THE CURRENT CONFLICT IN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETIES


Technology and Society


The advent of IT heralds a new phase in the history of mankind and the changes it has wrought in the social and economic fabric are as , if not more, far reaching and decisive than those that science, engineering and technology ushered in at the beginning of the 19th century.


The changes of that era were marked by concerted efforts to abolish 'slavery' (bonding of labour to agriculture, colonisation, etc) a large scale expansion of centralised factory production and the creation of industrial classes- workers and capitalists. They signified new 'freedoms' – from restricted production and markets to large scale production for markets, from localised labour based on hereditary occupations to skills acquired in new training institutions -the workshops , technology schools etc. The overall belief among social scientists was that that transition was progressive , in that they seemingly marked a forward step in societal development through increased 'degrees of freedom' of man. The contradictions/conflicts that were thrown up (loss of identity and large scale deprivation) were to be resolved in the struggle( for newer freedoms) between the main contending classes – the rich -industrial capitalist-control class and the disinherited-industrial proletariat -oppressed class .


The resolution of the contradictions were seen leading to a better, freer society – economically, socially(equality of labour), politically( democracy versus oligarchy/

despotism, challenge to archaic authority) and philosophically (freedom from necessity).


Knowledge Society


The society that is emerging is a “knowledge society”,that is, it is characterised by new 'structures' of knowledge, methods of dissemination and a technology that permits and sustains “unrestricted” access to knowledge and control over it. Therein lies the basis of the classes constituting this society – the “dominant” classes that have understood and have access to this technology and would want to rule and guide the destiny of the world and the “subservient” classes with “limited” access and control over this new technology and knowledge (those seen to be on the other side of the digital divide)


If knowledge(the different 'kinds' and their 'organizability') constitutes the basis of the emerging class division, and since every class does “possess” and use knowledge, then hegemony is linked to quality marking of knowledge . By quality marking and promoting some (forms of) knowledge a hierarchy of knowledge-categories has emerged, characterised as structured/ordered versus fragmented, patented versus open/free, scientific versus traditional and so on; and class hegemony is built through this structure.


Since ALL human activity uses(is based on) and creates knowledge ; the existing(rural and semi-urban 'traditional') societies are also , in this sense, knowledge societies. Human activity uses and creates knowledge and each (traditional) society would be characterized and identified by its knowledge-base (Lokavidya). The structure of this knowledge -base, the method of its dissemination, its development, the societal forms required for its efficient propagation etc would be - recognizably- a unique feature of each society.



Indicators of this hegemonistic process


The advent of globalisation -since the late 80s-saw the emergence of new political formations such as the Confederation of Independent States(CIS), European Union(EU) to name a prominent few. These formations were not militaristic, they were more economic and partly social .They however, gave a go-by to the old concept of nation states based on national identities.


In order to manage the emerging global market new organisations were put in place- G8,G17,WTO etc. These organisations were transnational and largely comprised the developed nations who could take advantage of the new marketing possibilities in the underdeveloped world- thrown up as a result of the 'opening up' (liberalisation)of their economies. New standards were put in place – ISO, IPR, Patent laws ,etc – to safeguard their control. International (World bank,IMF) and direct monetary assistance was tied to adherence to these standards. Intellectual Property Rights(IPR) , in particular, assumed a crucial role in subjugating and undermining the genius of native knowledge.


The stranglehold on the agricultural sector – in seeds, pesticides, fertilizer , prices ; has led to to the almost total destruction of native knowledge and practices. The monopoly of genetically engineered seeds has been ensured through dubious ways. The massive protests of farmers in the underdeveloped countries( and even in some developed ones ) mark this aspect of globalisation.


The Internet is the largest self-governing organisation-it is all pervasive,. Even those opposed to globalisation depend on it to exchange ideas and mobilise support. While the Internet facilitates exchange of ideas, access to knowledge, communication between diverse peoples etc it also alters the 'structure' of knowledge and proves advantageous to those who have better access to it and emerging technologies.


Information Technology in prospect


The question now being posed is – does the advent of IT signify a “progressive” phase leading to increased degrees of freedom, throwing up its own contradictions -

the resolution of which can lead to a New Democracy or is it just an adjunct to the industrial revolution phase ?

We notice that information – its access, dissemination and control – is at the core of this technology and has led to a 'digital divide ' and more perceptible centralization (and control) of production while production itself is much more decentralized . 'Unbounded' access to information (through increased communication facilities) is, in principle, an accepted hallmark of the IT revolution -however, this does not imply increased freedom for ordinary people


As human knowledge increases i.e the knowledge-base expands, the space available to Lokavidya will get restricted(if the current state of affairs continues) – by disuse and through constricted or limited dissemination. This process is marked by the “withering away “ of traditional societies. Modern life steps into the space “vacated” by traditional society and often appears as “new found” knowledge with new “standards” . Lifestyles are sought to be altered to meet the requirements of this knowledge-base. [The Internet has also largely influenced the culture of its users – netspeak, netslang, advertisement spam mail, on -line trading etc.]


The destruction/de-legitimization of such Lokavidya ; ' through hegemonistic assimilation/supplantation is a very visible process today; leading towards a “global village” and a “seamless” society.


What is to be done ? Lokavidya as the basis of a New Democracy


The revalidation/legitimisation of Lokavidya is therefore the need of the hour. The imposed hierarchy on knowledge should be dismantled. Some concerted action need to be initiated/accelerated on the following:


  1. A movement in academic circles for giving due recognition to traditional knowledge

and practices.

  1. A movement to bring about legislation for the protection of traditional knowledge and practices by curbing the jurisdiction of 'international' IPR and patent regimes.

  2. A cultural movement to show the incongruity of “modern' life styles and consumersim.

  3. A movement to enable(legislative) and sustain local markets so that the economic support for the above movements is ensured.

  4. Efforts to confederate with other similar (Lokavidya) movements worldwide.



Krishnarajulu

3rd Nov 2003