‘The end of public culture’ in The fall of public man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism. New York.

Answer

Review:  Sennet, R., 1978, ‘The end of public culture’ in The fall of public man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism. New York.

Introduction

Man in today’s world, unlike the years prior to the 18^th century has turned into a spectator in the public domain producing a diminished interest in matter public, especially political participation. More than ever, the society engages in the scrutiny of an individual’s private life, eroding notions of what actually constitutes public and private culture, life or mannerism. The effect is that the ideology of intimacy has permeated every aspect, including that of public life, and thus being intimate, being close to someone, experiencing warmth as it were is greatly sough after today, at the expense of self development. But is intimacy or closeness really a virtue and humane gestures in the modern times, where injustice is rampant, and trust and openness rather risky undertakings? In Richard Sonnet’s chapter eleven, the end of public culture in The fall of public man , the ideology of intimacy in the current times is, at best, insincere, burdensome, provokes lethargy in public and political participation and thus perpetuating the myth of impersonality.

Summary

In chapter eleven of The fall of Public Man, Sonnet clearly states that the main purpose of the chapter is not to induce regret and resignation, but rather to create a picture ‘‘...on the beliefs, aspirations, and myths of modern life...’’ (p 259 line7) which have the society thinks are humane and virtues, yet in fact are questionable and poisonous to public culture.  As sonnets notes, there is little distinction between public and private behaviour and culture, with being close to others being seen as not just desirable but moral. He states that this closeness and intimacy has permeated even in political spheres and as such ‘‘...warmth is our god.’’ ( p. 259 line 19). He contrasts this with the eighteenth century when the private and public spheres were so clearly defined, but the advent of capitalism saw the death of public culture. He further states that the expectations set forth by closeness are the precursor of public culture crisis being witnessed today. In short, Sonnet states, as narcissism sets in, it robs the society of its civility, erosion of the self, and reduced political action and participation because of fear of being scrutinized to the individual level.

Arguments

The main issues raised by Sonnet is that the fall of public culture in the modern society is as a result of overemphasis on intimacy, closeness, warmth with others due to speared of capitalism and secularism. He finds the erosion of public and private life to be important because it is the reason for the death of civility, setting of narcissism, and the loss of interest in public affairs especially politics since the society has been reduced to mere passive spectators. Two important factors, narcissism and the spread and emphasis on the ideology of intimacy, are, as Sonnets claims, the reason for the remarkable difference between the 18^th and 19^th century. The public today is thus devoid of individuals strong enough to address and act on real public issues, and self indulgent has created the problem of political inaction. Additionally, 19^th century communication technology creates a more passive audience in the public realm, by focusing more on an individual’s personality on air, erasing the boundary between public and private sphere. Finally, Sonnet argues that civility is likely to be considered ‘‘...a snob or reactionary’’ ( p 264 line 17). This has made it, according to sonnet, nearly impossible to recover the 18^th century meaning of the word, and do away with the masked society that is less trusting, less expressive, less creative and much less civil according to him.

Evaluation

Sonnet’s arguments are most interesting and insightful, and his intentions for the article are well elucidated. It is easy to identify with his arguments in the current times where indeed, the public sphere is full of masked men whose motivations are hard to ascertain. I thus could not agree more with Sonnet when he the ideology of intimacy has indeed let to what he best terms as ‘‘...uncivilized behaviour between people...’’ (p. 268 line11). Sonnet’s ideas in the article are informed by the Victoria values that maintained a distinction between the public and private real, and civility was  much more meaningful than a mere snob as well postulate by the author. We can bear witness today that the world, especially the political segment has been overshadowed by secularism and narcissism, which see impersonality as and alienation as not constructs of personality and individuality, but rather an expression of coldness and plain evil. His intentions, as I perceive them is to evoke in the modern society self reflection on their role especially on the public sphere, so as to increase political participation and action, and to focus on an individual’s performance rather than scrutinizing their private life. This reading is important for the modern man since the current public sphere, especially for elected officials is much more focused on the interests about a person’s private life, losing focus on the core issue of performance.

It is not appropriate to intrude an individual’s private life, true that. However, Sonnet fails to establish where, for the cases of public official, should boundaries be drawn between what constituted public or private real. An individual’s private life, to an extent, can be a reflection of how an individual’s would handle a public office and thus their private dealings cannot entirely be ignored as Sonnet suggests. Again, I do not subscribe to his notion that man in the modern society is more politically inactive due to the private/public erosion since more than ever political participation is high and the citizenry is more demanding.

The author is correct when he asserts that individuals are entitled to privacy and anonymity, but when it comes to public issues, politics, and office, individuals need to be responsible publicly and privately, otherwise, and with this, there would be no fear of being subjected to public scrutiny.