The teenaged girl at the next table was typing away on her laptop, which seemed to irritate her parents, though they were trying”in that well-worn and slightly mad arent-we-all-having-a-good-time-on-our-vacation? mode of parents”not to show it.
What you doing, honey? the mother asked. Telling my friends about this awful breakfast on Facebook, she answered. You misspelled putrid , the father observed, leaning over to look. Dad, the girl despaired, its only Facebook.
I was kind of proud of the parents, for they managed to use that answer to start a discussion and draw the teenager back into the family circle, at least until her little brother, growing bored, decided to see how much syrup the little plastic Smuckers jelly cups would hold before they overflowed onto the carpet. And the burden of the girls argument was that Facebook wasnt her diary or even a letter to Grandma. It wasnt special ”the meaning of which seemed to alternate, in her mind, between private and important”and so misspellings and misgrammars didnt matter .
The family eventually gathered themselves up, wiped one another off, and headed off to see Mt. Rushmore. But there was something in that girls line that stayed with me”mostly because shes right: the concepts of private and public have undergone a strange new shift in American culture.
My grandmother would have said that, for anything done in public, accuracy and convention were far more important than they were for anything done in private. Well, actually, my grandmother would have said that accuracy and convention are important for their own sake. Your true table manners , she insisted, are how you eat when you are alone . But mismanners in public are embarrassing, exposed to view, in a way they are not in private. And we have a duty to behave well in public”and more than a duty: Since only our fellow people have the honors to bestow that are the rewards of virtue, the things we call virtues are particularly significant in a public setting.
This isnt quite the argument thats been held recently about the Journo-List, those archives of private discussion among leftist journalists that has recently been made public. Yes, its true that every public performance needs a backstage area, a place where the actors can let down their hair and cease, for a moment, to act”even while they continue to be actors, indulging one another as members of their shared profession.
That looks like an argument that publication of the archives is an invasion of privacy. But its also true that any private gathering of people of the same profession soon turns into a cabal against the public. Its true for lawyers, and its true for doctors, and, no surprise, its true for journalists: The fact that something is private, in the sense of secret , isnt the same as its being private in the sense of personal . Thats why we have the word conspiracy . And intrigue . And junta . And gang .
Anyway, the Journo-List brouhaha is an argument thats about what are still old concepts of public and private. What that teenaged girl was noting, however, is a feeling of the inversion of those old concepts. My daughter has it, too, and my godchildren, and many others. The private matters more because its private”larger, more real, more dwelt in.
Think of it like a house. The old houses had tiny, monastic-sized monastic bedrooms, with few closets and even fewer bathrooms. They also had large public rooms: parlors and living rooms and sitting rooms and dining rooms. The face a house presented to visitors, its public face, mattered more than its private rooms.
Of course, modern houses have changed all that. Many of them dont even have a dining room, and the public rooms matter less than the private. The people who built these houses still understood the old world of public vs. private; they just elevated the private. But the children who grew up in the houses that were built this way, what happens to them?
They get an inversion. Facebook doesnt matter, the girl said, because its public . When she writes in her secret diary just for herself, when she sends a letter just for one other person, thats when it matters. Thats when it counts.
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things .
We launched the First Things 2023 Year-End Campaign to keep articles like the one you just read free of charge to everyone.
Measured in dollars and cents, this doesn't make sense. But consider who is able to read First Things: pastors and priests, college students and professors, young professionals and families. Last year, we had more than three million unique readers on firstthings.com.
Informing and inspiring these people is why First Things doesn't only think in terms of dollars and cents. And it's why we urgently need your year-end support.
Will you give today?