The Discourse on Information Society - Theorising the Nature and Path of Information Society - Essay Example

The Discourse on Information Society - Theorising the Nature and Path of Information Society Introduction It appears that most individuals are curious about the society that they are currently living in; how they can understand the processes and forces surrounding their milieu; and where it will lead them. This is an overwhelming and usually confusing undertaking because it requires struggling to identify the primary forms of unusually complicated and unstable situations (Webster 2006). Several people hurriedly surrender from the task, openly revealing bewilderment. Yet others, stumbling upon controversy, recoil into the reassuring and languid idea that people see only those that they prefer to see. Luckily, most individuals keep on trying to make sense of what is occurring in the world, and thereby consult such concepts as liberal democracy, totalitarianism, industrialism, and capitalism (Hassan 2008). Many people will have encountered these kinds of terms; will have expressed them, when attempting to explain occurrences and disturbances, for major historical events, or even for the universal flow of political, economic, and social change. In all likelihood people will have questioned others about the correctness of these terms when used in specific situations. People will even have contested what the words might imply. There is an unvarying requirement to qualify the simplifying terms: thus pre-industrial, advanced capitalism, liberal democracies, and totalitarian populism (Webster 2006). Still, in spite of these needed modifications, few people will feel capable of rejecting these terms or in fact others similar to them. The apparent reason is that, large and rudimentary and subject to adjustment and misinterpretation though they be, these terms and others similar to them do provide people a way to determine and begin to make sense of the fundamental components of the world wherein they live and from which they have materialised (Hassan 2008). It appears inevitable that, pushed to understand the most important aspects of various situations and societies, people are led towards the acceptance of major concepts. Thinkers have ever more begun to discuss ‘information’ as a distinct element of the contemporary world. People are informed that they are crossing the threshold towards the information society, that a new approach to information prevails, that now is an ‘e-society’ (May 2002), that people should accept a ‘light economy’ controlled by information, that people have progressed into a ‘global information economy’. A large number of theorists have gone further to classify nations, such as Germany, Britain, United States, and Japan, as ‘information societies’ (May 2002). The basis for this essay is the appearance of a seemingly new way of envisioning current societies. In this essay I will analyse and discuss various interpretations or theories since it will facilitate the scrutiny of a general area of interest, although explanations of the function and significance of information differ broadly, and, in fact, the closer the analysis of their standpoint, the less accord even about the apparently general issue—information—there seems to be. Endeavouring to analyse different interpretations of the information society, this essay is structured in such a manner as to examine major theories of information in the contemporary world. For this rationale, each section examines a specific theory and its major advocates and efforts to evaluate its strong and weak points in light of other theoretical explanations and empirical data. Theorising the Nature and Path of Information Society Legislators, business leader, and politicians have wholeheartedly embraced the information society, with the European Union demanding the fast movement towards a ‘global information society’, in so doing pursuing the paths of Japan which gripped the notion of ‘information society’ in the 1970s (Webster 2006). However, the emergence of ‘information society’ has been a constant source of debate. To some it comprises the creation of a genuinely caring and specialised society whilst to others it symbolises a stiffening of control over the public (Webster 2006); to some it brings about the appearance of a highly professional or specialised population which has complete admission to knowledge whilst to others it implies a torrent of deceptive propaganda, exaggeration, sensationalism, and trivia (May 2002). In the midst of this conflicting perspective, what is interesting is that, contradictory though they are, all theorists admit that ‘information’ is remarkable and fascinating. In a comprehensive and growing literature on information society, there is minor consensus about its primary features and its importance other than that, simply, the implication of ‘information’ has gained an extraordinary importance nowadays (Hassan 2008). The existing literature may be typically disagreements and defined by completely diverse principles and assumptions, but there is no disagreement on the particular relevance of ‘information’ (Robins & Webster 1999). It is no doubt that these theories and theorists, ranging across subject areas such as geography, economics, philosophy, and sociology, are at the core of current controversies in social science (Webster 2006). Apparently, this is not particularly unexpected given that theorists in the social sciences are involved in attempting to explain and make sense of the world we inhabit and that a major component of this is transformation in the informational sphere. It is unjustifiable that anybody should try to explain the condition of the world without taking into consideration that massive sphere which encompasses changes in transfer of information and communication technologies, mass media, new kinds of employment, and changes in educational institutions (Robins & Webster 1999). None of the aforementioned theorists refute that information is of major relevance to the contemporary world, but they differ in their opinion about the form and function of information in traditional practices and societies. As this essay progresses, the discussion will open the opportunity to decide which theory is the most persuasive. The Most Persuasive Thinkers of Information Society All the assumptions of information society thinkers reflect the precise account of technological determinism. Each theorist approaches the subject of ‘information’ from a different path, focusing on various consequences of the saga of unavoidable technological progress. The major theories that will be discussed in this section will demonstrate that technology is indefinite; it has no predetermined reason, and no rigid course. The information age, similar to earlier technological eras, will not be unquestioned or uniform in nature; society has a deep-seated effect on information and communication technology (ICT) as much as they have an impact on the larger society (May 2002). This does not imply a voluntaristic concept of technological or industrial development. Instead, the application and consumption of information technology is profoundly entrenched in the current economic, political, and social traditions and affairs of society (May 2002). As each information society thinker analyses in different ways, the effort to depict the information society as a philosophy, a myth, used to influence the future and reject other alternatives. This, as this essay will point out, is not to say that everything is static, it is not to argue that information technologies are having no impact on people’s lives or the larger society. Nevertheless, it is to assert that we have to incorporate our knowledge of these impacts with social assumptions that have been created in the past. The best known theory of the mind as a computer is John Searle’s (2004) treatise of strong artificial intelligence (AI) and computationalism. The primary drive of this theory was to demonstrate that the ‘syntactic manipulation of formal symbols’ (p. 46) does not independently comprise a semantics. However, this technical depiction of information society is surpassed by Daniel Bell’s comprehensive and human-oriented representation of information society. He is possibly the most well-known sociologist of the twentieth century. He introduced the notion of an ‘information age’ or ‘post-industrial society’ (Bell 1976). Eventually, he changed the name of this idea into the ‘information society’, which gained him the recognition as the creator of the concept. Bell (1976) implies, by an information society, that we progress from manufacturing or production of goods to service economy and that hypothetical assumption, information, and technology become the primary form of commodity. Basically, information, and people who are knowledgeable of the formation, arrangement, and dispersal of valuable information, are more cherished than labour (Webster 2002). Information is usually expensive to generate, but inexpensive to reproduce. Specifically, the cost of generating the first reproduction of information is usually pretty expensive, but reproducing this information is usually insignificant (Webster 2002). A primary argument here is that, as referred to by Anthony Giddens (1998), a ‘post-traditional’ society which is distinguished by heightened reflexivity of organisations and actors rely on knowledge or information (May 2002). Daniel Bell (1976) and Anthony Giddens (1998) share much insight on the definition and nature of information society. This principle has acquired considerable grip in policy settings and its dominance can be discerned in the numerous NGO or state-subsidised research on the ‘information economy’ or also referred to as the ‘knowledge economy’ at work today. Although researchers vary on methodological paradigms, there is extensive recognition of the necessity to modify common statistics-gathering procedures to explain information activities in Bell’s post-industrial society. May (2002) emphasises that quantitative studies of the information society have revealed that “some middle-income states in Latin America and elsewhere had in the 1980s a similar level of information workers as the United States at the time of Machlup’s study, but would hardly be regarded as approaching the widespread informationalisation of 1960s America” (ibid, p. 58). If one recognises the arguments of Bell and Giddens that we live in a highly modernised world where in reflexivity is much more obvious than today, then it is possible to perceive this as increasing the flow of ideas and information in modern life. A realm of alternatives, for both individuals and groups, is dependent on the accessibility and production of rich and comprehensive information (May 2002). If one accepts the contentions of Bell and Giddens that the contemporary world is a period of heightened reflexivity by reason of which we build our physical as well as social circumstances, then it is logical to assume that this will preserve and will require an intricate and profound information context. It is maybe not fairly the same kind of theoretical perspective as that which Bell (1976) has suggested, but as long as it is codified and conceptual then it could find inclusion in an appropriately broadened classification. The notion of information society has been valuable in so far as it has fulfilled what is referred to by David Lyon (1999) as a ‘problematic’, a ‘rudimentary organisation of a field of phenomena which yields problems for investigation’ (p. 74). The notion has facilitated academics in focusing attention on, and to amass, a comprehensive and varied number of occurrences, from industrial changes, digitalisation, new communication technologies, to changes in higher education (Lyon 1999). In spite of this, the notion of information society is imperfect, particularly to the extent to which it argues that it explains the formation of a new kind of society. For instance, Chennells and van Reenen (2002) discerned that although there is substantial agreement for the idea of an emergence of a skill-inclined society there is quite insufficient empirical evidence which substantiates the processes by which technological progress transforms into greater need for skills. Their study refers to organisational developments facilitated by ICT, such as ‘delayering, decentralisation, and giving greater autonomy to workers’ (ibid, p. 178) as the connection between labour demand and technological progress. To Herbert Schiller (1995) the current information environment tremendously originates from the western countries, particularly the United States. He argues that all this represents ‘cultural imperialism’, or essentially an informational way of reinforcing western domination in mainly political and economic relations (Schiller 1995). He supports defiance to this ‘imperialism’- thus the claim for a ‘new world information order’ (NWIO) which resulted in the pulling