Search results

The objective behind this article is to study the proliferation of the politics of information technology (IT) in Sweden, 1994-2003, based on a discourse analysis. The article argues that the Swedish IT political discourse is characterised by a guiding rule according to which there exist an autonomous & inevitable historical path towards the "information society." Swedish citizens are defined as dependent subjects, without any means to influence the advent of this new society. Instead they have to comply with new requirements in terms of swift social adaptation & life-long learning. In addition, the IT-political discourse is distinguished by nationalist optimism, as well as democratic ambitions. This also gives rise to peculiar contradictions within the discourse, for instance in the educational arena where there is a clash between individualist pedagogical doctrines & collective compliance to the information society. The author concludes that Swedish IT politics have hitherto mainly focused on affecting definitions & perceptions through the persuasive use of a model of steering which the author labels "visionary governance," ie, the establishment of an authoritative definition of the future by certain experts or "visionaries." Discursive power within such a model consists in making all actors addressing the political issue unanimously. 24 References. Adapted from the source document.

In a review of Mikael Sundstrom's Connecting Social Science and Information Technology. Democratic Privacy in the Information Age, Sundstrom's account of a theoretical framework that may serve to simplify information technology environments, with a particular emphasis on the importance of privacy (as defined in liberal democratic societies) is critiqued on the grounds that it is reductive in some ways: the concept of a 'grand base' for information technology innovation that attends to access time, information sequentially, interactivity, pervasiveness, real-time transfer, recipient anonymity, sender anonymity, recipient transfer cost, recipient enabling cost, recipient verification of sender authenticity, & search & retrieve ability, while laudable, is not matched by an attention to practicality or cost of implementation. In his response, Sundstrom claims that he has been misunderstood, particularly in his account of the 'grand base,' whereas the author, in his reply, disputes this. 4 References. A. Siegel