Much has been made in recent weeks about Wikileaks. Among the more interesting metacritiques of their actions I hear a lot of talk about ‘transparency.’ Transparency is an interesting conceptual terrain not entirely separate from the realm of invisibility.
Governments, particularly the diplomatic arms of them, some have argued, require a degree of opacity to operate freely, form opinions, and ‘talk amongst themselves’ without marring the public in details. One major critique of Wikileaks is that it will cause a lot more of what governments do to go deeper into the shadows – become less transparent and more opaque.
This poses an interesting dilemma. If the work of government is to be an extension of ‘the people’s will’ then perhaps the practices of obfuscation (behaving one way visibly but thinking something else ‘privately’) is a bad thing.
On the other hand, do governments take on the burden of details and by extension necessarily the onus of having to keep some things out of the light?
At the same time, there are many pernicious ways in which governments deploy invisibility to massage consent and control of the will of the people, engage in black ops that are deemed to be ‘of national security’ which is another way of saying ‘if you knew what I was doing you wouldn’t like it so it’s best that you don’t know.’
Invisibility, thus, is a fine line to walk. Perhaps soon I’ll consider how this plays out on a more practical level such as ‘sunshine lists’ where public salaries are disclosed without context and to much outrage, or in the development of what seems like arbitrary public policy and such.