New research reveals how unspoken but widely known information creates harmful social dynamics in workplaces and communities, with implications for addressing organizational dysfunction and social change.
Published in Philosophical Review | Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Everyone knows about it, but nobody talks about it. This familiar scenario, known as an open secret, might seem harmless at first glance. However, MIT philosopher Sam Berstler’s new research suggests these unacknowledged truths can create destructive patterns in organizations and communities that become increasingly difficult to address over time.
Consider a workplace where an office head’s misbehavior is widely known but never officially addressed. When an employee raises concerns, their manager deflects the issue while implying that pursuing it further could have consequences. This pattern, Berstler argues, represents more than simple avoidance – it’s part of a complex social dynamic that actively preserves problematic situations.
“Sometimes not acknowledging things can be very productive,” Berstler says. “It’s good we don’t talk about everything in the workplace. What’s different about open secrecy is not the content of what we’re not acknowledging, but the pernicious iterative structure of our practice of not acknowledging it.”
In her paper analyzing these dynamics, Berstler, who serves as assistant professor and the Laurance S. Rockefeller Career Development Chair in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, explains that open secrets have a unique “iterative” structure. Not only do people avoid discussing the secret itself, but they also don’t acknowledge the fact that they’re not discussing it – creating layers of silence that make addressing underlying issues increasingly difficult.
While some forms of non-acknowledgment can benefit social harmony – like friends avoiding salary discussions or relatives steering clear of politics at holiday gatherings – open secrets operate differently. As Berstler writes in her paper, “Open secrets norms can serve as shields for powerful people guilty of serious, even criminal wrongdoing. The norms can compound the harm that befalls their victims… [who] find they don’t just have to contend with the perpetrator’s financial resources, political might, and interpersonal capital. They must go up against an entire social arrangement.”
Beyond examining the harmful effects of open secrets, Berstler’s research suggests we need to reconsider how we think about conversation itself. Drawing on sociologist Erving Goffman’s work, she argues that communication involves multiple layers of understanding, with some remaining deliberately unspoken to maintain social performances.
Glossary
- Open Secret
- Information that is widely known but never officially acknowledged or discussed within a group.
- Iterative Structure
- A pattern that repeats and builds upon itself – in this case, the practice of not acknowledging information, and then not acknowledging that non-acknowledgment.
- Activity Layering
- The presence of multiple levels of shared understanding in conversation, where some remain deliberately unspoken.
Test Your Knowledge
What distinguishes an open secret from other forms of non-acknowledgment?
Open secrets have an iterative structure – people don’t discuss the secret, and they also don’t acknowledge that they’re not discussing it.
What is one example of beneficial non-acknowledgment mentioned in the article?
Friends avoiding discussions about their salaries to maintain social harmony.
How do open secrets affect organizational change according to Berstler’s research?
They create layers of silence that make addressing underlying issues increasingly difficult and can shield powerful people from accountability.
What is the significance of “activity layering” in understanding open secrets?
It reveals how conversations involve multiple levels of shared understanding, with some meanings deliberately kept unspoken to maintain social performances.
Enjoy this story? Subscribe to our newsletter at scienceblog.substack.com.