Part 2 (remarks 16 to 23)

Technical facilitation of meeting dynamics and participant interaction (Part #2)

[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Links: To-K ]

16. The next decades will probably see an increasing disenchantment on the part of the individual with any "distant" structure or chains of conceptual or organizational relationship which are supposed to be relevant to his concerns. The acceptable number of links in such chains "out" from the individual may be decreasing year by year. There is liable to be a general loss of confidence in links which the individual cannot inspect for himself. This applies to news media, TV documentaries, advertising, expert and political statements. This is significant because it is the projection of this confidence into such structures which provides the energy and oil to make our more sophisticated control structures work. Without such confidence, such structures can only persist as shells with symbolic value. Individuals will isolate themselves into relatively small communities. [AJ]

16.a. Is there any real data on this? Cannot the reverse be argued - that more distant, abstract and conceptual links will become more important in the future, as propinquity, kinship, and occupation become less important? Are there various senses of "distant" structures? Cannot individual inspection of "linkages" be compatible with new and more abstract linkages (eg., through voluntary groups)? Is there ever more to a group than a "shell with symbolic value"? Will the kind of "small communities" mentioned really isolate people or reduce their isolation? Cannot both happen? What role will electronic communication media play? Can they become more personalized? Will the balance of mass vs. personal media change drastically, but with an increasing dependence on electronic vs. personal interaction? How do cable TV and video plans fit in here? What about holographic video phone connections? How will confidence in organizations and individuals be affected by all this? Will confidence necessarily decline in all areas? Why? [DHS]

17. The written and spoken words are "babelizing". Use of the written word with precise meanings is becoming equivalent to that of Latin as a medium useful for communication between those (in the academic and administrative worlds) committed to a rationalized, abstract perspective. It is increasingly irrelevant to the "lower" reaches of society. People can no longer read and comprehend items which do not reinforce their own views. For many, the written word is used as a visual symbol with floating meanings aimed at achieving an impression and an involvement (cf. McLuhan). "Lower" here means poorly informed rather than the usual class distinction. Visual imagery is as yet at a crude stage of development equivalent to the old peasant dialects - the "Bible" has not yet been translated. [AJ]

17.a. What will happen in the future re: the distribution of the major world languages? What impact will this have? Is "literacy for all" good? For what? In what language or languages? Should language (cum world-view) training be pushed as the most important kind of education so that people of different nations could understand each other better and, perhaps, work together better? Or would this be counter- productive, with "familiarity breeding contempt" and making it easier to take advantage of others who are weaker or "less evil."

What is the optimal amount of information for a person or group? How much should confirm what is "already known" and how much should be new and mind-stretching? How much "informational imperialism" is really "good for people"? Under what circumstances? How should information be delivered? How valuable is a comprehensive "information existence alerting system," which can be used interactively by people and groups? Why?

Does having a certain kind of information really make a difference in the long run? Are not information levels simply adjusted to, as are other constraints on a person or system? Is more information always or ever clearly better for a person or group? How can one tell? Who can really decide? Can one tell without seeing the consequences empirically both of having and not having the information? Could one really disentangle the effects of the information from other effects? How is the provision of unasked-for information different, if at all, from propaganda and PR? Can unasked-for information ever be helpful, useful, and non-propaganda like? Under what circumstances? From whose viewpoint? How is information likely to be harmful to people or groups? Can one generally tell in advance? How? Why?

What is the overall value to a human eco-system of a body of common information? Of accurate information? Of necessary information? How can such information be defined? Packaged? Delivered? Can uninformed people or groups be trusted to recognize their own self interests and how to work to accompli; them most effectively? What are the political implications of this position? Is information power? For whom? Should it be shared? Why? With whom? How? Will this really work, or is it but another illusion that "the system" will counter act? [DHS]

18. Information is a threat to existing structures and identities. It is not required unless preprocessed in such a way as to reinforce the perspectives of the receivers.

As before, the politician and academic want information to improve their holds on their territories. Information must therefore be presented in terms of relevance to the territory. There is no framework for cross-disciplinary discussion - -- no inter-territorial language.

