Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure

4. Cases of Boundary Coordination

s discussed in chapter 3, there are both personal and collective boundaries involved in managing private information. However, when we examine collective boundaries there are specific issues that help define coordination on the collective level. This chapter first considers the patterns that emerge when people are seeking boundary coordination. The remaining portion of this chapter presents in-depth information on the way certain types of collective boundaries, such as those that are relational, familial, and organizational, coordinate privacy management. COLLECTIVE COORDINATION PATTERNS There are numerous ways that coordination takes place. Currently, CPM has identified three general coordination patterns that collectives use to manage mutually held privacy boundaries. Because we are dealing with collectives , these patterns are in addition to the way people manage their personal privacy boundaries. Coordination patterns represent the way people synchronize their efforts. General kinds of patterns grow out of the different ways people engage in privacy management. Although three different general patterns can be identified at this time, many more patterns are likely to emerge in the future. The patterns include inclusive boundary coordination, intersected boundary coordination, and unified boundary coordination. Although each pattern is framed within a dyadic mode for ease of discussion, conceivably, these patterns can accommodate the way privacy is managed on group, familial, organizational, and societal levels. For each pattern, we see alternative implementations of the rule management processes. As a whole, these patterns illustrate the modes of change for the dialectic of privacy-disclosure as managed in a collective manner. Inclusive Boundary Coordination The central issue represented in inclusive boundary coordination is that of power. The power stems from person B giving up privacy control to person A 127 4 Cases of Boundary Coordination A (see Figure 4.1). There are many reasons why privacy control is given over to someone. In a study on nursing homes, older adults often discussed the tradeoff of privacy for safety (Petronio & Kovach, 1997). They clearly were willing to relinquish many kinds of privacy. For example, these older adults gave up control over their finances, allowed others to bathe them, and left their bedroom doors open so that they could have a “safe” environment in which to live. By giving up control over their privacy, these individuals gained a sense of security. Thus, as the figure shows, person A manages more of person B’s privacy than person B does for person A. For these older adults, this pattern works to the benefit of both individuals. Sometimes giving up privacy control does not lead to such a positive outcome. Instead, when one person has more power over another’s private information than the individual does him or herself, the level of vulnerability increases significantly for the person giving up privacy control. One critical issue determining whether inclusive coordination is positive or negative revolves around the reason for surrendering privacy control. A way to consider the nature of this pattern is to understand the basis on which the boundary is formed. To do that, we turn to the characteristics of boundary linkages for the inclusive coordination pattern. Inclusive Boundary Linkages Given that this pattern is based on a power differential, there are three ways in which boundary linkages may be defined for inclusive coordination . First, there are coercive linkages that are formed when person B is forced to give up personally private information to person A. Issues of disclosure compliance, through either humiliation or manipulation, force the linkage leading to inclusive boundary coordination. The situations that take place with sexual abuse also represent an example of linkages based on coercion. The perpetrator invades the victims’ privacy and then the perpetrator controls the boundaries around the private information about the abuse. The victims are coerced into allowing the perpetrator to determine boundary rules for disclosure about the crime and have to relinquish control . These coercive linkages are destructive to individuals and underscore the negative consequences of inclusive patterns when one party is forced into this kind of linkage. Second, there are inclusive patterns that form out of role linkages. For example, person B, as a function of his or her role relationship, becomes involved in an inclusive coordination pattern that manages private information with person A. The role linkage is established when individuals hold positions that dictate who is privy to private information. The parentchild relationship is an example of a role linkage where the parent has more 128 Cases of Boundary Coordination control over...