Information society: European considerations in economic and cultural contexts.
Holland, George Adam
We have the technical know how, the technology to do it, and the
economic and institutional strategies to implement it. The obstacles, of
course, are political. (Castells 1999:12)
Introduction
Data, information and knowledge are words that conjure up distinct
connotations for various people. "Data society" or
"knowledge society" are not common phrases, but
"information society" is used with increasing frequency. What
should we make of the phrase "information society"? Even a
cursory review of literature shows multiple approaches that argued for
enthusiastically. This paper is informed by some of those discussions,
but focused on particular aspects to develop a balanced view of the
information society. This paper focuses on two of Webster's (2002:
12, 18) five definitions of information society: economic and cultural.
European community initiatives, particularly those in Finland, are used
to explore these definitions.
Approaches
There is no universal definition of "information society"
that is applicable at all times and places. The richness of the topic
defies a single sentence explanation. The literature on the topic
includes many vague and imprecise uses of the term. Webster (2002:4)
states that, [s]Such approaches have infected--and continue to infect--a
vast swathe of opinion on the information society: in paperback books
with titles such as The Mighty Micro, The Wired Society, Being Digital
and What Will Be, in university courses designed to consider the
'social effects of the computer revolution', in countless
political and business addresses, and in scarcely calculable amount of
journalism that alerts audiences to prepare for upheaval in all aspects
of their lives as a result of the coming information age." (Webster
2002:4) Webster is clearly skeptical of the "grand theory" of
cultural change ushered in by the information society. He uses current
social theory combined with empirical evidence to look at the cultural
impact of an information society in order to to avoid a simplistic and
misleading approach.
Everyday life is information rich. In an average day we may get
information from a radio, television, computer, handheld computer, book,
or newspaper. Theoretically, all of the above could be active at a
single moment, through digital television, wireless Internet access,
national radio broadcasters, etc. It is not just availability but also
extraordinary variety, as Webster notes (2002:19). These are
technological features of life. It is clear that technological
revolutions have occurred in the past with pervasive outcomes. What
distinguishes this technological revolution? The industrial revolution
focused on energy, although it incorporated other technological fields,
while the current revolution focuses on information technologies. This
technological basis reformulates economic systems, communication
systems, productive forces, knowledge accumulation, and the information
capacity of society. While these features seem economically-focused,
they are ultimately cultural; they affect professional contexts,
political movements, social campaigns, life and death. Many argue that
our world is essentially informational. Others debate how unique the use
of information is to current society (Giddens 1981, 1991; Schiller
1991).
Economic and Cultural Approaches
Castells (1994:3) states that, "[b] this concept, I understand
a social structure where the sources of economic productivity, cultural
hegemony and political-military power depend, fundamentally, on the
capacity to retrieve, store, process and generate information and
knowledge." Urban space may seem a strange place to apply this
definition but rigourous research and argument support his perspective.
Castells makes the basic point that societal change manifests itself in
a variety of ways and can be best investigated through urban space;
places where social groups live, work, and function. Castells argues
that informationally-competent and--incompetent residents of a city
inhabit distinct existences in the information society. What follows
from this are spatially coexisting, socially exclusive groups and
functions (Castells 1994:10). Castells argues strongly that culturally
the information society is multifaceted and necessarily involves the
social aspects of human life. The ability to access, manipulate, employ,
and enjoy the information features of the world influence how social
processes occur and develop through time. These features can be
entertainment, clothing, social interaction, urban space, even signs
(Webster 2002:20). The way cities are developed and organized can
reflect this, as do other environmental features of the world.
Understanding the information society requires consideration of cultural
factors--the social aspects of the world people occupy.
If the GNP of a country is dominated by information industries, can
we declare that country an information society? Some work (Jonscher
1999; Porat 1977) suggests that this is the case, while others find itan
extraordinarily complex exercise (Webster 2002:12). Porat and Machlup
have contributed to our understanding of the economic significance of
information (Bjorn-Andersen et al. 1982:3). Machlup (1962) was
particularly influential in categorizing particular parts of industry as
informational, thereby allowing for statistical analysis in economic
terms. Two serious questions have been raised about the efforts of
Machlup and Porat. First, how reliable are their classifications of
informational business, and secondly, is the quantitative methodology
for understanding information economies valid? The essential question is
whether we can determine what is an information society by quantitative
means. Can the level of a country's income justify its being called
an information economy?
Purely economic analysis is limited, just as a purely social
analysis would be. In the following section I will look at economic
factors, along with cultural considerations, in a real world example
based on research and scholarship on Finland.
