The distinction between the public and the private spheres

What is important to note is that, regardless of variations and differences in approaches (which can of course be quite significant in everyday politics), all individualistic political theories are based on a fundamental dichotomy: specifically, that an individual is composed of a private and a public sphere (the contents of each being left deliberately vague), a private and a public self. The dichotomy works, and makes sense, through conflict (obviously, because the self is imagined to be constrained). The two spheres that supposedly make up an individual are conceived to be mutually exclusive: each time one of them increases it does so at the expense of the other. If this theoretical model is accepted, which one of the two spheres is to be supported? Conveniently, two political theories have emerged, one for each. Liberalism broadly favours the private sphere over the public. It basically suggests that each individual’s private sphere is not only inalienable (i.e. it should not be completely dominated by the public one), but that it should also be increased (nourished, fostered) as much as possible (again, to the detriment of the public one). (Its name is derived from its support of the private sphere, at the core of which reside, supposedly, an individual’s thoughts and ideas, and thus imagination; in essence, liberalism yearns for freedom, but achieves liberty instead, see also §25.00.00.) At its extreme, meaning the complete domination of the public by the private sphere, lays anarchism and libertarianism. On the other hand, communitarianism broadly favours the public sphere over the private one. Here belong all political theories that formulate a ‘common will of the people’ with which the private sphere of each individual needs to merge. At its extreme are authoritarian regimes that entirely deny the existence of any inalienable private sphere.

Navigate: ← §26.00.03.00 · Corpus · §26.00.05.00 →