Secret refers to information that a person or group is actively trying to prevent others from knowing. The related concept of “secrecy” refers to the regular practice of organized groups, in which they hide important information about the group from outsiders.

German sociologist Georg Simmel was one of the first social theorists who paid significant attention to the concepts of secret and secrecy. He argued, in his article “The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies” (1906), that in social life, secrecy and openness are always intertwined, while in their private lives, people always keep one part of themselves secret. The value that a secret has is proportional to the possibility of its betrayal or revelation. Simmel states that, while it is hard to keep secrets in small groups, with the growth of the complexity of societies, public knowledge becomes even more public, while private and secret information becomes even more private and secret. The difficulty of keeping secrets increases exponentially with the number of people who share the secret.

                                Secrets in Everyday Life

Simmel argued that demands and pressures present in modern society lead individuals to engage in social camouflage by telling lies about themselves, while withholding true information about themselves. Goal of this camouflage is to create a misconception in other about theirs (person that is camouflaging) true intentions. W. I. Miller, in Faking It (2003), claims that the majority of people keep personal information secret and reveal it only to a select few. In addition to that, the majority of individuals hide their true selves while publicly presenting fake aspects of their identity, dispositions, and emotions.

In the book The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life (2006), Eviatar Zerubavel explores how and why some things are kept secret, or their existence is completely denied. Cultural practices and social norms create filters in the individual and social perception of people, in relation to events, things, and other phenomena, directing attention to some, while at the same time blocking the perception of others. Examples he points to are societies where there is fear of foreigners, in which any negative behavior of someone who is considered a foreigner receives much more attention than the behavior of someone who is not considered a foreigner; or cases where the whole society refused to notice any very negative behavior, for example, when the Germans during World War II refused to notice or accept the existence of concentration camps near them. In the situations where those kind of secrets become publicly known, individuals who pretended not to have known them suffer negative effects on their personality and conscience.

In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), Erving Goffman presents his theoretical framework, often called the dramaturgical approach. He believes that face-to-face interpersonal relationships should be the focus of research and that any such relationship can be viewed as a theatrical role. He views all people as performers who, consciously or unconsciously, perform rehearsed speeches and roles, to maximize the potential to deceive other people. On the other hand, people as observers also see all aspects of other people's performances in order to expose potential deception. Our performances will be more credible if we are "sincere", rather than „cynical“, that is, if we really believe in the role we play. Goffman believes that every person is, in fact, a mask, so theatricality is necessary for us to maintain that mask. The performances are supported by "fronts" of which the most important are „settings“, "expressive equipment" (clothes, manner of speech), and "manner“ (personal style of performance“. This kind of front is part of the performing „routine“. Performances are often deliberately filled with a dose of "mystification". People often act as part of a "team", and such teams are often coordinated, and members have additional information about the performances of people who are not available to other observers. Goffman distinguishes between a performance that takes place consciously and publicly, and background performances in which the secrets that the team wants to hide can be revealed. "Impression Management" refers to everything that performers do to better play a role, deceive, and hide secrets.

In the book Epistemology of the Closet (1990), Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick states that the central link between all thoughts and knowledge in Western culture in the twentieth century was the binary division into homosexual/heterosexual. This binary division serves as a source of information about sexuality, but also about all other social institutions. “Closet” in her theory refers not only to hiding homosexuality but to all human desires that are hidden or invisible. She believes that heterosexual masculinity always builds itself through the simultaneous denial and exploitation (secrecy and revelation) of homosexuality. Since heterosexual masculinity is always unstable, it must be proven and defined as the opposite of homosexuality, so homosexuality, although constantly denied, serves as evidence of heterosexual masculinity, and therefore becomes necessary to maintain the binary division.

                                      Secret Societies

Secret societies are almost universally widespread throughout history and continents. They are even found in tribal societies of simple horticulturalists and pastoralists. Some of these secret societies in tribal societies are open to all male or to all female members (membership is always restricted to the members of one gender), while in other tribes, membership in secret societies is open only to some male or female individuals. Initiations into society are sometimes extensive and punishing.  Frederick Barth, in the book Ritual and Knowledge among the Baktaman of New Guinea (1975), focuses on the male rate of passage rituals as an initiation into a secret male cult, where boys achieved manhood, social recognition, and sacred knowledge. After undergoing initiation himself, Barth discovered the world full of symbolism, myths, knowledge, and non-verbal communication. Membership in those kind of groups often gives their members political and economic rights. Members of these societies are united by authority and the sense of responsibility and purpose instilled in them. In all these cases, secret societies are fully part of the wider society.

In societies on the level of the state, secret societies are less integrated with the wider society than on the tribal level. Simmel sees historical secret societies are a very specific form of expressing secrecy in society. They are removed from the public and society as a whole, are closely connected, are characterized by strict discipline and severe punishment for those who reveal the secrets of society, attach great importance to their own rituals, membership is voluntary, and their basic function is to protect the secret society from the wider society. He argued that secret societies were the product of police powers and despotism. Secret societies use decentralized methods of information and control to obfuscate their leadership and true size.  Secret societies are sometimes composed of individuals who hold powerful positions in politics or the economy and support the existing system, while other secret societies are formed with the goal of uprooting the existing political and sometimes even economic system. In both cases, secrecy in itself is the source of political power. Some state-level secret societies also possess initiation rites, elaborate rituals, secret communication codes, and secret mythic, esoteric, or sacred knowledge, i.e., free masons, Rosicrucians, cults of Mithra, Opus Dei, Ku Klux Klan, etc.

                   Secrets in Bureaucratic Organizations

In modern societies all bureaucratic organizations posses some level of secrecy and professional secrets. Government and other official organizations (military, police, courts, spying agencies, departments and ministries, local government, etc.) have “official secrets” that employees in those organizations have to keep secret by law. Justification for secrecy varies, but it always gives those organizations superiority and significant power over outsiders. Other types of bureaucratic organizations also have they secrets. Businesses have trade secrets, industry secrets, and technological secrets. Professions such as physicians and layers have they trade secrets. Churches, NGOs, and other nonprofit organizations also keep some information about them secret.

References:

Bergmann, J. R. Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip (1987);

Bok, S. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation (1982);

Goffman. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956);

     -     Behavior in Public Places (1963);

Miller, W. I. Faking It (2003);

Parsons, T. The Structure of Social Action (1937);

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet (1990);

Shils, Edward A. The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies (1956);

Simmel. The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies (2018); 

Zerubavel. The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life (2006).