Private, the Public, and the Published: Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
At the 2003 "Rock the Vote" debate, one of the questions posed by a student to the eight Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination was "have you ever used marijuana?" Amazingly, all but one of the candidates voluntarily answered the question. Add to this example the multiple ways in which we now see public intrusion into private lives (security cameras, electronic access to personal data, scanning and "wanding" at the airport) or private self-exposure in public forums (cell phones, web cams, confessional talk shows, voyeuristic "reality" TV). That matters so private could be treated as legitimate-in some cases even vital-for public discourse indicates how intertwined the realms of private and public have become in our era. Reverse examples exist as well. Around the world, public authorities look the other way while individual rights are abused--calling it a private matter--or officials appeal to sectarian morés to justify discrimination in public policies.
The authors of The Private, the Public, and the Published feel that scholarship needs to explore and understand this phenomenon, and needs to address it in the college classroom. There are consequences of conflating public and private, they argue--consequences that have implications especially for what is known as the public good. The changing distinctions between "private" and "public," and the various practices of private and public expression, are explored in these essays with an eye toward what they teach us about those consequences and implications.
from Janet’s. Thus, it was only for Roger that verbs of cognition moved onto the public stage to be shared with others. H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L I Z AT I O N S H A P E S T H E P U B L I C S TAG E What can we say about the public stage across which both Janet and Roger play out their accounts of composing? For Roger, the public stage emerged in the activity of reflection through which others (authors, friends, and the discipline) used the actions of argumentation (“to claim”) and cognition
one feels excluded. Public expression in these domains easily can be relegated to a mayor, executive, or Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric 7 department head whose private desires, beliefs, and affiliations expressed in public are assumed to be—and, in fact, are—representative of the group. We can imagine, for instance, a mayor who speaks for everyone when he talks of the dangers of building a public housing unit that will attract jobless immigrants “not like us,” an executive who
Farrell; Phillips). Many in the academy have renounced the foundationalist assumptions shoring up disciplinary claims to expertise (Bauman) and have begun to explore alternative relationships to the public and to members of other disciplines. What this analysis has suggested is the ways in which professionalization has shaped the very language with which we account for our work, the daily stories we and our students tell of our progress in the academy, the stories through which we shape our
group did—they tend to put it first, which is hardly surprising given Americans’ general tendencies to introduce themselves in casual conversations by asking or telling “what they do,” meaning how they earn a living. Most reviewers include some discussion of reviewing itself, and this topic subdivides into three areas. First is “why I review,” and the customary answer is to help others. Some confess reviewing because they enjoy writing, but apparently this reason comes across as egocentric; it is
fewer still describe their processes (as in Chandler’s [#50] explaining that he includes the ISBN numbers in his reviews so people can find the books more easily). The last subtopic is a kind of metadiscourse on reviewing itself, often with references to Amazon.com and to reviewing practices there, especially ones deemed suspect. Identity and the Internet 145 The most interesting example of this last is an exchange between Laycock (#7) and McInerney (#10). Laycock writes, “It is with great