PIK Week 7: The Information Society

I thought I would begin this week’s Journal with the article by Frank Webster, who goes in to some depth about what we mean by Information society. He argues that literature on information society often fails to establish in what ways and why information is becoming more central in our times.

He distinguishes five ways of defining Information Society. As:
 

·         Technological

·         Economic

·         Occupational

·         Spatial

·         Cultural

 

Technological
 

He argues that firstly, the futurists (who take on a primarily technological definition of Information Society) fail to address how to measure Information Communication Technologies and when a society can be deemed to have entered the ‘Information age’. He goes further however, by making a much stronger argument in addition to this (which nails the coffin – or put another way, secures the electro-lock on the Cryo-chamber – for the futurists) by stating that such technological definitions of Information Society is not only technologically determinist, but in fact allows for the relegation of economic, political and social dimensions of Information Society into an entirely separate division.

I agree strongly with Webster where he states that the social is a demonstratively integral part of technological innovation. He points to social values imbued within a variety of technological products, like the architectural design of bridges, branding of vehicles, etc. To further this point, I’d like to visit an example of my own of a technological organisation that is at the very horizon of technological innovation. Macintosh is a prime example of a successful corporation employing a strict level of branding that allows their users to identify culturally with their products. You would be hard pressed to find an Apple product made after the nineties that wouldn’t identify you culturally as a ‘hipster’ in today’s society. Furthermore, Macintosh undoubtedly adopts a very intentional strategy in the design and innovation of their products to specifically appeal culturally to their target market. Notably, the organisations at the forefront of Information society in fact increase the level of to which there products are endowed with cultural value, not (as the futurists would hold) strive to separate their products from cultural value.
 
The one critisim I do have here for Webster, is that he does not go far enough – and fails to analyse the Ideological basis within which ‘Information Society’ functions. My own view with regards to this is that contemporary consumerism is the primary ideological engine which drives much of the technological Innovation today, and an anaylsis of ‘Information Society’ without looking at the role of consumerism (and it’s overarching global capitalist ideology) is shortsighted.
 

Economic

 

Walter also addresses the works of Machlup and Porat and justifiably argues that their method of measuring ‘Information Society’ by aggregating the GNP of information services and products is lacking (grossly so if I might add). Not only is there distinction between informational and non-informational domains very simplistic but there are serious assumptions behinds such research that trivialises the complexity and value of information products and services within and ‘Information Society’. Walter uses the example of comparing the (financial value) of a tabloid newspaper to a finance oriented newspaper to illustrate this point, clearly the dollar value given to these two papers themselves is not reflective of the actual value of the information within them and the (financial) gain for society.

Further to this, there is a (abhorrent) lack of regard for economic externalities that plague any measure of value based on gross domestic product. Also, as Barlow argues in his article The Economy of Ideas, the nature of information is anything but similar to economic products and services, it’s value cannot be based on scarcity as most economic products measured by GDP are, and further, the idea that ‘Information’ can be owned is extremely problematic in itself. I think that Walter once again misses the underlying point here, that the very reason that Machlup and Porat’s trivialisation of Information in society has even come to be regarded as meaningful within the field is the wider over-arching global Capitalist Ideology where such economic discourse is held in high regard (despite their methods being woefully unequipped to deal with measuring or understanding ‘Information Society’).
 

Occupational
 

The occupational definition of ‘Information Society’ isn’t as straightforward. Walter argues that this definition is quite different in that it focuses on occupational change which stresses the transformative power of information itself rather than the influence of information technologies (as the past two definitions seemed to do). Walter cites Leadbeater, who proclaims that thinking smart, being inventive, and having the capacity to develop and exploit networks is the key to the new ‘weightless’ economy.

Although I agree with the notion that such factors are the ones that allow a person to be successful in today’s society, I vehemently oppose Leadbeater’s characterisation of our economy as weightless. If anything the global economy is now heavier than it has ever been by virtue of its incredible interdependence. One has only to look at the Global Financial Crisis to recognise that the manipulation of highly valued ‘weightless’ derivatives in the financial sector ultimately led to Global instability and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of livelihoods across the world. It is extremely important to recognise that any seemingly ‘weightless’ or abstract manipulation of information is grounded (albeit through an inextricably intertwined and indecipherable network) in real products, real services, real people and ultimately, with real consequences – without this component, any reference to an ‘Information Society’ is meaningless.
 

Walter goes on to cite a range of influential writers (Reich, Drucker and Castells) who suggest that people with the ability to manipulate information lead and energize the economy. While I think that this is true, I think it is important to recognise that in fact, there is little difference between the use of the term ‘information’ here and the term ‘capital’, which begs the question, if we are to define ‘Information Society’ this way, is it really any different from Industrial Society in any meaningful way?  Are we not simply arguing that we are living in an advanced Industrial Society with the advent of information technologies? Again the point I’m trying to get at here is that an occupational definition that focuses on the transformative power of ‘Information Society’ only reinforces the idea that it is primarily governed by the principles of a Global Capitalist Economy.

 

Cultural
 

Walter also addresses the cultural conception of ‘Information Society’ and points to people who have argued that the increase in symbolic interplay in contemporary society can be regarded as a sign that we are in an ‘Information Society’. Walter describes the nature of this media-laden society and it paradoxical predicament whereby an overload of symbols (conveyed through multiple mediums of media) produces an absence of meaning. Walter notes that audiences are self aware and reflective in the face of this influx of symbols, that all signs are received with scepticism, and hence reinterpreted and refracted from their intended meaning. Symbols thus lose their connection to reality, and recognise that there are no longer any ‘truths’. Walter quotes Mark Poster in the article:
 

“in putting together signs for their homes, work and selves, [people] happily revel in their artificiality, playfully mixing different images to present no distinct meaning, but instead to derive ‘pleasure’ in parody. In this information society we have then a set of meanings [which] is communicated [but which] have no meaning”
 

This effect, where the abundance of symbols creates a dislocation of meaning is one that I can agree is a very real phenomenon. However, again, I think both Poster and Walter miss the significance of the underlying dominant consumerist ideology which functions through subtlety to create an all pervasive and dislocated communicative meta-medium where the meaning of the message is not stripped but intensified.

