Twice a month, The duty challenges enthusiasts of philosophy and the history of ideas to decipher a topical issue based on the theses of a prominent thinker.
October 2021. The Facebook group has been embroiled in yet another scandal, after whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked thousands of internal company documents, now called the Facebook Papers, to the world. Thus, the Californian giant has long known that its services are harmful to the mental health of adolescents, that they contribute to misinformation, division and hatred – among other things – and has deliberately chosen to privilege its profits at the expense the safety of its users. This revelation is even more shocking when we see the omnipresence of social networks in our lives.
These networks, at first sight public, by bringing together multiple subscribers who publicly exchange information and images, also constitute an open window on our daily lives. This may partly explain why some still resist them, unwilling to sacrifice their privacy on this broad public altar. It is true that the fuzzy nature of social networks, halfway between private and public spheres, can lead to real pitfalls.
This double membership of social networks is echoed by Hannah Arendt. Philosopher, political scientist and journalist who marked the XXand century, it is particularly recognized for the distinction it has established between what it calls “public space” and “private space”. The author indicates in the book condition of man modern (1958) that the differentiation between these two spaces reveals above all that “some things, simply to exist, need to be hidden while others need to be displayed in public”. But faced with the public display of the privacy of social network users, what drifts would Hannah Arendt see?
Public space and private space
Originally, the concept of public space was associated with res publica Roman, or to the polite Greek. It was a gathering place where speech and political action prevailed. One could then access the freedom, honor and durability guaranteed by the “publicity” of this space, ie the possibility of being seen and heard by one’s fellows. The private space was conceived by opposition, partly by the deprivation of the aspects offered by the public space, in particular the gaze of others. In the absence of this publicity, the private space was considered a “dark and hidden” side of the public space. This place made it possible to hide from the outside gaze in order to protect oneself and to attend to the necessities of life and of the family.
The original meaning of these two spaces has since evolved due to the advent of the social sphere, which Arendt places in early modern times. The social domain, “specific to the activity of work, production and exchanges”, then invaded public and private spaces (Jean-Claude Poizat, Hannah Arendt, an introduction, 2013). The social sphere has therefore changed the simple antinomic relationship between the public and the private. From now on, the private domain can only be conceived of mainly by its private aspect, having been “enriched” by the rise of individualism. It now contains intimacy, which the philosopher described as the refuge in subjectivity, that is to say the “own singular experience” of each one.
Triumph of the social domain
It is precisely in this dynamic that social networks find themselves, containing intimate content, but displayed in the eyes of a large audience for the purpose of social connection. Hence their complex, paradoxical nature and conducive to excesses.
Indeed, the vocation of these so-called “social” networks illustrates the triumph of the social domain, which now encompasses the two other spaces combined. On the one hand, the possibilities of dissemination and the visibility offered by social networks make it one of the modern places of predilection for speaking out and political action. On the other hand, the information disclosed on these networks is partly personal: photos of oneself, of the family, of relatives, sharing of tastes and personal stories. This is how the notion of intimacy interferes with the reality of this virtual phenomenon.
However, it is this intrusion into intimacy, specific to the private space and now diffused in the social sphere dominating the public space, which would be problematic, according to Arendt.
love and kindness
For the philosopher, always according to her conception according to which certain things must remain hidden in order to exist, love and kindness can only subsist in the private space. By spreading too much publicly about love, it would die out, being rather “stranger in the world”. Kindness, on the other hand, would only manifest itself when it escapes all gaze, even his own. Its self-sacrificing nature, any “advertisement” would be tantamount to destroying it. Behind these considerations, there is Arendt’s reluctance to mix the feelings of the private domain, of the moral order, with the public domain, of the political order, under penalty of causing a loss of bearings.
Nevertheless, it is clear that allusions to love and kindness are found in profusion on social networks. One only has to think of the magnified scenes of love life as well as the dissemination of public messages to loved ones who apparently want to be benevolent – thanks, compliments, encouragement -, but which nevertheless remain written in knowledge of their public nature.
These behaviors are so widespread today that they have almost become a norm, where the watchword is the staging of oneself. Without evacuating any possibility of sincerity behind these virtual actions carried out knowing that they are being watched, it is difficult to deny the unease surrounding them, if we look at what guides their publication. The fact remains that the public sharing of these evocations of love and kindness tends to deprive them of their own character and to blur our bearings, as Arendt predicted for things that need to be hidden.
Commodification of personal data
One of the most evocative illustrations of the dangers of sharing intimacy on social networks consists of the commodification of personal data that is made of it. Make no mistake: making platforms like Facebook and Instagram free is only possible by selling this data to the advertising industry. A look at the Facebook Data Usage Policy allows us to see that the information collected by this social network ranges from private conversations to everything we “provide” to it, which can certainly include some of our virtually disclosed privacy.
This data then loses its private character in the eyes of the king of Silicon Valley, who sees in it an incredible commercial potential. This transformation sheds light on the governance of the social sphere, one of the effects of which is to instrumentalize social relations by subjecting individuals to a pecuniary value. In this regard, the blurring of the boundary between private and public space is even more visible when scandals arise concerning the sale of data to third parties. This is reminiscent of the 2018 Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data leak which revealed that beyond the commercial use of this data, it could be used for political purposes in order to manipulate public opinion. public, successfully.
We can imagine that Hannah Arendt would take a dim view of sharing everyone’s privacy on these networks, especially in light of the potentially harmful use that is made of them. She would perhaps even see in it a consecration of the bankruptcy of the judgment, which she linked to the fact that the separation between the private and public domains was blurring. This reflection is also reflected in the words of Republican Senator Roger Wicker, who described the conduct of the Facebook group as “moral bankruptcy”, after it was put in the spotlight in the context of the Facebook Papers.
It therefore appears that there are several flaws in this dynamic linking social networks to the three spheres as defined by Hannah Arendt. This configuration allows certain evils to express themselves with greater scope, and this, by sharing intimacy in a public way, under a social veneer. Despite all these tensions and the most recent scandals that have plagued the Facebook group, the appeal of social networks remains undeniable, as evidenced by their profits, which continue to climb.
Shortly after the Facebook Papers broke, the Californian group renamed itself “Meta” and promoted a brand new innovation: the metaverse. Thanks to tools such as Oculus virtual reality headsets, this parallel cyberspace will make it possible to transcend physical reality in order to interact with other users. This alternative universe has been described by Mark Zuckerberg as the “new digital frontier”. Therefore, the idea that some things need to be hidden or displayed to exist will only be further threatened. Moreover, it is difficult not to see behind this metaverse the ultimate victory of the social domain which, by destroying the original public and private spaces, deprives human beings not only of a common world allowing them to weave fruitful relationships with others, but also from their homes, where they could once hide. However, such a blurring of borders can only lead to the most extreme loneliness.
The author would like to thank Karine Poellhuber for her help in writing this text.
Suggestions ? Write to Robert Dutrisac: [email protected]. To read or reread the old texts of Le Devoir de philo, go to our digital platforms.