out of the United States from UNESCO when it bent towards advocacy for such a strategy (Webster 2002). Herbert Schiller is one of the most persuasive thinkers of information society, in my opinion, as he re-examined the history of the campaign for the NWIO and thereby clarified his own point of view on the current information environment. Schiller stated that the NWIO was an attempt to establish barriers to the information aimed at their nations and to reclaim power over their local cultures (Webster 2002). This analysis implies that these countries desired to identify their own challenges and acquire for themselves a unique representation of their lives. The claim for a new global information order was introduced by Western culture solely as an attempt by tyrants of third world countries to enchain their peoples by smothering all liberal Western ideas. Apparently there were some dictators operating in several of these nations, but to position the whole campaign in that classification is merely a deliberate misrepresentation. Presently this demand for a newly-fangled information order is quite in obscurity (Webster 2002). However the world has a new order in spite of everything, the global information order. Obviously, this Marxian explanation places a great deal of importance to the effect of the expansion of commercial capitalism on the informational realm, both locally and, inevitably, globally (Webster 2002). Schiller (1976) even clarified that scholars are not merely explaining at this point a strain from without which troubles the information realm. In contrast, the development of commercial capitalism has been a mechanism of which the information environment has been a fundamental and dynamic part. Thus the history of the expansion of commercial capitalism has also been a history of the expansion of transnational media companies (May 2002). And, similar to commercial capitalism altogether, transnational media organisations have enlarged in numbers, size, usually diversified their objectives and progressed conclusively on to a global arena (Webster 2002). However, the argument of Herbert Schiller can be viewed as one-dimensional, or too much focused on the nuances of corporate capitalism thus leaving out some other aspects of the informational environment. Fortunately, Jurgen Habermas’s (1991) dedication to and lifetime mission of determining the requirements of free and open communication paved the way to the clarification of the connection of information to the movement of the public sphere. His contention is that, mainly in 18th- and 19th century Britain, the expansion of capitalism facilitated the formation of a public sphere which then experienced a collapse in the twentieth century (Habermas 1991). It is viewed as a sphere, self-regulating and also benefitting from independence from partisan economic factors, which is committed to logical discussion and which is both open to participation and scrutiny by the public (Habermas 1991). It is in this public realm where public opinion is created. Information is at the heart of this public realm, the assumption being that within it individuals explain their standpoints in unambiguous argument and that their standpoints are also presented to the general public so that it may have complete involvement and access to the process (May 2002). In its most basic kind, parliamentary discussion, and the dissemination of an accurate document of its procedures, shows a core feature of the public sphere, though obviously the function of informational organisations or communications media such as government figures and libraries can be viewed to be major determinants of its successful functioning (May 2002). Similarly, Friedrich Hayek (1994) has suggested consistent guidelines, indicating that they could have been grounded on basic ideas regarding human relationship, social order, and cognitive ability. In the socialist calculation discussion, he justified the dominance of free and open exchange on account of a constructive information theory (Hayek 1994). Equally, he justified liberal order on account of psychological premise of the senses and how individual knowledge grows optimally in a liberal society that does reprimand individuals for articulating their thoughts (Webster 2002). However the problem with the theory of Hayek is if we view his argument of the open order critically, it is reasonable to ask whether his constructive information and knowledge theory can justify his unconditional support of open society. On the other hand, unlike the previous thinkers who adopted a single, definite assumption of information society, Manuel Castells’s theory seems to be the hodgepodge of the other major theories, hence strengthening the persuasiveness of his arguments. Castells (2009) argues that the world is moving from the industrial era into the information society. This historical evolution is incited by the introduction of innovative information technologies—specifically those for biological and communication machineries (Castells 2009). According to him, basically, society continues to be a capitalist, but foundation of the technological process by which it functioning has moved from energy to information. Similar to the previous thinkers, Castells does not deny the fact that information is of fundamental value in establishing economic productivity. ICTs facilitate globalisation and the removal of space; the possibility of asynchronous and swift communication also alters the connection to time (May 2002). And, although he elaborates that networks are already traditional form of social group, they have developed into a ‘key feature of social morphology’ (p. 130). This is due to the fact that communication technologies facilitate the decentralisation of activities and concentrating of control, heightening the success of networks in relation to hierarchical structures (May 2002). But no thinker of information society, except for Bell, Schiller, and Habermas, has examined the postmodern society as accurately and persuasively as that of Zygmunt Bauman. Although he organises few empirical facts, his assumptions of modern society are insightful. Bauman (1998) portrays modernity as a period typified by a pursuit for order, a society aiming for strength and stability under the auspices of governments which protected their citizens, a time where in there was self-assurance in planning, and where it was supposed that logic would result in better security as to how people may most