Latest news with #TiffanyJenkins
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
When vice was policed by church & fornication was everyone's business
Several people claimed to have witnessed the scene, which seems unlikely unless the masonry was as holey as Swiss cheese. But it certainly reveals the climate of state-sanctioned snooping that prevailed during an era when 'privacy', if mentioned at all, was considered a sinister cover for wickedness. In her fascinating new social history, Dr Tiffany Jenkins peers through the keyhole of the past to examine the Western world's changing attitudes towards public and private life. By the early 18th century, we learn, a clear distinction between the social and personal had evolved with the (male-dominated) business of politics, commerce, and ideas conducted in Parliament, marketplaces and coffee houses. Read more Meanwhile, for the wealthy at least, the domestic realm became more clearly delineated with curtains, partitioned rooms and distinct bedchambers. Grand houses even had separate service corridors to spare the gentry from encountering last night's reeking chamber pots as they were whisked away by servants (whose own sole source of privacy would have been a lockable wooden box). As the centuries progressed, the sanctity of the private sphere became a battleground and Jenkins offers an entertaining account of controversies that have raged over people's right to defend their homes, their mail or their conversations against prying eyes and ears. During the 1840s, the interception of private letters sent to Italian political exile Giuseppe Mazzini provoked outrage, with Scottish thinker Thomas Carlyle likening the practice to 'picking men's pockets'. Half-a-century later, the newly minted snapshot camera was marketed as offering the 'thrill' of taking someone's picture 'without their knowledge' and women who'd unwittingly been photographed in the street by so-called Kodak fiends were aghast to find their faces appearing in adverts for soap or tobacco. When Broadway star Marion Manola was surreptitiously snapped onstage with her legs clad in nothing but tights, she went to court to prevent the images being ogled by 'every fellow who could afford' them prompting accusations that, having happily displayed her pins on a public stage, she hadn't a be-stockinged leg to stand on. The hypocrisy charge remains a popular paparazzi defence against high-profile complainants. Take Prince Harry, who won substantial damages for press intrusion only to be dubbed 'the biggest invader of privacy in royal history' over the explosive revelations in his memoir, Spare. Another tabloid trope is that 'the public interest' trumps privacy and a notorious 1960s scandal offers a case in point. When news broke that the British Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, was having an affair with model Christine Keeler, acres of prurient coverage were justified on the grounds that her involvement with a Soviet naval attache threatened national security. Not everyone agreed and the event helped trigger the tabling of a parliamentary privacy bill calling for 'the right to be left alone'. Monica Lewinsky was accorded no such privilege over her affair with Bill Clinton. Her humiliating interrogation before the Starr committee, with the world's press salivating over every salacious detail, was legitimised as exposing the deceitfulness of a man unfit for presidential office but for the young White House intern, it felt like a violation. Today, as people splurge ever more intimate details of their lives over reality TV and 'lifestream' blogs, the plea to be left alone may seem anachronistic. ('If Prince Harry really wants his privacy, he must shut up!' suggested TalkTV's royal correspondent Rupert Bell.) But Jenkins warns this ignores the complexities involved, arguing that the hard-won distinction between our public and private lives needs to be defended as - for all the righteous talk about transparency - the ability to live at least part of our lives free from observation is precious. The private sphere, she writes, is where we 'take off our public masks' and 'can make mistakes with those we trust' - though this sanctuary is under threat at a time when people's unguarded remarks are triumphantly laid bare. Indeed, Jenkins raises the spectre of a quasi-Stalinist ethos in which 'divulging private conversations is incentivised, rather than stigmatised as reprehensible snitching', especially north of the Border where, she writes, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act makes ours 'the only country in the Western world where the state has the power to police speech in the privacy of the home'. Read more You might argue that racist, sexist or homophobic remarks are an obvious evil deserving of exposure but Jenkins asks us to think carefully about the implications of a regime in which private speech (including WhatsApp messaging) is controlled, pointing out that 'a society in which we must filter everything we say through a kind of internalised show trial … inevitably encourages conformity and uniformity'. There are conflicting concerns, not least over freedom of information and Jenkins doesn't pretend an unregulated private realm is an unmitigated good, noting that in the 1970s, some radical feminists opposed privacy rights on the grounds they served male supremacy. They had a point, too: bringing rape and domestic abuse out of the shadows and into the courts was among the triumphs of the women's movement. But she lists their well-intentioned insistence that 'the personal is political' among the factors that eroded societal respect for people's privacy, leading to a burgeoning surveillance culture that reached new heights during the pandemic lockdowns. Agree or not, this is a debate we urgently need to be having. Hugely ambitious in its scope, Strangers and Intimates offers an accessible history of philosophical, ecclesiastical and judicial thought across more than four centuries. It also ventures into highly sensitive contemporary territory and raises questions that may challenge those who think outlawing free speech is progressive. They should definitely read this book.
