Abstract
Although a general term used frequently in ordinary language, as well as legal and philosophical discourses, privacy remains an elusive notion. In modern legal discussions, it has been argued that privacy is an integral part of intimacy and autonomy, and goes to the essence of individual dignity, and thus ought to be protected through the creation of a sphere free from outside interference. This normative account of privacy, as Warren and Brandeis proposed in the late nineteenth century, provides moral grounds for the later development of privacy protection in American law. Such recognition of the private sphere, based on the public and private distinction, can be traced up to Aristotle’s distinction between the polis and oikos, which refers to a private domain consisting of the family household that can be thought separate from public interference. However, the question arises: is there an equivalent notion of privacy in the very different context of Chinese culture, and if so, to what extent is it valued and preserved? This chapter discusses the notion of privacy by digging into its rich genealogical origins in ancient Chinese and Western thoughts. This approach is intended to offer a comparative perspective for the analysis and re-examination of notions of privacy, and to further explore the consequential implications of the public/private binary in the later legal developments when privacy came gradually to be recognised not only as a value to be respected, but in modern legal discourses as a right to be protected.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Stocking (1995).
- 2.
Rosen (2008).
- 3.
McDougall (2002), p. 7.
- 4.
Id. at p. 20.
- 5.
Id.
- 6.
Khayutina (2002), p. 86.
- 7.
Id. at pp. 84, 91.
- 8.
Id.
- 9.
Feuchtwang (2002), p. 218.
- 10.
The original words: “剬私之相背”; see Goldin (2005), pp. 58–65.
- 11.
Xu (2005).
- 12.
Brindley (2013), pp. 6, 7.
- 13.
Id.
- 14.
Id. at p. 7.
- 15.
Id. at pp. 7, 8.
- 16.
Huang (2001).
- 17.
Zarrow (2002), p. 133.
- 18.
Id, p. 138.
- 19.
Id. at p. 139.
- 20.
Id. at p. 141.
- 21.
Weintraub (1997).
- 22.
Id. at p. 11.
- 23.
Arendt (1958).
- 24.
Hobbes (1651).
- 25.
Id.
- 26.
Polanyi (1944).
- 27.
Habermas (1991).
- 28.
Weintraub (1997), p. 18.
- 29.
Gavison (1995).
- 30.
Id.
- 31.
Aristotle (1999).
- 32.
Id.
- 33.
Id.
- 34.
Warren and Brandeis (1890).
- 35.
In this case, the plaintiff was a young lady and the defendant; the flour company made use of her picture in advertisement of the flour without her consent. As the court rejected to recognise the existence of right to privacy , the plaintiff was not entitled to any protection against such conduct.
- 36.
The facts in the Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. are pretty much the same as the case of Roberson. In this case, the defendant was an insurance company, and it made use of plaintiff’s name and picture in its advertisement without the plaintiff’s consent.
- 37.
Prosser (1960).
- 38.
Id.
- 39.
Milton (1996).
- 40.
Zimmerman (1989).
- 41.
Id.
- 42.
Tylor (1871).
References
Arendt H (1958) The human condition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Aristotle (Benjamin Jowett trans) (1999) Politics. Batoche Books, Ontario
Axel H, Hans J (eds) Jeremy, G. and Jones, Doris L. (trans). (1991) Communicative action: essays on Jürgen Habermas’s the theory of communicative action. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Boas F (1896) The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology. Sci News Ser 4(103):901–908
Brindley E (2013) The polarization of the concepts Si (private interest) and Gong (public interest) in early Chinese thought. Asia Major 26(2):1–31
Eisenstadt SN, Schluchter W (1998) Introduction: paths to early modernities: a comparative view. Daedalus 127(3):1–18
Ewald W (1995) Comparative jurisprudence (II): the logic of legal transplants. Am J Comp Law 43(4):489–510
Feuchtwang S (eds) (2002) Reflections on privacy in China. In: McDougall BS, Anders H (eds) Chinese concepts of privacy. Brill, Leiden, pp 211–230
Gavison R (1995) Feminism and the public/private distinction. Stanford Law Rev 41(1):1–45
Gillespie J (2001) Globalisation and legal transplantation: lessons from the past. Deakin Law Rev 6(2):286–311
Goldin P (2005) Han Fei’s doctrine of self-interest. In: Goldin PR (ed) After confucius: studies in early Chinese philosophy. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp 58–65
Gross H (1967) The concept of privacy. New York Univ Law Rev 1(42):34–54
Hobbes T (1651) Leviathan
Huang Z (2001) MingYi Dai Fang Lu [明夷待訪錄] (Waiting for the Dawn). San Min Book co. Ltd, Taipei
Khayutina M (2002) Studying the private sphere of the ancient Chinese nobility through the inscriptions on bronze ritual vessels. In: McDougall BS, Anders H (eds) Chinese concept of privacy. Brill, Leiden, pp 81–94
Legrand P (1997) Impossibility of legal transplants. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4(2):111–124
McDougall BS (2002) Particulars and universals: studies on Chinese privacy. In: McDougall BS, Anders H (eds) Chinese concept of privacy. Brill, Leiden, pp 3–24
Milton RK (1996) Privacy and the law: a philosophical prelude. Law Contemp Probl 31(2):272–280
Nelken D, Feest J (2001) Adapting legal cultures. Hart publishing, Oxford/Portland
Parent WA (1983) Recent work on the concept of privacy. Am Philos Q 20(4):341–355
Polanyi K (1944) The great transformation. Beacon, Boston
Post RC (2000–2001) Three concepts of privacy. Georgetown Law J 89(6):2087–2098
Prosser W (1960) Privacy. Calif Law Rev 48(3):383–423
Rosen L (2008) Law as culture: an invitation. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Solove DJ (2008) Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Stocking GW Jr (1995) After Tylor, British social anthropology, 1888–1951. University of Wisconsin, Madison
Swanson JA (1992) The public and the private in Aristotle’s political philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Tylor EB (1871) Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom. John Murray Ltd., London
Wakeman F Jr (1993) The civil society and public sphere debate: western reflections on Chinese political culture. Mod China 19(2):108–138
Wakeman F Jr (1998) Boundaries of the public sphere in Ming and Qing China. Daedalus 127(3):167–189
Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev 4(5):193–220
Weintraub J (1997) The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In: Weintraub J, Kumar K (eds) Public and private in thought and practice – perspectives on a grand dichotomy, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–38
Xu S (2005) Shuowen Jiezi [說文解字] (explaining graphs and analyzing characters). Tianjin Ancient Books Publishing House, Tianjin
Zarrow P (2002) The origins of modern Chinese concepts of privacy: notes on social structure and moral discourse. In: McDougall BS, Anders H (eds) Chinese concept of privacy. Brill, Leiden, pp 121–146
Zimmerman DL (1989) False light invasion of privacy: the light that failed. 64 New York Univ Law Rev 64:364
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ho, Ch. (2016). Privacy: A Genealogy in the East and the West. In: Lo, Cf., Li, N., Lin, Ty. (eds) Legal Thoughts between the East and the West in the Multilevel Legal Order. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1995-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1995-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-1994-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-1995-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)