The Public Life of Secrets

Abstract

While secrecy enables policy makers to escape public scrutiny, leaks of classified information reveal the social construction of reality by the state. I develop a theory that explains how leaks shape the discursive frames states create to communicate the causes of social problems to the public and corresponding solutions to redress them. Synthesizing cultural sociology, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology, I argue that leaks enable nonstate actors to amplify contradictions between the public and secret behavior of the state. States respond by "ad hoc-ing" new frames that normalize their secret transgressions as logical extensions of other policy agendas. While these syncretic responses resolve contradictions exposed by leaks, they gradually detach discursive frames from reality and therefore increase states' need for secrecy-as well as the probability of future leaks-in turn. I illustrate this downward spiral of deception and disclosure via a case study of the British government's discourse about terrorism between 2000 and 2008.Keywords cultural sociology, political sociology, secrecy, symbolic interactionism, comparativehistorical sociology "For in the order of things it is found that one never seeks to avoid one inconvenience without running into another." -Machiavelli (The Prince, chapter 21) A vast literature explains how policy makers shape public understandings of social problems in order to accomplish their agenda (e.

Meeting empowerment: How styles of discursive frames vary across participatory settings

“…Such discursive frames influence how people orient themselves and others to policy issues, ultimately influencing the outcomes of legislative processes. 16,17 Yet discursive frames for policy issues are not, as Bail 16 argues, "creatio ex nihilo-or freefloating discourses that compete for legitimacy based on their own merit" (p. 100). Discursive frames emerge from interactions between sets of social actors within particular social contexts, for example, on the frontstage or backstage of social life.…”

“…Understanding the discursive frames that social actors use and value during deliberative processes is important because frames influence how people orient themselves and others to policy issues, shaping the outcomes of legislative processes 16,17 . Yet the discursive frames that social actors develop and legitimize are dependent on social interaction and the interactional context in which the frames emerge 16,18 .…”

“…Understanding the discursive frames that social actors use and value during deliberative processes is important because frames influence how people orient themselves and others to policy issues, shaping the outcomes of legislative processes 16,17 . Yet the discursive frames that social actors develop and legitimize are dependent on social interaction and the interactional context in which the frames emerge 16,18 . Thus, to understand how and why some discursive frames are elevated over others in participatory processes requires attention to the dynamics of meeting settings in which interaction and deliberation between social actors occurs 12,19,20 …”

“…4,6,9,[12][13][14][15] Yet there is more to know about how the types of discursive frames actors use in participatory settings are constrained and enabled as they adjudicate civic issues.Understanding the discursive frames that social actors use and value during deliberative processes is important because frames influence how people orient themselves and others to policy issues, shaping the outcomes of legislative processes. 16,17 Yet the discursive frames that social actors develop and legitimize are dependent on social interaction and the interactional context in which the frames emerge. 16,18 Thus, to understand how and why some discursive…”

“…16,17 Yet the discursive frames that social actors develop and legitimize are dependent on social interaction and the interactional context in which the frames emerge. 16,18 Thus, to understand how and why some discursive…”