Just a few reflections scribbled in haste for future reference.<\/p>\n
Re-reading Jurgen Habermas\u2019 “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere<\/a>” (a text I gotta confess I haven\u2019t touched in ages and if I recall correctly I never even finished reading). His definition of \u201cthe public sphere as a virtual or imaginary community which does not necessarily exist in any identifiable space<\/em>\u201d. This particular bit interests me:<\/p>\n The usage of the words “public” and “public sphere” betrays a multiplicity of concurrent meanings. Their origins go back to various historical phases and, when applied synchronically to the conditions of a bourgeois society that is industrially advanced and constituted as a social-welfare state, they fuse into a clouded amalgam. Yet the very conditions that make the inherited language seem inappropriate appear to require these words, however confused their employment. Not just ordinary language (especially as it bears the imprint of bureaucratic and mass media jargon) but also the sciences-particularly jurisprudence, political science, and sociology-do not seem capable of replacing traditional categories like “public” and “private,” “public sphere,” and “public opinion,” with more precise terms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With the new data privacy laws coming into effect in Europe<\/a> discussions of data protection are at an all time high. However, I was thinking of how outdated these definitions sound. In line with Habermas points about the woefully lacking categories surrounding the public vs the private I wanted to point to a third category that does not enter this discussions: the personal<\/em>.<\/p>\n There is the public where the State has a monopoly on the administration of space and where technologies of surveillance and consumerism are deployed (both the all seeing eye of the State and<\/em><\/strong> the pervasive advertisements that populate our landscapes). In public, we can be surveilled, photographed, observed and recorded. As I mentioned earlier this week<\/a> in the reflections about Amazon selling their image recognition technology to the police, all of this can happen also with the intent of generating third party profits. \u201cWe\u201d as a commodity. Again, the body as data to be sold for the purpose of training machines. In turn, our eyeballs\/ attention are constantly under dispute for advertisements (the technologies of consumerism). Data protections do not apply in any of these cases. \u201cThe public\u201d.<\/p>\n The private, on the other hand, is conceived as in opposition to the public. \u201cPrivate data<\/em>\u201d as a protected zone supposedly free from scrutiny (this analysis is better left for another day, \u201cfree from scrutiny<\/em>\u201d used very tongue in cheek etc). In the private sphere we are supposed to be protected by legislation and the prying eyes of the State (Ha!). However, this data, to which I often refer to as \u201cintimate data\u201d has been commodified and turned into a political tool as well.<\/p>\n But, in relation to issues surrounding body autonomy and agency, I was thinking of how \u201cpersonal space\u201d is not part of these discussions. As in, our right to personal space while in public<\/em> for example. Such as, a stranger cannot come and grab me by the arm to demand my attention or touch us inappropriately, etc. It is understood that we, as subjects, have a right to \u201cpersonal space\u201d while in public. But such notion of personal space has not been extended in relation to how we treat \u201cthe body as data\u201d. The \u201cdata\u201d generated by our bodies while existing in public (ie while we occupy our personal space) is not afforded any kind of protection. We can be non consensually photographed, surveilled, used to generate profits, etc.<\/p>\n In turn, this intersects with issues I have discussed before regarding settler colonial mentality and the assumed \u201cright to occupy space<\/em>\u201d (which is at play both in the way physical public spaces are occupied and assumed to be \u201cup for grabs\u201d re: data extractivism and in the way personal spaces on social media are not conceived as such)<\/p>\n this thread<\/p>\n Specifically how so many white male interactions on social media replicate colonial settler methodology and strategy https:\/\/t.co\/sHYnbtmr5n<\/a><\/p>\n — Flavia Dzodan (@redlightvoices) August 9, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n