Private vs. Public

Well, I'm still struggling with this whole group blog- here I am responding to myself again - but responding all the same. I would like to respond to Habermas' comment about the "private world" (McKee 54) being seperate from the public world and only when the private individual meets the public space, do their ideas become part of the ideal public sphere. I can understand this view point, but to some extent I disagree because I feel that it is part of human order to be accepted by others. Although we have individual desires in our private space, I think these desires are manipulated unconsciously by our desire to please others: to be accepted by the 'norm'. Of course there are exceptions to this theory but it seems quite difficult for most individuals to be excluded from a public atmosphere in one way or another. To agree with McKee, ...the public sphere isn't seperate from private issues of identity: it's a vital component of forming identity," (56). Private issues of the home might be soothed by an account from someone who is experiencing a similar situation thus uniting people who thought they were alone. Identity can be individual, but when bringing in culture, all of us have grown from something that has come before us and given us a specific road that we chose to follow in our own way. The fact that Habermas also leaves women out of his account in drawing these conclusions is also a major setback to his theories. When only considering half the population, Habermas might come a little closer in guessing the importance and benefits of the private space. For me, however slodarity does not necessarily seem like an escape, although I might like to escape from the constant commmercialization of today's world.