Information Society

Information society?

 

In the process of trying to establish a framework to describe what an information society is, I searched to see how the EU is defining the Information Society.  Below is an interactive link to a video designed to highlight the meaning of an information society.

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/services/ncg/en/animation_en.htm  This video allows you to stop it upon the “exclamation mark” “!” and read further on each scenario explanation.  If you would like to view more on the Europe’s Information Society Thematic Portal, see: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/services/ncg/en/index_en.htm .

 

Further review of this site reflects categorical areas of information criteria such as the broad category “culture/society” but with more specificity economy and work, education, quality of life, the media, regions/geographic concerns of nation state, and research and development.  Of interest the criteria economy and in particular “e-business” caught my eye.  The header of this sub part reads “By enabling companies to sell to consumers and work with partners without being physically present, eBusiness is essential to helping European companies – particularly SMEs – take advantage of the Single Market, driving prices down and bringing “Europe’s Best” to the world.  Upon contemplation this statement seems to say a great deal about what we have discussed this term.  While most of the writers have used the United States or Western Society in general as a baseline we can see here a distinct touting of the power of the EU to assert globalistic parameters into business management, sales and research development.  

 

The goal of the i2010 is to achieve a Single European Information Space (SEIS), a modern, market oriented regulatory framework for the digital economy with a single .eu domain (EISTP)[1]  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/index_en.htm.  One thing that appears at first glance to be significant is that the i2010 e-business program focuses on helping business enterprises that are classified as SME businesses.  SME stands for “small and medium sized enterprises” which is defined by qualification as those businesses with less than 250 employees.  Not surprisingly, these SMEs are associated with such descriptive terms as dynamic, flexible and innovative companies.  Hmmm, flexible, innovative, dynamic, these words sound oddly familiar to descriptors we have read this term.  As I think back at Bell[2] and Castells’[3] focus on education and the Fordist/neo-fordist views of flexibility I can identify some correlation, although there appear to be alternate independent variables at work here.  Fordism is characterized by “inflexibility” and a hierarchy of bureaucracy in capitalism.  Post-Fordism is characterized by “flexibility” and horizontal association.  This arises from the concept of change in the “regime of accumulation” (Webster, p. 64)[4].  This comes from the Regulation School of theory with Marxist beginnings.  Regulation theory looks for a holistic explanation of society (seen in Castells) there are “interconnections” that perpetuate society, and translate to a balance between state, social class, corporate trends, social consumption and changes in gender relationships (Webster, p. 63).  Reich’s[5] use of the Flexible Worker (see Michael Piore, Webster, p. 89-90)[6].   Reich seems to focus in his examples upon American workers, but the S-AS worker is the example of “value added”.  In other words the ability to add value to your service is a key to your value as a member of society.  Some Americans are better equipped to compete in this value added paradigm on a global playing field.  What I see in the passages at the EISTP website seem to immolate Reich’s analysis.  Thoughts?

---

[1] EISTP. (2008) Europe’s Information Society Thematic Portal. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/index_en.htm.  

[2] Bell, Daniel. 2004. “From Industrial to Post-Industrial Society.” Pp. 86-102 in The Information Society Reader. Edited by Frank Webster and Raimo Blom. London: Routledge.

[3] Castells, Manuel. 2000. Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

[4] Webster, Frank. 2006. Theories of the Information Society. 3^rd ed. London: Routledge.

[5] Reich, Robert. 1992. “The Three Jobs of the Future.” Pp. 171-84 in The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21^st Century Capitalism.  New York: Vintage.

[6] Webster, 2006.

The Consumer Age

The Consumer Age[1]

 

Baudrillard seems to postulate that over abundance of consumer goods, connected with media and marketing processes have lead to less social interaction for the sake of interaction and discourse and created infatuation with “things” or “technologies” and innovations.  Interaction with objects, even virtual objects has replaced human interaction to satisfy the need for “being”.  In effect objects may arguably be a primary method to “signify” our being or status in much of the western world.  The question resonates, not do I have an I-pod, but rather “Do I have the latest I-pod released this month?”

 

Has western society come to be wagged by the tail of the object?  In large degree I seem to see this in many of the people I associate with.  I know it is not the case in many people and certainly not so in many parts of the world, however it is a spreading phenomenon to “have the latest”.  So to speak keeping up with and surpassing the Joneses.”  Or, structured in the sociological format “conformity and competition” or need to alleviate peer pressure (P. 36).   I suppose this is basic analysis to explain some need for communication.  Communication after all is more than oral it may be written (signs) or it may be physical (body language, dress, gestures, which also include signs).  As such signs certainly include objects and the status they are accompanied by. 

