Discover more from Life in the 21st Century
Power, Cyberspace, and Democracy
Written September 1, 1995
Can a revolution occur with no discussion of power? This was the question that nagged me as I drove through the mountains out of Aspen having just attended a conference called “Cyberspace and the American Dream.” Participating in the conference were many figures of the digital world, who in recent years have been vocal in discussing the impact of the evolution of electronic media upon society.
Alvin Toffler, the popular futurist and author, stated three-quarters of the way through the conference that he was glad the participants had accepted a “revolutionary premise” for the discussions. He was right about that, I couldn’t remember being at any gathering in which the words revolution and revolutionary were bandied about so freely. Yet in these two days of revolutionary discussion, the word power only appeared once.
Toward the end of the conference, I approached Toffler and stated my concerns about the lack of any discussion on power. He shared my concern and stated, “talking about power was un-American or rather un-economic.”
Was the discussion of power un-American? I certainly knew at one time in America it had not been so. But looking back at my personal experience in the American political process, I realized that the discussion of power had in fact disappeared. Over the course of the past two decades, as the American political debate became increasingly vapid, questions on the structure of power in American society had vanished.
I know for any revolution to be truly successful a discussion on power would be needed. The more honest and naked this discussion, the greater the success of the revolution. It had always struck me how candid the Founders of the American Republic had been in their discussions on the structures of power in society. One is amazed at the openness of debate on power in the Federalist Papers and the Debates of the Constitutional Convention. Take for example James Madison at the Constitutional Convention:
“All civilized societies would be divided into different Sects, Factions, & interests, as they happened to consist of rich and poor, debtors & creditors, the landed, the manufacturing, the commercial interests, the inhabitants of this district or that district, the followers of this political leader or that political leader, the disciples of this religious Sect or that religious Sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them?...These observations are verified by the Histories of every Country ancient & modern. In Greece & Rome the rich & poor, the creditors & debtors, as well as the patricians & plebeians alternately oppressed each other with equal unmercifulness. What source of oppression was the relation between the parent cities of Rome, Athens, & Carthage, & their respective provinces: the former possessing the power, & the latter being sufficiently distinguished to be separate objects of it?”
And Gouverneur Morris’s, another propertied gentleman attending the 1787 Convention, comments on the necessity of establishing two separate houses; one an aristocratic assembly based on the Roman Senate:
“The Rich will strive to establish their dominion & enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. The proper security against them is to form them into a separate interest. The two forces will then control each other. Let the rich mix with the poor and in a Commercial Country, they will establish an oligarchy. Take away commerce, and the democracy will triumph. Thus it has been all the world over. So it will be amongst us.”
Whether one agrees with the fairly pessimistic view of the human character expressed by the Founders of America, isn’t the point. The point is that they understood the role of power in society and in the course of human history. For a short period of time, they had a painfully open discussion on power, and, it needs to be pointed out, the one system of power they did not openly discuss - slavery - would rip the Union apart some four score years later.
Though the term power was never used in the conference, one of the most agreed upon propositions was that the new media would create greater individualism, that a process of decentralization was occurring greatly favoring the individual. In fact, the conference’s debate on the future was so strongly centered on the individual, it would be more accurately referred to as hyper-individualism.
It is understandable that the creation of mass society in the Industrial Era has created a strong reactionary movement of individualism. I have thought it a great paradox, the emphasis on the individual in this new era. The process of connecting the human race through electronic media will make individuals across the entire planet conjoined closer than they have ever been before. This hyper-individualism may be deemed a subconscious reaction to a future electronically connected world.
On another level this hyper-individualism is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human species. Aristotle stated in Politics, “Man is by nature a political animal.” Or as John Adams wrote two millennia later, “Man is a social creature and his passions, his feelings, his imaginations are contagious.” It is through associations, that individuals gain much of their identify. It is associations for which humans strive. Whether it is friends, family, work, or politics, the individual seeks out associations and these associations are as important to the individual’s identity as the self.
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville writes,
“The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude that the right of association is almost inalienable as the right of personal liberty.”
The right of association is an inalienable right. For the human species, the act of association is as important to the individual as the self. Using Niels Bohr’s idea of complementarity, the self and its associations have no resolution, but both are necessary to define the whole. It is through associations that the foundations of societies are built. The individuals relation with the association and the interactions of associations are the objects of power.
