Who wants to live in a goldfish bowl? The fallacy of full Transparency

In his novel Men Like Gods (1924), H.G. Wells, a pioneer of science fiction, tells the story of a group of people who find themselves traveling through time to a much more technologically and culturally advanced society called Utopia. This is a place where the social and political upheavals, wars, inequality and selfishness typical of most societies are absent. The reason why #Utopia is such a peaceful place is that its inhabitants have developed their communication and interpersonal #skills to such an extent that they are able to understand each other without speaking. In one particularly entertaining scene, the natives try to explain their history and customs to their guests using #telepathy, but they are largely unreceptive and hear nothing. Among the few who manage to pick up a few sentences is a character named Barnstaple, and the reason is simple: he has unconsciously connected his experiences and knowledge with his hosts’. 

Imagine for a moment you had this powerful gift, and were able to read the thoughts of others just by looking at them. Some of us might be disturbed by the idea, but business leaders would do anything to possess an ability that would allow them to undercut or preempt the competition just by looking at the faces of their partners or competitors. And what about jealous spouses, who want to know what is going on in the minds of their partners? We might do well to remember Othello: suspicious people have enough problems; better not to burden them with additional information.

I imagine you would agree that a #society where we knew what others were thinking—and where everybody else knew what we’re thinking—would be hellish. Only in a world where our souls were as pure as the driven snow would such transparency be bearable, and we well ask ourselves if such a scenario might not be tedious. Returning to Wells' Utopia, presumably the telepathy enjoyed by all was agreed. 

Surely total #transparency, the unwanted exposure of our thoughts, desires and imaginations, violates the most fundamental right to personal #privacy, even regarding those closest to us, including spouses.

I imagine that, like me, you must have been charmed by central Amsterdam, its peaceful canals, its balanced architecture, the charm of the bicycles, its pulse. One of the features that most attracted my attention were the large windows on its facades, without curtains, which allow passersby and neighbors to see into the rooms within. When I asked about the origin of these wide openings without curtains, I was told that they reflected the country’s Puritan history, the ideal of transparency, the belief that inside a house, in the intimacy of the home, there is nothing to hide, no need for screens. #Malice lies not in the person who acts openly, without cover, but in those who hide their actions. 

Over time, I also confirmed that the reason for those wide windows without curtains was primarily to provide more luminosity to the interior, given the scarcity of sunlight during the day. On the contrary, in Mediterranean latitudes, where there is an abundance of brightness, windows have traditionally been protected by screens and blinds.

Transparency, leaving ourselves exposed either physically or intellectually, is not instinctive. By living in society we train ourselves to dress, to restrain bodily excesses, to mind our language and to treat others with courtesy. We understand these patterns of behavior not as restrictions on some supposed natural freedom, but behavior that contributes to the collective good. That is why the ideal of mental or verbal transparency, in individual conduct, is likely to transgress basic civility, for example by saying the first thing that comes into our heads.

Similarly, from a psychological perspective, we might question the wisdom of acting consistently in a transparent manner. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, explained that many of our decisions are determined by subconscious desires we are often unaware of. #Psychoanalysis may have been largely superseded by other psychological techniques, but the concept of the #subconscious continues to find acceptance, and calls into question whether most mortals, even if they set their minds to it, would be capable of unraveling and truthfully sharing their true #feelings .

However, we live in an age where transparency has been elevated to an ideal, personally and institutionally, especially in some social media environments. In The Transparency Society, South Korean philosopher Byung-Chul offers convincing arguments as to how the ideal of transparency is fallacious, and its defense inadvisable. In his opinion, "transparency is a systemic coercion that takes hold of all social events and subjects them to profound change". It is a phenomenon that, far from favoring interpersonal relations, instead trivializes and hinders them. In his opinion, it is precisely the lack of transparency that makes it easier for relationships to endure. 

Furthermore, he argues that "transparency and truth are not identical (...) More information or an accumulation of information alone is not truth. It lacks direction, namely meaning. Precisely because of the lack of the negativity of the true, we arrive at an overcrowding and massification of the positive. Hyper-information and hyper-communication testify to the lack of truth, and even to the lack of being. More information, more communication does not eliminate fundamental imprecision altogether. Rather it aggravates it."

Demands for greater transparency in society can be countered by arguments about our right to #privacy , drawing on the work of two eminent early 20th century US  jurists, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter. In short, we have the right to manage information about ourselves. Today, in our increasingly hybrid lives combining  the physical and the digital, the right to privacy has become much more meaningful and relevant.

Here are some thought-provoking facts:

• A Microsoft report reveals that 75% of companies consult personal information about candidates on the internet when hiring, and in 70% of cases reject candidates based on that data.
• Similarly, organizations can consult metadata related to social network profiles, along with analysis of the perceived behavior of their users, providing information on sexual orientation, religious or political opinions, race, intelligence and other areas.
• On a more worrying note, 5% of American teenagers aged 12-18 said they were victims of cyberbullying, according to a report published in 2017.

There is also growing demand in the corporate sphere for transparency, which translates into the demand to know about performance, financial information and data referring to remuneration, minutes of meetings, decision-making and even future plans. The obsession with shining a light on the activities of companies, sometimes subjecting them to greater scrutiny than public bodies, constrains innovation and even raises doubts about the possible contravention of the right to freedom of enterprise enshrined in most democratic constitutions.

There is a reason inherent in the nature of #business activity itself, which clashes with the paradigm of transparency. It is often explained that the environment in which companies operate is deliberately competitive, a circumstance fostered by the state itself through legislation and specific bodies that promote healthy rivalry. The aim is to avoid collusion, undesirable business concentration and other detrimental effects on consumers, workers, shareholders and the rest of society. However, the existence of competition entails a strategic attitude among the companies operating in a sector, understanding that the management of information and communication is a discretionary power, logically within respect for the law. For example, it would be absurd to require companies to share information on what products or services they plan to launch on the market at the time of making the decision, putting rivals on notice, or to publish the promotion plans of their executives for the next five years. 

Similarly, the government of any country needs to keep certain things secret, information that is only accessible to a small number of decision-makers, who are also subject to the duty of professional secrecy. This is why the demand for complete transparency in all matters of state is fatuous and even dangerous, because it unnecessarily jeopardizes institutions and social coexistence itself. Obviously, the maintenance of state secrets does not preclude the healthy activity of the media which can uncover abuses in the exercise of these powers.

General Charles de Gaulle, father of the Fifth French Republic, once said that "the essence of prestige is mystery". I could not agree more.  Total transparency disappoints and trivializes people. Shadows, obscurities and angles provide depth and beauty, and also attract our attention and interest. 

--------------------

You may visit my INSTAGRAM account here