The "transparency" that information can offer to the existing social and conceptual structures is viewed as a threat to entrenched positions - both by those who profit from the current state of obscurity and by those who need to protect the germination of new or compensatory processes from over-exposure. The formula for controlling the controllers of such information systems has not been found.

It is possible that a historical perspective will show that just as a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire was an inability to transfer funds rapidly, so the fall of the Western Civilization may be due to an inability to transfer meaningful information rapidly. [AJ]

18.a. If information really threatens existing structures and identities in general, it will tend to be resisted in general - though perhaps in subtle ways (e.g., by being ignore- by not taking steps to make it retrievable when needed and by whom it might be needed Example of U.S. Food and Drug Administration records - massive in quantity and hence unmanageable. Information defines "reality". Therefore, who controls information, controls the definitions of reality and has great power. New and different information thus becomes a threat, not all information or confirmatory information. New and really different information also usually require the system and "gatekeepters" to adjust and restructure the existing information base and indexing/retrieval system, hence an additional reason to resist it.

Development of "territorial information systems" (for a defined substantive or disciplinary/professional area) is protective of personal and group identity, and resistive to change through new and different information. The formation of a "profession" is especially relevant here, because it allows for maximal legitimate control over the definition of "reality" and "valid information". Any unwanted or system disturbing information can always be rejected on methodological grounds, if no other. Use of any method for obtaining information. always involves some trust and faith in a person or persons, and this can be collectively challenged by a profession or group. This dynamic of "informational power" leads to the fantastic proliferation of professional specialties and sub- specialties in contemporary society.

Across linguistic lines similar critiques of the validity of information can always be made, hence there is room for repetition of all informational/professional subsystems independently in all linguistic/cultural systems. Cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic languages and models are resisted because they involve a sharing of power and a blurring of identity. As a result, the most difficult kind of task is to perform any kind of generalized, cross- disciplinary and cross-cultural, conceptual/informational model building. If it is to be done, however, it should focus both on the methodological- perceptual approaches of people in different professions/fields, as well as on the major kinds of abstract event models relevant in each field. These are much more crucial than specific bits of information of a more concrete sort. Problem of "superficiality" from the standpoint of any given field or approach. Inevitable breadth vs. depth dilemma. Focus on information access and search strategies, rather than on specific, primary information itself. Both at the individual and organizational levels, systems tend to avoid new and different information thatwouldrequire adjustment and dissonance reduction through restructuring and réintégration of knowledge. Thus, one cannot expect either indivi- duals or groups to seek out, accept, attend to, or deal with really new and different information in most cases. One rare exception is where the person or group identifies itself as an absorber of new and different information and when it thrives on the process of restructuring and reintegrating its knowledge.

Most major innovators have this trait, whether individual or organizational. Naturally, they are resisted strenuously by other individuals and groups. The "Inquisition" can be seen as a very "healthful" attack by "white blood corpuscles" on the "foreign bodies/germs" being introduced into the social body by heretics/innovators who were unsatisfied with existing integrations of information/knowledge and tried to present their own new and different versions. The larger question is, however, can such new and different integrative systems and kinds of information be known in advance to be "good for the system in the long run"? When is a chemical added to an aquarium likely to poison the whole system, and when will it enliven and invigorate it? What about "species selective" poisons, or their information and knowledge equivalents? Is information in general a poison or elixir of life? Under what circumstances is it either or both for whom in the long run?

What does all this mean with regard to what information systems are worth setting up with what content delivered, how, to whom, under what circumstances? How is the ideal different from the likely here? Is there any extant model of a fully appropriate information system for some constituency? What are the implications of this? Is this an unattainable ideal? Is it worth striving for? Is there a value to trying to share power with the weak by sharing information? Why? What will be the likely result? Is there a value to sharing information with the ignorant? Why? With what results? In a zero sum game, with limited resources, with whom should what information be shared and how, in order to raise the average quality of life? What are more appropriate uses of resources? What are the tradeoffs? [DHS]

19. With respect to peace and social inequality, it is important to meditate on the functioning of any natural eco- system and the problems, and desirability, of suppressing violence in it. The assumption in the case of man is that each person is an "indivisible" individual basically of similar nature. But each individual is in fact represented in society by a multiplicity of roles of unequal importance, even to himself, and it is through roles and organizational and conceptual structures inhabited by such roles that the (extra- or meta-systemic?) "individual" participates in the system. Society is an eco-system of roles and an individual is a very abstract concept indeed.

