Engagement against/for secrecy: pages: 419-428

Mark Losoncz

doi:10.2298/FID1602419L

Autori

Mark Losoncz Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1602419L

Apstrakt

This essay discusses engagement against state secrecy and engagement for secrecy, free from interference. By exploring divisions introduced by state secrecy (through exclusion, subjection and oppression), it identifies the distortions of equal participation in political communities. The author introduces the notion of pata-politics in order to describe the false relation to the secrecy effect. Furthermore, the text examines key issues of today’s intelligence studies (such as democratic intelligence oversight and the balance of powers doctrine), with special emphasis on the possible limits of a liberal approach. Additionally, the author elaborates a metacritique of the framework in which the private sphere is one-sidedly described as a victim of wrong interference by state institutions. Keywords: state secrecy, intelligence studies, democratic intelligence oversight, privacy movements, public sphere

Reference

Birchall, Clare (2011), “Introduction to ‘Secrecy and Transparency’, The Politics of Opacity and Openness”, Theory, Culture & Society 28 (7–8): 7–25.
Born, Hans, Wetzling, Thorsten (2007), “Intelligence accountability: challenges for parliaments and intelligence services”, in Loch K Johnson (ed.), Handbook of Intelligence Studies. London / New York: Routledge, 315–329.
Dewerpe, Alain (1994), Espion. Pour une anthropologie du secret d’État contemporain. Paris: Gallimard.
Díaz Matey, Gustavo (2005), “Intelligence studies at the dawn of the 21st century: new possibilities and resources for a recent topic in international relations”, (internet) available at: https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/media/www/pag-72533/Gustavo2.pdf (viewed 12 March, 2016).
Estévez, Eduardo E., “Developments of the democratization of intelligence in Argentina: Trends in secrecy policy. Implications for comparing transitional settings“, (internet) available at: https://fas.org/irp/world/argentina/trends. pdf (viewed 12 March, 2016).
Gilson, Erin Cunniff (2007), “Zones of Indiscernability: the Life of a Concept from Deleuze to Agamben”, Philosophy Today 51 (Supplement): 98–106.
Horn, Eva (2011), “Logics of Political Secrecy”, Theory, Culture & Society 28 (7–8): 1–20.
Horn, Eva (2013), The Secret War. Treason, Espionage and Modern Fiction. Evanston, IL: Nortwestern University Press.
Johnson, Loch. K. (ed.) (2007), Handbook of Intelligence Studies, London / New York: Routledge.
Leigh, Ian (2007), “The accountability of security and intelligence agencies”, in Loch K Johnson (ed.), Handbook of Intelligence Studies, London / New York: Routledge, 67–82.
Schmitt, Carl (1938), Der Leviathan in der Staatstheorie des Thomas Hobbes. Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols. Hamburg.
Schmitt, Carl (1995), Die Diktatur: Von den Anfängen des modernen Souveränitätsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.
Tamás, G. M., “Orbán és én nem tartjuk egymást hülyének”, (internet) available at: http://mno.hunagyinterju_magazinban/tgm-orban-es-en-nem-tartjuk-egymasthulyenek-1331675?utm_source=mandiner&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=mandiner_201603 (viewed 12 March, 2016).
Zybertowicz, Andrzej (2005), “An Unresolved Game. The Role of the Intelligence Services in the Nascent Polish Democracy”, in Loch K Johnson and Ian Leigh (eds.), Who’s watching the spies? Establishing intelligence service Accountability, Washington: Potomac Books, 145–159.
Wetzling, Thorsten (2009), “European intelligence cooperation and accountability”, in S. Gustavsson and C. Karlsson (eds.), The Illusion of Accountability in the European Union. London / New York: Routledge, 96–111.