I'm thinking about the Information Society as an ideology which has a long legacy within Western culture. This involves looking at some of the philospohical underpinnings of modernism, as well as engaging with postmodern perspectives. I'm enthusiastic at the prospect, as it will require that I read a range of sources, from diverse cultural perspectives. I'll be drawing on the French philosophical tradition (Lyotard, Ellul, Foucault, Baudrillard) as well as the work of British sociologists (Webster, Giddens) and American and Australian commentators. I'm enjoying the cultural backgrounds that each brings with them in addressing similar issues and concerns. The French perspectives are wonderfully abstract and deeply philosophical, the British are more mundane (more everyday), the Americans are full of ideas about empowering individuals or concern over loss of liberty (or are these simply my own rough and ready cultural stereotypes!?).
A notion that has been floating in the back of my mind for some time is the idea of access to information vs knowledge. I've posted on ideas of collective intelligence as illustrated by online collaborative knowledge (eg the Wikipedia phenomenon). I struggle with this concept. I understand the idea, as expressed by, for example, Howard Rheingold, of the power of social networks. But what of the individual? The question I ask is - what do we actually know, in this context. Aren't we talking about access rather than knowledge? Where is the knowledge? Is it in the machine (in the service of the machine)? If it is then is it knowledge? Should I be more open to a less possessive idea of what knowledge is, perhaps? Allow it to be distributed?
I'm finding connections in this in some of the ideas of Lyotard on the commodification of information. I'm exploring these ideas as I read Technoculture and Critical Theory by Simon Cooper. There is a rich seam to mine here.....
These ideas are relevant in relation to my PhD research looking at UNESCO policy on the development of knowledge societies. Is there a blend of sustainable development within this UNESCO paradigm that respects diversity of cultural heritage and the intangible knowledge that is embodied in cultural forms? The concern is for the loss of valuable and irreplaceable cultural knowledge which is appropriate to specific human environments and contexts, due to dominant Western traditions of progress and development. Under Lyotard's paradigm there is the threat of appropriation of culture "in the service of the machine". The UNESCO context, with a mission of respect for, and preservation of, cultural diversity provides a valuable prism within which to undertake this research as it draws into sharp focus assumptions (presuppositions) of what we mean by knowledge.
One spark (pardon the pun which will shortly become clear) for my interest in this area is due to my recent move from Scotland to Australia. The European immigrants brought with them to Australia their own farming practices. They knew little of the land and perhaps less of the Aboriginal peoples' relationship to it. The Aboriginal practice of "burning off", in order to allow the land to regenerate, is now common practice. This symbiotic relationship to the landscape is embedded in deep cultural practice, which was not explicit in a technological form. The clash of cultural values is fascinating; the relationship to nature, contrasted with the domination of nature. This is the kind of cultural practice that I thinking of when I talk about specific contexts and environments.
Some of these ideas have been encouraged by the thought-provoking blog of Ulises Mejias, ideant, in particular this post on reconceptualising the digital divide. I'm pulling a few diverse threads together here, which is what I will be doing for a while I'm sure. I'll be reading Jaron Lanier's paper on the idea of the collective, The Hive, as it may stimulate my thinking further.
No comments:
Post a Comment