This text is excerpted from Langdon Winnder, "Mythinformation", (Ch.6), _The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology_, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1986.
Chapter 6 "Mythinformation"
Computer power to the people is essential to the realization of a future in which most citizens are informed about, and interested and involved in, the processes of government. J. C. R. Licklider
IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY Europe a recurring ceremonial gesturesignaled the progress of popular uprisings. At the point at whichit seemed that forces of disruption in the streets weresufficiently powerful to overthrow monarchical authority, aprominent rebel leader would go to the parliament or city hall to"proclaim the republic." This was an indication to friend and foealike that a revolution was prepared to take its work seriously,to seize power and begin governing in a way that guaranteed political representation to all the people. Subsequentevents, of course, did not always match these grand hopes; onoccasion the revolutionaries were thwarted in their ambitions andreactionary governments regained control. Nevertheless what aglorious moment when the republic was declared! Here, if onlybriefly, was the promise of a new order-an age of equality,justice, and emancipation of humankind.
A somewhat similar gesture has become a standard feature incontemporary writings on computers and society. In countlessbooks, magazine articles, and media specials some intrepid soulsteps forth to proclaim "the revolution. " Often it is calledsimply "the computer revolution"; my brief inspection of alibrary catalogue revealed three books with exactly that titlepublished since 1962.[1] Other popular variants include the"information revolution, " "microelectronics revolution," and"network revolution." But whatever its label, the message isusually the same. The use of computers and advancedcommunications technologies is producing a sweeping set oftransformations in every corner of social life. An informalconsensus among computer scientists, social scientists, andjournalists affirms the term "revolution" as the concept bestsuited to describe these events. "We are all very privileged," anoted computer scientist declares, "to be in this greatInformation Revolution in which the computer is going to affectus very profoundly, probably more so than the IndustrialRevolution."[2] A well-known sociologist writes, "This revolutionin the organization and processing of information and knowledge,in which the computer plays a central role, has as its contextthe development of what I have called the post-industrialsociety."[3] At frequent intervals during the past dozen years,garish cover stories in Time and Newsweek have repeated thisstory, climaxed by Time's selection of the computer as its "Manof the Year" for 1982.
Of course, the same society now said to be undergoing acomputer revolution has long since gotten used to "revolutions"in laundry detergents, underarm deodorants, floor waxes, andother consumer products. Exhausted in Madison Avenue advertisingslogans, the image has lost much of its punch. Those who employit to talk about computers and society, however, appear to bemaking much more serious claims. They offer a powerful metaphor,one that invites us to compare the kind of disruptions seen inpolitical revolutions to the changes we see happening aroundcomputer information systems. Let us take that invitationseriously and see where it leads. A Metaphor Explored
SUPPOSE THAT we were looking at a revolution in a Third Worldcountry, the revolution of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, forexample. We would want to begin by studying the fundamental goalsof the revolution. Is this a movement truly committed to socialjustice: Does it seek to uphold a valid ideal of human freedom:Does it aspire to a system of democratic rule? Answers to thosequestions would help us decide whether or not this is arevolution worthy of our endorsement. By the same token, we wouldwant to ask about the means the revolutionaries had chosen topursue their goals. Having succeeded in armed struggle, howwill they manage violence and military force once they gaincontrol? A reasonable person would also want to learn somethingof the structure of institutional authority that the revolutionwill try to create. Will there be frequent, open elections? Whatsystems of decision making, administration, and law enforcementwill be put to work? Coming to terms with its proposed ends andmeans, a sympathetic observer could then watch the revolutionunfold, noticing whether or not it remained true to its professedpurposes and how well itsucceeded in its reforms.
