.
I’ve used the captioned phrase often in presentations about the impact of the Web on our societies’ institutions and commonly-accepted social dynamics. I think it’s correct .. think about it for a minute. We often see waves crashing on the shore .. where did the wave (or more accurately, the forces that created the wave) start, and how long ago ?
I used to write about this kind of stuff (see the 2nd excerpt below) more often in the past, and used to reference quotes from Stan Davis in his book Future Perfect to reinforce my points. (e.g. Spring 2002 – “From Hierarchy to Wirearchy – the future of workplace dynamics”, in The Futurist’s Cyber Society Forum)
If “knowledge is power” then I think we can imagine that Euan’s forecast of a new Enlightment may well happen, at some point in the future. The alternative is grim indeed, in my opinion.
For our societies to move into “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibiity and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology” …
… something important, credible and effectve will have to be done about 1) the general quality of public education and 2) reining in the amount(s) and type(s) of disinformation associated with advertising-driven mainstream media.
Leave it to Euan Semple to put it into clear words everyone can understand.
.
[ Snip … ]
What I believe is happening, as more of our society becomes more connected and computing power and bandwidth become pervasive, is the equivalent of the advent of the printing press. Before the printing press “the truth” was pretty much under the control of the monarchy and the church. Without access to the ability to produce expensive and labour-intensive manuscripts most people’s ability to communicate was confined to word-of-mouth. With the advent of the printing press access to knowledge and understanding became widespread and the ability to instigate “mass communication” became more accessible to more of the population. Arguably the result was the questioning of the authority of the Church which led to the Reformation and ultimately the Enlightenment.
Social tools like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Wikis and Blogging are placing in the hands of everyone communication tools that give them access to global audiences within seconds with virtually no cost and no gatekeepers. This has never been possible on this scale before and no one really knows what the impact will be.
In terms of the full impact of those social technologies we’re discussing here when asked recently in an interview how long I thought it would be before the impact of these tools was apparent, I suggested 50 years. This may seem like an unrealistically long timescale but if you think about it the Internet has been around for the best part of 30 years and most people don’t know what the back button on their browser is for! If we are talking about the impact that a networked culture will have on our institutional and organisational lives than 50 years is possibly a conservative estimate. I wonder what our equivalent of the Enlightenment will be maybe 50 or 100 years after the similarly disruptive intervention of networked mass communication?
.
And yes, the Dachis Group is using the term “social business design” to brand their new consulting-about-social-computing business.
In a post announcing the Dachis Group’s new business and congratulating one of my friend’s good luck, I pointed out that the notion of “social business design” is basically a refreshment of the concepts first (or earlier ?) advanced in the late 70’s and early 80’s under the label “socio-technical systems and work design“.
The changes people are beginning to notice and feel as massive and historical have been coming at us for quite a while .. even pre-Web, believe it or not.
What a pedant I can be … 😉
.
.
Powered by Qumana
Great post. The only thing missing is how the definition of “knowledge” will also change. Before the printing press, “knowledge” was something “possessed” by the rich and powerful. This knowledge was passed down through hand written documents from generation to generation. However, after the advent of the printing press, the idea of knowledge changed in that enlightened individuals, regardless of background, only needed to find the “truth”. This resulted in “knowledge” moving to universities and the development of a middle class.
The internet is already having an impact on how we perceive knowledge. But as you mention, it will take many years for the cultural shift that will allow a new definition of knowledge.
Thanks for stopping by, Virginia, and for adding to it with some precision about the evolution of what we call knowledge.
As usual, I bring the grinch.
Knowledge is not power, if it was, then whistleblowers would not need protection.
Knowledge is, at best, platform or tool.
And anything that messes with power gets corrupted.
Power is a construct; it exists only in some kinds of relationships, and human relationships are particularly prone to it.
It is a drug that addles the minds of those who achieve it, leading them first to believe in their own control of outcomes (we are the empire now and we create our own reality) and then, as those outcomes refuse to obey it leads to attempts to subvert reality into adopting the desired form, regardless of the damage done.
The meta problem is that, if you want to use knowledge as a pathway to power, you may already have been poisoned by it.
Gandhi unpicked the empire by embracing poverty, spinning wool and sitting still. What if the new order is Gandhian? How would anyone immanentise that by seeking and exercising power and how would knowledge enable it?
One of the Fakiri practises is to swallow a poison and pass it through the digestive system without absorbing any of it. I don’t know whether it is real or a trick, but I suspect that those who handle power must do so in that way.
What if the most important knowledge is that we must not touch or seek power?
The points you raise and the logic are thought-provoking, and represent to me a clear philosophical position .. one whose logic I agree with.
What if the most important knowledge is that we must not touch or seek power?
An excellent point / question.
For practical purposes, I still defer to http://blog.wirearchy.com/2009/04/01/alvin-tofflers-powershift-25-core-assumptions/“ rel=”nofollow”>Toffler’s 25 core assumptions about power used when he wrote the book PowerShift.