In the future, every word will have its 15 months of fame. This year I suspected that famous word would have something to do with the prefix trans-. A quick search through the abstracts from the 4S annual meeting in Montreal revealed 497 instances of trans*. Transfer, transnational, transform, translate, transdiciplinary, transgression, transmission, transition and last but not least: Transparency.
Especially this latter caught my attention. Though not the most frequent in the abstracts (24 instances in 15 abstracts), definitely one of wide usage and rather beautiful effect: Transparency is good. Transparency is democratic. But nobody really says what it is; it is taken for granted. Big mistake. Transparency is something entirely different from visibility, and I will argue that the concept of transparency, its etymological meanings, its epistemic meanings and its practice in itself may be a useful analysis of governmentality. This is in other words not a science article, it is merely a sound suggestion, playing with words, something I think might work. I think ‘transparency’ is a word that carries in it many of the anomalies, disturbances and misleadings of neoliberal arts of governing, and in the following I will try to share this idea.
My initial thought, after realizing there was something suspect about the legitimizing effect of this notion of transparency, is that transparency should be thought of as a peep hole. Through the peep hole in your entrance door, you seem to see the hall outside. As we all know, that is not entirely true, we see a severely deformed, circular vision of the hallway. What we actually see, is the optic in the peep hole. That vision, the peep hole, is dependent on and transformed by the hall outside, just as the peep hole is transformed and depending on the hallway in a mechanical way. The hall is what makes it a peep hole, and it’s only the peep hole we see.
The second thought was that if we do not know the other side of the door, the vision in the peep hole is all we know, which means that it becomes invisible. This is how H.G. Well’s invisible man did his trick:
“You make the glass invisible by putting it into a liquid of nearly the same refractive index; a transparent thing becomes invisible if it is put in any medium of almost the same refractive index. And if you will consider only a second, you will see also that the powder of glass might be made vanish in air, if its refractive index could be made the same as that of air, for then there would be no refraction or reflection as the light passed from glass to air.” “Yes, yes,” said Kemp. “But a man’s not powdered glass!” The invisible man, p. 65. H G Wells
From these two ways of visualising transparency, we get a glimpse of why this thing works out so brilliantly in rhetoric. A mechanism possibly hiding in clear view, and the more it is observed as the same as its object, the more it becomes invisible. Hopefully, some ideas start popping up now, but the more we dig into this word in itself, the more we find. So allow me to do a tour of etymology first.
Trans-, as a general prefix is loaded with vagueness and contradiction, which follows from its etymology: The Latin origin is translated as either “across”, “beyond” or “on the opposite side [of]”. It is probably more accurate to define the prefix as the opposite of cis, meaning “on the same side [of]”.
Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary provides the following four meanings in contemporary use: 1. Across, beyond, through, on the other side of. 2. Through and through, completely changing. 3. Surpassing, transcending, beyond 4. Transversely, being across
Meanings and things are lost and paraphrased in trans-lation, but in this case the ambiguity was there from before: The word does not have a direction, it is referring to the other side, but does not tell us whether it is about something on the other side (trans mare esse) or something lying on the boundary to the other side or something moving across to the other side (trans mare asportare).
-parency is probably even more fun. This is derived from the present participle of pareo which literally means displaying (for the eye). But this is loaded with double meanings: It means (a) serving, following (b) obeying (c) being subject to (d) taking into account, being guided by (e) being clear, impersonal, proved. Of course, this is the same word from which we trace parenting. As we see, there is a little insight in the multiple meanings: Making oneself visible, is to make oneself subject to and take into account, sometimes it is even to obey.
Now, if we turn to the word transparency in itself, things are somewhat simplified. If we look at Webster’s definition of transparency, it is simply the passing of light with clear view of objects beyond. It reflects simplicity, clearness. Figuratively: easy to understand, hence without guile. Frank. As opposed to something translucent, that allows the passage of light, but without clear view of shape and colour.
All of this brings back the thought of the peep hole. It gives a clear view of shape and colour, but it’s a matter of interpretation if what we find ourselves regarding is across, is beyond, is transverse, or is on the other side. In any case, it is reflective of something on the other side, and it is not misleading, in that the reflection is automatic, optical or mechanical. Still, we do not see the hallway. It is still on the other side. Still I’m of course only playing with words. I promised to look at the social meanings of this word, and I’ll do it the real easy way: For once I’ll look to Wikipedia for an overview of practical usages of this concept.
First, from philosophy: Transparency is a property of epistemic states defined as follows: An epistemic state E is weakly transparent to a subject S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know that S is in state E; An epistemic state E is strongly transparent to a subject S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know that S is in state E, AND when S is not in state E, S can know S is not in state E. Pain is usually considered to be strongly transparent: when someone is in pain, he knows immediately that he is in pain, and if he is not in pain, he will know he is not.
In economy: A market is transparent if much is known about (a) what products, services or capital assets are available, (b) what price and (c) where. This is regarded as important, as it is one of the theoretical conditions required for a free market to be efficient. This can also result in the removal of service chains and middlemen. This is seen as a branch of the usage in humanities: The implication of openness, communication and accountability. It is described as a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in the physical sciences: a “transparent” object is one that can be seen through. Transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption.
The succession of these descriptions and usages is not coincidental, because there is a flow of meaning here. Moving from its etymology of uncertain direction and status, it turns in philosophy into an epistemic state in which you know or know not (however, you do not necessarily know whether the dichotomy is the proper one). In economy it is not only an epistemic state, it is a state with a value, it is a precondition for a free market. In what is broadly labelled humanities, it is described even as a normative feature. This is probably also the kind of use we often find again in STS abstracts. One small step for writers, a giant leap for a word.
So isn’t it okay to define it the way we want to? No, not if we trace our way back. A normative feature has been added to something that is merely a state. This state is defined through the ambiguous description of something on the other side or across making (itself) visible. Who makes visible? Who takes into account? Who is made subject, what makes subjects subject? We do not know.
Where I’m heading is that whenever there is a rhetoric of transparency, there might be sound reasons to look for governmentality. Usually, it seems to reflect processes of auditing, accounting and testing that provides clear and indubitable results for all to see. However, as with the peep hole, we can argue that it is only the accounting we see. We do not see the organization or phenomenon or whatever it is we wish to reveal. Hopefully, what is seen in the accounting is dependant on the reality of the organization in a more or less mechanical way, but is still on the other side. We see only the peep hole.
Turning this around, many organizations will have a need for objective information about their own enterprise, searching out waste and corruption. This is very much comparable to walking around the inside door and having a look in the peep hole to see what is there. It can be quite useful. And then, to take the picture even further, the really cautious person wouldn’t be happy only knowing what is to be seen, but to find what is not seen: Are there any corners where bogeymen could hide from my peep hole? I’ll draw a conclusion before this imagi(ni)ng gets ut of hand. Transparency means more than fighting corruption. It also means making someone subject. Furthermore, the notion in itself is without agency, and so it hides agency, leaving it for us to find. Finally, and conveniently, the etymology of the word serves as a wonderful source of imaging, illustration and fabulation.
To discuss this article, go to http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/viewtopic.php?t=31