Most dedicated revolutionaries of the modern age have beenwilling to supply coherent public answers to questions of thissort. It is not unreasonable to expect, therefore, that somethinglike these issues must have engaged those who so eagerly use themetaphor "revolution" to describe and celebrate the advent ofcomputerization. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Books,articles, and media specials aimed at a popular audience areusually content to depict the dazzling magnitude of technicalinnovations and social effects. Written as if by some universallyaccepted format, such accounts describe scores of new computerproducts and processes, announce the enormous dollar value of thegrowing computer and communications industry, survey theexpanding uses of computers in offices, factories, schools, andhomes, and offer good news from research and developmentlaboratories about the great promise of the next generation ofcomputing devices. Along with this one reads of the many"impacts" that computerization is going to have on every sphereof life. Professionals in widely separate fields-doctors,lawyers, corporate managers, and scientists-comment on thechanges computers have brought to their work. Home consumers givetestimonials explaining how personal computers are helpingeducate their children, prepare their income tax forms, and filetheir recipes. On occasion, this generally happy story willinclude reports on people left unemployed in occupationsunder-minded by automation. Almost always following this formula,there will be an obligatory sentence or two of criticism of thecomputer culture solicited from a technically qualified spokes-man, an attempt to add balance to an otherwise totally sanguineoutlook.
Unfortunately, the prevalence of such superficial,unreflective descriptions and forecasts about computerizationcannot be attributed solely to hasty journalism. Some of themost prestigious journals of the scientific community echo theclaim that revolution is in the works.[4] A well-known computerscientist has announced unabashedly that "revolution,transformation and salvation are all to be carried out."[5] It istrue that more serious approaches to the study of computers andsociety can be found in scholarly publications. A number ofsocial scientists, computer scientists, and philosophers havebegun to explore important issues about how computerization worksand what developments, positive and negative, it is likely tobring to society.[6] But such careful, critical studies are by nomeans the ones most influential in shaping public attitudes aboutthe world of microelectronics. An editor at a New Yorkpublishing house stated the norm, "People want to know what's newwith computer technology. They don't want to know what could gowrong."[7]
It seems all but impossible for computer enthusiasts toexamine critically the ends that might guide the world-shakingdevelopments they anticipate. They employ the metaphor ofrevolution for one purpose only-to suggest a drastic upheaval,one that people ought to welcome as good news. It never occurs tothem to investigate the idea or its meaning any further. One might suppose, for example, that a revolution of thistype would involve a significant shift in the locus of power;after all, that is exactly what one expects in revolutions of apolitical kind. Is something similar going to happen in thisinstance? One might also ask whether or not this revolution will bestrongly committed, as revolutions often are, to a particular setof social ideals. If so, what are the ideals that matter: Wherecan we see them argued? To mention revolution also brings to mind the relationshipsof different social classes. Will the computer revolution bringabout the victory of one class over another: Will it be theoccasion for a realignment of class loyalties?
In the busy world of computer science, computer engineering,and computer marketing such questions seldom come up. Thoseactively engaged in promoting the transformation--hardwareand software engineers, managers of microelectronics firms,computer salesmen, and the like-are busy pursuing their ownends: profits, market share, handsome salaries, the intrinsic joyof invention, the intellectual rewards of programming, and thepleasures of owning and using powerful machines. But the sheerdynamism of technical and economic activity in the computerindustry eventually leaves its members little time to ponder thehistorical significance of their own activity. They must struggleto keep current, to be on the crest of the next wave as itbreaks. As one member of Data General's Eagle computer project describes it, the prevailing spirit resembles a game ofpinball. "You win one game, you get to play another. You win withthis machine, you get to build the next."[8] The process has itsown inertia.
Hence, one looks in vain to the movers and shakers incomputer fields for the qualities of social and political insightthat characterized revolutionaries of the past. Too busy.Cromwell, Jefferson, Robespierre, Lenin, and Mao were able toreflect upon the world historical events in which they played arole. Public pronouncements by the likes of Robert Noyce, MarvinMinsky, Edward Feigenbaum, and Steven Jobs show no similar wisdomabout the transformations they so actively help to create. By andlarge the computer revolution is conspicuously silent about itsown ends. Good Console, Good Network, Good Computer
MY CONCERN for the political meaning of revolution in thissetting may seem somewhat misleading, even perverse. A muchbetter point of reference might be the technical "revolutions"and associated social upheavals of the past, the industrialrevolution in particular. If the enthusiasts ofcomputerization had readily taken up this comparison, studyingearlier historical periods for similarities and differences inpatterns of technological innovation, capital formation,employment, social change, and the like, then it would be clearthat I had chosen the wrong application of this metaphor. But, infact, no well-developed comparisons ofthat kind are to be foundin the writings on the computer revolution. A consistentlyahistorical viewpoint prevails. What one often finds emphasized,however, is a vision of drastically altered social and politicalconditions, a future upheld both desirable and, in alllikelihood, inevitable. Politics, in other words, is not asecondary concern for many computer enthusiasts; it is a crucial,albeit thoughtless, part of their message.
