The publication by Wikileaks of a mass of diplomatic telegrams initially
resulted in very revealing comments of the spirit of the times: some said
that these documents contained only banalities; others argued instead that
these notes contained State secrets of great importance and that they should
not be published because « we do not have to say everything to the children, »
acknowledging that they consider citizens as minors.
For my part, having read these telegrams every day for over a decade, I can
attest to their interest: Not a day went by without learning something
useful in the conduct of foreign policy.
This polemic thus provides an opportunity to reflect on one of the most
difficult concepts of philosophy: secrecy. And on the reasons why each one of
us protects some more carefully than any other good.
First, what is secrecy? It is a fact that one knows and refuses to let the
others know. It is therefore an element of a relationship: for there to be
secret, it takes at least two people.
One who knows is, literally, an « Insider; » he can take safer decisions than
one who does not know; especially if the other does not know that he knows.
This information asymmetry is socially accepted when it corresponds to a
distribution of knowledge necessary for the division of labor: each one
knows then part of what makes it possible for society to function and
intellectual property ensures that transparency does not casts doubt on the
valuing of innovation.
This asymmetry is not acceptable when it creates an intolerable inequality
in the distribution of the means to conduct one’s life: then everyone wants
to know as much as the other.
Equal access to information is thus, and will be even more so in the future,
one of the main demands, one of the main human rights.
In private life, this requires not only not lying, but also to tell the
whole truth. The certainty that all will eventually be known pushes everyone
to accept others’ behaviors and accelerates the evolution of morals.
Psychoanalysis, based on the revelation of what we hide from ourselves, is
involved in the dismantling of secrets. This transparency leads also to stop
slandering others, and admit that their behavior be legalized; this was the
case of homosexuality; this will be the case tomorrow of same-sex parenting;
and, much later, of simultaneous multiple mating.
Finally, in public life, democratic dynamics pushes politicians to be
accountable; it requires of them to live as an open book. And when they do
not do it, the press forces them to do so.
However, a part of secrecy remains absolutely essential: no one must be
forced to say what he thinks. It is even the more fundamental of all
freedoms; in particular, no one must be required to make known his religious
or political beliefs.
It is also the condition of life in society: no one can be forced to say
what he dislikes in others.
It is finally the condition of negotiation, prior to any exchange, any
communication, any diplomacy: no one must be required to make known the
concessions he may be ready to make, in a private or public negotiation, or
reveal the psychological, financial or military means he has to assert his
interests. Therein lies the necessary State secrecy. Those who will know how
to protect it, while getting rid of all the others, will be tomorrow’s
winners.