Human Requirements for Extended Spaceflight
Essay Preview: Human Requirements for Extended Spaceflight
Report this essay
3. HABITABILITY
PRlVACY
[82] Confined individuals who report habitability problems generally direct their complaint at a physical aspect of the environment, perhaps because it is more acceptable to complain about equipment than about a fellow confinee. However, as arrangements for living and working in space become better established, habitability issues can be expected to take on a subtler tone and to involve relationships as well as physical conditions. One such relational issue is the need for privacy. This area is not often discussed in terms of spaceflight needs; because of its perceived importance, we shall review privacy research at some length.
Meaning and Functions
The term “privacy” conjures up a variety of meanings. It is used to describe the need for ample space; visual, physical, or psychological separation; low population density; control over space, possessions, or information; freedom of activity; and many other concepts.
[83] Popular responses to the term fall into four broad categories: “aloneness,” “controlling access to space,” “no one bothering me,” and “controlling access to information” (Wolfe and Golan, 1976). Three of these categories involve managing ones direct interactions with others; the fourth involves controlling information about oneself. Privacy in the informational sense reflects a concern not only about immediate events, but also about future events (Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe, 1976). It is the informational aspect of privacy that has changed dramatically with the introduction of computers, occasioning much of the recent concern over privacy issues.
Various definitions of privacy have been proffered by researchers and analysts who seek to understand the role of privacy in human development and functioning. A central element in these definitions is the ability of individuals to choose if, when, and to what extent they interact with, and thereby reveal themselves to others. For example (Margulis, 1974, vol. 6, p.1):
Privacy, as a whole or in part, represents the control of transactions between person(s) and other(s), the ultimate aim of which is to enhance autonomy and/or to minimize vulnerability, thereby protecting autonomy.
Margulis (1977) outlines three basic functions of privacy. The first and least central function involves the management of the interaction between self and others. This function assumes that roles and relationships are reasonably well understood and that the individual is seeking the most rewarding level of interaction with others. A higher order function is concerned with defining self in relationship to others. This function involves role definition and the presentation of self, and includes what Goffman (1959) refers to as “image management.” The third and most central function of privacy regulation is concerned with self identification. By means of this function, privacy becomes the mechanism for distinguishing between the self and others. This function is demonstrated by its converse. In certain, situations the destruction of privacy is used to break down the notion of self identity and individuality (Goffman, 1961) as when prisoners or soldiers have their clothing removed, and after some period, are issued uniforms.
Theory
Theorists of privacy have long admonished that privacy involves having neither too much nor too little interaction. Interaction can [84] expose oneself to others; however, it also exposes others to self. Privacy represents the ideal balance or “homeostasis” between forces to be open versus closed (Altman, 1975), with dissatisfaction resulting when the optimal balance is not maintained (Sundstrom, 1977). However, this balance is not a static one. People seek to withdraw when they feel overly exposed, and seek exposure when they feel excluded, in a constantly correcting process.
Individuals observe others and seek information about others, assumedly because they need to judge the appropriateness of their own beliefs and behavior.10 People also voluntarily expose aspects of their personality to others. One explanation for this latter behavior is that the individual must be known if he is to be accepted and affirmed. In addition, there is an “expectation of reciprocity” associated with voluntary personal disclosures (Derlega, Wilson, and Chaiken, 1976). A revelation by one individual carries an expectation that the demonstrated trust will be returned by a revelation by the other. In this way, self disclosure itself becomes a means of access to needed information.
Bases of Needs
The rights of an individual to privacy and the rights of others (frequently the state) to information sometime come into conflict, with legal decisions swinging first one way and then the other (Levin and Askin, 1977). However, the fact that an individual has a right to privacy is well accepted in our culture. Western societies, with their belief in the distinctiveness and unique contribution of the individual, would be expected to value privacy more than societies with different philosophical orientations. This raises the question of whether the need for privacy is a culturally specific phenomenon or whether it is a generalized phenomenon, common to all members of the species.
Altman (1977) has performed an ethnographic analysis of various cultures and has concluded that privacy regulation is a culturally universal process. In those societies where contact among individuals is necessarily high, alternative approaches have evolved to [85] counteract these intrusions. The particular practices vary with the cultured but include the seeking out of secret private areas, flexible arrangement of structures, and cultural restraints on social interactions. He cites the Pygmies of Zaire as an example of a society which has developed an unusual method of privacy regulation. This group alternates between periods of very high physical and social interaction and periods of separation, with the periods of separation lasting up to several months. These cycles are repeated year after year. Altman (1978) concludes from the various societies he has studied that (p. 78):
when