Geek Tyrant
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Geek Tyrant
Great Trailer For Documentary ANXIETY CLUB Explores the Cross Section Between Anxiety and Comedy — GeekTyrant
A great trailer has been released for the documentary feature Anxiety Club , which explores anxiety within the comedy community. It features interviews, stand-up, and even therapy sessions with comedians Tiffany Jenkins, Joe List, Marc Maron, Aparna Nancherla, Mark Normand, Baron Vaughn, and Eva Victor. The doc is directed by Wendy Lobel ( Bold Visions: Women in Science & Technology ). The synopsis reads: 'Anxiety Club provides an intimate and humorous look at anxiety through the eyes & minds of some of the most brilliant comedians today. Marc Maron, Tiffany Jenkins, Baron Vaughn, Aparna Nancherla, Mark Normand, Eva Victor, and Joe List offer candid reflections on their relationship with anxiety in exclusive interviews, standup performances, sketch videos, therapy sessions, and everyday life. 'With rare access to private therapy sessions, the film follows comedian Tiffany Jenkins (a content creator with over 9 million followers) as she undergoes behavioral therapy, capturing the profound changes her treatment brings about. 'Others find support in alternative sources, such as world-renowned meditation expert Tara Brach, PhD, or the psychologist-in-residence at The Laugh Factory, or other mentors in the comedy community.' This looks like a great watch. We've all been touched by anxiety in one way or another, and I like looking at it through the perspective of comedy. Check out the trailer below, and watch Anxiety Club when it's released on the streaming service Jolt on August 15th.
Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Is nothing private any more?
A few years ago, when I taught at university, a student who lived with their parents told me they had argued with their mother about what they described as 'queer identity'. The student had secretly recorded the argument and wondered what I thought about them using it for a piece of writing. I think their assumption was that because I'm a journalist I would embrace the idea. I did not. How did the UK become a place where young people think it's permissible to record a relative at home and make that recording public? Why has privacy been so easily discarded, and why have people welcomed its demise so they can control the behaviour of others? My assumption was that Strangers and Intimates would focus on recent decades and technology – with the erasure of privacy stemming from people having the means of surveillance to counter behaviour they think should be punished. But Tiffany Jenkins goes deeper than that, telling the story from the Reformation onwards, examining why people intruded on privacy long before the internet age, and why others fought for it: The fact is, we are all different in private. We may not be our best selves when we shut the door. We misspeak, we think the unthinkable, we let off steam, we rant and we rave, and we say and do stupid things. Privacy conceals harmful behaviour and impedes accountability, and yet we all require that place away from public view. That tension, between wanting to be left unchecked to behave as feels human vs the desire of society to protect people from harmful behaviour and accountability, is what drives Jenkins's book. In early 17th-century England, courts punished behaviour such as adultery, sex outside marriage, drinking in alehouses during church service and dancing on the Sabbath. They 'relied upon members of the community to police each other', Jenkins writes. As well as religious control, she tackles the impact of feminism, the more recent hawking of our private lives – Prince Harry and Big Brother get a mention – and the clampdown on freedoms. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 makes it illegal to say something even at home that could stir up hatred against people with protected characteristics: This is a historic change. Since the 17th century, it has been accepted that there is a crucial distinction between what a person says or thinks in private and their public speech, a demarcation between private life and public life. Only totalitarian governments ignored that. Jenkins takes care to remind us why privacy has been invaded, from a law against incest introduced in the 1600s to the killing of seven-year-old Marie Colwell in 1973 by her stepfather and the increased intervention that followed. But she also mentions the 'removal of 121 children from their parents in Cleveland in 1987, based on later disproved allegations of sexual and Satanic abuse'. So there is a line – but where to draw it? It has been misjudged many times, whether by a student recording a parent, Boris Johnson's neighbours revealing his quarrel with his partner over spilled wine (an example Jenkins refers to), or those online warriors who expose private messages with 'got receipts' chutzpah but show no awareness of the broader damage they are doing for a petty win. I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, before email. Letters were private. Even when I started using email, at university and then work in the early 2000s, it was regarded as private. It was only when an infamous email (I won't mention the name, for privacy's sake) went viral that we realised the risk. Now we know emails are not private, so we're careful – the same as we are in all our messages and in our behaviour. We are always being monitored, so act accordingly. Towards the end of Strangers and Intimates Jenkins writes: The divide between public and private… has dissolved. The two realms have become indistinguishable, leading to confusion about the rules governing each and preventing the realisation of their respective benefits. For years it felt shocking that so many turned against free expression, and it seemed impossible that the tide could turn back again. But that tide has shifted a bit. Maybe the erosion of privacy could also be reversed, so we can behave in the more human way, as we once did. This book might be a start.
