Transparency

C. Thi Nguyen, “Transparency Is Surveillance,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 105, no. 2 (2022): 331–361.

The Epistemic Intrusiveness of Public Transparency

Nguyen’s argument can be summarized this way:

1. Public transparency demands that experts justify their actions to non-experts.

2. Many of the actual reasons for expert action are not available to non-experts.

3. The demand for transparency creates pressure for experts to offer justifications for their actions in terms available to the non-expert.

4. This pressure distorts, to varying degrees, expert action and communication.

Explanation of the Argument

1. Public Transparency Demands That Experts Justify Their Actions to Non-Experts

Nobody can be an expert in everything.

Because of this, the public at large is made up of non-experts when it comes to most areas of action.

When the public asks for transparency, it is often asking experts to explain themselves to people who do not share the expert’s training, background, or experience.

2. Many Expert Reasons Are Not Available to Non-Experts

An expert is an expert because they have gone through years of training and have years of experience in a particular area.

Much of expertise involves developing an intuition for what works and what does not.

Non-experts may not understand these reasons because they have not had the years of experience necessary to understand them.

3. Transparency Pressures Experts to Use Non-Expert Justifications

If the public demands to know why an expert acted the way they did, then the expert will need to give reasons that the public understands.

But these public-facing reasons are not necessarily the same justifications the expert actually used.

At minimum, they may be vast simplifications.

4. Simplified Justifications Can Distort Expert Action

If an expert has to answer to these simplified justifications, then the expert may begin acting according to the simplified justifications.

This changes what the expert is doing.

Instead of acting directly from expertise, the expert may begin acting in ways that are easier to explain to non-experts.

Questions

1. We ask for transparency because we do not trust the experts. But if the experts are transparent, we may not get the full benefit of their expertise. How do we overcome this? What is the correct trade-off?

2. Are there some experts we should trust more than others? If so, how do we recognize which experts we should trust and which we should not trust?

3. Maybe transparency leads to issues in the public realm, but can it also lead to problems in other relationships?

   a. Child and parent

   b. Teacher and student

   c. Friend and friend

   d. Spouse and spouse

4. Should our default be to be transparent? Can there be a fully transparent person? If it is possible, should we strive to be fully transparent?

5. If we should not be fully transparent, the usual tactics are avoidance, evasion, or deception. We normally think of these as bad. Are they always bad? If not, when are these tactics permissible?