 

The psychology of marketing that is discussed by Baudrillard is interesting (P. 31), there he discusses the placing of objects for display in the market window and the logical flow of goods to the climax.  He refers to this scheme as the calculus of objects in the marketing realm.  In this way marketers may use signifiers and pathways to lead the unsuspecting potential purchaser through a network of objects into the clutches of a trap of which they are unable to trace themselves out of (P. 31).  This appears to lay the impetus for the “belief” that the object is a sign of being and therefore “need”.  As noted elsewhere “pursuit of happiness” for “maximum satisfaction” otherwise a smacking of hedonism (P. 35).

 

In discussing the drugstore I think of what a marvelous qualitative study it would be to travel to Dubai and spend a year roaming the new Mall of the Emirates in Dubai, the largest mall in the world, where you can shop, eat, hear concerts and enjoy leisure activities like “ski” the indoor slopes:  http://www.malloftheemirates.com/ .  How will this westernized mode of consumption be reflected in the culture in the UAE.  Granted about 50% of the population of Dubai is transitory foreign construction workers.  If consumption of things is driven by social dynamics of “keeping up with the Joneses” or according to social hierarchy and in relation to a system of values how will the society of the UAE be transformed, or even will it change.  In other words what is it that signifies the U.S. American?  What signifies the Arabian citizen of Dubai?  What will be the pressures to become deviant or remain “standardized” to normative ways and beliefs, (the Ideal of Conformity)?

---

[1] Baudrillard, Jean F. 1988. “The Consumer Society.”  Pp. 29-55 in Selected Writings.  Edited and with an introduction by Mark Poster.  Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Subliminal Market Demand

Market Demand[1]

 

Subliminal messages are spoken of in relation to manipulating and changing or managing values and behavior.  Audio and video recordings have often been the center of this debate.  Baudrillard’s summary statement about Galbraith (P. 39) addresses a premise “it is clear that the whole economic and psychosociological apparatus of market and motivation research … exists only to generate a demand for further market opportunities”.  Earlier discussions we have had indicate the potential abuse of poll data and market studies.  Here we see the concept that Galbraith speaks of in the “revised sequence” of the market (Baudrillard 1988:38).  Galbraith characterizes the revised sequence as shifting the definition of “need” or “reason” to purchase from the locus of the mind or “self” determined need of the purchaser to the directed concept of need which is constructed by the producer of goods and service.  He calls this a total dictatorship of the producing sector over the consumer or the masses.  Could the explanation of this be that new innovations (technology) of production have reduced the focus of capitalism upon Fordist concepts of “assembly line-type” production to produce a limited supply of goods because technology now allows for such vast abundance of production that the question of “how to produce enough?” now becomes “how do we dispose of all we produce?”  In other words in past eras public need or “wants” drove producers to enhance methods of production so there was enough product to go around and be shared by the masses.  Today due to technology business produce such large and consequently changing quantities of goods and services that the issue has become how to sell everything that is produced.  Has the system become one of built in product self-obsolescence?  One in which products must necessarily become outdated and outmoded within months or years in order to move the every producing widgets.  Is this why some may argue that much of the westernized world has become an “I want it” society?

 

Baudrillard challenges the view of Galbraith, however I see a meshing of what Galbraith postulates with that discussed by Baudrillard.  In considering the proposition of Galbraith it appears that this could complement the discussion that consumption is grounded in signification.  Signs (gestures, language, pictures) are all significant to advertising and marketing (P.48).  Consumption is driven by many factors.  Much of what Baudrillard recants regarding consumption is true in varying degree.  Perhaps because the masses although ideological are unique in individual analysis.  Ideological similarity and individual uniqueness are at the heart of marketing.  Therefore the “interest” or desire may be mythically peaked by signs of pleasure or status for instance.