The European Union (EU) has produced a series of documents
outlining initiatives for an 'information society' (European
Union 2000; European Union 2004a; European Union 2004b). The EU uses the
word 'e-Economy' frequently with some vagueness. Their attempt
to understand the e-Economy is informed by past economic trends,
predominantly share market focused and challenges to the new information
economy. Through their language it becomes clear that
'e-Economy' denotes the economic aspects of an information
society. Examples they cite are:
* to encourage Europe's enterprises to take up informaction
and communication technologies (ICT) on a wider scale
* to stimulate applied information society technologies (IST)
research addressing major economic challenges
* to promote organizational change in general and new sustainable
eWork paradigms
* to build ICT skills and media literacy, implementing adequate
education and training and lifelong learning strategies
* to foster consumers' e-confidence (European Union 2004b)
The EU cites the importance of developing the economic side of the
information society as extremely important, thus identifying key
challenges and formulating plans to deal with them. Strategies, policies
and targets that are economically attentive are at the forefront of
developing an information society for the EU. The efforts try to combine
ICT with sustainable investment in organization and in people throughout
all sectors of the economy: in high-tech industries, low-tech
manufacturing, services provided by the private sector, as well as in
public administrations (European Union 2004b). This holistic effort
recognizes that both quantity and content of informational business are
important, while balancing the need to develop 'e-Work'
(informational) businesses on a relatively large scale.
There is a strong awareness of potential cultural implications for
the information society in the EU Portal. These are positively focused
within the context of political aims and "selling" the concept
to the public and businesses.
The Lisbon strategy (European Union 2000) is an effort to
universalize information access across European communities. This
strategy set the ambitious goal of ensuring that every citizen would
have the skills needed to live and work in the information society. The
strategy aims to create equal access for all citizens to e-information,
e-goods and e-services, e-learning, e-training and e-working
opportunities (European Union 2004a). The main idea behind the Lisbon
strategy is to erode the divide between information-competent and
-incompetent citizens, asking the question, "[c]an the Information
Society, in fact, bridge the gaps in today's society, providing new
opportunities to all parts of society?" (European Union
2004a:emphasis in original) There are tensions between social exclusion and economic development that will make this challenging (Goodwin &
Spittle 2002:226). The EU is aware of that challenge and has committed
resources for both economic and cultural considerations. The EU
identifies a high priority area as "eGovernment": information
and communication technologies may not only make public services more
effective, accessible, and responsive, they may change the underlying
relationship between citizen and state (European Union 2004a).
Finland
Finland presents a rich case study into information society
initiatives. Finland published its first explicit strategy for an
information society in 1995 (Hautamaki 2002). Luhtanen (2004) states
that, "[t]he Finnish Government sees that information society
policy continues to be a core element in the pursuit of welfare. Modern
information and communication technologies (ICTs) provide great
potential for promoting sustainable development, transparency,
accountability, democracy as well as good governance among many other
things." The role the government plays in promoting and enabling an
information society is very evident with 3% of the GNP going to R&D
versus a 1.2% average in other OECD countries (Herring & Finnish
Academies of Technology 1999:9). Heavy investment in R&D is a key
issue for Finland both because of technological innovation and cultural
interest. One reason for the rapid development of an information society
in Finland is that Finnish people are eager to adopt technological
innovations in their work and daily life (Hautamaki 2002). The interplay
between R&D and cultural curiosity helps define of the information
society. The Finnish model acknowledges that what is essential in an
information society is the influence of information, and associated
technology, on society and broad economics. The role of government in
this interplay is crucial as recognized in work done by Castells and
Himanen (2004) and Hautamaki (2002).
Finland 's government funds R&D at a high rate, provides
free education, redistributes wealth through progressive taxation, and
provides universal social security, all of which give the government a
strong influence on culture. For this reason, and others, Finland
invests heavily in understanding its national identity in economic
terms, being a relatively small country that is heavily export-dependent
(Herring & Finnish Academies of Technology 1999:11). Castells and
Himanen delve into this issue of national identity as an information
society because of the vested interest, economically and culturally, in
making such a society work successfully.
This structured interplay between national economy and culture
presents a specific model of the information society. The Silicon Valley
and Singapore present alternative models, which are being contrasted in
current scholarship at the Berkeley Center for Information Society
(Hautamaki 2002). An information society is developed specific to its
context. What principles can be gleaned from Finland that are applicable
in other European countries, and indeed in other international contexts?
