Deconstructing WikiLeak

"If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were."
- Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks, on his philosophy about organizational behavior
(Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-1,00.html#ixzz17PqMyp4G)

Dear Readers,

We truly live in a cutting edge time! It is so important to us to think carefully about our reasons for our actions.

I chose to quote Julian Assange today, not for a deep abiding belief in what he does or stands for, but because I believe the conundrum he symbolizes needs to be addressed. Furthermore, with all of the accusations flying back and forth from those who say he is putting people at risk and those who would protect his vision  for an open future, I'd like to weigh in with a slightly cooler head.

No one's head needs to be on a plate, not Julian's, not Hillary's, and certainly not mine or yours. To think that a head should be served up cold says nothing about the maturity which should be bubbling in the backs of concerned civilized human beings everywhere.

Let's look again at what Mr. Assange posits here: He says that organizations have behavior. Furthermore, he says that organizations will reflect when a harsh reflection is placed before them.

First, he is saying that organizations can generate conscious behavior. Then, he states that this same organization has the ability to then consciously reflect on that behavior. This is certainly a very philosophical perspective as it supposes a whole set of beliefs about reality.

When I read this, I sense immediately what he's talking about. I absorb the perspective that believes that, when we unite our energy together in an organization to pursue a mandate or mission, then our individual voices submerge for the sake of the whole. In this way, the organization absorbs the individual humanity of each member participating in its endeavours and becomes a single giant consciousness. Furthermore, in what seems to be the perspective of Julian Assange, a single giant consciousness is also perhaps more prey to the temptations of power and the abuses that often trail just behind than a simple individual person.

Also, there is an additional philosophical premise hinted at in Mr. Assange's quote: It seems that he also believes in the cold light of a truth which exposes itself when organizations are made to acknowledge their behaviors.

In college classes, such as the ones I teach everyday, this humanization is called "anthropomorphism" or the act of making something non-human display human traits.

The use of anthropomorphism in Julian Assange's perspective allows us to see that he believes in a meta-narrative, a story which glues together the many smaller stories which inform our individual lives. By turning an organization into a person, the organization receives volition, judgment, and consciousness. Using this technique, we can censure an organization by addressing the perceived lack of resourcefulness, foresight, and follow-through of its behaviors.

In literature, however, the use of anthropomorphism is discouraged.

Stories feel contrived when everything is invigorated with a false sense of meaning. Not everything in our world has meaning, except that meaning which we invest in it.

So, while everything in our existence may be vying for attention, this does not mean that everything must therefore have a conscious will which drives a behavior.

In contrast to Mr. Assange, I think that our individual voices always speak louder than an organization's. In fact, I don't think that organizations even have a voice, much less a consciousness. We will always first pursue what is right for us as individuals, regardless of the mission of the company. And this may include, sometimes, the decidedly cowardly behavior of closing our mouths in the interest of a paycheck. However, this is the expression of fear we expect to find in people who believe that organizations have a consciousness that is more powerful than their own. In fact, this is one of the saddest legacies which postmodern thinking has generated throughout our societies.

"Organization" is nothing but a convenient label used by an observer to describe a confederation of mechanisms cobbled together. It's a label of convenience, not one which in my estimation can be imbued with the power of focused intention, consciousness, and self-reflection.

Any board of directors wanting to form a successful company who can embrace this idea that individuals are the champions of consciousness will be far more successful at attracting bright and intelligent professionals and retaining them as these professionals give traction to the various projects which they themselves set as part of their own textural visions and operational goals.

It's my belief that thoughtful individuals create thoughtful products and services in a thoughtful way.

So, while everyone can define what is or isn't thoughtful in an individual manner, I will posit that, while I do believe in the truth, transparency, and openness which provided Mr. Assange the impetus for his actions, I do not believe that WikiLeaks acted in a thoughtful manner. I just don't believe that he thought out the traumatic impact of his behaviors on the thoughtful and conscious individuals who will be affected by his work.

So, while I dream of a more transparent and honest society, I just can't support purposeful and shamelessly public trauma in order to foment a movement toward higher consciousness.

We, as individuals struggling through our personal conflicts and triumphs, have always been and will always be the dominant voice of humanity. Our combined efforts will never speak with any other voice but that voice made of the individuals communicating, participating, and cooperating or competing in that paradigm.

Again, I truly believe that Mr. Assange began his effort with a powerful and positive mission that has somehow been twisted into an ethical cliffhanger. I remind the reader of the importance for us to seek out the bias in our vision and to take the wisdom our bias presents to heart. Julian Assange perspective can be deconstructed in such a manner to show that the reasoning behind WikiLeaks might not be as resonant as he would have hoped.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read through my daily blog. If you enjoyed this, then perhaps my book "Falling but Fulfilled" will be a pleasurable read for you. The book can be purchased at Amazon here.

Dr. Zachary M. Oliver, EdD O.L.