Technocracy (bureaucratic)
This article pertains to technocracy as a bureaucratic structure. For other uses of the term, see technocracy. Technocracy ("techno" from the Greek tekhne for skill, "cracy" from the Greek kratos for "power") is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.
Technocrats are individuals with technical training and occupations who perceive many important societal problems as being solvable, often while proposing technology-focused solutions. The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests. Their activities and the increasing success of their ideas are thought to be a crucial factor behind the modern spread of technology and the largely ideological concept of the "Information Society." Technocrats may be distinguished from "econocrats" and "bureaucrats" whose problem-solution mindsets differ from those of the technocrats.[1]
A technocracy is a form of de facto elitism, whereby the "most qualified" and the ruling elite tend to be the same. These elite are selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge, rather than through purely democratic elections or other processes.
[edit] Development of term
The first use of "technocracy" in William Henry Smyth's 1919 article "'Technocracy'—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy," in the journal Industrial Management (57).[2] However, Smyth's usage referred to Industrial democracy: a movement to integrate workers into decision making through existing firms or revolution.[3] The term came to mean government by technical decision making in 1932.[4] It came into common usage through management theorist James Burnham's 1941 work Managerial Revolution.[citation needed]
[edit] The technocratic instinct among engineers and its outcomes
Technocracy is one solution to a problem faced by engineers in the early twentieth century. Following Samuel Haber[5] Donald Stabile argues that engineers were faced with a conflict between physical efficency and cost efficiency in the new corporate capitalist enterprises of the late nineteenth century USA.
- Profit-conscious, nontechnical managers of the firm where the engineers work, because of their perceptions of market demand, often impose limits on the projects the engineer desires to undertake; workers do not perform according to the specifications of the engineer's plans; and the prices of all inputs vary with market forces thereby upsetting the engineer's careful calculations. As a result, the engineer loses control over his own little world and must continually revise his plans. To keep his little world secure, the engineer is forced to extend his control over these outside variables and transform them into constant factors.[6]
Engineers heatedly discussed these issues in US engineering journals and proceedings. Three ideological outcomes were produced. Firstly, Taylorism which integrates price structures into engineering concerns, thus producing scientific management where the capitalist manager and engineer divide control over the production process and working class between themselves. Secondly, building on Taylorism the Soviet Union implemented socialist-Taylorism where economic planning, a political bureaucracy and a technical elite divided control over the economy through institutions like the GOELRO plan or five year plans. While political concerns influenced Soviet planning, and engineers were politically persecuted; the political bureaucracy designed plans so as to achieve technical outcomes, and used production price accounting as a technical, rather than economic measure. Finally, in the United States a view that technical concerns should take precedence developed among engineers such as William Howard Smyth based on the early conception of Industrial democracy which was limited merely to the technical government of firms. This school of thought amongst engineers eventually produced social institutions arguing for purely technical government of society in the 1930s.
[edit] Governmental form
A technocratic government is a government of experts designed to ensure administrative functions are carried out efficiently. Technocracy can, in theory, take many forms and incorporate many systems of government. Technocracy may come about as a provisional form of oligarchy, in which the economy is regulated by economists, social policy is decided by political scientists, the health care system is run by medical professionals, with the branches of the government working together and sharing knowledge to maximize the performance of each in as equal a way as is feasible.
Technocracy is often thought of as 'administration of scientists and engineers,' or bringing these groups into power, though this is only one form of Technocracy.
[edit] Criticism of technocracy
Governmental decisions are not only technical, but are often also political. A correct technical decision may be reached by experts using rational arguments. A correct political decision reflects subjective choices, regarding human values, or an uncertain future.[citation needed] At times the correct political decision may not be rational from a non-political standpoint, while the most technically rational decision may be disastrous for an office from a political standpoint. However, this criticism is blunted if political efficacy is included as an element in the technocratic decision-making process.
Socialists sometimes[who?] charge that neo-liberal structural adjustment policies represent technocrats (such as the IMF) setting policies in order to achieve macroeconomic growth without considering how cutting subsidies in developing countries might affect the poor.[citation needed] Inversely, many technocratic socialists[who?] suggest that without the proper application of technical expertise and technology, poverty is unavoidable.[citation needed] Many technocratic socialists[who?] suggest that economic socialism on a large scale requires both expert governance and efficient technologically advanced production and distribution systems.[citation needed] Many megalithic arcology city models[who?] favor technocratic socialism.[citation needed]
A technocrat seeks to optimize efficiency in their particular field of expertise, whereas governmental decisions often have to approach matters from different points of view. Disputes of interest between technocrats over efficient decision-making are common.[citation needed] A technocratic environmentalist may seek to limit pollutants and popularize green technology, while a technocratic industrialist may seek fewer restrictions on pollutant emissions.
Technocracy primarily emerges from corporate entities and thus often lacks popular sovereignty.[citation needed] While this may be good for a particular corporation it can also be undemocratic, harmful to employees, and stifle free expression by liquidating competition.