Time of India
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
A closet of one's own
We all need privacy – to misspeak, to err, to be intimate To hold one opinion but voice another, is this inauthentic? To conduct oneself as if one is being permanently surveilled, does that help democratic life? In her book Strangers and Intimates: The Rise and Fall of Private Life, British sociologist Tiffany Jenkins traverses centuries, to explain how the private and the public developed into two distinct realms, and how this historic achievement is now in mortal danger. Spark of conscience | From the Protestant iconoclasm of Martin Luther to the extensive adventurism of Henry VIII, the 16th century germinated the independence of 'inward things' from traditional authority. Hobbes's 1651 magnum opus Leviathan presented hypocrisy – the gap between public utterance and private belief – as key to protecting the social order from anarchy. The 1650 Toleration Act passed by Cromwell's parliament made strides towards making religion a private matter. Age of separations | The first modern biography, Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson (1791), the first modern autobiography, Rousseau's Confessions (1782), the first novel, Richardson's Pamela (1740), literacy rate for men in London approaching 80%, it was all of a piece with thinking for oneself. Simultaneous to the strengthening private sphere, was the rise of public life. Coffee houses were popping up everywhere. These were a male space, like the Atheninan agora. Male and female roles became sharply different. A woman effectively became her husband's property when she married. In 1801 the first census rolled out after an acrimonious five-decade resistance that it would 'molest and perplex every single family in the kingdom'. Drawing the line between a public realm open to state intervention and a private domain beyond it became the question of the age. Across the pond, the skepticism that met govt-led research was belied by the enthusiasm that met George Gallup, who founded his polling company in 1935. Americans liked answering questions about themselves and reading the results. As Kinsey discovered, they were also more than ready to share their sex 'histories'. Bernays' Propaganda (1928) proposed 'the engineering of consent', whereby these masses could be controlled by an 'invisible' govt, with insights from psychology and natural science. The personal is the political | This was Betty Friedan, Kate Millett and other second-wave feminists' counter to the 'interior colonisation' of women. But politicising the private sphere also meant depoliticising the public sphere. Redirecting scrutiny from social and economic structures of society to personal relationships placed an intolerable burden on everyone involved in such political practice, the book argues. Relatedly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's criticism of the Roe vs Wade ruling was that abortion rights should not be a privacy issue but a matter of equal rights. Either way, the public-private separation forged in the 18th century weakened by the end of the 1970s. Let's talk about sex | Monica Lewinsky's was the first massive news story to break online. The Kenneth Starr report was accessed by 20mn Americans within 48 hours of its release. Fast forward to the normalisation of Pornhub and OnlyFans as examples of 'creator economy'. By now, threats to privacy are almost exclusively framed in terms of data and digital security. But, the book underlines, the protection of individual privacy ultimately depends on a clear boundary between private and public domains, which must be defended both online and offline. Strangers are not intimates. Why treat them like that? Protect your inner life instead. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A New Trustee at the British Museum Is Opposed to Returning the Parthenon Marbles to Greece
Among of the new trustees appointed to the British Museum is an academic expert opposed to the return of antiquities taken from their country of origin in colonial contexts, such as the museum's most contested holding, the Parthenon Marbles. Dr. Tiffany Jenkins, a broadcaster and sociologist, is one of several new trustees with a four-year term for the popular London institution. The four other new trustees are TV broadcaster and writer Claudia Winkleman; journalist and conservative politician Daniel Finkelstein; historian and podcaster Tom Holland; as well as former BBC radio news anchor Martha Kearney. George Osborne has been chairman of the British Museum's board since 2021. More from Robb Report Neil Armstrong's Omega Speedmaster Professional Could Fetch Over $2 Million at Auction One of the Country's Best Craft Distilleries Just Dropped an Stellar New Bottled in Bond Rye Whiskey Stevie Wonder Once Called This SoCal Estate Home. Now It Can Be Yours for $15 Million. Jenkin notably is the author of the book Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended up in Museums… and Why They Should Stay There, which examines the complex issue of how objects such as the Parthenon Marbles are assimilated into collecting institutions. The topic includes the rise of repatriation claims, to which Jenkin responded that museums are under no obligation to return or repatriate such artifacts even when appealed. The Parthenon Marbles, also known as the Elgin Marbles, are a frieze of sculptures that once adorned the Acropolis in Athens, Greece. They were removed between 1801 and 1815 by Lord Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman empire, which occupied Greece then. Elgin claimed an Ottoman leader granted permission for their extraction, and the British Museum ultimately acquired the sculptures in 1816. Disputes over their rightful ownership between the UK and successive Greek governments have been ongoing for four decades. Last July, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Lisa Nandy announced a desire to 'end the needless party politicization of these appointments and draw on the widest pool of talent,' including more people from outside of London and South East England. The board's other 15 members included the Indian-American Amazon executive Priyanka Wadhawan, economics professor Abhijit Banerjee, economist Weijian Shan from China as well as the Colombian-American philanthropist Alejandro Santo Domingo. Best of Robb Report The 10 Priciest Neighborhoods in America (And How They Got to Be That Way) In Pictures: Most Expensive Properties Click here to read the full article.