In a social system, the "top dog -underdog" inequality may be as natural and necessary as the dynamic carnivore - herbivore relationship is in a natural eco-system. There are chains of processes in the role eco-system just as there are food and other chains in natural environments.

Legislating for peace may be the equivalent of creating a human zoo, in which each role is sealed off from the next - the "carnivores" must still be fed, however, but by the organizers of the zoo.

The only satisfactory approach to peace appears to be through the development of a precise means of transferring status, equivalent and parallel to the money system. This is a long way off. All other approaches will stunt the development of the social system and the individuals within it. War is war between roles, not between individuals. [AJ]

19.a. Violence per se vs. violence toward certain persons or groups for certain ends. Can violence and aggressiveness in general be sublimated by mankind? Is it good to do so? Will it affect our long range capacity to adjust and use creativity? Is all human life equally valuable? Is human life always more valuable than the life of any other species? Why? If the inequality in value is admitted be- tween humans and others, then why not inequalities within humanity?

Is there any but a very loose theological or biological justification for treating all human lives as equal in value? Is this any more than a convenient fiction, that no one has really believed or acted in terms of? Does equality in the value of human life imply that the quality of all human lives should be equal? Could this be so? How? If it were valued sufficiently highly, could inequality of experience be eliminated by a complex system of compensation, etc. Would this involve reducing mankind's experiences down to a dull common denominator. Should the wings be clipped from those who can fly to make their experiences no different from those who can only walk ( or crawl or merely vegetate)? Is not inequality inherent in all species, including mankind? What will increasing the equality of opportunity accomplish? At whose expense?

What about intervention to affect the opportunities for social/intellectual/economic/political mobility? Is it really possible on a broad scale in an effective way? What results does it have overall? Does "relative deprivation" create a "psychic backlash" that eliminates the value of mobility opportunities. Can mobility opportunities be "optimized" for a society? How? Would equality eliminate war? Would equality of opportunity eliminate war? Why? If neither peace nor equality are really possible or feasible for mankind, how should most of our thinking about world/social problems be changed accordingly?

Can mankind face this information? What professions/disciplines/fields could accept this under what conditions? How does focus on peace and equality drain off resources that might better be spent on other goals? Or should resources be allocated toward achieving peace and equality even if they are not really attainable? Perhaps the process is again what matters. [DHS]

20. It is widely recognized that the whole system is becoming less and less credible and acceptable to (i) the younger generation, (ii) the man-in-the-street, (iii) the developing world. As yet, however, we have no clear historical parallel to provide the necessary perspective. Perhaps a useful parallel is that of the place of the Catholic Church and religion in society after the Renaissance.

We now have a new Universal Church with its orders, namely the United Nations and its family of agencies. In the interstices of this system we have new "protesting" sects, namely other organizations, governmental, academic, business, voluntary, trade union, and otherwise. The Church considers itself the one true church and is anxious to enfold the dissenting and in some cases, heretical groups. The latter are anxious to spread their message at all costs. Most organizations are anxious to proselytize

There are ecumenical movements amongst the protesting organizations, for they realize that they lack the strength of unity.

We have with this system an organized society, just as that period had a religion- based society. One must belong to an organization. Organization has become a religion with a strangle-hold on thinking in the Western world. It is "the only way of getting things done". The processes that cannot be organized are ignored or condemned - just as the activities in the past which could not be given a religious association were ignored or condemned. A non-religious perspective was inconceivable and smacked of heresy.

Today it is the younger generation which is opting out of the societal religion in search of a more organic life style. The results must be condemned, as quackery, superstition, witchcraft and devilry were condemned.

