self-negation of the Modern Era. Privacy has become equated with concealment, individuality with secretiveness, secretiveness with ciminality. One is expected to declare and expose oneself totally and transparently to the Eye. But in doing so, one loses oneself completely.

As Nietzsche put it, in his definition of nihilism: “all higher values devalue themselves”.

Very Orwellian.


8 responses to “Privacy”

  1. alex jay says :

    Whilst both individualism and collectivism “have now become defient”, nevertheless the latter is the far more dangerous concern in these times. Here’s something which has incrementally accelerated since the time it was written under the current reign of the “Nobel Peace Prize” winner, and should be a wake up call to all the deluded “liberals” suffering from a heavy dose of cognative dissonance:

    • Scott Preston says :

      Your links don’t appear to work, alex jay. At least, I’ve not been able to make a connection.

      Also, it’s not a matter of collectivism being “far more dangerous in these times” than individualism. If you understand the quote, both are in their present forms deficient, because they both end in the same fate. Do you not see this? It’s not a matter of saying isolation is better than aggregation, or aggregation is better than isolation. They both end in the exact same “place”.

  2. alex jay says :

    Just received notice from WordPress that the comment was “posted too quickly”? As I mentioned in previous post that didn’t register, I’d like to comment on your reply to clarify, but this reply box is giving me a headache. I assume the problem is at my end for goodness knows whatever reason??? Oh, I did mention at the outset of previous reply, that both were “deficient”, so I’m not sure what point you trying to make. Just that the deficent mode of collectivism is far worse than the deficient mode of individualism in the present context.

  3. alex jay says :

    Again my cursor is jumping up and down and the text keeps moving so comments have to be short like a text. By “present context” I mean the “1984”/”Brave New World” on steroids we are fast approaching. In fact, much of what you write about.

  4. alex jay says :

    Out of curiousity, has anyone mentioned having similar problems with the leave a reply?

  5. Maya says :

    Extremes meet – especially when it comes to systems like the individual and society.
    It’s pretty amazing that the root of the word private encompasses both perspectives (inside-out and outside-in) in its meaning.

    • Scott Preston says :

      “Extremes meet” is the Jungian-Heraclitean principle of “enantiodromia”. It was what the late Medieval/Early Renaissance philosopher-priest Nicholas of Cusa called “coincidentia oppositorum” (coincidence of opposites). I have been calling it “ironic reversal” at the extremity. It is otherwise known as the karmic law of action and reaction. It’s true that at the extremes opposites meet. But they don’t stay that way for long, because of the flux. Life is not static, it is action. At the point where the contradictions meet, and are indistinguishable, they revert into their opposites — extreme individualism will revert to extreme collectivism, and extremes of collectivism ultimately fracture again into individualisation. This is called “reversal of fortune”. But today, it goes by very many other names such as “perverse outcome”, “blowback”, “unintended consequence”, “revenge effect”, and so on. Many people are writing books about this strange phenomena of our times.

      I myself have pointed out that the “rational pursuit of self-interest” has become indistinguishable from the irrational pursuit of self-destruction. Therefore, the breakdown of dialectics based upon the contest of thesis and anti-thesis, or diction and contradiction, for they have become one and the same.

      It proves that the mental-rational structure of consciousness has reached the end of its tether, and has exhausted its possibilities for further articulation and elaboration. This is what Seth is saying — ego consciousness must change or the result will be the extinction of the human race. To me, it is an obvious truth. We have reached the end of our tether, and the modern mind has exceeded its shelf-life and sell-by date. This is proved by the problem of “ironic reversal” or coincidence of opposites. They prove the breakdown of dialectical reason. In practical and everyday terms, it means an epidemic of hypocrisy, duplicity, and self-contradiction.

      There are many old terms that have this dual meaning (such as private). Gebser has great fun highlighting some of them in his book “The Ever-Present Origin”, showing that one and the same act always has a double significance or meaning. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It isn’t an either/or thing. It’s a both/and thing, although a Buddhist might get around the dilemma by saying “there is no glass”.

      The snake’s tongue is represented as forked. Christ’s tongue is represented as a “two-edged sword”. To the unwary mind, this might seem the same thing. But the forked tongue is the tongue of self-contradiction. The tongue as two-edged sword is the tongue of paradox. These are not the same thing at all. Quite the opposite.

      Many words have paradoxical meanings, because human beings are paradoxical beings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: