Secrecy, Security and Social
Science
C Wright Mills called on his fellow social scientists in 1956
to illuminate the 'power
elite' because democracy "implies that those who bear the consequences
of decisions have enough knowledge - not to speak of power - to hold the
decision-makers accountable" (1999: 325). The responsibility is upon
social science to evaluate the ethics of certain practices used by government
and facilitate fuller debate of policy and practice. However, David
Miller and Tom Mills (2010) argue that since 9/11 increasing numbers of what
they call ‘terrorologists’
have emerged in Britain: a community of security ‘experts’ or academics who
lack independence and have connections to government or contracting. There is
often a resistance to social scientists offering critique from outside of
security studies and terrorism studies approaches, and many academics find a problematic
secrecy and exclusion from debate. A gulf was
visible in my own research with academics sometimes being viewed as 'outsiders'
- barriers are then sometimes produced where practitioners working on security
feel their activities 'misunderstood' (Briant,
2015). In one US interview, Dennis McBride, who following a military career
worked for a contractor and Washington think-tank the Potomac Institute for
Policy Studies, commented: “things’ve changed a little bit but there’s still
this attitude that ...we get from academic social science in particular that
comes across as they’re above, they’re better than soldiers and... they’re not
gonna participate in what we call here ‘baby-killing’.” (Interview: McBride,
5th June 2009 quoted in Briant 2015: 180).
Those working within security often find frustration
themselves in the insularity of government agencies, often referred to as
'stovepipes', acting as an echo chamber and preventing the emergence of new
ideas (Briant 2015). Some stress concern about a
culture towards secrecy UK Former Director of
Targeting and Information Operations Graham Wright observed a popular
military perception he found concerning, that discussing Abu Ghraib might
‘inflame’ criticism and ‘put soldiers at risk on the ground’ resulting in
secrecy over such incidents (Interview: 1st June 2009). Likewise, in the US, former US Navy Chief of Information Frank Thorp
observed that 'There were those who said ‘Why should we even talk about
that publicly?’ – because if we talk about it the enemy will take advantage of
it. Well that’s true, but the issue is not not to talk about it the issue is
not to do it. It will become public one way or another. (Interview: 24th August
2009; quoted in Briant 2015: 59).
Likewise Mackay and Tatham have criticised internal stovepipes and have
observed that many of the ‘lessons’ the MoD identified in Iraq are kept in a
database in Shrivenham, ‘overclassified, to prevent criticism becoming public’
(Mackay and Tatham, 2009: 27).
A gulf in perceptions results between some practitioners
working in security and academic and legal judgement on security matters that
have arisen since 9/11 which may feed into, in some cases, the emergence of
practices (discussed in other papers at this event) that have been widely seen as
unethical and their subsequent concealment even from others within government.
There are degrees of removal from wider society implied by the secrecy of
government organisations which have produced a gulf between some practitioners'
understandings, and wider public concern and distrust. In extreme cases, the
gulf between the 'outsiders' and those accountable to them has set alternate
moral standards and allowed abuse. McBride further described outsider reaction
to torture as 'the most overblown thing I think I have experienced'; he pointed
to what he calls 'the fastidiousness of the five-sided building' and contrasted
the US Defense Department approach - obeying a list of things allowed and not
allowed - with what he saw as an unscientific 'judgmental' attitude of social
science - 'this feels like torture'
(Interview: McBride, 5th June 2009 quoted in Briant 2015: 180). Of
course, the Pentagon must not be above morality as defined by those to whom it
is accountable and in order to ensure this there must be greater access by
independent researchers to government and greater willingness to engage in
dialogue with critics.
Secrecy and exclusion can
result in some of the complexity of actual practice being lost from academic
enquiry through over-reliance on leaked documents. It also may reinforce a
simplistic attitude of 'them' and 'us' that prevents us seeing the agency and
differentiation of opinion of those in government which could actually allow
scope for real change. Greater openness of government to researchers would
result in academic enquiry based on strong evidence being able to inform
attempts to reform systems and broader ethical debates would encourage an
informed electorate. I am very keen to hear what all speakers, but particularly
those with first hand 'insider' experience, think of the evidence and arguments
I have presented here and welcome their ideas on the ideal way for all
concerned to proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment