Communication Privacy Management

1. Introduction

The Communication Privacy Management Theory was developed by communications researcher Sandra Petronio in the early 1990s and originated as a way to examine the boundaries of disclosure within marriage.

Over time, the theory evolved into a macrotheory which can be applied to any number of groups, social structures, and/or personal relationships.

The Communication Privacy Management Theory, often shortened to CPM, can be assigned to the interpretive tradition of communication studies as the base structure of the theory is steeped in the idea that free-will is governing and our choices are our own.

CPM attempts to examine the barrier between our inner selves and our outer world hrough our choice to disclose information about ourselves of varying import.

When sharing about ourselves, we make a conscious choice to do so. We choose to tell our Uber driver about our hectic day. We choose to our co-workers about our thoughts on our less than favorable boss. In believing that humans have free-will and control over our lives, the choices we make are assumed to be entirely our own. With this assumption in mind, CPM attempts to analyze why we make the choices we do when it comes to personal and intimate disclosure about ourselves and our thoughts. It sees every interaction as an opportunity for disclosure while also acknowledging the risks and benefits of said disclosure.

Sharing too much with the wrong person can have social repercussions while sharing with the right person can strengthen relationships and build credibility. The theory assigns names to a number of aspects of socializing and believes that privacy comes with a set of inherent rules.

2. In Fiction, “All Those Parties We Didn’t Cry At”

All Those Parties We Didn’t Cry At is a short work of interactive fiction created by cultural studies scholar and science fiction/fantasy author Natalia Theodoridou. Her short story describes a world where no one is able to cry; whether this is caused by supernatural causes or something man-made is not explained. In the story, the protagonist is prompted by a friend to share the last time she cried.

‘I was 12,’ Hayley says. ‘My dog had died. His name was Rusty.’ She closes her eyes. The underskin moist, smoky. ‘What children we were, back then, eh? I bawled for two days straight.’

She sniffles. It all sounds a bit rehearsed.

‘You?’

In this interaction, we see the character, Hayley, openly disclosing information about her past that may otherwise be considered personal or private information. Because Hayley is the owner of this information, she is able to decide who she discloses this information to, and who she does not. In response, the narrator is reluctant to share her own private information and ultimately finds ways to avoid disclosing the truth.

‘I don’t remember,’ I lie.

She looks at me sharply. ‘Come on, be real.’

‘No, really,” I say.

‘Whatever,’ she says, ‘suit yourself.’ She glances at her watch, fishes a tissue out of her sleeve and wipes her eyes. ‘I should get going anyhow,’

As the owner of her own private information, the narrator makes the conscious choice not to disclose when prompted to. Because of this choice not to disclose, we’re able to see the immediate repercussions of her action as Hayley, the prompter, seems to immediately lose interest. Communication privacy management theory makes the case that our choice to disclose is a choice that comes with risks and potential rewards, and we see this in effect through this interaction. Had the narrator been honest with her friend, the interaction may have been remained favorable.

At times, the story breaks the fourth wall and addresses the reader directly. In these breaks in immersion the narrator, unable to share this same openness, compares the inability to disclose openly with two different metaphors.

Go find someone you love. Ask them to sit across from you and stare at them. Think of the worst thing that’s ever happened to you and which you’ve never told them. Now don’t say anything.

And,

Now. For the difficult part. This one has two steps.

Step 1: Give someone you trust a knife. Are they confused? Or do they look like they know?

Step 2: Realize they’ve had that knife all along. Whether they chose to hurt you or not has always been up to them.

In the second of these two metaphors, the narrator compares the emotional danger of private information to the physical danger of a knife. When that private information enters co-ownership, it is as if the knife is being passed over to a second party. The final line in this metaphor summarizes the inherent risk of co-ownership with the danger of the knife representing the potential turbulence following broken CPM rules.

Conclusion

While the theory accurately covers many aspects of privacy, many of which I see in my own life, I feel as if this concept of privacy has evolved over time and this theory may not account for contemporary privacy concerns. T

With social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook, we’re able to disclose information about ourselves to dozens, even hundreds, of people all at one. How would disclosure on such a large scale fall into the concepts discussed in this chapter? Does the fact that social media is not done face-to-face but rather done through screen affect the depth of its CPM validity? I can attest to admitted things digitally sooner than I would in person simply because digital disclosure feels less severe by comparison.

The theory also assumes the truth to be prevalent in most cases and gives few examples of the way people lie, exaggerate, and/or tell partial truths.