(Feb 13, 2006 – fixed the link to Pyati’s paper. Feb 19, 2006 – fixed a typo.)
I recently came across a paper written by Ajit K. Pyati titled “WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?”. It’s not exactly brand spanking new, from the May 2005 edition of First Monday. I was intrigued because several years ago (late 90’s), I went looking for a suitable definition of “information society” for a paper I was working on, only to find nothing whatsoever! Ever since, I’ll do a quick Google check once in a while, just to see if anything meaningful has cropped up, and at long last, my question was answered. It’s a good paper and the author raises several important issues. I hope this signals a much needed debate on the nature of the oft referred to “information society” and what it means for development and education in general. Click on to read my brief critique.
—————————–
This is a brief critique of Ajit K. Pyati’s paper “WSIS: Whose vision of an information society?”, published in First Monday, Volume 10, number 5 (May 2005). In the paper, Pyati is primarily concerned with the World Summit on the Information Society’s (WSIS) theoretical framework for its conceptualization of an “information society”. The conclusions are based on a content analysis of the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action that came out of the first phase of the WSIS in 2003. Pyati concludes that the WSIS’s definition of an “information society” is utopian and technologically deterministic. Given that there is no clear consensus on what an information society is, Pyati feels that this definition ignores the complexities of the issues that inclusion in an information society are meant to address.
Pyati does a good job of describing different theoretical frameworks that relate to the notion of an information society. The theoretical frameworks are divided into two categories based on what Pyati refers to as the continuity/discontinuity argument. This distinction is used to describe the relationship between the information society and preceeding societal forms. The discontinuity camp, which includes postmodernism and Castell’s informational mode of development, argues that the information society is a fundamentally new societal form. The continuity camp, which includes neo-Marxism and reflexive modernization, argues that the information society is a continuation of relations established in preceeding societal forms. Despite a clear and articulate description of these two categories, Pyati does not position technological determinism, which the rest of the paper focusses on almost exclusively, within this dichotomy. It can also be assumed that the theoretical frameworks mentioned all have their own distinct notions of what a “society” is and how it functions, which Pyati does not discuss, nor does he seem to pick up on the significance of how society is defined in the context of an “information society”. Hence, it is questionable whether Pyati achieves one of his stated goals, to describe how the WSIS’s conceptualization of the “information society” fits into these theoretical frameworks, because technological determinism is never related to the continuity/discontinuity dichotomy, nor is technological determinism described in terms of social organization that could be related to any of the theoretical frameworks mentioned.
Pyati raises some very good points regarding the WSIS’s vagueness about how integration in an information society will be achieved and especially, how success will be measured. Specifically, the relationship between the “information society” and the “knowledge society” is a confusing one. These terms are often used interchangeably and if we are to envision some sort of transition between the two as a goal of development efforts, the distinction needs to be made clear. Pyati also brings up the matter of “levels” of development and questions whether there is an implied goal that ICTs are a tool for bringing developing countries up to a standard defined by developed countries. Is this maybe what is meant by an information vs. knowledge society? Are developed countries already forming knowledge societies and promoting lesser standards for developing countries?
Pyati criticizes the lack of “requirements for the quality of content, the nature of the technologies, or the potential use values” of ICTs. He also questions the use of the term “digital opportunity”, which he feels is ill defined and comes across as a cliché. I have no problem with the term “digital opportunity”, and in fact, find it quite suitable in this context. It emphasizes the fact that ICTs are enablers and not an end in themselves. Perhaps content and values should be defined more precisely than is done in the documents being analyzed, but here, it may be appropriate to state the outcomes in vague terminology in order to allow for greater flexibility in the creation of ICT applications that takes into consideration the contexts for which they are intended. If we consider the vague terminology in this light, Pyati’s conclusions regarding technological determinism may be somewhat unwarranted. He may be confusing goals left open-ended for the sake of propriety with unfounded assumptions about the power of technology to bring about change.
Pyati states that the WSIS’s framing of the “information society” gives the false impression that “ICTs, if only implemented properly, will transform the world and bring peace and prosperity.” I don’t know about “peace and prosperity”, but it is clear from experience in developed and developing countries that ICTs do have the potential to have a very dramatic transformative effect. But, the key here is in the words “implemented properly”. We cannot make assumptions about how best to implement ICTs in developing countries based on the experiences of others. These matters must be informed by the local contexts for which they are intended. Hence, documents such as those being analyzed, that are meant to pertain to a wide audience cannot be overly prescriptive. Pyati makes this point himself, when he states that “an international summit like WSIS is not intended to have built–in implementation mechanisms.” Pyati seems to have some difficulties resolving these conflicting notions of what we should expect from international summits such as the WSIS.
Finally, Pyati questions “what authority the UN and ‘world community’ have in declaring that we all are living in and want to further build an ‘Information Society’.” Whether or not we are already in an information society, it is clear that the rapid exchange of information in today’s globalized society has an impact on everyone’s daily life. I think it borders on the absurd to assume that an information society is not already being built and that it is everyone’s concern. The question is not if we want it or not, or if it’s happening or not, the relevant question is, what are we going to do about it?
