Privatism is sometimes defended as rational retreat from a dry public arena.

Evidence

Some recent discussions of the broader cultural milieu defend privatism by saying that o¤cial de¢nitions of public'' debate make the public arena too dry, abstract, and stu¡y for the average person. One argument contends that prosperous, post-World War II Americans have typically been content just to be left alone, sit in their backyards, play with their kids, and mind their own business, trying to carve out a small space for themselves where they feel free, equal, and comfortable. Richard Flacks, for example, contends that much political activism in this century, such as the struggle for the two-day weekend, has been aimed at maintaining and enlarging that nice little walled garden, and that intellectuals are fooling themselves if they imagine that the majority of people will ever want to leave that privacy to make history” instead of “making life”: making history is just too hard. — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”, 157

Categorization

• XREF: Plausibly connects to ‘On Sacrifice’ themes of what citizens give up, and Elias’s civilization theory about affect and public sphere. — connects to: Privatism and fact-fetishism both deny politics’ dialogic nature. — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 944
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 157

Related

• Privatism and fact-fetishism both deny politics’ dialogic nature. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Privatism and fact-fetishism both deny politics’ dialogic nature. #expands (0.80) — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics, 944