We are, according to a fairly standard account, moving intoan age characterized by the overwhelming dominance of electronicinformation systems in all areas of human practice. Industrialsociety, which depended upon material production for itslivelihood, is rapidly being supplanted by a society ofinformation services that will enable people to satisfy theireconomic and social needs. What water- and steam-powered machines were to the industrial age, the computer will be to theera now dawning. Ever-expanding technical capacities incomputation and communications will make possible a universal,instantaneous access to enormous quantities of valuableinformation. As these technologies become less and lessexpensive and more and more convenient, all the people of theworld, not just the wealthy, will be able to use the wonderfulservices that information machines make available. Gradually,existing differences between rich and poor, advantaged anddisadvantaged, will begin to evaporate. Widespread access tocomputers will produce a society more democratic, egalitarian,and richly diverse than any previously known. Because"knowledge is power," because electronic information will spreadknowledge into every corner of world society, political influencewill be much more widely shared. With the personal computerserving as the great equalizer, rule by centralized authorityand social class dominance will gradually fade away. Themarvelous promise of a "global village" will be fulfilled in aworldwide burst of human creativity.
A sampling from recent writings on the information societyillustrates these grand expectations:
The world is entering a new period. The wealth of nations, which depended upon land, labor, and capital during its agricultural and industrial phases-depended upon natural resources, the accumulation of money, and even upon weaponry-- will come in the future to depend upon information, knowledge and intelligence. [9]
* * *
The electronic revolution will not do away with work, but it does hold out some promises: Most boring jobs can be done by machines; lengthy commuting can be avoided; we can have enough leisure to follow interesting pursuits outside our work;environmental destruction can be avoided; the opportunities for personal creativity will be unlimited.[10]
Long lists of specific services spell out the utopianpromise of this new age: interactive television, electronicfunds transfer, computer-aided instruction, customized newsservice, electronic magazines, electronic mail, computerteleconferencing, on-line stock market and weather reports,computerized Yellow Pages, shopping via home computer, and soforth. All of it is supposed to add up to a cultural renaissance.
Whatever the limits to growth in other fields, there are no limits near in telecommunications and electronic technology. There are no limits near in the consumption of information, the growth of culture, or the development of the human mind.[11]
* * *
Computer-based communications can be used to make human lives richer and freer, by enabling persons to have access to vast stores of information, other "human resources," and opportunities for work and socializing on a more flexible, cheaper and convenient basis than ever before.[12]
* * *
When such systems become widespread, potentially intense communications networks among geographically dispersed persons will become actualized. We will become Network Nation, exchanging vast amounts of information and social and emotional communications with colleagues, friends and "strangers" who share similar interests, who are spread all over the nation. [13] * * * A rich diversity of subcultures will be fostered by computer- based communications systems. Social, political, technical changes will produce conditions likely to lead to the formation of groups with their own distinctive sets of values, activities, language and dress. [14]
According to this view, the computer revolution bill, by itssheer momentum, eliminate many of the ills that have vexedpolitical society since the beginning of time. Inequalities ofwealth and privilege will gradually fade away. One writerpredicts that computer networks will "offer major opportunitiesto disadvantaged groups to acquire the skills and social tiesthey need to become full members of society." [15] Another looksforward to "a revolutionary network where each node is equal inpower to all others. " [16] Information bill become the dominantform of wealth. Because it can flow so quickly, so freely throughcombinds of stratification associated with traditional forms ofproperty. Obnoxious forms of social organization will also bereplaced. "The computer will smash the pyramid," one best sellingbook proclaims. "We created the hierarchical, pyramidalmanagerial system because be needed it to keep track of peopleand things people did; with the computer to keep track, we canrestructure our institutions horizontally. " [17] Thus, theproliferation of electronic information will generate a levelingeffect to surpass the dreams historical social reformers.