The term 'secret societies' brings spies, terrorists and illegality to mind. These are the negative, definitional spins imparted to a very simple idea - that certain knowledge generated and kept within one group of people may be considered intrinsically or potentially dangerous by a second group. A late-20th century view of democratic practice is that organisations, such as the ALP for example, should be open and transparent. This contrasts with the approach of 'Secret Services' towards 'their' knowledge which is that it is made available only on a 'need to know' basis. Profit-making businesses increasingly insist on 'commercial privilege', thus, claiming legitimacy for the secrecy of 'their' information, and Governments increasingly restrict access to their 'sacred knowledge' under Freedom of Information legislation.
Aboriginals are another case in point.
At a time when secret ballots are being legislated into industrial law, most trade-based societies are not sufficiently powerful to publically argue privilege for much of 'their' information. In practice, of course, they exercise a normative privilege available to all, and in time, their administrative minutes, internal office memos and accounts, etc, can be placed under an embargo when handed over to archivists. But the history of manual labour and the history of the dignity, even the sacredness of physical work, is necessarily the history of secret societies. A second, more benign, 'insiders' view of the need for 'sacred knowledge'is that it is information kept hidden until the society member is considered ready. Implicitly hierarchical, the test of readiness is also a test of the committment of members to the values of the society and of their perseverance in the face of challenges to the society itself.