But the weakness of the organized society is that it is detached from the needs and individuality of the person - but particularly from his perspective. Itis becoming "irrelevant". People will increasingly slip through the grasp of organizations Our preoccupation with static organizational and conceptual structures may appear to the eyes of the future as irrelevant and irritating as does Columbus' preoccupation with the religious salvation of the Caribbean Indians. [AJ]

20.a. Generally well taken, though it much overestimates the importance of the U.N. system and the importance of organizations in general. I don't think people will increasingly slip through the grasp of organizations, because I think that the term "organization" is taking on a much increased breadth of meaning. Traditional work organizationsand dues-and-membership voluntary organizations may be weakening in their hold on people, but other kinds of formal and informal groups and networks are taking up the slack. The article on transnational networks gives a good set of examples (see The Nature of Organization in Transnational Networks, 1972).

Formal, bureaucratic organizations may be on the wane, but I doubt very much if human group affiliations are waning. In fact, I believe they are increasing. A recent study by ISR at the University of Michigan shows that informal interpersonal relations consume two orders of magnitude more time than formal organizational relations in non-work contexts. People may increasingly slip through the grasp of formal, bureaucratic organizations, but these same people will generally be picked up in a larger net of group and personal affiliations, often by new non-bureaucratic forms of formal organizations. [DHS]

21. It may be that we are close to discovering a psycho-social equivalent to atomic energy - with all its implication for society. What does hindsight offer in the way of guidance to the social scientist? What protective devices can he introduce? How can the investigation be made sufficiently general in order to foresee all the disturbances to the system? [AJ]

21.a. What would be the psycho-social equivalent of atomic energy? What would its character- istics and general parameters be? [DHS]

22. There are practically no channels through which multidisciplinary studies or projects may be proposed - unless a specific tie is made to some unidisciplinary concern, thus prejudicing the success of the project. All such projects must be voted and approved by organization channels with unidisciplinary biases. Furthermore, there are practically no environments which are not locked into the perspectives of a single culture. [AJ]

22.a. Agreed, sadly. The only solution I see is to work, if one is interested in multi-disciplinary activities, toward creating one's own multi-disciplinary environment with a reward system structured to encourage such activities. To do this, I maintain one must first start with a powerful, intelligent and sympathetic person in an existing organization as an ally, or else start fresh with a new organization. Once you have demonstrated its feasibility and value, you should try to propagate the program into other, similar systems.

It is crucial that the program not be simply a "paper tiger" with a multi-disciplinary board of directors from various disciplines whose main concern remains the reward system of their respective disciplines. Having a full-time occupational, role within the new, multi-disciplinary program/ organization is thus crucial, especially for the principal decision-makers of that system. It may still fail to accomplish its goals, but it will surely" fail otherwise. The members of such an organization should very carefully be chosen for their genuine, deep and abiding multi-disciplinary interests and openness. Almost by definition, they should be perceived as deviants, intruders and "mavericks" by the fields in which they are technically trained or primarily worked. If the "top people" of their profession are solidly behind them, it is probably unlikely that they will be able to contribute creatively to an interdisciplinary endeavor. [DHS]

23. Finally, how are the results of any world system investigation to be reported and to whom? When is an explanation satisfactory and for whom? What is to be said of an explanation which is meaningful for one group, which agrees to use a special theoretical framework and accompanying jargon, but is meaningless to outsiders?

A problem of the same form is posed by objectivity. If objectivity is achieved by cross-checking within an (academic) community, objectivity is then a matter of consensus. One man can never be objective, unless by acclaim after the act, and consensus never extends to the total population. If it is a question of"a majority", what of the objectivity of the innovator?

A third problem of the same form is posed by far-reaching policy decisions based on highly technical presentations understandable to very few - when are such decisions "in the interests of the majority" and how is this to be determined and to whose satisfaction?

A fourth problem of the same form is posed by the definition of relevance. There is no framework within which the relevance or irrelevance of a particular approach to a real world problem can be examined. Relevance is discipline oriented and not real world oriented. [AJ]

23. Help! [DHS]

[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Links: To-K ]