I received a holiday wish list for a child whose care is managed through a social services program. My assignment was to obtain gifts that matched items on a list. Apart from the list, I received a first name for the child (Kevin W.), the name of a 'case worker', and a brief description of the child: age 8, shirt and pants size 8; shoes size 12. In this preceding description, I even altered the first name to further shield the vaguely described child -- an example of anonymity engendered by caution.
As I gathered gifts for this boy, I reflected on the meaning of the transaction. The parties in this relationship are nameless and faceless to each other. They are shadows with details left to the imagination. Anonymity of this type, and privacy which is another face of anonymity, have become central to our society. Many reasons pop to mind as justification including the avoidance of unpleasant interference, unwarranted intrusion, loss of dignity, undesired social entanglements, and embarassment. These seem all to be different manifestations of fear having to do with potential harm, real or imagined.
But what about the down side? How does anonymity affect the concept of a community as a collection of individuals who support each other and including the children? It seems to me that in the present situation, anonymity means that all interactions with the child become focused on the case worker. This gives the case worker more control, which can be a blessing in managing the case. More control is also a curse because it means more demands on the case worker who has to maintain some personal distance (translate this as coldness) in order to avoid being overwhelmed by the 'case load'. In an alternative community model, the role of supporting the child is distributed so that no one person has a large load. Anonymity has other disadvantages. The anonymity may embolden an independence of the case handlers leading to behaviors different from community norms. It may sew seeds of distrust. It can reduce accountability due to lack of transparency in actions taken. It weakens the opportunity for transition away from the case worker into other support models such as direct community support.
Truely, many if not most case handlers, use their authority wisely. Also, anonymity has essential roles in our society. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced the right to anonymous free speech as protected by the First Amendment. The right to privacy in voting is commonly accepted and arguably necessary given the differences in power that individuals may have over each other influenced by their vote.
One could argue that the transparency (i.e, freedom from anonymity) should be considered a right just as anonymity and privacy are rights under other circumstances. The U.S. Freedom of Information Act supports transparency in a wide range of circumstances related to government actions. However, individual privacy or anonymity is generally considered to trump freedom of information. It wouldn't hurt to similarly recognize individual transparency as a right under limited and well thought out circumstances when privacy claims may be abused. An analogy exists with patient rights that are now posted prominently in most medical facilities. Transparency rights could well deserve to be posted prominently where the potential exists for abuses in claims of individual privacy.