I plan on keeping my private, thank you very much.

I agree more with Sartre’s philosophy of the formation of the individual than I do with Foucault’s conceptions on this subject. Foucault’s philosophy is based on the idea that an individual’s subjectivity is defined not by the individual himself, but by the relationships that the individual is a part of. Within this philosophy, each individual is not merely subject to discourse within a public network, but each individual as a subject is produced based on the relationships that the individual participates in within that public realm. It is through these relationships that an individual forms a unique identity – an idea not unlike Hegel’s concept of sublation. Foucault believes that throughout an individual’s life, their formation of their own identity is brought about by the relationships that are the most meaningful, make the most sense, or are most important. John Wilkes Booth is not defined as an individual based on his relationship to his local grocer, but instead is recognized for killing one of the most influential presidents in American History simply because of the natures of both relationships.
Sartre’s philosophy, however, is deeply rooted in the ability of the individual to create an identity for him or herself. Whether or not an individual is conscious of the significance of his of her actions, each thing a person does is a choice that will ultimately help define that person as an individual. Some choices that we make impact our identity more than others, and although an identity would be useless without the existence of another to contrast it with, an individual’s identity can never exist in a state where it cannot be altered by the will of the individual alone.
Sartre’s philosophy empowers the private abilities of an individual, enabling a person to form their own identity, their own subjectivity, their own self. However, the identity means nothing without the recognition of another. In this way, Sartre’s philosophy leaves not just room for a public realm, but a necessary role to be played by other individuals within a society. Foucault, however, seems to have generated a philosophy that utilizes the relationships of the public, while minimizing the role of the private into nonexistence. Individuals in Foucault’s philosophy of subjectivity have no use for a private sphere, and in philosophy, what use is something that has no purpose? The private realm is a very real thing that has, does, and needs to exist, and for this reason, I like Sartre.