The position of cultural theory has radically shifted. What was once the engine of change across the humanities and social sciences is now faced with a new 'posttheoretical' mood, a return to empiricism and to a more transparent politics. So what is the future for cultural theory? Addressing this question through the presentation of innovative, provocative and cutting-edge work, the Culture Machine series both repositions cultural theory and reaffirms its continuing intellectual and political importance. Published books include City of Panic Paul Virilio Art, Time and Technology Charlie GereForthcoming books include

This article opens a special section on the politics of opacity and openness. The rise of transparency as a political and cultural ideal has left secrecy to accumulate negative connotations. But the moral discourse that condemns secrecy and rewards transparency may cause us to misread the symbiotic relationship between these terms. After providing a historical account of transparency in public and political life, this article therefore makes the case for working with the tension between these terms rather than responding to the dyad as a choice. We need to find different ways of staying with the aporia of transparency-as-secrecy and secrecy-as-transparency. Despite common demands to support either transparency or secrecy in political and moral terms, we live with the tension between these terms and its inherent contradictions daily. The theoretical questions posed by this material reality need to be asked and responded to. This article and the special section as a whole begin such an enterprise.

This article considers the cultural positioning of transparency as a superior form of disclosure through a comparative analysis with other forms. One, as yet under-examined appeal of transparency lies in its promise to circumvent the need for, and usurp the role of, narrative-interpretive forms of disclosure such as scandal, gossip, and conspiracy theories. This growing preference for transparency as a more enlightening, honorable mode of disclosure is not just a result of the positive qualities that are seen to be intrinsic to transparency (particularly e-transparency) itself, but a response to the perceived negative characteristics of other forms of disclosure. After questioning the opposition between transparency and narrative-interpretive disclosures, we can see the preference for the former to be, at least partly, ideological: Transparency reinforces neoliberal tenets as much as democratic ideals. WikiLeaks is invoked in this article as a case which draws on both e-transparency and narrative-interpretive forms of disclosure in a move that wrests transparency from the clutches of neoliberalism and refuses the traditional hierarchy between forms of disclosure. This hybrid form helps us explore the possibility and implications of non-ascendant, radical forms of transparency or, in other words, disclosure without political foreclosure.

Though far from new, the rhetoric of transparency is on the ascent in public and political life. It is cited as the answer to a vast array of social, political, financial and corporate problems. With the backing of a ‘movement’, transparency has assumed the position of an unassailable ‘good’. This article asks whether the value ascribed to transparency limits political thinking, particularly for the radical and socialist Left. What forms of politics, ethics, of being-in-common, might it be possible to think if we pay attention to secrecy rather than transparency?

Given that the Obama Administration still relies on many strategies we would think of as on the side of secrecy, it seems that the only lasting transparency legacy of the Obama Administration will be data--driven or e--transparency as exemplified by the web interface 'data.gov'. As the data--driven transparency model is exported and assumes an ascendant position around the globe, it is imperative that we ask what kind of publics, subjects, and indeed, politics it produces. Open government data is not just a matter concerning accountability but seen as a necessary component of the new 'data economy'. To participate and benefit from this info--capitalist--democracy, the data subject is called upon to be both auditor and entrepreneur. This article explores the implications of responsibilisation, outsourcing, and commodification on the contract of representational democracy and asks if there are other forms of transparency that might better resist neoliberal formations and re--politicise the public sphere.