In 1840, De Tocqueville wrote of the infant American Republic, “In the United States associations are established to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, and religion; for there is no end which the human will, seconded by the collective exertions of individuals, despairs of attaining.” De Tocqueville found these associations astounding, and more importantly a necessity of democracy. Yet it is these very associations that have been lost or co-opted in the modern industrial age. It is these associations the revolution in electronic media offers the promise of restoring.
The decentralized local community associations of 19th century agrarian America were replaced by the centralized mass industrial associations of the 20th century. The great promise of electronic media is not so much to empower the individual, but more a hope to break the power of centralized associations. To reform associations so they are not mass produced and centrally controlled, but rather spring up from the grassroots and become controlled by individual participation.
This understanding of associations cannot be over emphasized. As Tocqueville wrote,
“In countries in which these associations do not exist, if private individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporary substitute for them, I can imagine no permanent protection against the most galling tyranny; and a great people may be oppressed by a small faction, or by a single individual, with impunity,” and “In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made.”
In the 20th century, associations are predominately produced or more appropriately manufactured by small oligarchic factions of society. However, the power of these oligarchies has infiltrated almost every aspect of life, in ways which could have never been dreamed of in the past. Today, associations are mass produced be it; our work, the music we listen to, our stories, our politics. People have few associations outside their friends and family which they have built from the bottom. These centralized mass produced associations are inevitably one way means of communication - top down.
The decrease in what may be called participatory associations has had no more greater detrimental effect than on the American democratic process. The grassroots of the democracy have been severed. Once the wellspring of strength for the political process, political associations died, only to be replaced by a centrally controlled elite, who use consultants, television, polls, and money to conduct a gross caricature of the democratic process. This presents a danger not only for political society, but our society as a whole. De Tocqueville points out,
“Civil associations, therefore facilitate political associations; but, on the other hand, political association singularly strengthens and improves associations for civil purposes. In civil life every man may, strictly speaking, fancy that he can provide for his own wants: in politics he can fancy no such thing.”
An association can be defined as any time an individual interacts with another, by whatever means and most importantly through whatever medium. The understanding of associations’ role in society is the understanding of power. In the 18th century, the most dominant medium, besides personal contact, was the newspaper, about which De Tocqueville points out, “I am of the opinion that a democratic people without any national representative assemblies but with a great number of small local powers would have in the end more newspapers than another people governed by a centralized administration and an elective legislature.”
The role of media in associations is a critical aspect of power. In authoritarian systems the control of certain media and the ability to channel associations’ communications through these media is a key to power. Whether it was Roman roads or broadcast television, control of the communications media was essential for power.
The current evolution of electronic media will surely become a means through which the majority of associations are interacted. Control of the hardware and the architecture become political questions. As important, the rules and processes by which individuals interact with associations, and how the associations interact with each other are questions of power.
Associations are the key to the creation of a democratic decentralized society. Associations will allow the utilization of the mind numbing mass of information being created. Information will evolve in associations, making it serviceable for the individual. Participatory associations will be the democratic bodies of this new era.
Discussions of power have been banned from economic discussions in this country for several decades. The human interactions and relations defined by economics have taken on the cloak of science and become increasingly immune from any discussion on the structures of power built into the system. At the Aspen conference, the greatest deterrent to any real discussion on power was the almost unanimous agreement amongst the members of the panel. It was championed that the benefits produced by this revolution could best be derived by the expansion of market mechanisms into most every aspect of human interaction.
Peter Huber, author and one of the conference’s great advocates of markets, did give a surprisingly candid statement on markets, stating, “Markets are not egalitarian, we will be less egalitarian.” Here was the crux of the problem, but it wasn’t debated. The power of markets are not inherently democratic. Simply stated, the fundamental rule of power in a market is one dollar one vote. In a democracy it is one person one vote. Encouraging markets to an even greater degree to be the main means of human interaction would induce one result -- less democracy.
No critique of markets was a glaring failure of this conference or was it? Considering the conference was sponsored by Microsoft, Bell South, and ATT this over emphasis on markets could be understood as the product of a political agenda. The alternative would be too depressing to consider: that over the tens of thousands of years of human evolution, so many intelligent people would conclude the ethos of the merchant as the fundamental ethos of civilization.
