An Essay on “Does the Definition of Bathroom Necessarily Include Privacy?”

An Essay on “Does the Definition of Bathroom

Necessarily Include Privacy?”

It has been brought to my attention that there are in fact bathrooms with transparent glasses around so as to deprive any users of the bathroom the kind of privacy they deserve. That this type of bathroom actually exists for use has been made obvious by some photographic evidence as well as several accounts of my friends who have actually experienced the phenomenon. My purpose of writing this essay is to demonstrate how this goes against the very concept of bathroom, and therefore negates its essential characteristic as a bathroom to the extent that the very concept of privacy attached to the concept of bathroom contradicts the proposition themed as an antithesis that bathrooms can in fact be publicly visible without losing its very inner concept, which I deem to be privacy.

In order to clarify what is so repugnant, or illogical, about this type of bathroom, we must first attemt to give the proper definition of what bathroom in esse is. That is, we must first have the understanding of what the essence of bathroom consists of, and what its proper functions are. For any crafts, or artifacts, have the form or its essence towards which all crafts are made for, and if this form, or the proper concept, of a particular craft is not actualized or at least manifest in its final form, that is, at its completion, then this craft is missing its true essence, and therefore is either imperfect or defective, as in the case of a pair of scissors, we say a good pair of scissors is the one that cuts well, while if it lacks in this essential character as a pair of scissors, it is described as either not a pair of scissors as such or not a good pair of scissors for it does not fulfill the purpose or the function of a pair of scissors.

While it is true that to have a room does not necessarily imply to have a private room, that is, although the concept of a room includes private space of necessity, it does not necessarily inluclude the privacy in all possible cases. The instances of this can be easily seen among officerooms that have transparent glasses. This is acceptable because the concept of room as such does not necessarily imply privacy but only of private space, thus any room that is a room has this characteristic in so far as it is a room. However, some officerooms are build so as to keep the privacy of an individual while others do have transparent glasses as walls so that everyone can see. Yet, these both types of officerooms are accepted as offices. It is clear, then, that even though the concept of room must of necessity preclude private space, it does not deter room from being a room when it has other characteristics such as privacy. In other words, it is a sufficient condition for a room to be a room that it has private space, and in so far as it has a private space, it passes as being the definition of a room. Put it, again, differently, for a room to have a privacy is neither a necessary or a sufficient condition. As is clear from the fact that we do not call a room room in virtue of its possession of privacy, for if we do we must call a forest with no one around a room as well, which is absurd. The fact that it is not necessary for a room to have privacy has already been demonstrated that officerooms can have transparent glasses, thereby allowing no privacy, yet still be called rooms.

What then distinguishes a room with privacy from a room with merely private space? For privacy cannot be had unless there is a secluded space for agents or objects that the privaciness is attached to, it is obvious that whatever has privacy is a type of room. But when we look for a house to live in, we do not suppose rooms to be transparently constructed, even though privaciness does not seem to be included in the concept of a room. In fact, we often despise rooms that have no privacy, and we do not seem to ascribe visibleness, or openness, to a room when choosing a room for our own. Indeed, it is often the case that when we see on an ad that says ‘3 bedrooms available’ or ‘roommates wanted,’ we immediately thin of these rooms as privacy-guaranteed, and if it turns out that these are rooms with transparent glasses we reject the offer outright, even though according to our definition of what a room is, that is, with private space but not necessarily with privacy, the ad is not technically wrong. In fact, we must not complain in such a circumstance, and must embrace the offer, or else we must have a good ground on rejecting those rooms on the basis merely that they do not have privacy.

However, it seems absurd indeed to say that, upon seeing the ad, ‘I have in fact said I needed a room, even though it turned out to be a room with no privacy, that was merely on my assumption and I should not complain about privaciness as long as I get a room, that is, a private space.’ It seems, then, there is some complication in the use of words such as room. We, thus, need to further investigate the true nature of what it means for a room to have privacy and if having no privacy in a room violates the very concept of roomness. Consequently, we must find out, as much as we can, what we mean we say ‘room’ and whether its prefix has anything to do with altering, or modifying, the concept of what a room is.

We have, now, introduced three types of room; officerooms, rooms in general, and bathrooms. We have, further, demonstrated that the concept, or the definition, of room includes of necessity a private space but not necessarily privacy. But we have also seen that kinds of rooms seem to require either a certain distinct concept of privaciness or merely a private space without privacy. These attributes, then, seem to be subject to alternation depending on what types of room we are talking about. Let us, then, pay close attention to what these different types of room implies or necessitates.

Officerooms. In the case of officerooms, as we have seen already, we can either have a room with privacy or without. How can this be? Why can still an officeroom be called a room when it has an extra attribute that does not belong to the concept of room? This seems to be that it has something to do with the extra prefix, ‘office’, for when we think of a room, we normally think of a room with privacy, but when we think of an officeroom, we can either think of a room with privacy or think of a room without it. In order to thoroughly determine the effect the prefix, ‘office’, has on the subject noun, ‘room’ we must have, at least, a rough grasp of what the word ‘office’ denotes. Office, or officeness, cannot be had as a prefix unless whatever comes after it has a subordinate functionality to office. That is, whatever has the name ‘office’ in it must be related to, or implied in, the notion of office. There are two things that office functions as. One is a place where you get your work done, the other as a watchdog of order. When the office is used in this first sense, it is better that privacy is there, for without it, it becomes a distraction from concentrating, therefore it will be detrimental to the very purpose, or function, of the office. When a room is used in this way, not having of the privacy deters officeroom from reaching the intended purpose, that is to get work done, and therefore it is seen as a bad office; an office that does not serve its pupose, that is, that which deviates from its telos.

How about, then, the use of the word ‘office’ in the second sense, that is, as a watchdog of order in the working environment? For an office to be used in this sense, it must appeal to its conspicuousness for if it were hidden from everthing else, it does not influence anybody that is in the working place. In addition, it is not sufficient for there to be an office as an object, but someone who exercises the power to be in it, so as to be able to supervise any inappropriate or irrelevant activities that are going on. For this type of office to fulfill its purpose, it is necessary that it be noticeable. Moreover, not only the presence of the office as such must be obvious by everyone else but also the person, or the exerciser of the power, be able to watch over the activities that are in process. For this reason, this second type of office that functions as a supervisor can be, and is occasionally seen as better to be, constructed with transparant glasses. For in this case, the word ‘office’ in the ‘officeroom’ has several functions; one is to get work done, which requires a private space, and the other is to supervise the others, which requires non-privacy in the room. Further, this non-privaciness in the office better assures the workers that each be treated equally with respect, and nothing is decided ‘behind the door’.

Rooms in general. When we speak of rooms in general, we tend to imagine a room with privacy, that is, a secluded space separated from other spaces by solid non-trasparent walls. This is the cae with when we speak of rooms in terms of looking for a place to live or stay, in terms of rooms in moving vessels or in theme parks/public attarctions, and in terms of rooms in general discourse, for we say ‘I need a room’ in an open space, rather than in a secluded area. And when we say we need a room in a rather secluded area, we mean ‘a separate room’ or that which secures personal space. From this, it is obvious that whenever we speak of rooms in general, we mean something that guarantees us of a private space as well as privacy. However, the interpretation of the useage of the term ‘room’ in this regard depends entirely on the context or how the speaker of the term means when he utters it. Thus, there can be musunderstanding as to what the person means when he merely says ‘I need a room,’ even though normally it is obvious from the context in which it is spoken. The room in this sense, then, denotes either a room with privacy or a room with merely a private space without necessarily privacy. Enough has been said on the notion of room in gerenal, and let us move on to discuss our primary task, namely, whether the concept of ‘bathroom’ implies of necessity privacy.

Bathrooms. As we have seen in the previous paragraph, it is evident that the concept of ‘room’ can be either a room with a private space with privacy or a room without privacy. What is requisite of us henceforth is therefore to determine what the prefix attached to the word ‘room’ signifies or implies. In this case, the prefix is ‘bath,’ which is not to say merely a bath, but it is a certain kind of bath, that is, a bathroom. It is a bath that is attached to the concept of ‘room’. Therefore, we need to determine what is meant by a room that is attributed by a‘bath.’

Now, ‘bath’ is a nounized form of bathe, and to bathe is to take an action that is bathing. In this regard, one could bathe anywhere he would, and the concept of bathing does not include privacy. That this is so is obvious from the fact that many people in summer bathe under the sun either on the beak or on the hill. However, ‘bathe’ has primarily two usages; one is to bathe in the sun, and the other to bathe oneself. The former, a vulger sense of the term, and the latter formal. To bathe in the former sense is to bathe oneself in rays of light or absorb in radiations. In this case, it is evident that one needs not to be naked, that is, one could thoroughly bathe himself with his clothes on. For one thing, wearing clothes does not entirely prevent the particles to be absorbed in the skin, but also bathing used in this sense normally means that bathing entire body but only partially. A collorary way of using this term, moreover, is as in the case with bathing one’s spirit afresh. This in fact does not require any part of your body uncovered.