---

[1] Baudrillard, Jean F. 1998. “The Consumer Society.” Pp. 25-55 in Selected Writings.  Edited and with an introduction by Mark Poster. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Speech With Out Response

Speech without Response[1]

 

Baudrillard points out a very good point in his definition of communication as a two way exchange rather than the emission of a point without ability to respond in a synchronous way.  Historically television, newspapers, and to a lesser extent radio were like this, certainly in 1988 when Baudrillard writes.  Granted people could write the editor and in some instances “call in” to live television and radio, but even in this context not everyone who wanted to “respond” could do so.  Time and location limited this true exchange that defines a communication dialog.  The computer was once that way for most users.  However the computer with e-mail, texting, blogs, and chat has changed this to a large degree.  Still this ability is not available to all the masses.  Some people do not have Internet.  Another change since 1988 is the proliferation of new audio/visual content exchange on the Internet.  Examples are Current TV, Link TV and interactive websites.  Recently I was able to (supposedly) text with Queen Rania of Jordan during her virtual time at her Facebook website.

 

In reading The Masses: The Implosion of the Social in the Media I can see why Webster[2] writes as he does and seems to say that to Baudrillard the world is inauthentic or at least fails to convey a productive reality that can be used.  Baudrillard seems to portray society as a “lost society” (P. 210).  He uses the example of polls to explain his position but I am not sure I agree whole heartedly with him.  In saying this I do agree that much of the “data” published is a poor reflection of what it was to measure, but not all of it so.  He notes (P. 210) that reality is obscured by simulation and this leads to uncertainty “which results not from the lack of information but from information itself and even from an excess of information.  It is information itself which produces uncertainty, and so this uncertainty, unlike the traditional uncertainty which could always be resolved, is irreparable.”  But rather than be useless, there is need to highly scrutinize.  Rather than being an inevitable stifling of society there need to be more educated and questioning.  Baudrillard rather implies that society will become entertained and placid in the obscene waste of the social. 

 

Perhaps his analysis is maintainable.  Perhaps the masses are or will become docile, ignorant of truth/fact and non-opinionated (other than in satisfying their own self-centered desires) that the masses will be stratified to a new social low leaving a social stratum of intellectuals and discerning individuals to direct social order!  Perhaps this is at the heart of the reference to Beau Brummel (P.216).  However, do people really want “someone” to specifically tell them what to think, do, and when?  Perhaps the rebellion of such direct delivery of course would be the result.  Perhaps a more indirect and subtle method of management and manipulation (or more acceptably “persuasion”) would be acceptable to the masses?  Baudrillard’s discussion of the moral law and need to know personal will, choice, liberty, deliberation, desire is interesting.  Knowing your own will (or even a society or group knowing its own collective will) is integral in a technological sense to innovation.  Has media collectively harnessed, restricted and limited the range of the “will” and clouded ability to determine desire, choice and liberty (P 214)?   Perhaps the query about indirect methodology deserves an affirmative answer.

---

[1] Baudrillard, Jean F. 1988.  “The Masses: The Implosion of the Social in the Media.” Pp. 207-19 in Selected Writings.  Edited and with an introduction by Mark Poster.  Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

[2] Webster, Frank. 2006. Theories of the Information Society. 3^rd ed. London: Routledge.

Is This a Novel New Age?

Is this a novel and new age?  We certainly have maintained this question all semester.  While I can testify to and do not deny the novel use of innovations (ICTs) that have been developed and the creation of new modes of gathering, storing, dispensing, transmitting and using information and communication I remain unconvinced that we as a world society have actually entered a “new” or “changed” age.  However, I do not deny that an ICT society does exist as an emerging culture. 

 

Novel ways and innovations alone do not establish a change of the magnitude to break with prior ways carte blanc.  What is necessary is operationalization of some type (Webster 2006:229).  Whether we are considering a “break” in society by calling it modern, post modern or informational there is need to qualify the terminology.  Only within the context of a definition, then comparing facts and circumstances to the definition may we conclusively demark a society.  By following an analysis based upon definitions we can then determine changes in a new economy, dominant occupation trends and the critical role of ICTs to each the economy and occupational roles. 

 

There definitely is a trend toward greater use of ICTs in daily life.  This is more highly or less visible to different sub-cultures and groups more than others.  For example, within the world of financial economics if we limit our discussion to how financial transfers occur we can identify the critical and crucial role of information processing and computers in initiating and completing the financial exchange.  In such a limited way a new meaning comes to what it means to be part of the process known as “finance”.  This even appears to hold true with transfer of funds in remote parts of the world.  This seems to support the emerging of a new age and at some point most definitions would support a new type of society.  For example: “Did the renaissance begin in the twelfth century or the fourteenth century?”