One disturbing discussion touched on the power of markets, but never in much detail -- a failure to get to the root. This concerned the idea of automated cyber systems and their increasing role in society. Understanding that cyber comes from the Greek “to control,” Kevin Kelly, Editor of Wired Magazine, brought up one of the most intriguing ideas and greatest concerns for the future. The more human interaction is conducted through electronic media, the greater the opportunity to automate complex processes, resulting in the eventual creation of automated mechanisms of control and non-human control responses.
I approached Kelly during a break and said I was glad to hear him bring up the topic of control, and thus begin to broach fundamental questions of power. He looked at me rather quizzically and stated, “Control did not necessarily have anything to do with power.”
I was rather taken aback by this answer.
In human interactions, control mechanisms are always based on power. Control mechanisms in society are grounded in power, whether democratic or authoritarian it’s always present. For thousands of years, societal controls gained authority through religions. In the last several centuries, science has become a increasingly popular means of authority. It is why economist like to consider economics a science. It gets rid of all those messy power questions. As John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in Economic Perspectives,
"The continuing survival of classical(economic) beliefs protects business autonomy and its income and serve to obscure the economic power exercised as a matter of course by the modern enterprise by declaring that all power rests, in fact, with the market."
This question of control or regulation of human interactions is an important one. But it is imperative when dealing with these questions, that they are rooted in an understanding of power. Without this understanding, the consequences are frightening. Our rudimentary comprehension of complex systems has recently shown that our past conceptions of control are greatly deficient. We are now in the process of creating cyber-systems which will effect our lives on every level from global currency markets to the neighborhood ATM. The more they are integrated into human affairs, the more power we cede to them. This process needs to be studied without blinders.
Needless to say, the conference participants were almost universal in their condemnation of the Federal government. Yet the one aspect of the Federal government to which there was little criticism, and in fact fair support of the status quo, was the military. According to some, the military was the one area of society that could even be saved from the markets. Computer industry author George Gilder stated, “Economic values should not be ascribed to the military.” One of the oldest, most powerful, and centrally controlled institutions of civilization, it seemed this revolution would have little impact on the military.
As they discussed the military, my mind went back to Peter Huber’s remark that we would be getting less egalitarian. Of course if we get less egalitarian there would be a greater need for the military. History has shown the less egalitarian the society the greater the need for power by force. Violence -- how many of the power systems of the globe are still based on violence? I couldn’t help thinking, the revolution which ends violence as a foundation of society will dwarf this one.
I realized a great disconnection between the panel and the vast majority of Americans, much less the rest of the globe. Many had expressed their disgust with those who didn’t see the inevitability of the digital revolution and how it would benefit mankind. The inevitably of process championed by most of the panel seemed Marxian to me - historically deterministic. This was no popular revolution gathered in this room. It seemed more like the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1917. A small avant-garde revolutionary group, atop an increasingly tumultuous world, readying to seize power and lead the masses to their destiny.
There seemed a dangerous lack of compassion to this revolution, and little understanding of the emerging flux. Like many revolutions it offers great hope, hope which I share, but there is also tremendous danger. It is a revolution which needs to become much more inclusive. It is a revolution that needs to begin addressing issues of power. We are entering a new era and the power structures of the old era are beginning to atrophy, but it is doubtful they will relinquish control voluntarily. The institutions of power in our society whether they are public or private are beginning to clash with these new associations. The lines between sides are blurring. Older institutions are trying to adopt new methods to keep their power and new power structures are co-opting old methods to gain power.
Eventually there will develop out of this turmoil a new power structure. The question of whether it will be democratic, oligarchic, or authoritarian remains open. This is why those who wish it to be democratic must work for that end and must examine all systems for their democratic content. “Cyberspace and the American Dream” was the name of this conference. Much of what is popularly held as the American Dream will not survive this new era, maybe not even America itself. However, the principles upon which America was founded can provide a beacon for these turbulent seas. As we go about creating this new era, let’s remember some simple ideas from a another revolutionary era, written not for a specific age or nation, but for the ages and for all peoples -- “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...”
Subscribe to Life in the 21st Century
History, Science, Energy, Technology, Environment, and Civilization