Technologies for consolidation of power

On Feb 15 9:45am, I attended a knowledge management talk by Scott Shaffar of Northrop Grumman Corporations. Northrop installed almost all knowledge management systems available. However, it has been a problem that employees were not using them. He, and the CxOs and VPs (CEO, CIO CFO, VP of A, VP of B, etc), identified the most important ‘catalysts’ of adoption to be ‘leadership.’ If one leader is motivated, he will go across boundaries and network using these systems. There was a unnamed assumption that all these technologies worked well.

It was one of those times where I deeply appreciated the importance of social fabric within a technological system. The CxOs and VPs, as far as I have met, are totally fond of large scale system deployment. At least, as I have seen in the US. Its as if the democratic mindset do not allow direct manipulation of power. If they can safely stand out and say that “Everyone have to listen to me. I am the boss,” perhaps technology will not have so much politics? Yet, also technology will not get that much importance and advancements?

Shanghai built a bullet train connecting Pudong Airport to the city. The cost is secret, but its estimated at $60m per kilometer. It's the fastest train in the world (It goes from Pudong to Shanghai in 5 rather than 30 minutes by public transports). China also had its first rocket launched into space and largest dam in the world. Singapore too, built a world first unmanned subway system, which costs more to maintain then piloted system. They are not too innovative when we think about the Romans, whom each emperor has to build something spectacular to get attention.

The missing good?

I have an uneasy feeling saying that politics and power consolidation is all bad. One trivial reason (not trivial to me) is that the ‘Alliance’, a fraction within the MMOG World of Warcraft, always loose in inter-fractional battles. At the beginning of the fight, you first saw someone suggesting strategy A. Then someone said, ‘NO,’ strategy B. Then C. Then they start quarreling. Most importantly, other players get confused which one to follow. Naturally, the strategy most adhere to began to fail, because there is not overall commitment. Then the other party will say, “See, I told you.”

Central control is a trademark of human society. So critical, yet so dangerous. Athen, the first democratic city of the world, replaces Emperor with First Citizen. Figurative authority with oratory authority. Yes, now everyone has a chance to have power, but those eloquent had much better chance. So give rise to names such as Pericles and Demosthenes. The people realized that they cannot do without a leader.

Considering Winner’s (1985) viewpoint in the politics of artifacts, there is too much emphasis on dangers of power. Looking at the examples – bridges that discriminates the blacks, plaza to diffuse students demonstrations, machines to weed out the union, atom bomb to maintain rigid chain of command, and plutonium bomb to impose martial laws. What Winner is creating is a one sided picture of the social role of power. What he is missing is how do we control power?
Future work I think research is eminent. A Chinese may begs the question, “Why do all rebellions China always found new Emperors rather than democracy?”

One may find an answer in a Confucius two thousand years old saying, “One who holds the heart of men, gets the world of men” (得人心者得天下). I will leave with a story. During the Qin dynasty, the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, built a huge palace, Ah Fang Gong, for his 3000 concubines. Many were conscripted as builders, and many died due to hardship. This was a painstaking effort among many other grand projects Qin undertook. It laid a foundation for an empire that did not last two years after Qin died. The upcoming rebellion saw two contenders – Liu Bang and Xiang Yu. Xiang Yu was known to be brave and popular. In one of the battles, he had 20’000 men burnt off their ships and bridges, so as to be fully determined for victory. They defeated Qin’s 200’000 troops. However, he burnt Ah Fang Gong, the results of many hardships, deaths, and suffering. The Chinese were appalled. Liu Bang slowly gained popularity among the people. He finally triumph over Xiang Yu and established the Han Dynasty.

The real story is obviously much more complicated. But the moral is the existence of any sort of dichotomy between two factors that are important is problematic. Power is good. Democracy is good. Striking a balance is more important than pointing out the pain points.

==========
References
Winner L, 1985. Do artifacts have politics? In MacKenzie D, and Wajcman J. The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Pl: Open University Press.

Feb 2008