Various approaches to the information society draw on the distinct
characteristics of each society. The interaction of these
characteristics is complex and integral to developing and understanding
the information society. The social organization enables or inhibits
innovation. Investment in information takes place when social stability,
safety, trust and solidarity are present. Social development leads to
cultural development, which leads to innovation, which leads to economic
development, which fosters stability and trust; and this underlies a
new, synergistic model that integrates economic growth and the
enhancement of the quality of life (Castells 1999:11) .
Finland is unusual in its attempt to create a comprehensive system
that gives equal access to information technology and resources.Castells
(1992: 12) states that, from a social perspective, the innovation that
Silicon Valley is famous for will fail because of the small proportion
of 'techno-elite' in the general population. This has economic
implications, with the reduction of innovation and thus market share and
thus income. Finland demonstrates a strong association between economic
growth and cultural development. Such an outcome is not the only option,
and Castells (1992: 12) argues that the disassociation between economic
growth and social development is both morally wrong and economically
shortsighted.
The development of an integrated information society is a
particular responsibility for information professionals. Private
business initiatives can be launched the aim of generating income and
also involving a wider portion of society. Governments can educate and
make information technology available to more people. Schiller (1991:
45) provides insightful and challenging arguments addressing this in the
American context, focusing on the democratic flow of information.
Information professionals are employed in private and public contexts,
and with an awareness of an integrated approach to the information
society can present compelling arguments for it. Additionally, as
information professionals concerned about social welfare, activism can
yield results in developing a more universally information-competent
society.
Conclusion
Concerning the methodology of declaring a society
"informational," there is one other argument made by Webster.
The core of the argument is this: if it is granted that information is
not specific to current society, but it is the quantity of information
in current society that is distinctive, it is difficult to see how there
is something so radically new as to declare this the information
society. For instance, the fact that there are more cars on the roads
today than in the 1970s does not justify us in calling ourselves a
"car society" (Webster 2002:22). The content or quality of the
information is also important, not simply the scope. Determining
quantitative change does not confirm qualitative change. The economic
and cultural approaches may be the best to amalgamate the quantitative
and qualitative aspects.
To understand the information society we must essentially
understand the impact of information on economy and culture. Information
can be measured in a variety of ways. Understanding the interplay of
economic and cultural characteristics is essential. Governments can be
the great catalysts or inhibitors to this interplay. Finland is clearly
a strong example of this, and while not directly applicable universally
can inform information professionals in other contexts concerned with
these issues. This topic will be the focus of future research (Dijk
2005:193-8).
Works Cited
Bjorn-Andersen, N., Earl, M., Holst, O. & Mumford, E. (eds)
(1982). Information society: For richer, for poorer, vol. 2,
North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
Castells, M. (1994). European cities, the informational society,
and the global economy, New Left Review, 204(March/April): 18-32.
Castells, M. (1999). Information technology, globalization and
social development: United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development discussion paper No. 114, www.unrisd.org.
Castells, M. & Himanen, P. (2004). The information society and
the welfare state: the Finnish model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dijk, V. (2005). The deepening divide: inequality in the
information society. London: Sage Publications.
European Union (2000). The Lisbon strategy for economic, social and
environmental renewal,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/index_en.html>.
European Union (2004a). European culture and society in the digital
age.http://europa.eu.int/information_society/soccul/index_en.htm>.
European Union (2004b). Making the e-Economy Work.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/ecowor/index_en.htm>.
Giddens, A. (1981). The class structures of advanced societies. 2nd
ed. London: Hutchinson.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society
in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.
Goodwin, I. & Spittle, S. (2002). The European Union and the
information society. New Media & Society (4)2: 225-49.
Hautamaki, A. (2002). The Finnish model of information society,
e.finland.fi, no. November
http://e.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=9989.
Herring, P. & Finnish Academies of Technology (1999). High
technology Finland 2000, Finnish Academies of Technology: Finpro Finnish
Business Solutions Worldwide: Tekes National Technology Agency, Espoo.
Jonscher, C. (1999). Wired life, Bantam, New York.
Luhtanen, L. (2004). Information society models and the new
everyday life, e.finland.fi, January.
http://e.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=19717 .
Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in
the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Porat, M.U. (1977). The information economy: sources and methods
for measuring the primary information sector (Detailed Industry
Reports). Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Office of
Telecommunications.
Schiller, H. (1991). Public information goes corporate. Library
Journal, October, pp. 42-5.
Webster, F. (2002). Theories of the information society. London:
Routledge.
George Adam Holland
Research Personnel
Department of Humanities and Social Science
University of Technology, Sydney
Sydney, Australia *