 Undoubtedly, the counter argument to this position would be that the symbols of consumerism themselves are rendered meaningless. However, Unlike Christianity (the Cross), or Communism (the Hammer and Sickle/the Star), consumerism is not limited to a single or a few symbols. Thus, this effect of meaning negation only serves to strengthen the intended message conveyed by consumerism. This is because people (who, still have to worry about their home mortgages, their 40 hour plus work weeks and the insecurity of their identity, arguably, do not ‘happily’ revel in the simple artificiality of their lives in such a context) are still grounded in the everyday experience of the system and have no means of locating the symbolic source of the system of power, let alone resisting it.  The point is, that whatever the symbol be, whether it’s the McDonalds logo or whether a stencil of Che Guevara, the meaning, for someone who is lives in the global capitalist system, is the same:

Poster’s very presumption that people take ‘pleasure’ in parodying various symbols, is not only contestable (as it is arguable that this attempt at parodying symbols is more an attempt to cope with the overarching system) but further to this, it is a very reification of the consumerist ideology that encourages its subjects to consume to attain pleasure. To broaden my argument here, essentially what has occurred as a result media technologies creating an overflow of symbols is an exploitation of every facet of our lives (our sexuality, ethnicity, political inclinations, etc) to push through an ideology of consumption in a way in which resistance is very difficult. The technology is used by those with power to hegemonize people’s belief systems in order to justify their positions of privilege and power. The people are thus subject to society that is effectively ‘walled in’ by a barrier of consumer products and at the same time feel devoid of any meaning. Pink Floyd’s “Empty Spaces” animation is appropriate here (at least after the 1:25 minute mark).
 

Spatial

The Spatial concept of ‘Information Society’ emphasises information networks and its nature as a prominent feature of social organisation. I do like this emphasis, because I hold that the networks, and the structure of the networks within a society is a essential feature when characterising a society. Walter challenges this conception by asking why this should allow us to categorise societies as ‘Information Societies’? He asks whether the intensification of information flow within a society should mark a new one? While I don’t believe the intensification of informational flow is the mark of a new one, it certainly is the precursor to one as traditional modes of discourse tend to change rapidly.
 

Walter goes on to ask why one couldn’t argue that information networks have been around for a very long time (he cites the postal service, and telephone facilities as an example). Personally, I would argue that information networks have been around for a very long time, in fact I’d go so far as to argue that they’ve been around since the Paleolithic period when hominids first begun to develop language and small networks of societies (where clearly, networks were not limited to technological systems). For this reason, I would hold that this definition is a very important one that emphasises information networks and defines all societies since the beginning of human history.
 

Furthermore, I would argue that we are not living in an information society (the idea is senseless if we regard all societies to be based on information networks in the first place) but rather, we are living in the final stages of an advanced global capitalist paradigm, which is the over-aching societal system within which many diverse social, political and economic characteristics exist. While all the aforementioned definitions of Information Society are useful in understanding the features and characterisations of contemporary society, they should be regarded only as precisely that: characteristics and features of a wider overarching globalised capitalist system.

I’d like to very briefly address Masuda and the two premises he makes in understanding ‘Information Society’.
 

  1) That the production of information values and not material values will be the driving force behind the formation and development of society. (hasn’t this always been the case?) 
 

  2) The past developmental pattern of human society can be used as a historical analogical model for future society – i.e. industrial society is the social model from which we can predict the composition of information society.
 

With his first premise, Masuda argues that material productive power was the driving force behind the development of society and now it is computer-communication technology. Again, I have to disagree here, by arguing that the driving force behind any society are the set of beliefs and values that hold power which ultimately shape the direction the society takes. Technology merely facilitates the process. Furthermore, it is arguable that behind any form of technology a certain set of information values always need to be produced in order to make effective and efficient use of a technology (whether it be computers, steam engines, or bronze tools).
 

With regards to the second premise, I would argue that the only analogy that can be drawn between Information and Industrial ‘Societies’ is the different ways in which such technologies impact the existing overarching ideology. The technologies only serve facilitate a change in society, that cannot be held to be the new society itself.
 

Again, while Masuda’s analogy is very useful in helping us characterise contemporary society and how it will change or develop since the Industrial age (which for a paper from the 1990s, he does very effectively), it does not, however, help when it comes to trying to define a ‘new society’. An analysis of the shifting power dynamics between people as a result of technological change is a much more useful approach to understanding how technology facilitates change in societies.
 

Castells is very aware of the significance of global capitalism and it’s relation to the Information age. But further to this, he makes a very interesting argument with regards to the importance of networks in contemporary society. Given the time (and the length of this post), It would be best to address Castells point of view in another post where I plan to synthesize his ideas with the ideas of a another writer, Nicholas A. Christakis, who also places a lot of significance on the role that networks play in today’s society. 

References

Barlow, J. P. (1994) ‘The Economy of Ideas’, Wired, Issue 2.03 viewed 20 September 2012, <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html?pg=8&topic=>

Webster, Frank. (2002) Chapter1: Information and the Idea of an Information Society. Theories of the information society London : Routledge, 2002.

Masuda, Y. (1990) 'Image of the Future Information Society', in his Managing in the information society: releasing synergy Japanese style, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.3-10.