The Nature Of Secrecy: Philosopher Sissela Bok's Analysis
For me, no one has explored more deeply, nor written more clearly, about secrecy than American ethicist and moral philosopher Sissela Bok. Her 1983 work, Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation, addresses the legal, moral, and ethical issues of secrecy. Because these are often issues without clear answers, Bok raises all the questions that an organization like WikiLeaks should be examining before it assumes that all secrets are bad, if not evil.
Bok's three-hundred-page work examines secrecy in a real-world context, as she looks at its nature and its functioning in society. Of particular relevance to WikiLeaks are two aspects of Bok's work: her conclusion that secrecy is neither inherently good nor inherently bad, but rather an essential of human life; and her examination of whistleblowing and leaking.
Bok distills secrecy to its essence: "To keep a secret . . . is to block information about it or evidence of it . . . and to do so intentionally." She finds intentional "concealment, or hiding, to be the defining trait of secrecy." She concludes that silence is "the first defense of secrets," and notes the links between secrecy and "stealth and furtiveness."
Indeed, Bok warns, "The link between secrecy and deceit is so strong in the minds of some, that they mistakenly take all secrecy (especially when protected by silence) to be deceptive. In doing so, they confuse secrecy with what is undoubtedly a common means for preserving it." In fact, Bok points out, "[W]hile all deception requires secrecy, all secrecy is not meant to deceive."
Bok observes that based on his experiences in politics, Woodrow Wilson proclaimed (in 1913) that "Secrecy means impropriety." (Later, as president, after suffering an incapacitating stroke, he used secrecy to remain in office, making good on his view of secrecy.) Bok's work, however, shows that secrecy per se is not bad, nor is it necessarily evil, nor must it be evidence of impropriety.
To the contrary, in drawing on traditions found in philosophy, religion and law, not to mention the nitty-gritty of life, Bok reveals how secrecy can "protect the liberty of some while impairing that of others." Secrets, on one hand, "guard intimacy and creativity," while on the other, they "tend to spread and to invite abuse." Bok notes that secrecy can enhance a sense of brother- and sisterhood -- forging loyalty and equality among insiders, while kindling discrimination against outsiders. Secrecy, she explains, is also needed to make effective plans and execute them, although those plans can be for both good and bad. In short, secrecy can be both appropriate and inappropriate.
Bok is no fuzzy-minded, dreaming idealist, as those who know her work can attest; rather, she is a clear-thinking realist. And after careful analysis, she concludes that there is a "need for secrecy." Secrecy takes on many guises, she explains: It "is as indispensable as fire to human beings, and as greatly feared." Like fire, it can "enhance and protect life, yet both can stifle, lay waste, spread out of control."
After looking closely, Bok found that some "capacity for keeping secrets and for choosing when to reveal them . . . are indispensable for an enduring sense of identity, for the ability to plan and to act, and for essential belongings. With no control over secrecy and openness, human beings could not remain either sane or free."
In short, there is no basis, morally or practically, for the underlying assumption that emerges from WikiLeaks's actions -- namely, that secrecy is inherently bad, if not evil. In truth, not all secrecy is bad; rather, some secrecy is important to human existence. But it is not even WikiLeaks's seemingly total disregard for secrecy and its unclear criteria for publishing secrets that are most troubling about the organization. Rather, it is WikiLeaks's failure to recognize the true nature of leaks, and to see what, in most cases, they really reveal.
The Nature of Leaks, and the Leaker/Whistleblower Distinction
The late columnist/journalist Bill Safire, author of Safire's Political Dictionary, defines a leak therein as the "[d]iscloure of information, usually concerning government or political activity, through unofficial channels, by what those embarrassed or exposed by such disclosure consider improper means."
Safire knows what he is talking about, because when he worked at the Nixon White House, he was notorious among his colleagues for his leaking. As a journalist, Safire fished for leaks; as a leaker, he fished for journalists. Thus, he well understood that the motives of a leaker are important in assessing the likely veracity of, and impetus for, any leak. WikiLeaks, however, ignores the motives of the leaker.
Yet, for me, leakers are always cowards -- particularly when they are viewed alongside (and as distinct from) whistleblowers. Sissela Bok looks at both leakers and whistleblowers, and while her approach is purely analytical, it is evident that she approves of whistleblowing, but not leaking.
What, exactly, is the distinction? Whistleblowers, Bok explains, "make revelations meant to call attention to negligence, abuse, or dangers that threaten the public interest." Whistleblowers "confront questions of loyalty, conscience, and personal concerns about careers and peace of mind."
Leakers, in contrast, are stealth operators. Or, as Bok writes, the leaker "is usually unknown to the public and sometimes even to the journalist and other intermediary." They could include, of course, what Safire describes as "authorized leaks," which are trial balloons to get a sense of public reaction, or -- as too often occurs -- to surreptitiously attack a political opponent with insider information and gossip. Usually, if not almost always, the leak is unauthorized and done for the sake of the leaker's agenda.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
