Whenever three human beings are gathered together it is a very high probability that there are several secrets held by each or various combinations of the three. Where do secrets originate? The answer to that lies in the basic building block of society: the family. According to Bowen and Kerr,
Family emotional process creates family secrets. If a family member who is aware of and who respects the function of this process can separate the facts from the myths that comprise most secrets, his effort can be extremely constructive for the family. However, revealing family secrets can be as destructive for a family as keeping secrets if the intensity of the family emotional process that creates secrets is not recognized. The goal of unearthing a secret is to address the relationship processes that created and perpetuated the secret. The careless revealing of a secret may trigger considerable emotional reactivity without addressing these relationship processes effectively. The contention that relationship processes are more important than the content of secrets for creating secrets is supported by the experience that most family secrets are not that interesting or earthshaking. (Kerr, Bowen 1988)
It is my contention that secrecy begins in a microcosm - the family - and from that experience of ‘normality’ it is projected upon the dynamics of larger systems that makes up various organizations.
Within Bowen’s and Kerr’s insight into family secrets I find the kernel of an ethical system for grappling with the decision to uncover a secret or not. First of all secrets are based on relational processes. To reveal a secret means that the potential of harm for relationships, be they individual or global as between nations or groups of nations, is very real. It is important to note here that it is not the actual information in a secret that causes harm, it is the damage to relationships that occurs via the release of that information.
Perhaps there are instances where secrets are best maintained like the dialogues between Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR towards the end of World War II that sought to establish a way to maintain world peace while dividing East and West along divergent political and economic ideologies. Some relational processes require a small number of participants acting for the good of the whole to be able to reach consensus.
In today’s world those processes are much more difficult to achieve given the ubiquitous recording devices that have instant access to the Internets. For example the release online (already pulled from here on YouTube but still up here) of the video of Marines in Afghanistan urinating on the bodies of three militants came at a time of a very sensitive relational process between the United States and representatives of Mullah Omar of the Taliban. That released material could only serve to damage that process and the nascent relationships arising from it. Should it have been kept a secret? In my opinion yes, since its release was only intended to inflame passions, destroy relationships, and disrupt movement towards peace.
Thus a very important criteria for me is how much harm or disruption to needed relational processes will occur if, as the gatekeeper of a secret, I release the information to the other or to the public weighted against the public’s need to know, especially if it is “wrongfully held” as Ellsberg may claim. On the flip side of that coin what destructive relational processes will be disrupted through the release of the secret?
For the purpose of the rest of this blog I’ll explore my understanding of the WikiLeaks scandal as covered by Alan Rusbridger in his Introduction. What stood out for me in Rusbridger’s work was the character of Julian Assange. Often the ‘whistleblower’ suffers severe consequences from releasing secrets. In this instance Rusbridger points out that Assange had assembled a firewall of protection that frustrated the governments (the United States primarily) affected by his collection of cables. The frustration arose from his masterful use of the Internets to cover his tracks and his ability to achieve collaboration among competing news sources.
It was as though Assange suddenly became a ‘super-editor’ as Rusbridger, on page 10, says, “One of the lessons from the WikiLeaks project is that it has shown the possibilities of collaboration. It’s difficult to think of any comparable example of news organisations working together in the way the Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais have on the WikiLeaks project.” He also points out the legal difficulties in pursuing Mr. Assange as it would mean putting the editors of these global news sources in the doc as well.
So it looks like a whistleblower got away with it but that is not really the case. First of all Mr. Assange has been arrested on sexual misconduct charges in Sweden. Of course some find these charges very convenient while others feel like it’s just desserts. However, Assange is not the whistleblower in the release of secret cables. That would be Pfc. Bradley Manning. On January 12, in the New York Times there appeared an article, Court Martial Recommended in WikiLeaks Case, about the military prosecutor believing he had sufficient grounds to press charges against Pfc. Manning. If convicted Pfc. Manning could spend the rest of his life in a military prison. You can see that article here.
Unless I had the skill and manipulative talents of Mr. Assange I believe my fate would fall more along the lines of Private Manning were I to release secret information perceived to be damaging to either the United States or some large corporation. At the very least I would be legally pounded much in the manner Daniel Ellsberg was.
Whether or not to release information has to be one of the most difficult ethical decisions a journalist can face. To come to terms with that decision I’d have to ascertain the level of damage to all relational processes: personal, corporate, and governmental. Before releasing the information I’d have to determine to the best of my ability if the harm caused by the release would be outweighed by the good of that information being in the hands of the public.
Perhaps the saddest aspect of the WikiLeaks case has to do with Private Manning. The sensitive government cables he released, once redacted to remove names of operatives who could have been endangered by the release, turned out to be more embarrassing than threatening to the United States government. In short, the great threat of danger and dangerous acts the State Department claimed would take place if those global newspapers released the cables never materialized.
It turns out that Bowen and Kerr are right, “The contention that relationship processes are more important than the content of secrets for creating secrets is supported by the experience that most family secrets are not that interesting or earthshaking.” (Kerr, Bowen 1988)
References cited:
Alan Rusbridger, WikiLeaks, Introduction
Kerr, Michael E. and Bowen, Murray, Family Evaluation: An Approach Based on Bowen Theory, pg. 308, (W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY) 1988.
No comments:
Post a Comment