Technocracy is not inherently democratic, and even democratic forms of technocracy[who?] would often seek to limit eligibility for office to those with "proper credentials and expertise".[citation needed] It is easy to envision a Technocracy devolving into little more than an oligarchy without proper checks and balances in place.[citation needed] Technocratic activists[who?] often counter that democracy can just as easily devolve into monarchy without term limits, a separation of powers, and other such checks and balances.[citation needed] To press the point many argue[who?] that western democracies are not fully democratic: eligibility for office is actually limited to those with sufficient wealth and media attention.[citation needed]
[edit] Derogatory usage of Technocrat
Calling someone a "technocrat" sometimes implies that they are a part of, or support, a bureaucracy where decisions are handed down by officials chosen according to their real or supposed technical knowledge.
Technocracy can be democratic, but because it typically forms within corporate entities that are unconcerned with democracy, it often lacks democratic legitimacy. Rhetoric to justify this often reinforces it as a derogatory term, as a few technocratic spokespersons have openly alleged that democracy is inherently deficient, often referring to it as mob rule. It should be noted that this opinion is not mainstream among technocrats.[citation needed]
[edit] Technocracy and democracy
It has been argued by individuals such as Dr. James Hughes that a constant progression to a more technocratic society is inevitable[citation needed], as many issues have become too convoluted for most people to easily grasp. Thus as a theory of civics it may be suggested that technocracy opposes democracy. The original Technate design (Technocracy Study Course) as devised as a scientific functional governance precluded any type of democracy (or voting by special interest groups).
[edit] Technocracy and socialism
Many[who?] self-identified technocrats are also self-identified socialists.[citation needed] Socialism calls for an economic system based on production for the needs of all of society, with the goal of advancing quality of life for all in an environment of social equality and respect for workers.[citation needed] From this standpoint, opinions are split among socialists as to whether or not it would be possible for technocracy and socialism to fully work in concert with each other. Those who believe[who?] that technocracy and socialism can facilitate each other argue that a body of highly skilled scientists and engineers would be best able to plan and manage the society and economy for the benefit of all.[who?] Many socialists[who?], however, take a more skeptical view and argue that no matter how skilled technocrats may be, they will always serve their own interests rather than the interests of society as long as they are not placed under democratic control.
Though democratic technocracies have been tested and proven functional on small levels, they have only done so among groups sharing similar interests. Opponents of technocracy[who?] as a system of government are often quick to point out that no wide-scale democratic technocracy has ever been tested. Many socialists[who?] question the practicality of a democratic technocracy, especially when facing the obstacles regional governments often face. Socialists often observe that just because it works when applied as a hobby or experiment to only a few hundred like-minded people, doesn't mean it could fit the needs of a county or nation.
Technocratic activists might often counter[who?] that Socialism was at one time just a political experiment shared by a few hundred like-minded individuals, and that socialism has had mixed results for various reasons. Technocratic socialists suggest[who?] that socialism without technocracy can never meet its own ideals, and that only by the proper application of technology and expertise can food, shelter, electricity, and clean water be afforded to everyone.
[edit] System of governance
Technocracy can also refer to a system of governance in which laws are enforced by designing the system such that it is impossible to break them. For instance, to prevent people from riding a tram without paying, the carriage's doors could be designed in such a way that a payment was required to open the doors.
The same idea can be applied on much larger scales, with automated public surveillance by semi-intelligent systems that automatically control or limit the actions of individuals to prevent illegal activity. This is called the carceral state, in which the whole state is effectively a Panopticon - a prison with strict rules, where all individuals are supervised to ensure compliance. Author Charles Stross called this a Panopticon Singularity. In this way, the bureaucratic form of technocracy may be an authoritarian system of governance.
The principles of anticipatory design, wayfinding, and B. F. Skinner's vision Walden Two similarly concern authoritarian systems of governance but are based on psychology and conditioning exclusively and not on any intrusive technology to enforce the rules.
Many technocrats would suggest that fear of technology and social change often assume the most oppressive and dystopian of scenarios, pointing to popular media and propaganda in which socialism, democracy, and communism have all been portrayed in an equally dystopian and cautionary light.
[edit] Technocracy in fiction
Mage: The Ascension, a popular roleplaying game published by White Wolf, prominently features the Technocracy, a/k/a the "Technocratic Union," as a shadowy, world-controlling organization similar in principle to (and indeed containing) such conspiracies as the "New World Order," the "Freemasons," and others.
In Frank Herbert's Dune series, the Ixian society is often referred to as the "Technocrats of Ix."
The animated series Insektors features a character, Teknocratus, as the "chief engineer" to the Yuk society. At one point, he creates a computer, Kalkulator, capable of automating a city.
The Archie Sonic Comic features the Dark Legion, an organization of borg-like Echidnas that worship technology as the ultimate pinnacle of their society.
A technocratic elite rule the last human city of Bregna in the 2005 movie Aeon Flux.
In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four the members of the inner party are chosen for their intelligence, skills, and allegiance to the Party.
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the ruling members of World State are created and conditioned from birth as "Alphas" to have the intelligence and skills necessary for their role, which the other members of society lack.
[edit] Footnotes
[edit] See also
|