favourably organise things (Webster 2002). On the contrary, postmodernity leads to uncertainty, insecurity, and instability, a withdrawal of the government and the success of the globalising economy which supports discretion or freedom of choice but make individuals anxious about their futures, doubtful of rationality itself and obviously of the professionals who make particular arguments for their own admission to it, substitution of control by the government by the appeal of consumerism, and a necessity for individuals to live with insecurity and anxiety (Bauman 1998). There are other scholars who claim more frankly than Bauman that the postmodern precondition within which people live nowadays is an outcome of continuing changes in capitalist affairs. Specifically, there are core aspects that may be recognised by attentive scholars which contribute to the explanation of the changes presently referred to as ‘postmodernism’. Conclusions I personally think that the recognition of the importance of information in modern life is greatly strengthened by theories of major thinkers of the information society, such as Bell, Giddens, Schiller, Castells and Bauman. The arguments of Bell that it is the boost in service employment which results in the growth of information jobs that have most significant outcomes for the way ‘post-industrial’ societies behave themselves are quite persuasive. The argument of Giddens that the roots of modern information societies are situated in surveillance operations that are primarily motivated by the demands of a world structured into governments of nation states is equally persuasive. The claim of Herbert Schiller that the growth of information after the post-war period is the outcome, primarily, of the unstoppable progress of corporate capitalism is fairly compelling. The assumption of Jurgen Habermas that the public sphere, quite vital to the appropriate performance of democratic practices and where the value of information provides the elements which determine the welfare of participants is being weakened arouses anxiety. If one is attempting to understand the informational environment and its significance in the contemporary period, then one must be pulled largely towards the research and insights, first and foremost, of Daniel Bell, Anthony Giddens, Jurgen Habermas, and Herbert Schiller, as well as to the considerably amount of literature that has been inspired by their ideas. This does not imply that the ideas of other thinkers of information society are insignificant. Rather the opposite, I have tried, when comparing, analysing, and discussing such theorists, to mention and assess the positive components of their theories as well as to emphasise any weak points I may have discerned in them. There are primary rationales for my partialities for some theorists rather than for others. The main rationale concerns the capability of these theories to explain what is really happening in the world and how strong their ideas confront empirical assessment. In general the theory of Herbert Schiller, Jurgen Habermas, Daniel Bell, and Zygmunt Bauman, appear to me more compelling than the works of other theorists of information society such as Martin Castells, Anthony Giddens, and others. Conceivably to mention the obvious, to acknowledge my choices implies neither that I promote everything each of these theorists puts forth nor that Schiller, Habermas, Bell, and Bauman are in general concurred on what are the relevant aspects of the informational environment. It will be apparent that the concentration of Schiller on the necessities required by capitalism varies from the issue of Habermas with the precondition of democratic discussion, and both vary from the focus of Bell on the valuable use and collection of information. Nevertheless, there is one major contention within the variety of perspectives of these theorists and it is something which differentiates them from other inputs that I have discovered less useful in making sense of and elaborating the function of information in modern life. What Bell, Schiller, Habermas and Bauman do have in common is a certainty that we should expect the continuous expansion of informational environment, a mechanism that has been continuous, perhaps for a number of decades, but which definitely sped up the growth of corporate capitalism and the strengthening of the government in the 19th century and which became globalisation and the expansion of multinational companies in the 20th century have resulted in the integration of intact spheres--- close to realms of an individual’s personal life and far apart physically—into the global economy. References Bauman, Z., 1998. Globalisation: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity. Bell, D., 1976. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books. Castells, M., 2009. Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press. Chennels, L. & Van Reenen, J., 2002. Technical change and the structure of employment and wages: a survey of the microeconomic evidence. In Greenan, N., L’Horty, Y., & Mairesse, J. (eds.), Productivity, Inequality, and the Digital Economy. A. Transatlantic Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 175-223. Giddens, A. & Pierson, C., 1998. Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. California: Stanford University Press. Habermans, J., 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Germany: The MIT Press. Hassan, R., 2008. The Information Society: Cyber Dreams and Digital Nightmares. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Hayek, F.A., Colonna, M., Hagemann, H. & Hamouda, O.F., 1994. The Economics of F.A. Hayek: Capitalism, socialism, and knowledge. UK: E. Elgar. Kumar, K., 1995. From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society: New Theories of the Contemporary World. UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Lyon, D., 1999. Postmodernity. New York: Open University Press. May, C., 2002. Key Thinkers for the Information Society. New York: Routledge. Robins, K. & Webster, F., 1999. Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life. London: Routledge. Salvaggio, J.L., 1989. The Information Society: Economic, Social, and Structural Issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schiller, H., 1995. Information Inequality. New York: Routledge. Searle, J.R., 2004. Mind: A Brief Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Webster, F., 2002. Theories of the Information Society. London: Routledge. Read More