Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BOOK SYMPOSIUM
pant. Aggravating these divisions was the rule of compartmentalization that all
intelligence services use to maintain the secrecy of officers’ identities and work
practices. This rule dictated that agents from one branch not deal directly with
agents from another, to reduce the possibility that someone’s identity would be
discovered. Officers of one department could get data or information from
another department only by going through their chiefs. Any divulging of their own
activity and its results to colleagues from other departments was drastically
sanctioned. In support of compartmentalization, the labor process of surveillance
was broken down into shadowing targets, censoring correspondence, eavesdrop-
ping, transcribing overheard conversations, installing surveillance devices, and so
on. As a result, in any one location certain members of the organization were dis-
guised from each other. A very few senior officers were in a position to know who
all the operatives were and what they were doing. This had consequences for
organizational unity, further undermined by the factionalism and backbiting that
made careers unstable.
Following Hull, I have suggested that the circulation of the material files was the
principal instrument of the organization’s cohesion (see Verdery 2014: 68). Files
traveled from the hands of the case officer up the hierarchy, accumulating marginal
notes from various superiors on the way, and came back down with the superiors’
observations and instructions. Their trajectory materialized among various levels of
the Securitate a conversation that would never or rarely happen in person. Thus,
the regular circulation of files unified the Securitate as an organization and
constituted it as a collective actor rather than as isolated individuals writing reports.
The trajectories of files also marked off the organization’s boundaries, for they
rarely went outside it into other parts of the communist bureaucracy.
Lacking not only a corpus of files as large as Hull’s but also the kind of
information he gathered by talking with bureaucrats about their work and watching
their behavior, I cannot follow his lead further. Without it, however, I would have
been mystified at how such an organization hung together at all. I remain in his
debt for teaching me how important is the sheer materiality of files. Indeed, since
1989 they have been mobilizing around themselves new coalitions of actors, as the
former victims of communist repression use them in pursuit of “transitional
justice” to identify the former officers and informers who did people harm (see
Verdery 2012)—a pursuit deeply in need of the subtlety of Hull’s analysis. If the
test of a theoretical approach is its fruitfulness for handling different kinds of cases,
then the use I have been able to make of Matthew Hull’s work suggests that it
should have far-reaching impact on ethnographies of the state.
References
Borneman, John. 1992. Belonging in the two Berlins: Kin, state, nation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elyachar, Julia. 2005. Markets of dispossession: NGOs, economic development,
and the state in Cairo. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Katherine Verdery
Department of Anthropology
City University of New York Graduate Center
365 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA
212-543-1789
kverdery@gc.cuny.edu