The intersection of public and private lives represented through public and private places where people are situated implies subjectivity in judging and attitudes. Indeed, since the line between the private and the public is so vague and not clearly distinctive, it is a manipulative area where assumptions and bias take place most frequently (Braithwaite & Orr, 2016). A place where a person comes from might predetermine how he or she is perceived by others, depending on their expectations. When talking about families that are most likely to have direct interaction with state agents, one might suggest families from minority neighborhoods, such as African American, Latino, disadvantaged neighborhoods of a working class. Indeed, such families are assumed to be more likely to participate in unlawful actions. The news continuously brings stories about the prevalence of criminal history performed by Latinos or African Americans. Therefore, such families are more likely to interact directly with law enforcement agents.
Another example might be a family of immigrants whose place of origin differs from the one of the majority and might be assumed as a disadvantage. Indeed, a family of Mexican immigrants might be exposed to direct interaction with children’s services because it might be considered as underprivileged and requiring excessive control. Therefore, the changing boundaries of the private and the public places reflect “the ideas about who has what kinds of rights and responsibilities in particular places” (Braithwaite & Orr, 2016, p. 243). Therefore, social status, race, sexuality, gender, disability, and other issues might be decisive in the perception of people by others when they are at the same places. Indeed, if a young man from a black neighborhood is observed loitering in a supermarket, he is much more likely to be suspected of shoplifting than any young white man. Similarly, an elderly man carefully driving a cheap car is more likely to be an object of insults on the road than a young woman driving an expensive car.
Religion is another important issue that imposes a contradictory perception when considered within the context of public and private places. While religious affiliation is a private matter of every person, Muslims might be exposed to cautious attitudes when expressing their religious beliefs. Indeed, a Muslim schoolgirl wearing a hijab might be approached by school administration while a catholic schoolgirl praying would be accepted as usual. The distinction between the public and the private is not always clear. For example, such a private matter as domestic violence has become an object of active public discussion for preventative purposes because it is considered unlawful. Therefore, although it is conducted in private, public forces such as state agents might intrude to eliminate the cause of harm. At the same time, non-harmful private actions, such as social media posts, might serve as a basis for biased attitudes.
Thus, there is an invisible division in social attitude toward people when it comes to considering places. Different rules and expectations apply to different people when they are in the same public places. Income level, citizenship status, sexuality, age, gender, religion, and many other factors play a decisive role in people’s judgment of others when in a public place. At the same time, the place of origin, or a place where one lives influence the attitudes of others, their expectations of one’s role and responsibility. Therefore, the consideration of public and private places is pivotal to social studies.
Reference
Braithwaite, A., & Orr, C. M. (2016). The public and the private. In Everyday women’s and gender studies: Introductory concepts (pp. 241-244). Routledge.