Intro. [Recording date: April 23, 2025.]
Russ Roberts: Itās April 23rd, 2025, and Iām joined by Tiffany Jenkins, author of the thought-provoking new book Strangers and Intimates: The Rise and Fall of Private Life. You may remember her from our discussion in January 2023 about her previous work, Plunder, Museums, and Marbles. Welcome back to EconTalk, Tiffany.
Tiffany Jenkins: Thank you for having me.
Russ Roberts: I want to preface our discussion by warning listeners that some themes may be more suitable for mature audiences. If youāre listening with children, consider adjusting accordingly.
Russ Roberts: Letās dive into the title of your book. Itās captivating. When I first saw Strangers and Intimates, I was intrigued. After reading it, the way you frame the dialogue around the evolution of private life versus public life really struck a chord with me. Can you share your thoughts on why you chose this title and its significance?
Tiffany Jenkins: Initially, my aim was to explore the concepts of private life and privacy. While researching 19th century Britain, a period marked by rapid urban migration, I encountered commentary describing it as a āsociety of strangers.ā This led me to realize that our private lives are often shaped by our public interactions. The image of these strangers mingling in public spaces contrasted sharply with the intimacy found in private homes, where people retreated from the chaos of public life. Thus, the title encapsulates this duality, highlighting how public and private spheres influence one another.
Russ Roberts: Indeed, the boundary between public and private life has undergone profound transformations over the last 500 years. Reading your book made me ponder a modern trend: the drive to obliterate the distinction between strangers and intimates. In todayās culture, should we be open and intimate with everyone? Should our lives be devoid of secrets? The movement toward transparency seems to suggest that barriers between the private and public realms should be dismantled. Would you say thereās a cultural push towards this openness?
Tiffany Jenkins: Absolutely. Thereās a prevailing notion that being different in public versus private is disingenuous, and this perception can be quite harsh. In contemporary society, particularly in reality television, individuals labeled as āfalseā or āinauthenticā are often vilified. Secrets are frequently considered burdensome, leading to a belief that they should be exposed rather than concealed. This attitude can degrade our public life, as it neglects the essential social graces we adopt when interacting with others. For instance, in Britain, establishing social intimacy through practices like kissing on the cheek is often uncomfortable yet deemed necessary. We risk labeling those who maintain a distinction between public and private selves as hypocrites, ignoring the fact that these differences are fundamental to our humanity.
Russ Roberts: Speaking of social customs, do you adhere to the cheek-kissing tradition twice in Britain, or is it just one kiss?
Tiffany Jenkins: Well, the lack of consensus makes it all quite awkward. Typically, thereās uncertainty over whether to go for one or both, leading to uncomfortable moments. The trend toward excessive intimacy in public discourse often devalues the essence of public life itself.
Russ Roberts: Iād argue, and I believe you do in your book, that this trend not only diminishes public life but private life as well. You mentioned that being different in public versus private makes one a hypocrite. Is that inherently negative? Is hypocrisy always bad?
Tiffany Jenkins: We all embody different facets of ourselves. For example, in a professional context, we behave differently than we would at home. Our private spaces allow us to be our imperfect selves without fear of scrutiny, where we can vent frustrations or have disagreements. This emotional sanctuary is critical. We should embrace the idea that public and private selves are distinct yet complementary, rather than viewing them as conflicting identities.
Russ Roberts: This morning, I shared a humorous video on social media that I found amusing, despite its silliness. My wife might judge me for enjoying it, which raises the question of how our intimate relationships allow for moments of enjoyment that might be scrutinized by others. Itās an interesting dynamic, isnāt it?
Tiffany Jenkins: Exactly, thatās the essence of a relationship. Your spouse can overlook your little quirks, unlike a stranger who might be quick to judge.
Russ Roberts: But thereās more to this conversation. You address a concerning narrative: the notion that privacy is only for those hiding something sinister. The prevailing belief seems to be that if you’re a good person, you should have nothing to fear from surveillance. What are your thoughts on this perspective?
Tiffany Jenkins: While privacy can indeed protect wrongdoers, it is fundamentally necessary for everyone. It fosters personal development, emotional release, and the autonomy required for self-reflection. Privacy is essential for building intimacy, allowing us to share vulnerable details of our lives with those we trust. It facilitates deeper connections, whether in friendships or professional relationships, and serves as a testing ground for ideas before we present them publicly.
Russ Roberts: I love that perspective. Itās about the connections we create, distinguishing between sharing with close intimates and with the wider world. The nuances of our interactions define the quality of our relationships, and if we overshare, do we risk losing something precious?
Tiffany Jenkins: Yes, thereās definitely something valuable in that exclusivity. Sharing a secret can indeed strengthen bonds, but it can also lead to isolation. Privacy allows for personal growth and depth; without it, we risk becoming shallow and losing our distinct identities.
