Open Societies, Closed Minds? Exploring the Ubiquity of Suspicion and Voyeurism

Abstract

This article explores what is called the conceptual bundle consisting of security, alterity, transparency, and surveillance within the context of a multidimensional conception of globalization and the use of Popper's idea of the open society by students of transparency. The general argument is that the conceptual bundle should not be thought of as arising from new technological forms. Continuity, rather than discontinuity, is heavily emphasized in the face of those who consider such themes as risk society or surveillance society as features of a new world. In fact, a number of examples of methods of identification from traditional—even primal—societies are provided in order to substantiate this emphasis. The vast range of contemporary methods of spying and governmental support thereof are discussed, as is the phenomenon of large proportions of national populations welcoming their being watched. At the same time, being gazed upon seems to be a form of empowerment. The article concludes with warnings about the onset of global totalitarianism as well as the disciplinary nature of the contemporary emphasis upon the alleged virtues of the academic disciplines, which in themselves are considered to be part of the apparatus of surveillance.

Este artículo explora lo que se llama el marco conceptual que consiste en seguridad, diversidad, transparencia y vigilancia dentro del contexto de una concepción de globalización multidimensional y el uso de la idea de Popper sobre la sociedad abierta por estudiantes de la transparencia. El argumento general es que el marco conceptual no se debería concebir como algo que surge de nuevas formas tecnológicas. La continuidad, al contrario de la discontinuidad, se enfatiza fuertemente ante aquellos que consideran tales temas como sociedad en riesgo o sociedad vigilada como características de un nuevo mundo. De hecho, para respaldar este énfasis, se provee un número de ejemplos de métodos de identificación de sociedades tradicionales—incluso primitivas—. De allí que se plantee tanto la amplia gama de métodos de espionaje y soporte gubernamental, como el fenómeno de que grandes proporciones de la población nacional aceptan que se les observe. Al mismo tiempo, el ser contemplado parece ser una forma de fortalecimiento. El artículo finaliza con advertencias sobre el comienzo tanto del totalitarismo global, como también sobre la naturaleza disciplinaria del énfasis contemporáneo sobre las supuestas virtudes de las disciplinas académicas, las cuales se consideran a sí mismas, parte del mecanismo de vigilancia.

Notes

1 Much of my recent thinking about many of the issues discussed in this article, particularly those relating to the UK, has been greatly stimulated by the writings in The Guardian of Henry Porter and I am grateful to him for encouragement. I have also benefited from discussions with Debra Gimlin.

2 The collapse of Soviet communism precipitated the foundation of such bodies as George Soros's Open Society Institute, Freedom House, and Human Rights Watch, while organizations such as Amnesty International grew rapidly in the early 1990s. Some of these actors were funded by governmental organizations in the US and the European Union, but it has to be stressed that many such organizations refused to accept governmental resources (Smith, 2007, pp. 78, 93, 138). Soros is an interesting and problematic case in the sense that he has undoubtedly done much to promote cosmopolitanism in education and what might loosely be called global education. On the other hand, as far as this author can tell, he seems blind to the problems of surveillance in the name of security. In any case, as much of the present article seeks to demonstrate, in certain respects the search for transparency is part of the problem of totalitarianism and most definitely cannot be reasonably considered as the solution to it.

3 In fact, Dumont maintained that the universe—as the ‘whole of wholes’—needs a superior entity from which to derive its own value. ‘One could even try to deduce what the Beyond should be like in order to be final … [T]he beyond is a distant place from which … one looks back with detachment upon human experience in the world’ (Dumont, 1980, p. 223). Dumont's contention may be fruitfully connected to Keanes's comments on ‘God and global civil society’ (Keane, 2003, pp. 192–204). Indeed, much could be written about the connection between the themes of the present article and the increasing academic and political attention being paid to religion. Much of the latter centres upon the militant, fundamentalistic attacks on religion by self-proclaimed secularists, such as Dawkins (2006) and Hitchens (2007).

4 It should be emphasized that Michael Dillon (e.g., 2007) has done much along these lines to link the issue of security with a number of other themes of contemporary philosophy, social and natural science.

5 Arguably, Gary Marx has been working directly on the problem of surveillance more intensely than any one in the modern period. See Marx (2007) for one of his most recent statements.