I’ll kick this off with a question.
Do people who advocate and profess the need for transparency still do things behind closed doors and in cabals especially when it is convenient and efficacious, advantageous, so to do?
There is a sequitur.
Is transparency a relative or an absolute thing?
It is my estimate that many people imagine they are being transparent, open and accountable when they are anything but. People control what they release to the wider public. At the moment we are getting a few screen shots of Boris’s quasi private texts. I suspect that the Dom-boi has a whole bunch more up his sleeve.
I once knew someone who suggested that “one does not wash one’s dirty linen in public” and then spoke about ruthless honesty in near the same breath. This linen washing thing is perhaps a political thing, in which an internal inquiry is sufficient to pacify external demands for transparency. In many ways it is a fuck off statement. WE in upper case, will look into it and then WE shall dispense our erudite manna from heaven to you, the plebs.
I have worked in a number of highly politicised organisations and although I am clearly barking mad, I am not a complete idiot.
Those who advocate transparency are often playing a game of political correctness, pretending to be transparent because that is groovy, good PR and PC. Look at me I am being transparent. Now you be more transparent than me so that I can use your transparency to my own advantage.
The follow up hypothesis is.
People can bullshit themselves so much that they end up believing their own bullshit.
I think that this is a strong hypothesis, what do you reckon?
I’ll conclude with a question.
Is it possible that there is a great deal of hypocrisy associated with the notion of transparency and that people might find it difficult to be transparent about the actual degree of hypocrisy?