Russ Roberts: You illustrate this beautifully with the example of Monica Lewinsky in your bookāa stark reminder of the potential consequences of exposure. Itās alarming to consider how our natural instincts towards jealousy and possessiveness challenge the ideal of openness in relationships.
Tiffany Jenkins: Most people grapple with these feelings. While some may experiment with openness, many eventually seek the comfort of exclusivity. The daily sharing of lifeās mundane moments, along with navigating struggles, fosters loyalty and deep emotional connections.
Russ Roberts: Before we move on, letās touch on the perception that only those with something to hide fear transparency. Thereās an essential issue here regarding the limitations of language and communication. Our conversations, like this one, are rich with nuances that may not translate well into written or digital formats. What are your thoughts on this?
Tiffany Jenkins: Youāve made an insightful point. In public discussions, especially in politics, thereās a tendency to prioritize literal interpretations over the subtleties of context and emotion. This emphasis on transparency often strips away irony and humor, leading to a more rigid discourse. The ambiguity inherent in human interactions is crucial, yet itās frequently lost when weāre pressured to be transparent.
Russ Roberts: Itās fascinating how people perceive communicationāoften incorrectly believing that a literal translation equates to accuracy. This misconception extends to how we adapt narratives or stories, often losing the essence of the original message.
Tiffany Jenkins: Indeed, adaptations that stick too closely to the original plot can miss the emotional core of the story. This reflects how transparency can eliminate the messiness of life.
Russ Roberts: Additionally, I believe everyone harbors secrets.
Tiffany Jenkins: Absolutely. Hiding certain aspects of our lives isnāt inherently wrong. We all have private experiences that are neither bad nor illegal; they simply belong to us. For example, love can be both public and private, as marriage is a public commitment, yet there are private facets that remain sacred. Similarly, when it comes to grief, the public often feels entitled to insights into a celebrity’s life and death, leading to feelings of betrayal when those details are withheld. This sense of entitlement is a modern phenomenon, unfamiliar to most of human history.
Russ Roberts: Itās intriguing how we treat strangers as intimates while simultaneously rendering our true intimates as mere strangers. Exposure limits our ability to connect deeply with those who matter most.
Tiffany Jenkins: Exactly. Continuous exposure diminishes true intimacy. For example, in oppressive regimes, individuals often find it difficult to communicate openly with family members, fearing repercussions. This pressure not only erodes the quality of intimate relationships but also constrains personal expression.
Russ Roberts: Reflecting on your book, I recalled a moment from 50 years ago during a workshop led by Victor Fuchs at Stanford University. He presented a paper on privacy and posed a thought experiment: imagine if all your thoughts were broadcast on a screen. Today, weāre living in a reality that resembles this concept, albeit voluntarily. What are your thoughts on this evolution?
Tiffany Jenkins: Indeed, weāre navigating a landscape where sharing is not enforced but culturally encouraged. The onus is on us to question why we feel compelled to disclose so much, even when it may not be necessary.
Russ Roberts: Itās a compelling dilemma. While the choice to share is ours, societal pressures often dictate how we engage. For instance, when I share my opinions on social media, my wife questions why I feel the need to broadcast them, prompting me to reflect on the incentives guiding our interactions.
Tiffany Jenkins: Thereās certainly a cultural impetus to share feelings openly. However, this can lead to superficial social connections, as we engage with a broader audience while neglecting the depth of our immediate relationships. The quest for recognition in a digital realm can often yield feelings of inadequacy, especially when norms around civility are diminishing.
Russ Roberts: Have you ever had a stranger confide in you about something deeply personal?
Tiffany Jenkins: Yes, strangers often share personal stories, as thereās a lower risk involved. This fleeting intimacy can be liberating for them, allowing for a moment of connection without the expectation of continuity.
Russ Roberts: My great-grandmother used to advise that when feeling down, one should confide in a rock or a treeāessentially, to express oneself without judgment. These moments with strangers can be exhilarating, creating a unique intimacy, albeit temporary.
Tiffany Jenkins: Exactly. Those moments may not last, but they can leave a lasting impression.
Russ Roberts: Letās shift our focus to your book. It opens with an unexpected account of Martin Luther. What relevance does he have to your narrative?
Tiffany Jenkins: Surprisingly, I initially intended to start with the Victorian era and the pivotal article by Warren and Brandeis on privacy. However, I realized that the Victorian understanding of privacy didnāt arise in a vacuum. In the 17th century, privacy was often viewed as dangerous. To understand how societal values shifted, I studied the struggles between individual rights and authority, particularly in the context of religious liberty. Figures like Martin Luther and Thomas More exemplified the courage to follow their consciences, often at significant personal risk. Their actions catalyzed a gradual separation between public conformity and private belief, contributing to our contemporary understanding of privacy.
