On organizations - Only human
The subject of the this blogpost is organizations, the study of which is nothing new. Thinking about organizations is probably as old as humanity itself. And thinking about organization is also core to the local.ch venture.
In the contemporary world, the French philosopher, Michael Foucault, thinks that organizations are places of controlled violence. Another tradition, embodied by the American philoso-pher John Dewey, views organizations as edifying forums. Both thinkers are concerned with the possibility of altering organizations, using theory as the tool of social transformation.
Whatever we think of organizations, either as incubators of new cultures, or as defined by the cultural milieu of our societies at large, most, including the cited philosophers, think they are artificial and therefore vulnerable to being remade. Both philosophers harbor limited feelings about the transfigurative power of theory. Their disagreement is not theory, but hope. Whereas Dewey allows room for hope in the process of change, Foucault takes a more fatalistic stance.
Today we are present at the creation of a new world. With the emergence of a global information infrastructure, the long heralded digital era finally comes of age. The dispute between these two schools of thought surfaces afresh. The unleashed creative forces of the digital era will change the face of our world dramatically.
Previously resolved questions rise to prominence again and will herald different answers this time around. For example, some pundits were proclaiming until recently that the 21st century would be the Asian century. I daresay that in the century to come, no specific geographical area will prevail. Rather people with an intimate understanding of (in-formation) technology, an insight into the transfigurative power of (social) networks, and a profound knowledge of their combined power will shape our common future.
As a consequence, old divisions will evaporate and new fault lines will appear. Par-ticularly worrying is the social division between the technologically adept and an ever-larger population excluded from the promised land of technology. Money is a power-ful remedy for poverty, but a feeble one to address a dearth of knowledge. When con-ceiving our (digital) future these rifts will be with us: the world we live in is a fragile place and the just endeavor for a fair balance difficult. It is in the ability of living things to evolve, to create, to act, and to process information, so that new metaphors for life in the digital age will be found.
In the contemporary world, the French philosopher, Michael Foucault, thinks that organizations are places of controlled violence. Another tradition, embodied by the American philoso-pher John Dewey, views organizations as edifying forums. Both thinkers are concerned with the possibility of altering organizations, using theory as the tool of social transformation.
Whatever we think of organizations, either as incubators of new cultures, or as defined by the cultural milieu of our societies at large, most, including the cited philosophers, think they are artificial and therefore vulnerable to being remade. Both philosophers harbor limited feelings about the transfigurative power of theory. Their disagreement is not theory, but hope. Whereas Dewey allows room for hope in the process of change, Foucault takes a more fatalistic stance.
Today we are present at the creation of a new world. With the emergence of a global information infrastructure, the long heralded digital era finally comes of age. The dispute between these two schools of thought surfaces afresh. The unleashed creative forces of the digital era will change the face of our world dramatically.
Previously resolved questions rise to prominence again and will herald different answers this time around. For example, some pundits were proclaiming until recently that the 21st century would be the Asian century. I daresay that in the century to come, no specific geographical area will prevail. Rather people with an intimate understanding of (in-formation) technology, an insight into the transfigurative power of (social) networks, and a profound knowledge of their combined power will shape our common future.
As a consequence, old divisions will evaporate and new fault lines will appear. Par-ticularly worrying is the social division between the technologically adept and an ever-larger population excluded from the promised land of technology. Money is a power-ful remedy for poverty, but a feeble one to address a dearth of knowledge. When con-ceiving our (digital) future these rifts will be with us: the world we live in is a fragile place and the just endeavor for a fair balance difficult. It is in the ability of living things to evolve, to create, to act, and to process information, so that new metaphors for life in the digital age will be found.
comments
No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.