User talk:Solace Dyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Secrecy and Sociology



Simmel was the person who integrated the term "Secrecy" and merged it within Social Theory and Sociology.[Simmel 1906]

Georg Simmel
Georg Simmel

Dr. Georg Simmel describes secrecy as the ablity or habit of keeping secrets. He defines the secret as the ultimate sociological form for the regulation of the flow and distribution of information. Simmel put it best by saying if human interaction is "conditioned by the capacity to speak, it is shaped by the capacity to be silent." It also can control the very essence of social relations though malipulations of the ratio of "knowledge" to "ignorance".

Contents

[edit] The Secrecy "Concept"

Dr. Fredrick Hornstein's review of Simmel's Secrecy and Sociology idea goes on to say that this is the personal secrecy is the personal unities which we constuct out of the data furnished by us the individuals of our social enviorment are in the natre of the case fragmentary and reveal only small portion of our real selves. The secret society seizes upon only those aspects of the personality wich are relevant to it's purposes, and it arizes only in an society with evolved methods of conduct. The highest expression of the de-personalizing tendency of secrecyis to be found in irresponsiblity. The indivdual is not personally responsible for his acts so far as they relate to the doings of the organization. Examples of this are found in all secret legislation and in the secret work of all sorts of committees. Here the personality is completely merged in and extra-individual motive.

What makes knowledge dangerous? How does secrecy operate to help produce knowledge that is dangerous or otherwise? What happens when "nothing happens"? This is what Simmel tries to address through several case studies in the history of Secrecy and how it relates to Sociology as a concept and an idea. Some argue that secrecy enabled diffrent readings for some diffrent events and power.

[edit] The Censorship Idea

Secrecy and censorship can involve norms about the control of information. Author Gary T. Marx contributes to this idea by saying that Censorship of communication in the modern sense is associated with large, complex urban societies with a degree of centralized control and techincal means of effectively reaching a mass audience. It involves a determination of what can, and can not (or in the case of non-governmental efforts should and should not) be expressed in light of given political, religious, cultural, and artistic standards. The apperance of new communications (e.g the printing press or the Internet) technologies invariably create demands from conflictiong groups for greater openness and freedom of communication and demands for greater control. Authorities try (often in vain) to control new techniques of mass communication. Three major means of direct censorship (pre-publication review, licensing and registration, and government monoplization) are preventive in nature. Among democracies there is considerable variation in censorship by content, media of communication, place, time period and across societies. There are degrees of censorship and individual interests are balanced against those of the community, however hard the latter is to define. More common than outright prohibition, is the segmentation of material involving time, place and person restictions. Direct government means of censorship must be considered separately from the avalibility of resources to create and distribute information, the activities of private groups and from informal censorship, including exclsion from sources of information and self-censorship. In a democratic society secrecy and openness exist in a continual dynamnic tension.

[edit] Major Characteristics

Professor Ritchie P. Lowry states that Secrecy has become a major characteristic of most modern public and private organizations, partly as a result of bureaucratization and democratization and subsequent organizational dependence upon manipulation and persuasion. Though security and secerecy systems are seen as indispensable to the effecient functoning of modern organizations, they contain the seeds of their own destruction. Leaders utilze privleged information for self-enhancement purposes. Required information is denied within and between agencies.Secrecy systems take on latent functions leading to the protection of relatively useless and unreliable knowledge. The producers of such knowledge thereby maintain job security, and security systems become increasingly involved in matters of sensitivity. Analysis of these dysfunctions within the context of security conscious, military supported think-tanks suggests that secrecy functions to undermine the purposes for which it is utilized. Serious question, therefore, must be raised about the maintenance of secrecy systems in any form, and where they are necessary for obvious security purposes, about thier modification and control.

Simmel defines the secret society as an interractional unit characterized in it's total by the fact that reciprocal relations among it's members are goverend by the protective fuction of secrecy. This central feature is established on a dual contingency: 1 Members of the interractonal unit are concerned with the protection of ideas, objects, activities, and/or sentiments to wich they attach positive value (i.e, which are rewarding them) 2. The members seek this protection by controlling the distribution of information about the valued elements(i.e., by creating and maintaining relevant conditions of ignorance in the external enviorment) Depending upon the extensity of secrecy, the organization takes one of two forms; those in which the secret incorporates infomation about all aspects fo the interactional unit, including its very existence; and those in whicn only some aspects, such as membership, regulations, or goals, remain secret.

[edit] Simmel's Propositions

Georg Simmel came up with some unifying threads that he summed up and called the "Propositions". What these propositions function as is that they work together and apply primarily to the genetic and developmental conditions of the secret society. Here are a few of them.

Proposition 1

The more value of an idea, object, activity, or sentiment is predicated on the restricted distribution of information about that idea, object, activity or sentiment, the more likely those persons who so define the value will organize as a secret society.

Proposition 2

The more valued ideas, objects, activites, or sentiments of the members of a social unit are precieved as disproportinately threatened by those of nonmembers, the more likely the members will orgainize as a secret society.

Proposition 3

The greater the tendency toward political oppression and totalitarian reginmentation in the larger society, the greater the tendency toward development of secret societies within the larger society.

Proposition 4

The greater the value of the ideas, objects, activites, or sentiments that constitute the focus of secrecy, the greater the tendency of the secret society toward total inclusion of it's members' activities, sentiments, ideas and objects, and the greater the members' isolation from other interactional units.

Proposition 5

The greater the tendency toward total inclusion, the more the organization adopts characteristics of the larger society.

Proposition 6

The greater the tendency toward the total inculsion, the more likely the mobers possess aristocratic self-conceptions.

Proposition 7

The more extensive the secrecy of the secret society, the greater the tendency toward centralization of authority.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

    • Georg Simmel. " The Sociology of Secrecy and of the Secret Societies" American Journal of Sociology 11(1906): 441-498
    • Hazelrigg, Lawrence E (1969) "Social Forces"*
    • Hazelrigg, Lawrence E (1969 "A Re-examination of Simmel's 'The secret and the secret society': Nine Propositions
    • Hornstein, Frederick "The Sociology of Secret Societies" - Psychological Bulletin Vol 3(12) [Dec 1906]
    • Lowry, Richie P. (Spring 1972) JSTOR "Social Problems Vol 19, No 4."


    [edit] Additional Resources (Online)

    Developed By: Solace Reggie Dyer, Junior Florida State University

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/l/User_talk%7ESolace_Dyer_1053.html"