Now what about the bathing in the formal sense of the term? In this case, bathing is to bathe oneself clean, that is, physically rather than spiritually. Thus, we say a wan is bathing itself in the pond or a child is bathing in the shower, etc. Bathing in this sense then requires you to strip of your clothes, for wearing clothes will prevent you from cleaning yourself the part of your body that is covered. If this be the case, one could not be said to have bathed, strictly speaking. The example of this would be when I take a shower with my pants on or with my shirts on; I would not be properly said to have bathed my body, but rather it is more appropriate to say that I have washed my upper body or lower body. Thus, bathing implies, strictly speaking, bathing entirely. To do this, one must be without clothes on.

Now, does this impluy that bathing in the formal usage must of necessity entail privacy? No. For one could bath himself entirely anywhere, without hindering him from achieving that end, that is, to bathe entirely. This is the case when people bathe themselves in beaches or when travelling in jungles or like places, for one would bathe himself whereever he finds water to bathe with, whether there be privacy or not. Bathing, then, does not imply in itself privacy necessarily.

What becomes of the compound of the two words we have described so far, that is, ‘bath’ and ‘room’? It is obvious that we do not use the word ‘bath’ in the vulger sense when we say we go to a bathroom to bathe, for bathing in this sense either implies bathing in the sun or bathing spiritually. But bathing in the sun cannot be had in a room with a roof, and bathing spiritually can be done anywhere else. In fact, when one wants to bathe spiritually it would make more sense for him to choose somewhere that does not necessarily smell. So when we say we go to bathroom to bathe or to use washroom (which is ultimately the same thing), we mean by the formal sense of the owrd ‘bathe.’ That is, we mean to do the cleaning of ourselves or using the wahsroom. Now, what is required of us to perform the bathing in the formal sense is to be stripped of our clothes. This, in fact, demands privacy. I do not doubt anyone would object in my saying that people wear clothes because they do not like to be seen in their nakedness in addition to supplimental reasons such as fashioning themselves and so on. I do not doubt that they would object me saying that people would take off their clothes when they are in privacy or they are comfortable dpoing so because they feel privacy even if there was someone around. Whoever objects this proposition, I demand them to prove me wrong at this instance by taking their clothes off. Whoever cannot do so is in agreement with me on this regard, for to object my claiming wearing clothes is a want for privacy and to refuse taking off one’s clothes in public are in direct contradiction. For people who claim that they wear clothes not for the sake of privateness, that is to say, not to avoid feeling embarrassed (for one feels embarrassed when his privacy is against his will taken away), I do not know how to understand them, and I will be more than glad to hear what plausible reasons they may have in believing so.

Bathing, therefore, in the formal sense requiring of us privaciness, it follows that to bathe in the formal sense we need somewhere that guarantees us of our privacy. It follows that this somewhere that guarantees us of privacy must also be secluded or covered, just as we cover our body with clothes to secure our privacy. This ‘somewhere’ then very much resembles a room. A room that guarantees us of privacy. Because we need both a place to bathe ourselves clean and a place that guarantees us of privacy, we use the word ‘bathroom’, combining the two different words that serve our purposes, making it possible for each meaning of the word to be manifest at the same time in the same place.

This then concludes our discussion as to whether the concept of bathroom must of necessity include privacy.

Correspondence with Ms. Poppyseeds

Upon the publication of my essay on Does the Definition of Bathroom Necessarily Include Privacy?,  I have been presented with a curious case that rather demands a further clarification by a good old friend of mine, Ms. Poppyseeds. Her objection to my essay was that while she agrees that a bathroom must be private, that is secluded by the walls that do not allow us or others to see each other, hence the definition of privaciness, she desires to know whether privacy can be maintained in a somewhat strange circumstance, that is, whether privacy can be guaranteed in a bathroom built with special walls that allows us to see the outside from inside the bathroom, while from the outside no one can see the inside. I took it rather less seriously of this claim until I was presented with yet another photographic evidence that such a bathroom in fact exists in Switzerland.

To my more surprise, it seems that while many people believe bathrooms should be private, as long as nobody can see us from outside, it does not violate the definition of privaciness even if we could see everything from inside. This response was quite shocking to me, as I could not make out how such a person can consistently have a concept of what privacy is. In fact, how can one agree that privaciness is not to feel embarrassed while keeping a private space and at the same time claim that we can maintain privacy as long as no one can see us?

In this essay, my aim is to convince my readers that privacy requires of both a private space and privacy, and to fulfill both conditions a private room, such as a bathroom, must be such that it is neither visible from outside in nor visible from inside out. In doing so, I will explain why mutual invisibility is so crucial in the concept of privaciness.

The picture on the left is a woman who is trying to use he ‘all-glass bathroom.’ At this point she knows that no one can see her once she is inside the room, as it is made evident by her own observational experince. Since we have agreed that privacy implies a private space and privacy, and since the abole picture on the left seems to fulfill both conditions, that is, it fulfills the condition of a private space by building a secluded space separated from outside by the walls, and it also fulfills privacy by making the inside invisible from outside. Indeed, as long as it is prevented from being seen from outside, it seems to guarantee the privacy of the user of the bathroom.

Now, let us then focus on the picture of the right, that is, the inside photograph of the ‘all-glass bathroom’ set up in public space. Does it fulfill both necessary conditions? In other words, does it sufficiently guarantee privaciness? This in fact may be tricky to answer, for because of its protectedness from any outside viewers it does suggest a sense of privacy, but its visibility from the inside out may suggest otherwise. Let us see why that is the case.

As we move on, it is imperative that we at least know what we are talking about, that is, what we mean by privacy in ordinary/dictionary usage, for if each one of us has utterly customized opinions of what privacy is, it is not possible to reach a consensus agreement. After all, the giving away of the definition may dissipate, if not resolve, our difficulties in the end. Here, then, are some of the definitions. The first of which is taken from Random House dictionary’s definitions while the second of which is taken from a dictionary published by Prinston University.

Now, having seen the definitions of privacy, it is evident that not being seen alone does not guarantee the securing of privacy. This is because privacy has to do with the feeling of the agent. When an agent feels stripped of his being, there is a violation of privacy. I would like to focus on the definitions, ‘the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs,’ and ‘the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others.’

Let us suffice to explicate each of the definition to conclude this argument, for these are the definitions used since its original occurrence in the mid-15^th century, and whoever attributes to it a different definition is not talking about privacy, but some vague imaginary invented word which no one but the user has access to.

The state of being free from … disturbance in one’s private life or affairs. One could not be said that he is free from disturbance in his private affairs if he feels like he is wahsrooming when he can see everyone walking pass by. This does not only give you a sense of being watched, which is an enough feeling to satisfy the condition for being deprived of privacy, but also disturbs you from minding your own business. Therefore, even if no one can see you while washrooming, your privacy cannot yet be said to be fulfilled.

Second, The quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others. This definition clearly supports my view that privacy cannot be had unless a place has a mutual invisibility either from outside or from inside. For what does ‘quality’ mean? It refers to the condition or a state of feeling rather than factual occurrence that concerns no emotion. It is, in other words, to feel secluded from the presence or view of others. In this sense, the public bathroom with all-glass walls clearly violates the definition of privacy, for you will inevitably feel other people’s presence. You might ask, ‘then, what if we use it at night when there is no one around? There, we do not feel the sense of being watched or get the sense that there are other people’s presence.’ This may be raised as an objection to my argument, yet to no avail. For the definition clearly states that it is the quality of being secluded from, that is to say, it must produce a sense of seclusion where there is privacy. Howeve, if you are using this all-glass bathroom at night in public, it might as well be said that you are wahsrooming outside, when there is no one around. This, however, does not give you a sense in which you feel secluded, because you are indeed not secluded in such a situation.

From these, it is obvious that privacy is not guaranteed in such a room where there is mutual visibility or one-way visibility, for in either case, it creates a sense of openness, which is contrary to what privacy denotes.

The essay on the concept of bathroom consists of two parts: first is on whether ‘bathroom’ as such of necessity imply privacy, and the second is on what we mean by privacy. The first part was written as a criticism of my friend who insistently claims that bathrooms do not need to be privacy, that is, although it is preferable that it is private, it does not always need to be in order to serve its function as a bathroom. I took it to mean that the function of bathroom is two-fold; one is to do one’s business and the other is to secure privacy. My friend (opponent) obviously grants the former, but denies the latter to be included in the concept of bathroom, and in this essay I try to defend both so as to prevent a further erosion among concepts that we face in our generation. The second part was written as a response to those who grant both aforesaid-functions involved in the concept of bathroom, yet have somewhat twisted view of what privacy in esse means, therefore guilty of falling into the labyrinth of oblivion to the extent as to indicate the unmistakable fact that we have come only to have confused idea of what we mean when we say things.

Here and elsewhere I use ‘washroom’ for a euphemism for peeing or poohing, to avoid inacademic impression or sound.

For it is the case that even in the Bible Adam and Eve are said to start wearing clothes only after they found themselves embarrassed, that is, only after they found themselves stripped of privacy. “then, the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for hemselves.” (Gen. 3.7)