Dis/organising visibilities: Governmentalisation and counter-transparency

Abstract

This paper situates organisational transparency in an agonistic space that is shaped by the interplay of ‘mechanisms of power that adhere to a truth’ and critical practices that come from below in a movement of ‘not being governed like that and at that cost’ (Foucault, 2003: 265). This positioning involves an understanding of transparency as a practice that is historically contingent and multiple, and thus negotiable and contested. By illustrating the entanglement of ‘power through transparency’ and ‘counter-transparency’ with reference to the example of Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing, the paper contributes to the critique of transparency and to debates on the use of Foucauldian concepts in post-panoptic contexts of organising. By introducing the notion of ‘counter-transparency’, the paper expands the conceptual vocabulary for understanding the politics and ethics of managing and organising visibility.

Implications for Agricultural Producers of Using Blockchain for Food Transparency, Study of 4 Food Chains by Cumulative Approach

“…Transparency has become a major theme in management theory, [45][46][47]. It would even be the key to good governance [48,49].…”

“…Visibility and disclosure devices do not simply "reveal" what is hidden but construct and manufacture objects of knowledge. The fact that "transparency is governed" refers to the fact that "it is organized within a normative matrix that itself governs how we see and what we see" [47]. This does not mean that individuals accept that visibility which is made of them without revolt [47].…”

“…The fact that "transparency is governed" refers to the fact that "it is organized within a normative matrix that itself governs how we see and what we see" [47]. This does not mean that individuals accept that visibility which is made of them without revolt [47]. Historically, there have been revolts against "the gaze" [59] (p. 162).…”

“…Visibility and observation are significant forms of control [56,77,78]. In the interdisciplinary field of transparency studies, Foucault's analysis of the panopticon highlights the "link between power and transparency" and has contributed to the understanding of transparency as "regulating control" [47,55]. Inspired by Jeremy Bentham's vision of a prison in which the inspector is able to see, and thus control, all prisoners at once, [79] describes discipline in modern society as "panopticism".…”

“…Making something visible with transparency is not simply imposed from above but is rather composed by the interplay of tactics and technologies that act from both above and below. In other words, to understand the intensification of "power through transparency," one must consider the active subject's participation in establishing that transparency [47]. Moreover, digital technologies are relays of this subjugation in which subjugated individuals end up participating themselves [85].…”