UDC

130.2

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V186

Authors

Lesya V. Chesnokova
Dostoevsky Omsk State University; prosp. Mira 55a, Omsk, 644077, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4283-0443 e-mail: L.Tchesnokova@mail.ru

Abstract

This article dwells on bodily privacy as an opportunity to independently determine the self-presentation of one’s body in a public space. The author performed a sociocultural analysis of the bodily aspect of privacy and identified its essential characteristics. It is indicated here that the attitude towards the body and its public presentation depends on sociocultural norms. Starting from the modern period, European society has seen a growing tendency towards self-control and regulation of one’s affects. Bodily manifestations and feelings have been pushed behind the scenes of public life, into the private sphere. Nudity and sexuality now belong to the realm of social conventions of the private sphere. People want to keep their bodily functions hidden, especially when it comes to regressive bodily states, such as illness or death. Inability to conceal certain (private) parts of the body and certain bodily functions from other people’s glances is degrading. The practice of bodily deprivation is used in total institutions, such as camps, prisons and psychiatric hospitals, taking away a person’s sense of security and freedom. The need to hide from the glance of the Other arises from the fact that a person sees him/herself from someone else’s perspective. The development of self-awareness is associated with the experience of one’s own bodily vulnerability, since the subject appears to others through his/her own body. The most famous description of the loss of childlike ingenuousness in the perception of one’s own corporeality is contained in the biblical story about the expulsion from paradise. The “gaze culture” prevalent in contemporary Western societies is a rejection of sexually connoted glances, the obligation to conceal corporeality shifting from the perceived to the perceiver. Tact, respect for bodily boundaries, and gaze culture are conventional cultural practices nowadays allowing us to protect the bodily privacy of an individual.

Keywords

bodily privacy, private space, nudity, shame, personal dignity, gaze culture, self-presentation of corporeality

References

1. Arendt H. Vita activa oder Vom tätigen Leben. Stuttgart, 1960 (Russ. ed.: Arendt Kh. Vita activa, ili O deyatel’noy zhizni. St. Petersburg, 2000. 437 p.).

2. Lebedev V.Yu., Fedorov A.V. Bolezn’ kak fenomen privatnogo prostranstva [Disease as Phenomenon of Privacy: Some Aspects of Hermeneutics and Medical Semiotics]. Chelovek, 2016, no. 3, pp. 109–122.

3. Gahlings U. Die Privatheit des Körpers und der Cyberspace. Böhme G., Gahlings U. (eds.). Kultur der Privatheit in der Netzgesellschaft. Bielefeld, 2018, pp. 97–117.

4. Benn S.I. Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons. Schoeman F.D. (ed.). Philosophical Dimensions for Privacy: An Anthology. Cambridge, 2007, pp. 223–244.

5. Goffman E. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, 1961 (Russ. ed.: Goffman E. Total’nye instituty: ocherki o sotsial’noy situatsii psikhicheski bol’nykh patsientov i prochikh postoyal’tsev zakrytykh uchrezhdeniy. Moscow, 2019. 464 p.).

6. Reiman J.H. Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood. Schoeman F.D. (ed.). Philosophical Dimensions for Privacy: An Anthology. Cambridge, 2007, pp. 300–317.

7. Becker A. Unichtozhenie. Telo i lagerya [Extermination. Body and Camps]. Corbin A., Courtine J.J., Vigarello G. (eds.). Istoriya tela: T. 3. Peremena vzglyada: XX vek [History of the Body: Vol. 3. A Changed View: 20th Century]. Moscow, 2016, pp. 291–310.

8. Foucault M. Intellektualy i vlast’: Izbrannye politicheskie stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu [Intellectuals and Power: Selected Political Articles, Speeches and Interviews]. Moscow, 2002. 384 p.

9. Goffman E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, 1959. 256 p. (Russ. ed.: Gofman I. Predstavlenie sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni. Moscow, 2000. 304 p.).

10. Rössler B. Der Wert des Privaten. Frankfurt am Main, 2001. 380 p.

11. Elias N. Über den Prozess der Zivilisation: Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Vol. 1. Wandlungen des Verhaltens in den weltlichen Oberschichten des Abendlandes. Basel, 1939 (Russ. ed.: Elias N. O protsesse tsivilizatsii: Sotsiogeneticheskie i psikhogeneticheskie issledovaniya. T. 1. Izmeneniya v povedenii vysshego sloya miryan v stranakh Zapada. Moscow, 2001. 332 p.).

12. Lotter M.-S. Scham, Schuld, Verantwortung: Über die kulturellen Grundlagen der Moral. Berlin, 2016. 344 p.

13. Sartre J.-P. L’être et le néant: Essai d’ontologie phénoménologique. Paris, 1943 (Russ. ed.: Sartr Zh.P. Bytie i nichto: Opyt fenomenologicheskoy ontologii. Moscow, 2000. 639 p.).

14. Böhme G. Eine Kultur der Privatheit. Böhme G., Gahlings U. (eds.). Kultur der Privatheit in der Netzgesellschaft. Bielefeld, 2018, pp. 17–28.

15. Courtine J.J. Anormal’noe telo. Istoriya i kul’turnaya antropologiya urodstv [Abnormal Body. History and Cultural Anthropology of Deformities]. Corbin A., Courtine J.J., Vigarello G. (eds.). Istoriya tela: T. 3. Peremena vzglyada: XX vek [History of the Body: Vol. 3. A Changed View: 20th Century]. Moscow, 2016, pp. 185–242.

16. Gergilov R.E. Vospriyatie nagoty v massovom soznanii [The Perception of Nudity in the Popular Mentality]. Chelovek, 2015, no. 6, pp. 49–60.

17. Chesnokova L.V. Informatsionnaya privatnost’: zashchita svobody i avtonomii lichnosti [Information Privacy: Protecting Freedom and Individual Autonomy]. Tsifrovoy uchenyy: laboratoriya filosofa, 2021, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 145–157. DOI: 10.32326/2618-9267-2021-4-2-145-157